Sunday, November 7, 2021

Book Review - H. Allegra Lansing - The Manson Family More To The Story

November 7th, 2021 

This post accompanies a discussion I'm co-hosting live tonight at The Paulcast starting at 730 pm CST. 

My topic is: Unique Perspectives, Research Methodologies, and Cognitive Dissonance in the Manson Study. 

A reception with refreshments and a Make-Your-Own-Waffle bar will immediately follow our presentation. I believe the breakfast is located their green room but I'm not positive. You will definitely need your lanyard to get in. I have a small guest list and can possibly rush you past the doormen if you arrive late but keep in mind that hillbillies have lots of hungry cousins. 

Previously on Manson High...

"The Lunchroom In High Dudgeon!" 

The T-Birds (never Danny) and Stockard Channing placed a girl new on campus upon the dunce stool and forced the triangle hat upon her head while everyone pointed and cackled over her assuming she was the first Manson researcher to unearth the real name of Bill Vance. Oh, the arrogance.

Carrie without the blood for real. I called an actual Methuselah for his thoughts and he said, "The noive of that woman!"

I'd be duplicitous if I didn't cop to writing this not informative article about Bill Vance. Never doubt that my cultural and literary criticism and commentary originates at the contact point of my own thin skin. Same for everyone really no matter what they say. I'm just foolish enough to admit it. 

A smile crosses my dopey face every time I think about giant shoelace nets tbh. Seriously, in my case at least, when I don't know some fact or get it wrong, just tell me, I'll own it and we can move on. Not that my research will ever get close to Sanders or Lansing levels. Dumb cannot be fixed. 

Anytime I think of the word dopey I remember the scene in Statman where Rosie looks up from packing a box wearing a dopey grin. Unsure why. Read her book if you're new and haven't already. Never ignore unique perspectives in this thing. Word to the wise. 
Last week, I grabbed the Kindle of Lansing's book to see what all the hubbub was about.  

510 pages
1.36 pennies per page

After riding in as the worst imaginable white knight a gal could ever dream of, I gotta do the Abraxas thing and say this book probably isn't for any of us unless you're looking to blow away the cobwebs and update yourself on what the normies think. Lansing wrote The Manson Family More To The Story for civilians. Which is actually one of the reasons I do not understand why she has to be Sissy Spacek but whatever. 

I'm sure you've heard of the True Crime genre. A lot of people publish there. None of them will ever know what you know about Manson but they will continue to pass through Sneakyville until we die. 

True Crime and Romance (but mostly Romance) are the main genres keeping the book stores open anymore. Naturally, I use Amazon and etc (websites) because of my multitude of fears like germs and talking in public and then also more generalized inconveniences such as driving to places where mask wars are fought daily. 

That was thoughtless. Please accept my apologies if you are a struggling brick and mortar book shop owner during these dark times. It's me not you but I always try to make things seem otherwise. Constantly trying to make everyone laugh is a failing. They say it comes from growing up in a tumultuous home. Hook me up with your website and I shall become a customer. 

Anyway. Lansing caught me up on the last half century of mainstream Manson for the price of a small latte with an extra espresso shot in a flyover city like my own. What a grifter. I was devastated. But then I remembered that in just about every profession, law, medicine, the police, the military, Washington, academia, insurance, basically everything where people earn nice livings and deeply stack their 401ks, everyone writes up their research exactly like Lansing does in her book because it words. Tried and true. 

All those examples and many others employ a practice (which ranges from completely foreign to mocked in this unbalanced noir drama) commonly referred to in the daytime world as research methodology.

Increasingly, such tasks farmed-out to mole people Curt Gentry losers like me who can usually be found eating day old donuts for dinner at desks in dark, mildewy rooms while getting paid much less by the farmer-outters than they pay themselves. No medical, vision, or dental ever also but hey working that way somehow provides special freedoms politicians always promise in tv commercials while I'm watching wrestling. 

The farmer-outters will tell you it's not their fault I got the wrong framed pieces of paper and they are correct. Same for the politicians. 

No clue how we ended up there. Overshare thy name is Green. The point is we'd do better with some standard of intuitive research methodology. More science basically. Explain why you think what you think and show how you got there. 

Let's get back to one of the writers doing what I just described. Lansing's book is an easy read. All the players are in the front of the book with their relevant info, and she moves on from there. Have I seen that list online before? Of course. Did it make me angry? Nope. Including it was a good idea. 

Reading Lansing was more like reading a magazine piece. Do you get angry at magazines? All those pages that won't turn themselves. Don't even get me started on the cologned rectangles sticking out everywhere. The beautiful faces and haunted eyes. Just a total horror show. 

Candice feels you. Quick swerve but how cringe was the scene where crazy Tex rolled up with two girls and Candice gave them the cold shoulder? That memory would haunt me in my cell at night while I stared at the ceiling. Her dad was a ventriloquist. 

I know you knew that already about Edgar but there was zero chance we were name-dropping Candice and not Charlie. Those dudes are waiting to slide out from beneath your bed tonight and watch you sleep btw. Pleasant dreams. 

Conceivably, a new person to all of this could read HS, then Lansing, and be caught up to the point where they'd be ready for Stimson and Schreck and the few others on that level without reading the ten books in the middle if they chose. The better idea is reading them all of course.  

Everyone always says each Manson book has one fact that is found nowhere else. Lansing collected those single facts and put them into an understandable report for her readers. The author has a nice sense of humor and it comes through in her writing. She shows concern for women and children while carefully tiptoeing around the triggers so have no fear. You're safe for a refresh there. 

Do I think Charlie and them were a cult? No. But people less weird than me surely do. In this live from last night, Lansing explains her interests in the case, admits to her lack of expertise in the field as she learns, and explains her research and plans moving forward. The author is also creating additional video content on her YT channel that I enjoyed watching. 

Lansing comes from the punk rock squats of the 80's and so do I. Maybe that's the reason I don't understand the hate directed toward her or maybe it's some other reason I'm missing. My guess is because she is newer and therefore unaware there were rings to kiss and parrots to repeat. 

The plan moving forward is to review every book that comes out and also look back on a few. I always say I'm not on a team but I suppose that's untrue. Without question, I love writers. I especially love you if you're a Curt because I am he as you are he as you are me but I also love you if you're the big shot getting paid while the mole people do the work. 

We inhabit strange days. Let's be kind out there. 

next week: standing in a shaft of light


Lisa Ann Gallagher said...

Green, you are an Officer and a Gentleman. I'm glad that my anxiety disorders keep me isolated from the hate that apparently others have for me, and deeply thankful to knights in green satin who defend my literary honor. If I ever make it out to the Midwest, I'll buy you a chili dog and we can debate the merits of the Minneapolis versus Washington DC versus Los Angeles versus Austin TX punk scenes... Seriously, this was awesome. Thanks for getting it.

Patty is Dead said...

In case you didn't know, Green White is the guest host on The Paulcast tonight (YouTube channel )

Patty is Dead said...

"It’s a bit cheesy but I was feeling sentimental and thankful for all of YOU… Thanks for being with me on this true crime journey!" - Allie.

Yep, everything she does is cheesy. Thank you for being a friend! On the road to Mansonville! Bedtime in the Manson Library! Everything You Ever Wanted to KNow about Mnson!

Really? This is almost as bad as the time Deb Tate sold tote bags with Sharon's face on them. Shameless, tasteless exploitative Cliff Notes.

kraut_iznota_knotsy said...

Mongo LIKE Panamint Patty! =D

Doug said...

Just heard something about Patricia Krenwinkel and cancer...hospitalized and, running out of time...

Patty is Dead said...

As told to Ben gurecki by a prison mate of Pat's. If it is true we will know soon.

Doug said...


I believe that it was a comment from Ben that I had seen

G. Greene-Whyte said...

What's up everybody. Happy Monday. Gorgeous day in Ohio. Almost 70 in mid November used to never happen here. Loving it.

*I'm not a robot

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Thanks, Allegra. Keep typing.

Matthew said...

GreenWhite, where in Ohio are you? I am just north of Youngstown. Sunny skies and 70's here as well

G. Greene-Whyte said...

OSU basically but we also "own" a patch of woods with a shack on it down at the river. Hey, I've been trying to finish a review of Polanski's What? lately. The lead actress Sydne Rome is actually from Akron. Starring in an Italian film! I got such a kick out of that. Ohio vs the world lol.

I'm originally from up north in the state. Knew lots of folks from your big high schools via sports and at OSU. Youngstown girls will cut a mofo lol.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Mo C from Warren G is one of my heroes for l.i.f.e.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

He made me feel all the way alive.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

I decided to tweet this on my Twitter account
It was a direct message sent to me pertaining to someone who was a "visitor" at Spahn Ranch when the Charles Manson family lived there.

What I found out was that this person many years later in his life had people-connections pertaining to the Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein Saga.
As I've said before,
what a "small world."

I've got more. I'll see what's the information I plan to release.
These are his words, not mine.

Mario George Nitrini 111
The OJ Simpson Case

G. Greene-Whyte said...

So did the "visitor" to Spahn's connect the people there to Maxwell and Epstein? I'm not sure I follow you, Mario.

John Seger said...

Mario George Nitrini 111๐Ÿ™„

John Seger said...


Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

No, it's a people-connection many years later.
One of the people-connections was the now deceased Hustler Magazine owner Larry Flynt.

Mario George Nitrini 111
The OJ Simpson Case

Zeke002 said...

TLB scholorship...99% of the public sees it as demented indulgence.
I still dream of a soccer or softball game between TLB junkies and my fellow JFK obsessives.
Are there more TLB books out there? I took a shot with a novela about a nephew of Short's in the late '80s hunting down Vance and others involved. No, Charles Bronson does not star.
Anyways, keep your treatments flowing, G/W. They are a real treat.

Zeke002 said...


Ima Fibbin said...

Green White,
I'm also from Ohio. Orginally from the Greater Cleveland area, now I'm in the south east area.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Ima - The Mason-Dixon Line is the south end of Columbus I feel like lol. Two different worlds, Cleveland and the river. Which do prefer?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Zeke - JKF led me here and I never left the hamster wheel. Did you read this Oswald book by any chance and what did you think? Lee & Me is the title.

As far as TLB goes, I'm waiting for the updated Schreck to be released.

Dennis LaCalandra created this handy TLB map that's pretty awesome:

We better get moving on the softball game before it's a two inning exhibition lol! Thanks for the nice compliment!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Mario - I've always wondered about young love trafficking. What was your contact's visit to the ranch all about? A morning on the ponies? Panther recon mission? And how did they tie it to Jeff and Ghislaine?

Dan S said...

Oh boy youngstown prostition satanic ritual sexual child abuse and murder; and jfk assassination...2 smoking guns evidence of our government's ultimate corruption.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

The initial part......
I sent Matt an email.
After a while, David the lawyer posted it

As far as the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell people-connections are concerned, I pieced it together with help from specific people.
It's very complex. I'm still piecing it together.

Regarding another situation related to The Charles Manson Case and Saga, MANY of the Manson Family people could go public pertaining to specific situations that they know about regarding what happened at Spahn Ranch when they lived there.
Some have hinted at it.
But that's about it.
I got a pretty good idea of why no one in The Charles Manson Family will "tell-all" regarding specific situations.

Mario George Nitrini 111
The OJ Simpson Case

Buntline said...

I, for one, welcome our new Danny Zuko label.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Dan S - LOL! Tinfoil hats are the new mainstream!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Bunt - It's completely possible the Zuko label was in the group of main drivers behind the post lol. Apologies for providing no rabbit holes for you this week. Definitely kept going thru my mind as I typed.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Mario - Thank you I will read it this afternoon :)

Dan S said...

You think oswald did it?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Dan S - If you're asking me seriously, I don't think so. The conspiracy genre has been absolutely ruined by real life the past several years and I'm more reticent to jump down those JFK rabbit holes these days. But I'm also a junkie. Please share what you got on it.

Proteus said...

MANY of the Manson Family people could go public pertaining to specific situations that they know about regarding what happened at Spahn Ranch when they lived there.
Some have hinted at it.
But that's about it.
I got a pretty good idea of why no one in The Charles Manson Family will "tell-all" regarding specific situations.

Again and again MARIO you come up with the same sideways hints which you never elaborate on. It really is quite tiresome. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, either put up or shut up ...

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

I had several Twitter correspondences with The Hells Angels former National President George Christie pertaining to The Charles Manson Case and Saga.
Please follow the threads. This is just a few

I pushed George Christie. He finally blocked me on Twitter. And I know why.

IMO, the reason that none of the Charles Manson family members will "TELL-ALL" pertaining to bikers being at Spahn Ranch, is that they would be putting themselves and their family members in danger.
I'll leave it at that.

And also, I believe that Leslie Van Houten could do what Steve Grogan did
(get out of prison)
if she would "TELL-ALL."

Mario George Nitrini 111
The OJ Simpson Case

Proteus said...

Mario, I rest my case ...

Patty is Dead said...

Stoner van Houten promotes Allie

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Hi, Proteus. Hope all is well out there.

Proteus said...

Hi, GW - chugging along, thanks for asking.

tobiasragg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tobiasragg said...

I enjoyed this book, quite a lot actually. So much that I purchased a hard copy to gift to a friend who is always down to read about this case & others like it.

What Lansing's book does quite well (aside from being an easy & enjoyable read) is that she presents the sequence of events in chronological order. No other book on these murders does this as far as I'm aware, and it helps to tie the causes-and-effects of these events together quite well.

The other element of real value here is that the author pulls quotes and relevant information from all sorts of other works on the piece. Reading Lansing is like reading the entire "best of" list of Manson sources and memoirs. I felt as if I now needn't bother reading Squeaky's nonsense, for instance, as so much of what she has to say is called out here.

The book does have its faults, and they can be glaring. There are enough really stupid factual errors that one does begin to question the veracity of the entire thing at times (e.g. the murderers were sentenced to die in the gas chamber - not the electric chair, as this book states).

The reading experience also becomes quite wobbly at times when the author begins to insert her own POV or opinion on things. Chapters like the one on motives are easily skipped. A good fifth or more of the book is entirely skippable in fact, and I did find myself fast-scrolling past entire chunks of writing in the latter quarter or so of the chapters.

All in all, however, this is a great read and should appeal to anyone interested in these events

tobiasragg said...

P.S. to Green: I'm in Victorian Village, myself. Who knew? Good old Billy Garretson lived just down the road, a bit . . .

Dan S said...

The grassy knoll is the obvious spot for the shot and it matches the film. It's uncanny if you go there in person. Dealy plaza was an insidious detour insisted on by an evil power hungry psychopath.

Boystown: is the Franklin cover up for real? Is john decamp a big fat liar?

As for the tlb murders, it all comes down to diarrhea mouth charlie m and shit for brains charlie w

Ima Fibbin said...

Green White,
I prefer where I am, about a two hour ride east of Cbus. Not near the river, but a lake, (Salt Fork region).

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Ima - Mecca!!!! I spend from first frost until it's too warm for off-trail gear in the Ohio woods. We don't have to let the lurking California fancy pants' in on our Ohio secrets but just know I've been down your way many times and have the obligatory blurry photos to prove it! How cool.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tobias - I think your review on Lansing's book is solid. I was trying to say something similar on the Paulcast the other night but did not do as well as you just did. The easy availability and readability of a timeline we consider consensually agree upon in long overdue. Same for having the person who creates it not acting like a smarmy asshole.

I get the feeling from my limited interactions with Lansing that she is willing to learn and listen. Imo she's joined the crew of Sisyphus' pushing that rolling stone up the hill every night fwiw. Regardless if they like it. But the green eyed monster surely seeks her blood and I suppose we wait until she knows enough to start firing back.

Which will be sporting and gloriously entertaining in our colosseum until the next noob arrives and everyone attempts to devour them.

Vic Village, huh? Just crazy. I pushed my Gary Fisher up and down those mean streets many times. A couple decades ago I would've asked if you're an adjunct but with all the groovy gentrifying we've experienced here I'm wondering if you'll take me to the Faculty Club for a luncheon of triangle cut sandwiches and a fancy desserts!

I lived at Chit and Indianola back in the day. If you remember the photo of the overturned cars in the street there at the undergrad party which went out of control last fall, the building I lived in was the one barely showing in the far left of the photo. Nothing ever changes on Chittenden.

It's okay if you gave me a C in your class and please pardon my tears and begging at the time. I had to go to grad school. Undergrad lifetime debt was nowhere near as attractive.

*if I have any typos just know it's me and Blogger is mean.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Dan S - JFK was my first rabbit hole. I had a friend who worked overnight at a university Kinko's in the early computer days. He'd allow a couple of us to use Kinko's for free until daylight almost. Amazing in all caps. I could've never afforded it otherwise.

The only other person in the shop at night would be a walleyed big lady who wrote a JFK newsletter. Pre Internet days. She would say the feds had secret police cars that looked like the yokels' squad cars but would only drive past her house etc etc.

So freakin amazing. She told me all about the tramps, the sewer, Oswald being a spook. This was when conspiracies were kept from normies. Such better days. I am always down to talk some JFK. You think it was CIA/Mob working together or what's your theory if you share?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

George Stimson has a new episode of his podcast up this morning!


G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tonight, Jason Freeman researcher W. Adam Smythe will be on the Paulcast. I've talked to Smythe several times and that's an episode you watch. He knows his shiz.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Sorry, here's the URL for the channel. The show link is not up yet.

*I'm not a robot

Dan S said...

I found roger stone's lbj book very compelling and my visit to the grassy knoll made it obvious where a shooter would be. The book depository window is a million miles away and the motorcade is traveling away from it!
Funny, bugs wrote an oswald apologist tome; maybe i should read it forthe sake of blog relevancy

tobiasragg said...

DanS: I had the opposite response. Did you stand at the 6th floor window? Someone has marked the position of Kennedy as each shot was fired and it was shocking what an easy shot Oswald had from up there. My overwhelming thought was that "wow, I could throw a rock from up here and hit that spot!"

There are times that the truth is so simple and so visible that one wants to doubt it. One takes a look at Oswald and his pitiful life and thinks "no way - there HAS to be more to this story!"

Sometimes all it takes to create lasting horror is an overlooked and resentful little man pulling a dullard Texan aside and saying "I need you to do something for me . . . "

Dan S said...

There's audio of more shots being fired than the official story; eyewitnesses (ear witnesses?) Too. Even the official count of 3 shots would be impossible in the time frame with that rifle. And why the heavy handed cover up ?
There's toomuch baloney with the routing through dealy plaza and the protection protocols being altered for it not to be a top level inside job set up.

Why was there such a spook presence e.g. Howard hunt and HW himself there?

tobiasragg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Patty is Dead said...

Allie on the Stoner Van Houten show. She's really made it now

tobiasragg said...

Above I speak of this book putting things into sequential order, which clarifies and lends cause-and-effect insight into what happened and what some of the motivators were. I imagine most everyone here has known of these events forever and a year now, but when one stacks them up sequentially (as this book does quite well) it is a bit surprising how quickly these events actually happened:

-Hinman is killed, the body found, Manson gets out of dodge
-Manson meets up with Schram, does his pimp thing with her
-The Esalen rejection, the resulting anger, more errand-making with Schram
-The return to Spahn on the 8th: Manson learns of the Beausoleil arrest
-Brunner & Good sent off to Sears
-News of the Brunner/Good arrests phoned into Spahn
-Charlie immediately decides to "unleash (the) animals" & pulls Watson aside

All of this (the latter four events) happened within 12 hours on the 8th. It is interesting that, once the call came in on Brunner & Good's arrest and bail needs, Charlie had those people on the road toward Cielo within a half hour.

Sometimes I think that people who become obsessed with something like this lose sight of very simple truths and in their multiple rabbit hole dives, they simply get lost.

Was "Helter Skelter" the true motive behind these crimes? Well yes, it was - for most at the time. Ask most anyone involved at the time why these crimes were committed, they would have talked about Helter Skelter and the race war and all the rest. We hear it from Van Houten in December and Watson throughout the early years and even non-murderers like Poston and Watkins. These people truly believed that this is why they were doing what they did.

But what about Charlie? Did he really believe his own bullsh*t? Or was this really more about bail money or covering for Beausoleil or simply venting his spleen at a society that had continually rejected him, from his POV?

We will never know, because Manson was full of shit and he never really spoke directly about much. This is especially true after the crimes, as Manson had decided to just pull out "Crazy Charlie" whenever someone expressed interest in hearing from him. So people wonder, and then they begin to make sh*t up.

This is one thing I found refreshing about this work. Here she largely dispenses of the silly noise over CIA and Canadian drug dealers and ATWA and she just gets back to what actually happened. What led to what. And she also isolates what is probably the most true statement from Manson that he ever offered, to paraphrase: he gets back to Spahn on the 8th to find that his stupid little world is crumbling in around him and he decides to finally stick it to the man - literally.

Dan S said...

Diarrhea mouth Charlie probably didn't think poo brain Charlie would do it and didn't care as he didn't like him anyway. the diarrhea mouth was venting and taking the piss.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

LOL Dan S!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tobias - Really nice writing. Any interest in writing a post or two here?

tobiasragg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tobiasragg said...

Thanks, Green. Gosh, if I ever feel like I've something to say, maybe I'll get to work on one.
These days we're reduced to folks tracking down the likes of "Rosie Tate's" third grade teacher for in-depth interviews, one wonders how much more there really is to explore, here.

Thank you for the compliment.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Rosie was/is in the 614 with us. I'd go to lunch with her if you'd come along so it's harder for bad guys to pull a Brian Shaffer in case the one eyed baby people are still around and checking phones.

I just feel like True Crime never dies. There will always be a new approach. Maybe the cases won't truly get solved but at the same time maybe there is no reason or even maybe they've already been solved. Timelines like yours yesterday really make me think yeah wow it's hard to argue with all that.

But then again oppositely, Crowe says in court he was shot August 1st. We somehow say nope July 1st and ignore that bit of data. I personally don't care which day it was but narratives can take on different shapes (even if slightly) if we move that down to August 1st.

Recently, someone told me Tex, Patty, and Sadie were sent to Cielo because Charlie needed the money Sandy and Mary's parents were sending the group every month. I remembered Fromme saying George Brunner called Charlie a mooch when the Brunner's visited California but have no idea how much money they were sending Mary. She was already out of college and had sibs.

Apologies for any typos of lack of coherence. The world has conspired to allow me just a single measly coffee this morning and Blogger hates me.

tobiasragg said...

Oh yes, true crime never fails to fascinate. And some of these Manson-related rabbit holes can be quite fun to leap into. But not at the expense of reality and the known. Witness O'Neill and the ridiculous fruit of his misguided labors.

I dunno what to think of Crowe and his memory issues and I don't know that it matters all that much. The 1 July date didn't come out of thin air, the event was nailed down to that date after multiple people involved related the story to investigators and others. BTW, did you catch Watson's bit on Crowe in the latest parole hearing? They run into each other in prison, Crowe forgives the monetary theft and gets himself saved in the bargain. Praise Jesus!

Personally, I always don my critical wizard thinking cap when someone begins a statement with "someone told me . . . " Okay, how does this revelation from "someone" - whatever it is - square with the facts? In the example you offer, it is clear that there is no "there" there. News of the Brunner/Good arrests came into Spahn at around 11pm and Manson had his monsters on the road within a half hour. Is this "someone" suggesting that two sets of parents learned that their little darlings were behind bars, announced that they were cutting off monthly payments independently of each other, and that word somehow got back to Manson that all of this had happened in that short period of time?

No, what we *do* know is that the call on the arrests came in at around 11pm and that Brunner's bail money amounted to $600. We also know that Watson & Co were on the road into LA within a half hour with instructions to kill all of the Melcher occupants and get all of their money - then to kill their way down the Cielo slope and continue collecting funds until they had at least $600.

Rabbit holes are fun but this case has attracted an unfortunate number of "someones" who think they actually know something.

tobiasragg said...

By the way, is there a way to share photos here? I can't find a way to do so. I just ran into a pic for a few years ago I think you'd enjoy.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

They're keeping it retro lol. No photos. I'm gw@mansonblog dot com but typed the regular way if you want to email it.

With the Brunner and Good thing I never thought about it the way you did tbh. I took it as Charlie had more long-term thinking kick in but definitely like your take.

They way you lay out your argument isn't something I could read and say oh that's crazy no here's what really happened. You make sense. I also try to stay away from those two night because they're just so freakin awful. As a result, I mostly rely on looking for similarities and differences in everything out there and then coding themes like some untrained qualitavist.

Here's where my cognitive dissonance kicks in and again just in my head. Charlie sends a state record holder in high hurdles and football halfback who is 6'2 and 215 lbs, strong hands from working on cars etc, granted probably 180 lbs from his drug habit, and three others out to kill and rob for him.

Tex is twice Charlie's size basically. Is he afraid of Charlie? What keeps him from saying fuck that you go do that crazy shit, little man.

And if Tex is not scared of him, I've never seen convincing evidence of group mind control. You can hear gunshots going off at Jonestown for example. We live in the digital age. We can put on our quantitive hats and look for believable examples out there I suppose but definitely we're in an extraordinary situation in that case and will need extraordinary evidence.

And then of course which is again mostly conversational but why kill everyone? Sebring's Porsche might've brought in $600. His wristwatch.

I seriously have no theory on the murders. Earlier today, I watched the new George Stimson podcast

Afterward, I showed a couple friends in a chat his timeline and yours and commented that both are convincing.

tobiasragg said...

I have always considered Stimson more than a bit of a crank and he's never seemed to be worth the bother. I will try to watch the vid you have shared tonight, though.

No evidence of mind control? Oh, come on, lol. I mean, there are many definitions of "mind control" and yes, you are correct - Manson wasn't playing master hypnotist and softly suggesting "you ... will ... stab ... for ... me ... " but he most definitely had an alarming amount of control over these people and the choices they made. One need only look at the events of the trial for evidence of this. Manson carves his X the night prior to entering the courtroom for the first time, the followers do the same over that weekend. Manson shaves his head, the followers do the same. Manson stands and adopts his favorite crucifix pose and the girls immediately do the same. Manson shouts his angry warnings to society in court, the girls begin doing this too. Over and over again.

Control and obedience have little to do with relative size. The lions and the elephants obeyed their circus masters for years, didn't they?

Tex is a simpleton, and Manson's allure had not to do with fear - though fear was increasingly employed in the latter days to try and keep his flock from fleeing. Rather, Manson seduced. I'm kind of half-trying to work here so I don't have time at the moment to share the many examples I'd like to, but I guess one can think of it like one might a dog and its master. A dog will respond out of fear to a mean master, but a dog will respond much more eagerly to a master who offers positivity and praise. Another factor in Tex's mind is that he "owed Manson one." Manson had murdered a supposed Black Panther drug dealer (they believed) to solve Tex's botched drug burn, and he told Tex he was calling in that favor on 8 August.

As for money - no, that was not the primary motive (though some will swear it is), but it was a side motive. Bugliosi made the same point that you did - they could have much more easily just stolen what they needed to spring Brunner.

As for staying away from those two nights. I mean, gosh - you do you - but how can one really accomplish this when wanting to gain a true view on these events? Tex Watson severed Rosemary LaBianca's spine in the course of his assault on her. Had she somehow survived that evening, Rosemary would never have walked again. That is the "true" in this true crime story and there's little reason to bother much with nuance if one is eager to avoid the real brutality of it all.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

"I'm kind of half-trying to work here so I don't have time..."

You made me lol. Modernity. That could be the tag line of the last two years almost for many of us.

Really good points as always. Yes those two nights are awful, and I have studied them until I've dreamed I was there. And you're correct there's no ignoring them either.

Zeke002 said...

"Those two nights"...
I wish Lansing or someone would comprise a comprehensive scoreboard for what all Family members were doing those two nights...i am particularly interested in what Brenda and Bruce were doing those nights.
I wonder if something well researched on the happenings at Spahn 8/8 - 8/9/69 while ignoring Cielo and Waverly would be of interest.
It's always the side stories that fascinate me.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Zeke - Bruce and Brenda for real. I just never understand why Tex was the only guy to go on the Friday evening mission. That's a good idea about the Ranch on those days, too. I think a lot of "Don't tell anyone I told you this but..." was going on. How many days passed do you think before most people knew most of it?

I like the side stories too. It's like when you have one video game that you love but have played a ton and side quests become the focus.

tobiasragg said...

From all accounts, word spread pretty fast the day after. We've all heard about the news watching events in the one trailer with a TV that next day. And, of course, it was the 9th or the 10th when Manson held up the LA Times front-page story on the murders, the one where all five victims are pictured, during one of their circle gatherings and announced "Helter Skelter has started."

As for the life-at-Spahn timeline idea, that is a great one but likely almost completely impossible to pull off. Remember, no calendars, watches or clocks, TV, newspapers, etc. was allowed by Manson, which makes his sharing of the LA Times cover story so unusual. By the way, the TV was owned by a non-family member living on the premises, this person (I think it was a woman but I can't remember her name - it wasn't Ruby) allowed the others to watch at times, though this seemed to involve some sneaking around on the part of family members.

I will say that this timeline thing is something this book we're speaking of does so incredibly well. The author doesn't include info on what everyone was up to on every day, but she comes about as close as anyone else, other than possibly the prosecution, has.

starviego said...

tobiasragg said...
We also know that Watson & Co were ... to kill their way down the Cielo slope and continue collecting funds until they had at least $600.

Do you remember where you read that?

tobiasragg said...

Hi Star. Tex has spoken of all of this multiple times over the years. The easiest place to direct you is that first book he put out - it is out there for free on the abounding love website. I believe it's cropped up at least a couple of times in Watson's parole hearings over the years and it may well even be in this Lansing book we're discussing. The easiest place to go is the first Watson book though, as it is free and easily obtained.

If you don't care to go hunting, basically Watson shares Manson's instructions to him that night, which includes the telephone wires and the need for at least $600. He later explains that they were feeling drained and exhausted after the murders, as they were heading back down the hill. It was as they were almost to the car he says that he remembered the instructions to go to the house next door, etc., until they had the $600, but he said he was too exhausted to even think about going back up to do the same thing all over again.

tobiasragg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tobiasragg said...

"Earlier today, I watched the new George Stimson podcast"

Apologies for all of the noise today, but I did want to share that I watched the #5 Stimson podcast you shared and I was interested enough that I went off looking for #6, only to discover that this series is being posted right now and #5 was just shared a day or so ago.

There is nothing overtly wrong at all with what Stimson presents here. The facts & sequence of events he lays out are all quite true and the questions he raises mostly seem to be legitimate points of debate (e.g. the financial goal associated with the Hinman assault & murder). Overall, everything he offers is very much in line with what I suggest & what Lansing lays out in this book we're discussing.

The error here is one of omission. Where's Charlie? What was HE doing and what part did HE play in this series of events? According to this recount, everything that happened did actually happen while Charlie was merrily busing around coastal California with his "new love" Schram. Missing is the fact that they stopped off at Spahn on the 3rd, before heading down to San Diego to collect her things. Also missing is what Charlie did after returning to Spahn around 2pm on the 8th. Stinson MENTIONS that he returned then, but then Manson conveniently disappears from the narrative. Next thing we know, according to Stimson, the Watson four were off on their way to Cielo. Apparently Manson had "gone fishin'" while the events of this night played out.

It's like watching a production of Hamlet where the character of Hamlet & all of his lines have been omitted.

This is not new. This is the exact same song & dance Stimson and Blue have been performing for five decades now, going all the way back to the street corner and embarrassing Donahue TV appearances. "Yes, these events happened and they happened to free Bobby, but that had nothing to do with Charlie!" we've been told for 50+ years now. Hell, even Manson himself admitted to at least half the story of that night others had shared (all but that little pow-wow with Tex, dontcha know;) but in Stimson's tale Charlie is no where to be found.

I did find it amusing when Stimson describes the events of the next night (LaBianca) as "more problematic" - which is why I went off in search of podcast #6 in the first place. Of *course* that evening is more problematic - Manson was driving and directing the show that night. It will be fun to see how old George handles that one . . .

tobiasragg said...

P.S. If you would like to see an early version of the George & Blue "Charlie is innocent" roadshow, check this out:

This latest podcast does seem to be the same story in a different format. I do relish watching Part 6, though:)

Torque said...

Green & White, excellent comments here. However, on the details on Tex: Watson claims in a parole hearing(exactly which one I don't recall, sorry), that at his heaviest, he weighed in at 160 lbs, and that was when he played football, saying something to the effect that, "I just was not that big of a man." Certainly Tex was a record holder in hurdles, and that work requires a leaner athlete.

That he is 6'-2", of course, is a given. Although I don't have a copy of his public intoxication arrest report in front of me, I believe it calls out his weight there, too, although that may be an estimate.

My take on Tex is that in August of 1969 he was a tall(er), lean and lanky guy. That he possessed physical strength is not in doubt, as he embodied athletic ability and conditioning due to physical labor.

During the Watson trial, his friend David, when asked to comment on the physical appearance of Tex, claimed that Tex was much leaner than he had been when he first arrived in L.A. Additionally, it has been said that Leslie gave her jeans to Tex to wear after killing the LaBiancas, then Leslie changed into other clothes from Rosemary LaBianca's closet. Point is, if Tex could fit into Leslie's pants, he was likely rather lean on the nights of the murders.

I can't help but think what Jay Sebring saw when he sized up Tex in the living room at Cielo. Jay, according to his autopsy report, was about 5'-6" tall, and weighed in at 122 lbs. We know that Jay made a move on Tex, and likely received the defensive wound on his hand because of it. Regardless of the physical proportions of Tex, Jay was not about to let harm come to Sharon.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Torque - Yep you're right. I'm not sure where I got the 215. He does look solid in his HS football photos just as a small matter of fact but no tweaker ever stays big. I was listening to his book on Myra Elvira's YT channel recently...

Maybe I got the 215 from there and maybe I pulled it from thin air. I definitely remember reading everything you just said too. Really good points.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tobias - No worries on the noise. This is a blog and we all have different opinions. I've enjoyed reading what you take and your thoughts are always developed and well argued. I'm here for the talking. Often to the distain of the readers.

However, if you're willing to share, I'm wondering where you stand in this dark drama? Would you consider yourself a strict Helter-Skelterist? Idk if that term has been coined yet, probably yes based on my lifelong unoriginality, but if not I gotta admit I felt pretty clever typing it even with Blogger's red line beneath it ruining my GRE feelings.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Also, Tobias. I emailed you.

tobiasragg said...

Green, I didn't receive an email but it's all good either way.

As for motive, I don't care about that as much as some do, simply because there will never be a definitive answer. To me, the people are just as dead if the motive were cash as they are if the motive is to free Bobby.

I do tend to focus on what is true and what actually makes sense, I don't spend much time contemplating the bullshit. For the perps themselves & associated family members, it is quite clear that this notion of Helter Skelter/race war *was* the reason for doing what they did - in their own minds. The evidence that they collectively bought into that bullshit is abundant and it has been consistent over the years. Van Houten speaks this in her December 69 LAPD interview and she speaks of it today, albeit with a "I was so stupid!" shake of her head.

It's what Charlie believed that is the real crux of the motive issue, and he spent his entire life offering only goofball "I didn't tell them to kill nobody, they did what they wanted to do" whines. I think the one most believable explanation he did offer was the moment on the 8th when he removed himself from the others to stand by a tree as his rage began boiling over inside. From his POV the walls around him were beginning to cave in - Beausoleil, Brunner/Good, the ever-increasing need for money, the black man coming for him in wake of the "Black Panther" murder, the failed pursuit of stardom, the pressure of having to feed & care for all of these people, etc. - and for whatever reason, he decided to lash out. So in that way, one could say that most all motive theories are plausible - partially.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tobias - I see the email in my sent file. Not sure what's going on though. Let me know if it doesn't come thru. Maybe check your spam.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Did you see my reply yesterday?

*I'm not a robot

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said...

what we *do* know is that the call on the arrests came in at around 11pm and that Brunner's bail money amounted to $600. We also know that Watson & Co were on the road into LA within a half hour with instructions to kill all of the Melcher occupants and get all of their money

It's too tight a timeline. Check out the contents of this post.

tobiasragg said...

Fair enough. Bear in mind that I am typing from (foggy) memory informally here, but the timeline presented in the post you share seems quite logical & likely. Given my memory and the lack of time-keeping pieces on the ranch, I don't get particularly worried about exact timing. At least as far as clocks are concerned. These people were not particularly concerned with such things, though of course paranoids and prosecutors are.

Not quite sure what the point of this conversational turn is, but I will venture a couple of guesses and respond accordingly.

The $600 thing comes, as your linked piece suggests, from Watson's book. Could Manson have instructed Watson to stab his way down Cielo until a $600 amount was collected? Perhaps. Or maybe it was faulty Watson memory or Rev. Ray embellishment at play here. Watson "wrote" this book well after his conviction and he had no particular reason to lie on this point that I can imagine, so I'm inclined to take him at his word. This doesn't mean that the six hundred bucks was the motive for these murders, though. That much seems quite obvious.

Helter Skelter. I give this concept credence because that is what the murderous five (speaking here of Tate-Lab only) believed they were pursuing with these acts. As I mentioned somewhere above, the evidence for this is quite clear. There really is no argument to be had here, it is quite clear that Tex and Leslie and all of the other yahoos were buying into this race war thing.

But Manson is - well, seems - far too transactional for that kind of thing. There is much to suggest that the copycat deal weighed heavily in terms of motivational thought. The anecdotal evidence on this one is the apparent instructions he delivered to the girls, the whole "witchy" thing. Atkins testifies to this in her grand jury testimony, the whole "I'd previously been involved in . . . pig" quote. Unless we're pulling a Stimson/Blue deal here and denying that Manson had any direct involvement in initiating these events, it seems quite clear that Manson was very specific in his instructions to the group: everything from cutting the telephone wires to what verbiage should grace the walls of the place.

Manson fears that Bobby B will point a finger and he later (post Tate) sends word to him that everything is being taken care of, just stay silent, so yes - Manson's desire to protect his own skin seems to be the ultimate motive here, in his own mind, at least.

Not sure if that is where you were headed, above, but that's the response that came to mind.

I will toss in the almost hilarious fact that Manson thought (if he did) that this was a sound course of action. We all know that the LaBianca investigator team tagged Charles Manson as #10 on their list of prime suspects not all too long after the crimes. If you've ever read the full text of that report, the team offers a rationale behind each of the ten suspects and their early conclusions are amazingly accurate: Beausoleil is known to hang at a place called Spahn Ranch which is populated by a bunch of hippies who follow this dude named Charles Manson.

Old Charlie was always a short-sighted, small-time petty criminal, as it turns out. Even when directing mass murder.

tobiasragg said...

P.S. Oh sorry - I meant to add, I've been out & about this evening but yes, I did receive your email. Plz give me a couple days if you can (busy weekend). I'd like to give the matter a bit of thought. Cheers!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Cheers! Go Bucks!

TabOrFresca said...

I bought the paperback version of Lansing’s book shorty after it came out. It’s a decent read but non essential.

The books I consider to be essential:
1. Helter Skelter
2. My Life with Charles Manson - Wadkins (online)
3. Will You Die For Me - Watson (online)
4. The Family - Ed Sanders
5. Goodbye Helter Skelter - Stimson

“Manson In His Own Words” by Emmons and “Chaos “ by Tom O'Neill are a rung down but near essential.

I recommend reading these books at least three times (something taught in parochial school).

I would classify Lansing’s book as an easy-read summary geared towards lazy readers or those that just want a decent overview of the subject. “Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson” by Jeff Guinn and “The Shadow Over Santa Susana” by Gorightly are also easy read summaries. Guinn’s book is well written and contains endnotes (I wish all nonfiction books contained endnotes). Gorightly’s book contains a lot of pictures and a bit of conspiracy info. Lansing’s book has some good lists, and innovative approach of telling of the crimes by interleaving the participants words , and brings up a good point in that each of the defendants may have been motivated in different ways.

I believe there are a number of factual errors in Lansing’s book. This is why using endnotes to reference the source of facts is important.

Lansing includes personal comments (points of view) in the text and that is annoying. It would have been better to either leave them out or include in footnotes or endnotes.

Like Neil Sanders, Lansing has stated that she doesn’t consider herself to be an expert and is just sharing what she does know.

Dan S said...

Is there any thing in emmons book that's true? It seems like it's all made up

TabOrFresca said...

People describe me as a hard-ass and that description may be too kind. Some of my leaning is very far to the right and what isn’t is more than likely libertarian. So my my default answer to “Should LVH be released” is “no”.
Up until about 1990 there was a common statement made concerning which data processing equipment you bought. “You don’t get fired for choosing IBM”. For the executive branch saying “No” or not changing what is in place is usually an acceptable answer.
Every case is unique and has its own considerations. Two questions I would ask are “Has enough time gone by” and “What mark of Cain has the legislature defined for this case”.
Back in the 1980s I asked a work colleague from Germany whether they thought that the European Disneyland would end up in Germany and they said “No, enough time has not passed”.
When LVH had her first recommendation to be released Manson was still alive and while he died before the next one, 50 years plus a couple had not passed. Getting past the 50 year anniversary was important and releasing her on 51 would place to much emphasis on 50 years. Year 52,53, etc may be enough time.
God was supposed to place a mark upon Cain so that others would leave Cain alone. LVH should be in stealth mode when released.
What happens if LVH is released? Is she wearing a boot for life. Will she be restricted from buying alcohol, cannabis, going near schools, writing a book, going on talk shows, publishing on social media? What are the restrictions? if any?
How do you keep reporters, and bloggers from leaving her alone. A GreenWhite imposter, also from Ohio, could be a pest (like a Bill Nelson junior) and how can California stop people from elsewhere from bothering LVH or keep LVH from promoting herself as “poor mistreated LVH”.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Dan S - I remember reading Emmons at least claiming (since he was not allowed to record Charlie) that he would head straight out to his car after an interview and furiously scribble down everything Charlie said. I'm cynical to the point where I sometimes question the veracity of much less controversial interviews with like sports coaches & etc ("I talked to Coach Day before the game and he said, 'We're going to attack with our linebackers and blah blah blah.') back to you, Gus!"

So who knows. Looking at many of the Charlie texts together, Emmons does have a different feel to me. The mansonology thrust for that book is always, "Charlie was super drugged up and functioning as a human pharmaceutical experiment and therefore spilled more beans. I'm sure you've heard all that ad nauseam previously tho.

A couple of years ago, I dug up a couple of Emmmon's newspaper columns online when he was writing a weekly for what looked like his hometown rag. Dude wasn't an awful writer. I think the story there was he got lazy, started mailing them in as it were, and that was that for his journalism career. There could've been other reasons for all I know however.

Words are a tricky business. Every person in power has a brother-in-law who is "a writer."