Sunday, February 20, 2022

Time is Irrelevant to Me - December 1969



Susan Atkins served a life sentence. I see how she arrived there but believe she died in the right place at sixty-one years old. She went too far too many times. 

But what about once the killers are locked away? Are they allowed to retain their humanity after taking part in despicable deeds? Is redemption ever possible? Does empathy remain forbidden after they're dead? We're arguing all of that lately on this blog.

Issues pop up before a debate can begin. How do we qualify "despicable?" I'm squeamish and won't touch certain cases on my dark travels. My despicable might arrive sooner than another reader's. Etc.

For a starting point today, let's assume we all consider using a knife to murder a terrified pregnant woman after she watches her friends die and pleads for her unborn child's life a despicable act. 

Calling out for her mother as she passes. Shame on you. 

When I read blog comments during the weeks we talk about the inmates, I notice two groups. First, people advocating across the board transparency and fairness in parole processes. Something that shows a human life is not the possession of some political overlord or overlords. I completely agree with this camp. Every California inmate should live under the same sentences and rules for release. 

The opposition here is like are you nuts? Look what they did. F-them. 

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a foot on either side of that line. 

-------------

Our reference materials for this discussion are provided by cielodrive.com. Thank you, kindly.  

1 Dec 1969 Susan Atkins Paul Caruso Richard Caballero Interview.

5 Dec 1969 Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony.

Tex Watson is arrested November 30th in Texas. Police catch up with Patricia Krenwinkel in Mobile the following day. Back in Los Angeles, Paul Caruso and Richard Caballero are interviewing their new client, Susan Denise Atkins, when the net drops on Krenwinkel two thousand miles away. 

The last part is possibly not accurate but I see it that way when I'm at my storyboard. Starsky and Hutch music plays in the background. "Police! Freeze!" 

 - Here is a link to my blog colleague David's excellent write up on Paul Caruso with a comment from Caruso's son below the post. 

Other writers believe Caruso was a mafia lawyer sent to cement a narrative into place. I'm interested in every side of that argument. What are your thoughts? 

Honkeys like me from Honkeyville possibly needed several decades to realize Caballero isn't an Italian name, and that's okay. There's no judgement when you ride with me. We can be hillbillies together forever. 

Circling back to my original question, let's look at Susan Atkins. She was at Hinman, Cielo, and Waverley (kinda). No one but Charlie visited more murder scenes. 

Reading Sadie's comments and testimony about her time with Sharon before Sharon died made me emotional. The photo of Atkins as a young girl standing in front of her father's car also remains burned into my brain. Maybe that's what keeps me coming back here. So many whys. 

Several statements in the above transcripts are heartbreaking. Other times, I laughed. Stop Talking was an alternative title I considered for this piece. 

"Helter Skelter" is not discussed during the interview with the lawyers, but joins the story four days later in front of the GJ (Grand Jury). 


Susan is speaking the language of her peers at Spahn's while addressing the GJ. She even rhymes her words at one point. Head and dead. Not a lot of smart in that gal at times. Watch Hendrickson on Youtube or any of the courthouse footage for verification on the group speak.  

Let's pause on the creepy crawls for a second. What are your thoughts on their genesis? Who was the first person saying hey let's go creepy crawling? 

Me if fam members asked me to go creepy crawling with them late at night: Omg I just got back from the A&P dumpsters. I wanna watch Clem's fire ritual. 

That's December 5, 1969. Friday. Four days earlier prior to a dinner plus ice cream, Atkins said this:

 

Two somewhat different scenarios. Sustenance and fear games. I spent an afternoon making a list of contradictions I found in the documents but stopped when my friend said: 

"Could be discrepancies or coaching. You would have to have a think about why the latter makes Tex/Manson look more culpable or if that was just her being ditzy." 

Inarguable. Dude should write blog posts.

Let's hop in on some omg and wtf moments from the first week of December 1969. A third title for this episode could be How to Doom Yourself to the Fullest. 

 *Judges scribble deductions on their scorecards 

"The air talked. I was programmed by Charlie but then like I also wasn't programmed by him."

Ah, the Infinite. Please go on. 


I followed up with my secret sources inside the CIA. Within minutes, they verified Sadie missed Climbing Residential Fences (CRF) day at CIA Assassins School. By the time she returned from a nasty bout of stomach flu, the class had jumped forward to Residential Kitchen Infiltration (RKI). 




Not sure why anyone would come clean about the following impulse but she says it in both documents. 


Sadie's second death rattle in three weeks. 


More disembodied voices.


LaBianca instructions overheard from the seatless back seat of Johnny Swartz's car. 


A possible moment of Bugliosi speaking through Sadie's mouth or the infinite or whatever. 


-------------

Bonus:

The famous Clem oopsie. 


Life at Spahn's as told to the GJ.


Richard Caballero courthouse interview

She should've stayed with Caruso and Caballero. Either way, Susan Atkins is gone. Have you forgiven her since she served her sentence, or is forgiveness something that will never happen? 

180 comments:

orwhut said...

Greene said:
Other writers believe Caruso was a mafia lawyer sent to cement a narrative into place. I'm interested in every side of that argument. What are your thoughts?

When I see the words mafia and cement in the same sentence, I think of a method of body disposal.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

LOL! Me too!

Terrapin said...

Do we know why Bugliosi never went after Clem for LaBianca?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I always wonder about that too.

TabOrFresca said...

Terrapin said:

Do we know why Bugliosi never went after Clem for LaBianca?

Very early in the trial, at a bench meeting, Judge Older asked Bugliosi the same question.

I don’t have the volume or line handy, but to paraphrase,

Bugliosi said that there were a number of reasons and he would rather not get into that right now and Older said “Okay, let’s not”.

I have heard of at least 3 reasons:
1. There was nobody to corroborate Kasabian’s testimony about Grogan. You had Lake for LVH, Ronnie and Virginia for Atkins. Watkins, Lake, Hoyt, DeCarlo, and Flynn for Manson, and fingerprints and refusing to take a writing exemplar for Krenwinkle.
2. Bugliosi did not want a “mentally deficient“ defendant at this trial. In the Grogan-Shea trial the judge reduced his sentence for that same reason.
3. It has been said that Grogan had a relative who worked for LE and some form of a favor was exercised. About 8-12 years ago “Cats” did an audio interview with Kanarek and he said that is what he heard (or was fed (GIGO)).
4. Why prosecute a future NFL quarterback?


G. Greene-Whyte said...

LOL! I had a Steve Grogan card I loved when I was a kid.

Gorodish said...

Terrapin typed:

Do we know why Bugliosi never went after Clem for LaBianca?

According to Stephen Kay:
TLB Radio - Prosecutor Stephen Kay On Why Steve Grogan Was Never Prosecuted For The LaBianca Murders

Terrapin said...

Great stuff thanks guys

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Susan Atkins, An Innocent Girl
Hello to all and good evening GW.
At first, my thought was, 'why is the Band Great White writing about brother Charlie and his dear friends, at times referred to as the 'Family,' as it were.
Then, after I took another look and having a puff and a swig, I said, okay, maybe not them. Then now, I do believe that I have to be saying,
why now and then and again do people criticize Sadie Susan
and so, at times, I dont quite understand why so many people say rather un-kind words
about Susan,then some others use language that is, at times, even rude and even...mean
what does that mean
ah, then I squint, think for a second or ten and I have to say: I'm not pleased.
Why did they betray her why was she there at the Haight and why was she there in Chatsworth, at the Spahn Ranch and at the desert and Benedict at Cielo do you know?
Chatsworth? Heh, yeah
There was a time known as 1967 to 1969 and Susan at Cielo and Venice and more was not Susan from a young girls heart and mind when she was in San Jose
do you know what I'm saying and the way from San Jose
she had friends but it all went away it's easy to see if you knew the weird scenes then and how so much is just the American way it's a fad it's music it's hip this and squatre that and here's to war and pot and acid and every thing seems contradictory anyway Susan was railroaded then she was basically exucuted slowly by the state of California's government, the one in Sacramento now you know
how could they treat her so illegally
we can't even go see her, I can't even go to see her and to say some words and you don't but I do and will believe in hope and prayer and she wanted you to like her what's really missing

Speculator said...

Fayez - sorry but are you incapable of just writing in plain English??!! It seems pointless posting if everyone has to try to decipher what you mean?!!! If you’re suggesting that Atkins was all sweet and innocent before she met Manson that’s not what the evidence appears to show.

Speculator said...

Greene - you ask do we know why Bugliosi never went after Grogan for LaBianca. More to the point why have none of the killers ever referred to his participation in their testimonies?!! When anyone tries to challenge some or any of the “official” narrative on here the answer that is often given is the killers evidence is what we have and why would they still lie or conceal anything. Well here’s a massive case in point.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Morning, Spec. I pinball around that a lot. Sadie supposedly didn't go inside the LaBianca's place like Clem supposedly didn't, but Atkins caught murder charges when Clem avoided them.

I listened to what General Gorodish posted last night and realized I'd heard all that before but had forgotten it. Thanks, Gorodish for taking the time to find and share that clip for us.

The whole Clem is mentally deficient tuntil POOF he's not and no one says anything about it afterward thing is also odd.

Overall, we inhabit a weird study where empirical evidence doesn't matter, no peer review can take place as a result, and we're left with confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance as the dominant "research" tools of the day. The person with the most Facebook friends wins no matter how outlandish the claim... e.g. Susan Atkins is supposed to be part of a CIA-trained hit squad but can't climb a fence while working.

The whole, "the inmates can't say anything outside of the official narrative if they ever want to see the light of day again" response about the prisoners, even if true, seems like an easy way for gurus and sycophants to duck questions and explain away what they can't prove.

Lots of people are alive and not in prison. Caballero for example. Or Sandra Good. Why doesn't she ever say yeah the CIA came over on Sunday for potlucks? Stimson publishes books. Why didn't he connect the two groups first?

Moreover, and I could be way off base here, but I only want to hear law stuff from lawyers and former judges. Not, "A lawyer told me this or that in Messenger." Lawyers go to school for at least seven years at my alma mater. Their understanding of nuance & etc should not be overlooked. A lay person reading the transcripts is a lay person reading the transcripts, myself included.

On the off-chance someone does talk to an attorney on Messenger or on the phone, ask if you can record the convo, and play it for everyone and allow us to independently verify. That's the way history works. I'll buy the books. Lots of us will.

I might be rambling. I've had half a cup of joe and I'm supposed to be working...

orwhut said...

Blogger Speculator said...
Fayez - sorry but are you incapable of just writing in plain English??!! It seems pointless posting if everyone has to try to decipher what you mean?!!!

Fayez,
I respect your opinions, BUT, I skipped your message because my feeble mind was too tired to try to decipher it.

ColScott said...

orwhut- Fayez is the illegitimate child of Mario and Vera- one gets dumber just reading them

Vera Dreiser said...

Caballero is long dead. Who invited (yawn) Col back. What a tired old windbag. And when is Matt gonna provide Vera his "sources" as this lovely lady requested a couple posts back. Vera hasn't had her morning elixir yet so she's sweet as the succotash she forget to take out of her internal oven before she drifted off last eve.

orwhut said...

Hi Col.
It's good to see you're back.
Whut

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Screw them, Fayez. Write how you wish. I believe however what they are trying to say is you might be a smidgen esoteric at times for this hard-boiled crowd. They yell at me every time I write the way Charlie talked. Kinda hurt me a bit inside tbh.

Bings - There is a Richard Caballero listed in Los Angeles advertising over 66 years of legal experience online. NYU Law. I bet that's him. Does show as inactive however.

Jay said...

Fayez has an interesting stream of consciousness style of writing.
I’m in the minority, but I do think Susan, due to how she ran her mouth and her penchant for lying, gets kind of a raw deal compared to Leslie sometimes. Not to excuse anything that anyone did of course.

Jay said...

Apologies for the duplicate posts. Wasn’t aware that if you hit the back button, that it posts it again.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Mr Don Murphy
(AKA ColScott).
Fayez has pointed-out on other
Blog-Posts here, situations that I knew about that only a person who had personally experienced them would know.
(He's for real)

I don't even know who Vera Dreiser is. But one never knows
😉😉😉😉

You "profess" expertise pertaining to The Charles Manson Case and Saga.
Oh really?
So what do you know about The M/C Group that David the Lawyer posted about pertaining to an email that I sent to Matt?
👇
https://www.mansonblog.com/2020/08/interview-with-simon-wells-author-of.html?m=1

Mario George Nitrini 111
------
The OJ Simpson Case

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Jay - Blogger is finicky. No worries.

D. said...

That wasn't a confession. That taped interview was made with the intention of "determining a plea". Which was in her case, diminished capacity of course. In other words, bullshit. Much like Leslie's interview that everyone acts as if it's a smoking gun that proves braining washing. That's why attorneys do this, they hope the jury is as gullible as the rest of the idiots in society.

In the very early pre-trial days, Kasabian's attorney did the same thing. They claimed she was madly in love with Charlie and under a spell, even wanting to bring in the hypnosis expert from the Sirhan Sirhan case. They even tried to prevent her from attending the grand jury hearing with the excuse it was dangerous to have her in the court room with Manson since he had hypnotic powers. This is 100% fact and most likely where the rumor of Bugliosi trying to prevent Manson from giving testimony before the jury stems from.

It's all 100% bullshit. Everything these people said at the start.

The ONLY reason Melcher figured into things is because part of Susan's deal clearly involved having to put Charlie at the center of it all because Bugliosi was on the case for almost a month and still didn't have jack shit to get an indictment for Manson.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Good afternoon,hope you all are well.

Speculator,I know what you're saying about my writing and I appreciate you,as well as orwhut, not launching a personal attack on me.
I've written on other sites, from political ones to rock/roll and Beatle specific sites.
In quite plain english, though I can't resist typing some humerous, off the wall thoughts, at times.
orwhut, you have a cool sense of humor, good to read what you say. Thanks
G.Green,thanks.I also wanna take this opportunity to say that:
your writings are not only informative, but quite humerous, at times,and creative.
Again, Jay said it right. Whe I wrote the comment above, it's a prime example of what haopens when I have something to say and I type away without thinking of orer or proper grammar and whatever english. Only what comes out of my mind. I wonder how I made it and can still be one of the 'last man' still standing- what I went thru.
Jay, how's it goin'? you actually described,generally, some ways my mind has me write.
Hi Mario, you know how to 'read' beyond simply looking at/ taking words at face value. As I recall, you are a musician and have played on stages in the good old days. There are some things, due to our life experiences, that puts some of us on a different, let's say, 'dimension' because we flash back as what we saw and what we did. I do and I would have some pleasant thoughts about some people and things and sometimes I break down and cry.
How can I, or you,or the others, that say, lived in the 1960s,or 70s, as teenagers, converse and 'rap' on the same mental level to those that were not even around, by age or they simply 'were'nt there," as we used to say.
When I read and have read, for example, articles about 'hippies' or rock bands of the 60's, it's rather astounding, at times, how wrong the articles and some books are. To have been there, in living live color and had experiences is different than seeing some pictures or reading about the 'turnelent' 60's or the 'sexual revolution' (which it was not) Hippies-I've lived with 'em. Rock bands, I've met and
talked with 'em. Demonstrations, I was in 'em, and also, with several other guys,
led one. People talk about those whacky, fun loving kids from that turn past Chatsworth, the Spahn resort- I knew one and three of them.
I was 15, 1964, when I came back to America after four years overseas and boy did things really start to change. 1967- 'hip'styles, hair, The Beatles, girls (I was as if in a candy store, heh). Okay, I know some people resent talking about my experiences, but what then? I can't talk like a recored voice on a machine.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Fayez for those words to me.
👍👍👍👍

I read this blog everyday.
When you comment, I read every word you type. YOU ARE FOR REAL.
Keep-up the great work buddy.

Mario George Nitrini 111
----
The OJ Simpson Case

orwhut said...

Fayez.
Messages like that are why I respect your opinion. The only part I didn't understand was where you said, " I knew one and three of them." Is that like Lincoln's "Four score and seven"?
Thanks for the kind words.
Whut

Torque said...

Listening to Susan speak about the events at Cielo in detail, contrasts markedly with her omission of Linda's account of the LaBianca night of murders. Namely Susan omitting that she was part of a second kill team tasked with killing the actor.

Susan's account of details at Cielo seems to be logical and spot-on in certain areas, but murky in others. For instance, she claims she used the towel to tie up Voytek to write on the door in Sharon's blood. Excluding the towel around Jay's head, many have commented on the lack of large quantities of blood on the towels in the crime scene photos. The purple scarf found near Voytek's body in the front yard, however, was soaked in blood. The thinking here is that Susan used this scarf to write on the door. If this was one of Susan's omissions, why? If she did not want to go back in the house to obtain blood to write on the door, why not obtain it from the body of Voytek, which of course was outside? Was Susan actually ever outside of the house before she realized she had to write on the door? That she said she threw the towel back into the house, and that towel somehow magically wrapped itself around Jay Sebring's head, is truly a towel toss for the record books.

Further, Susan denies hearing Tex fire two rounds into Voytek, effectively omitting this fact. Although she later determined that the shots were a possibility inside the living room. It is established that music was playing on the stereo when the killers first entered the living room. Was this on the entire time the killers were in the house? If not, is it not another omission on Susan's part that she did not discuss the stereo being turned off? Prior to the killing in the living room, it has been established that the lights inside the house were turned off. To this end, Susan went so far as to say that the outdoor porch lights provided enough light for the killers to carry out their deeds inside.

She says that at a certain point, things became confused; that she was on the floor(ostensibly after Voytek hit her in the head, knocking her over). This declared confusion arguably offering a convenient way out of describing other things in detail, such as the suspension of Sharon off the floor, or that Sharon and possibly Jay were outside on the front step, as David argued in his blood analysis here on the blog.

Rereading all of Susan's words, many have been left with the thought that she omitted several key details, yet described in detail many others. If this is ultimately true, one must ask why?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Thank you, Fayez.

Torque - Atkins seems to move from towel to rope when talking about tying Fry's hands behind his back. I could be wrong but think she might even do it in that GJ document.

Torque said...

Greene, right. She claims to have used both the rope and the towel. By looking at the crime scene photos of Cielo at cielodrive.com, I can see a few towels laying about on the living room floor. But none of these appear to have more than a few drops of blood on them.

If we look at the LaBianca's, the crime scene report describes a handful of paper, sufficiently bloodied, that ostensibly was used to write on the walls in blood. This was found on the floor in the house.

My point here being that whatever was used to write on the door at Cielo, would likely have to evidence more than a few blood drops on it.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I take your point, Torque. Fascinating. I wondered about that magical towel flip myself.

Speculator said...

Fayez - now I understood all of that post thank you! Your mind must be a wonderful place looking at some of your posts where you just say it as you think it ;-) !!

tobiasragg said...

"but Atkins caught murder charges when Clem avoided them."

Atkins wasn't charged with LaBianca. She was charged and convicted of Tate.

This may have been mentioned already (only part-way through the comments at this point) but it was interesting that some of the Atkins quotes pulled from this (great, btw) piece speak to the notion of a preparatory conversation being had in the car as it approached the Cielo address. She also mentions Charlie's instruction to Tex, that no mercy was to be shown to the victims who would, Manson predicted, be pleading for their lives. I'd noted this several times before when reading through this dialogue, that Atkins confirms that Tex repeated this caution to his crime partners.

I mention the above because this is something we've just been discussing in another recent thread here.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

orwhut,
that's good, four score and seven.
Here is what I meant by the three and one.
Three girls and myself sitting next to a car.
July, 1969 seemed to be sunnier than August, as we sat underneath the light blue skies of Chatsworth town.
if only I knew why
how could we know that days like that have to end
One year before, after a week or so, a group of real, down to earth hippies left to go back to California. That week, I was with them in a meadow, in the colorado mountains. One of the girls and I met in Boulder and she asked me to come with them to camp in tents. She and I were in her tent that week. It's involved but she was a wonderful, beautiful gifted girl. The only one in the world that I knew or read about, that could and did foresee certain things that were to happen. It was magical being with her. Anyway, I went with a couple of them one day to get some supplies from an army surplus store in Boulder. When we got back, most of them were gone and the several guys that were still here said bye to me, were off too, friend.
But where's Julie, I said. One of them put his arm around me and said she had to keave. Here's a note from her. Later I found out why she left me. I loved her.
The fellas left. I read the note, looked around and there was a horse watching me.
I looked at the hills and I said, aloud, for the first time in my life, "I wish I was dead."
One year later, when a friend was showing me around the L.A. area, I found myself meeting three girls from Spahn town. One of the girl said, "whatcha doin'". She was her name is Sadie.
All day, we were together. After we made love and she pulled out a joint, I watched her lay back and I watched her eyes flutter and drift up to the sky. It's was like I could feel her mind drifting up there too. She fell asleep. Then, We walked back and her two friends were waiting for us that early evening. We sat by the car for half an hour or so.
I wish that everything was good. I wish I could go back and do things differently.
Three times I collapsed with what I call a 'mind crash.' Not nervous breakdowns.
Because, when I did fall, once on the Univ of Colo campus and once on a girl's balcony (two girls actually, in a menage a troi relationship), a couple months befofe I met Susan in Chatsworth. Another 'crash' in my second 'menage' relationship, in two other girls' in their house, in Albuquerque, several months after I was with Susan.
At the Univ of Colo campus, that was when it all came together. The difference between breakdowns is that, my memories were good memories, but they left me with regrets and feelings of guilt. Imagine, living with hippies, including in some communal houses in Boulder, to have been, with, of all people-Susan Atkins, to having affairs with glamorous rich girls. From this culture as a boy, to that one in America. Back there, then back to the USA and...if you could hear what else I've seen and done. I basically regret moving on and on, from this relationship to that and what could have been different and what might have changed for Susan if I stuck around and said, "wanna be a couple, you and I..." She walked to the car like a little girl and she looked back at me with a look of sadness that makes me feel guilty, did she feel yet another rejection in her life and I've been stupid, at
times in my life and I just don't know, I don't kmow

Speculator said...

Fayez - I wouldn’t feel too beat up about it. There’s a good post somewhere on here about Atkin’s exploits before she met Manson. She seemed to be naturally attracted to the wrong crowd. If it truly was Atkins that you met, you might think yourself lucky as she could’ve dragged you down with her.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tobias - Wasn't Atkins convicted on eight counts?

LA Times 26 Jan 1971:

What he read amounted to this: Manson, 36, Susan Atkins, 22, and Patricia Krenwinkel, 23: Guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy to murder in the deaths of Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Voltyck Frykowski, Thomas John (Jay) Sebring, Steven Earle Parent and Leno and Rosemary La Bianca on Aug. 9-10, 1969.

Jay said...

Fayez, I read your piece over on Rxstr.com a while back- fantastic stuff. Stumbling across that piece is one of the reasons I got back into studying the case.
I always found Sadie and Squeaky to be the most interesting and fascinating of all the individuals involved. Sadie most of all.
I believe her initial statements, whether truth, lies, or exaggerations, locked in the view of her as a blood thirsty monster. Leslie has benefitted from a more thoughtful view of her persona since the ‘70s. Katie is almost always forgotten about it seems, despite being with Watson, one of the most vicious of the killers. Sadie’s image never recovered from the initial impression that she made. With Leslie, a lot of people come at her with a ‘poor Leslie, she was in over her head’ view. With Sadie it is ‘you can never ever believe a word she says’ view. Just my two cents.
I think Karlene Faith’s book gives a bit more of a nuanced view of Katie, Leslie, and Sadie.

TabOrFresca said...

GreenWhite said:

Wasn't Atkins convicted on eight counts?

Check out Volume 170

http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol170.pdf

Atkins - pages with convictions.

AF - 21619
VF - 21620
SP - 21622
ST - 21624
JS - 21626
LL - 21628
RL - 21630
conspiracy - 21632


shoegazer said...

Fayez Abedaziz said...

re this post...

Good afternoon,hope you all are well.

Speculator,I know what you're saying about my writing and I appreciate you,as well as orwhut, not launching a personal attack on me.

I've written on other sites, from political ones to rock/roll and Beatle specific sites.

In quite plain english, though I can't resist typing some humerous, off the wall thoughts, at times.

..."


This was a very interesting and heartfelt post, Feyez, and especially so since I was living in CA, attending my 4th year of college in S Cal, and can very likely recall the same public sentiments and attitudes that you did.

But I'm a skeptical person above all, and since you've posted widely you'll know from experience what's out there, and therefore why one needs to be skeptical.

So if we exchange you'll no doubt recognize that I'll probably probe a bit to see how far I can rely on your recollections/reminiscences, because you've made some remarkable claims, and remarkable claims require a remarkable level of scrutiny.

I'd expect no less from you, or any other interlocutor, when I make claims or state positions.

So being somewhat familiar with Chatsworth of that era, what route would you have taken from Santa Susanna pass to Cielo on a Friday night at about 10-11PM, and how long do you think it would have taken you?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Thanks, ToF. Very nice.

Matthew said...

Susan was convicted of seven counts of first degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder

shoegazer said...

Quick open question...

How many currently reading claim to have been adults (18 or older) at the time of the crimes?

How many lived in S Cal?

I'll openly cop to both and make it clear that at the time, none of this had any effect on me in any sense, nor any of my peers. The war (draft, you know), college, and chasing women (currently a declining avocation, like growing chia pets, apparently) were what affected me, and most of my peers; this is what made impressions on us. I'm somewhat suspicious of those who claim otherwise.

Sorry. Just tellin' it like it is...

shoegazer said...

ToF:

Do you find that he cielodrive.com site has a lot of information of great potential value, but is organized/implemented very strangely?

I did a wget --spider on the site last night, and it does not jibe very well with what the browser interface shows. E.g., it shows a 1st level subdir named "people-v-charles-tex-watson", which is a close analogue to "people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel", and yet I've not seen it directly from the browser interface--what I get is a sort of .php index.

I'm not familiar enough with .php files or any js redirects, so it's mysterious. I'll need to brush up on if some more, unless someone can offer some additional advice on how to fully access all areas containing data.

I think there may be stuff of great, great value, but that it is currently inaccessible or partly obscured by the website implementation.

Do you have any opinions/insights on this topic?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Message Cielo. He'll get back to you.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoe - Ohio/Gen X

shoegazer said...

To all:

As regards qualifying those who claim to be adults or young adults in 1969, and especially those living in CA, here's are some decent shiboleths:

1) About how much content is there in a lid, and how much would you have expected to pay for common quality?

2) What was an improvised matchstick joint holder called, and why?

3) What was an improvised home "light show" made of and how was it started?



NOTE TO NON-BOOMERS:

I'm almost embarrassed to even mention this stuff--but yep, it often was as superficial and herd-oriented as all that...touchingly naive, really.

...but pretty much any west coast young adult--and especially those going to college--would have heard this wildly dum-ass topical stuff.

All this is unfortunate, but I've found it necessary when on forums because many extravagant claims are commonly made with impunity. So a certain level of qualification needs to be done, just to avoid wasting your time.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

"Many extravagant claims are commonly made with impunity."

From your fingertips to God's eyes.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, that's often interpreted as shouting down opposing views in this study.

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, that's often interpreted as shouting down opposing views in this study."

Yes, it's unfortunate...

As you no doubt know, this is the only site dealing with the crime I've found that's not composed of 80+% fringe cases--it's the only one that has *some* people who simply want to catalog the evidence and testimony of the Cielo case so as to create a ***probable* reconstruction of how, exactly, the events unfolded.

There is *so* much oral history and idiosyncratic interpretations of hearsay, that the first step is to simply clear away the detritus to get a clear picture as a starting point.

So if people want to relate to me how they personally had some connection, I first need to determine if they, for reasons of their own, want to cultivate some level of personal connection with the case. If they are legit, they may be able to help fill in all the small--often trivial--details of the physical environment and of the evidence.

It's just like a sort of rubic's cube--a mental exercise and not much more.

A good example of the small trivial stuff that I'd like to see resolved, even if it has no bearing, is...

You've all seen floor plans of the house. You'll see the main ways of possible entrance/egress. But you'll also notice in the upper left hand quadrant, what appears to be a stairwell labeled "Stairs" with a draftsman's arrow pointing up to the mid-area of the loft.

I've never yet read any discussion of this feature nor seen any photos that look like they might accommodate a second-story entry. There's one photo of the crime scene taken from below that *hint* at a dark rectangular area, but this dos not align with where the floorplan shows it would connect with the loft.

And yet it's there on the plan, and aerial views show the covered stairwell. Just as the dressing room off the master bedroom is apparently undescribed and unphotographed.

I don't for an instant think that this had anything to do with the crime, but I ***do*** very much like to nail every physical detail that I can--don't really like loose ends...

...so... ;^)

Torque said...

Shoe, It has always been my understanding that the stair enclosure you refer to at Cielo, is stairs down to a small furnace room.

The dressing room appears to have been a later addition off the master bedroom. I would also echo the fact that this room does not appear in photographs. For that matter, I have not yet seen photos of the back service area and the back bedroom/nursery. The one kitchen photo I have seen from Cielo dates from an earlier time, although a photo of Sharon washing dishes, arguably in the kitchen at Cielo, is readily seen online.

The same may be said of certain parts of the guesthouse, too. Perhaps Cielodrive.com has additional photos of these areas?

shoegazer said...

Torque:

"It has always been my understanding that the stair enclosure you refer to at Cielo, is stairs down to a small furnace room."

Thanks! This is why I like to post here: I get to draw on a lot of embedded experience and observation.

Given this possibility, I can now begin to look for some form of venting and/or evidence of basement or crawlspace ventilation. But the stairs going *down* and not up makes quite a bit of sense.

"The dressing room appears to have been a later addition off the master bedroom."

It looks like it could have been.

"I would also echo the fact that this room does not appear in photographs."

You can see it from the contemporaneous crime scene aerial photographs, unless you mean some earlier photos.

In the linked photo look at the lower right side of the house. There are two rectangular structures side-by-side, both attached to the main house structure. The right most one (larger) is the dressing room, and the smaller one to its left is the covered stairwell.

http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-aerial-01.php

...I think... :^)

"For that matter, I have not yet seen photos of the back service area and the back bedroom/nursery."

Same here. *Might* have seen the laundry area but somehow did not pay much attention to it.

Maybe I'll try to track it down.

"The one kitchen photo I have seen from Cielo dates from an earlier time, although a photo of Sharon washing dishes, arguably in the kitchen at Cielo, is readily seen online."

Yes, I've seen that photo, but there are other photos taken for magazine articles when the house belonged to Michele Morgan in the 40s.

http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-aerial-01.php

shoegazer said...

Second link (to Cielo kitchen) corrected:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/27913064@N04/5956722188

Peter said...

Do you have access to the files that he has or are you talking just the website? He has most but not all the trial transcripts from all the trials. Also the exhibits but those are not cataloged at all. Just massive pdfs often of just the exhibit folder. I've created a spreadsheet of all of the available testimony and some of the exhibits to the main trial here

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fgxp5f75e1ugap1v6cdl7v2bge6xjeat4

Peter said...

Yellow highlight means they are missing.

shoegazer said...

Cripes, Peter, this is really great stuff!

Thanks for all the effort, and what's more, thanks for sharing it!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Wow. Thank you, Peter.

Torque said...

Shoe, check out also the following. Its a video tour of Cielo and the guesthouse, taken in December 1993:

https://youtu.be/n1LfynkLIUw

If the link does not work, just type in your browser, 10050 Cielo Drive Walk-Thru(Dec 1993)Youtube.

orwhut said...

Fayez,
You've had quite a few adventures. The one with Sadie might have been closer took a close call and the bonus is that, you didn't have to take her home to meet Mama.
Whut

shoegazer said...

Torque...

Wow! That's a great resource! I'd never seen it.

The place was getting to be inpretty rough condition by then, wasn't it? Too, I noted in the crime scene photos, the interior was--well---sorta cheap and grungy. It's like I would expect a long-time rental property to be. My guess is that it was being rented furnished.

Really, the buildings were "rustic" from the get-go. In some ways imaginative, but its primary value was the specific isolated location and view.

BTW, in the video the camera attempted to zoom in on some tall buildings, and to my mind that's not downtown LA. I was tempted to think Century City, but the location is not far enough west, I think.

Any ideas?

Again, thanks!

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Shoegazer,
you can turn at the tree by the green bushes and some big white boulders where Zorro said "and away..." Santa Susana on a sunny day
just kidding.
Yet, as to for me to get to Cielo from Santa Susan...er, Santa Susana,how in the world would I know?
Your friend, on a below zero day in Colorado,
Fayez
Jay,
In thinking about Susan, over the years, trying to understand her mentality, though it evolved from her home to, finally, 1969 and then the trial, yeah, you're right about her.
orwhut,
Yeah, that's a good one-'take her home to meet mama-
Which reminds me, for whatever reason, in my head, in a somewhat different way of a phone call with one of the girls I had a 5 month relationship, along with her friend (us three together) when they were back to California for some time and she said that she told her husband about her, me and her friend. She said that he laughed and said, "you did that?" He was just amused by the whole thing.
They're still there in California and they don't care who knows, big deal. Cathy and Kris, if you read this, which I doubt, hello, I love you. Thanks for the hum.or and wit, orwhut, we can have some fun here on topics, after all we're talking society and culture.
Speculator,
When I told my friend, the same friend that drove us around and dropped me off in Chatsworth, back in '69, that day, that I found out that Sadie was Susan, he said, "you're kidding." This was in 2007 when I did and mentioned it to him.
Then, one of the few people I mentioned that to, a fella I knew from college days, he said, no,no way. I thought he was joking, then he said, you didn't. I was kinda shocked like, you're calling me a liar? I said, man, take a hike, what the hell, people don't meet people?
On another visit to So Cal, I called my friend, who still lives there and he and his wife met me for lunch. At a restaurant. They talked about things, then she asked me about things'Manson.' I told them at how I was surprised at people's reaction to my having been with Susan, though I told very few people. I said, you know, there's a couple I met at a Boulder bookstore/cafe and we would, at times, meet for coffee.
One day, I made the mistake of mentioning the 'Manson' trial and said, I knew one of 'em. We were talking about true crime books they were looking at, that day. They looked at me with silence for several seconds, then they politely said, "we gotta go, have a nice day."
When I related that incident to my friend and his wife, as we sat in the restaurant,
on this vist, she laughed and said, "what, like you were part of the murders, or..."

AustinAnn74 said...

I think everyone on this blog knows my opinion on the subject. No need for me to repeat it anymore.....have a nice day....

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

As I have stated on this blog before, I graduated Chatsworth High School in June of 1968.
I traveled the Santa Susana Pass road many times going into Simi Valley at that time.

On a night with no traffic, going from Spahn Ranch to Cielo Dr is approximately a 35-45 minute drive.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

shoegazer said...

Mario, what would be the most likely specific route for this hypothetical 35-45 min drive?

Now, we know that they claim to have gotten lost and driven as far east as Hollywood, before turning around and heading back west on Sunset. But what route would the 35-45 min drive take?

shoegazer said...

Fayez:

Yet, as to for me to get to Cielo from Santa Susan...er, Santa Susana,how in the world would I know?

Thanks Fayez. That answered the most important question.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

The route I would've taken
(Only because I took the route to Hollywood many times on my motorcycle),
would be Santa Susana Pass road,
to Topanga Canyon Blvd,
Left on Devonshire Blvd,
to Reseda Blvd,
to Ventura Blvd,
to Beverly Glen Blvd,
to Mulholland Blvd,
to Benedict Canyon road,
to Cielo Dr.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

shoegazer said...

Mario,

That would be a good way. That's coming at it almost like their trip back was described.

Going from Chatsworth would you have considered taking 118 to 405, then to Sunset or Santa Monica? I mean, they left from closer to Santa Susanna Pass than Chatsworth proper?

What kind of motorcycle? I used to really enjoy motorcycles, when younger.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Shoegazer.
There was no 118 freeway at that time.
👇
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_118
But many ways to get to the 405 from Spahn Ranch.

I never considered the 405 to Sunset Blvd or Santa Monica Blvd.
But that would be a way also.

I rode a Honda750.

Mario George Nitrini
------
The OJ Simpson Case

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

Motorcycle head injuries are a hell of a thing

Peter said...

I also have a timeline of the pretrial motions. https://app.box.com/s/rk3t9hl054s8xdnsgtd15xrj2jivywwd

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I see you across time, Mario. What a handsome lad. Was one of your family members the baseball player UCSB?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

*at

shoegazer said...

Mario,

Yes, exactly--no 118.

They were very nice bikes. I wanted one when they first came out but couldn't afford one. Later I bought a 77 Bonneville, new, when I had money, finally.

I grew up on an orange grove in the San Joaquin valley. We had relatives in LA, near the airport. I can recall going thru Sepulveda canyon before the 405, and also the first time we went there and the 405 was brand new.

It was almost empty, no kiddin'.

Can you imagine that?

Later I moved to LA and lived at the beach, mostly. Playa del Rey, San Pedro, Belmont Heights (Long Beach). We went fairly often to West Hollywood, Westwood, SM for dining and entertainment. This was the early/mid 80s.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Thank you, Peter.

shoegazer said...

Whoa, Peter. More great stuff!

FWIW, I spent part of last evening reading the testimony of the college student who was working at Harvard-Westlake and heard screaming, then Weber, the guy (and his wife) who heard the four killers washing off on Portola Drive.

This is perhaps the best testimony we'll have, subject as it was to x-examination.

Very, very valuable to an better understanding of the events.

Thanks!

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks GreenWhite
(Across time).

My father and my uncle Peter Nitrini both went to UCLA, and played baseball there.
Both were professional baseball players.
They made it to the minors with the Chicago Cubs organization.

My father
👇
https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=nitrin001mar

My Uncle
👇
https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=nitrin001pet

My godfather is former Los Angeles Dodger and NY Met professional Norm Sherry.
It saddened me so much when Norm passed away last year
👇
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Sherry
What a wonderful man Norm was.

Mario George Nitrini 111
--------
The OJ Simpson Case

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Shoegazer.
Orange Groves.....Oh my gosh.
When my family moved to The San Fernando Valley in the late summer of 1965, we moved to Porter Ranch.
(Orange Groves a plenty)

405 empty....I remember those days.
Not anymore...lol

Mario George Nitrini
----
The OJ Simpson Case

G. Greene-Whyte said...

The point about no one acting traumatized and instead springing into action when Tex killed Parent makes me think they knew why they were going to Cielo. That's if Parent died first.

Assuming he did, could the long drive beforehand be the killers getting themselves into the right state of mind for their deeds? The Occam's Razor part of my brain makes me think they were arguing in the car.

How many times have those women wished they jumped out at a red light?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Mario, I'm also from a baseball family. How cool. Thanks for sharing that with me.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

That is cool🆒
(Baseball family).

You're welcome GreenWhite
👍👍👍

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

shoegazer said...

Mario,

It seems like we got off 405 that first time somewhere near Randy's Donuts, and of course this blew my mind... :^)

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Randy's Donuts....yep.
👇
https://randysdonuts.com/
Yep, right off the 405.

I shouldn't admit this, but oh,
what-the-heck.
Since this Blog-Post is about Susan Atkins, and I've read that Ms Atkins "danced" at the Candy Cat in Chatsworth, my biker friend and I used to go in there to conduct "business," and play this far-out pinball machine they had there.
This was in 1971. I wasn't even 21 yet.
But it was no problem for me to enter.
If you know what I mean
(WINK).

Mario George Nitrini 111
----
The OJ Simpson Case

shoegazer said...

Mario, they just didn't check all that much in those days, about *anything*. No motorcycle helmets, for a long time no seatbelts, even.

It almost seems like current sensibilities are fixated on "SAFETY!".

"Is it SAFE?"

Like stuck in a sort of pre-school indoctrination mode, ratting out little Johnny for running with a pencil in his hand.

It's the current version of mom and apple pie.

It's not so much that I don't want to take reasonable precautions, but let's not be doctrinaire and anal about it, huh?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

"Anal about it".......lol.

Nope. No motorcycle helmets.

I also used to eat at the Munch Box in Chatsworth
👇
https://foursquare.com/v/the-munch-box/4b79c6acf964a52052112fe3
They have the greatest root beer floats in the universe.

There was a lady that worked there
(I can't remember her name)
that wore so much make-up, it was unreal. She was pretty "far-out-there."
But she was very nice, polite, and very respectable.

As I've read on this blog. Several Charles Manson people would eat there also. Including Charles Manson himself.

Mario George Nitrini 111
----
The OJ Simpson Case

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Shoegazer.
Here is the Blog-Post pertaining to the Munch Box on this blog
👇
https://www.mansonblog.com/2015/09/munchbox-in-50s.html?m=1

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

grimtraveller said...

Terrapin said:

Do we know why Bugliosi never went after Clem for LaBianca?

For exactly the same reason Watson, Bailey and Vance were never gone after for the murder of Shea ~ there is no evidence they were there outside of an accomplice.
The Aranda case that established that without corroboration, an accomplice's testimony was useless, is legally an interesting case, but pretty lightweight, considering its bearing on the Family. Had Linda not been "promoted" to star witness, I think the case against her would have run into the same territory, even with Susan. If she was adamant that she was not there, Susan's testimony would have had nothing to link her. Some have said, but hang on, surely the same applies to Charles Manson, but as Simon Davis' book "In a summer swelter" shows, the circumstantial evidence plus the various witnesses to back up those portions of evidence, mean that Charlie was up against it. And that he had been very careless over the 8 or so months leading up to the murders.

Fayez Abedaziz said:

Susan Atkins, An Innocent Girl

I suspect that's what Gary Hinman was thinking when he opened his door and saw Bobby, Mary and Susan.
But he wasn't thinking it by the end of that weekend.
That may well be what Abigail Folger thought when she looked over her glasses, saw Susan, smiled, and waved back.
She wasn't thinking that 20 minutes later when innocent Susie flashed her knife.
I don't think Wojiciech, Sharon or Jay ever thought that !

why now and then and again do people criticize Sadie Susan
and so, at times, I dont quite understand why so many people say rather un-kind words about Susan


Oh, I dunno, Fayez. Maybe they do that because she said she stabbed three people that died, then she said she didn't, then she said she did, then she said she didn't. Maybe they look at the amount of times she flip-flopped, maybe they've read her two autobiographies and seen the contradictions, maybe they've considered that she was involved in every one of the murders in some capacity. Maybe they have many reasons to criticize her. Maybe if she'd told you she'd sucked her baby's genitals, you'd criticize her too. You might even be a little unkind....

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

More to the point why have none of the killers ever referred to his participation in their testimonies?

What are you on about ? Susan tells both Caballero/Caruso and the Grand Jury at the start of December '69, and in her two books, Leslie implicates Clem, when talking to Marvin part, Linda mentions Clem during her testimony, Tex mentions him in his first book, Clem turns up in parole hearings...It is no secret that he was involved.

When anyone tries to challenge some or any of the “official” narrative on here the answer that is often given is the killers evidence is what we have and why would they still lie or conceal anything. Well here’s a massive case in point

How so ?
The only two people that could tell you of Clem's direct involvement on the second night, have done so. One of them is dead, the other incommunicado. One other person that could have told you something is also dead and wouldn't have said much because he would have implicated himself.

G. Greene-Whyte said:

Sadie supposedly didn't go inside the LaBianca's place like Clem supposedly didn't, but Atkins caught murder charges when Clem avoided them

It's not hard to understand. The two nights of TLB murder were treated as one conspiracy. There was corroborative evidence to tie Susan to the first night and being along on the second night in the form of Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard {and what they related about her lost knife}. So even though she never entered the LaBianca house, she was part of a conspiracy in which people died, so by California law, that made her as guilty as the people that did the actual murders. Leslie wasn't charged with Cielo because she only entered the conspiracy on the second night. Clem wasn't indicted at all because although it was well known that he was along on Waverly night, and part of the conspiracy, there was absolutely nothing independent of a perp's word to link him to it. If they had found the gun he ditched, with Linda on board, they might have had a case. Not much of one, but more than what they had. Grogan was pretty fortunate to skate by that one. Had he been indicted and convicted, he might still be inside.

The whole, "the inmates can't say anything outside of the official narrative if they ever want to see the light of day again" response about the prisoners, even if true, seems like an easy way for gurus and sycophants to duck questions and explain away what they can't prove

I don't know whether it does, but I don't buy it and never have because every one of the perps goes against the official narrative in one way or another.

tobiasragg said...

"So even though she never entered the LaBianca house, she was part of a conspiracy in which people died, so by California law, that made her as guilty as the people that did the actual murders."

This is one point I've recently become confused on. I never really thought to actually look into the matter, but I'd always assumed that Atkins was charged & convicted on the five Tate murders + conspiracy + Hinman in a different trial.

When I shared this here a few days ago, a person or two spoke up to say that Atkins was convicted of all seven TLB murders + the other stuff.

I poked around a tiny bit to try and find out exactly which counts included Atkins, but when the answer didn't appear within twenty minutes or so of searching, I gave up. It would be in the trial transcript that I am reading now (still stuck in the endless Kasabian cross), but I am no where near close to reaching verdicts and I am too lazy to go back to the beginning of the stack to find it.

Going back to what you've just said above, I do continue to wonder IF Atkins was actually convicted of the two LaBianca murders and, if so, why Grogan wasn't also convicted for the same reason. Or even tried, for that matter. The answer could be what you have suggested, that they simply didn't have the evidence against Clem that they had against Atkins, but Kasabian played a large part in securing the Atkins conviction and she, too, testified to Clem's involvement.

All in all, Clem has gotta be the luckiest elderly Manson murderer out there!

shoegazer said...

GT:

"The whole, "the inmates can't say anything outside of the official narrative if they ever want to see the light of day again" response about the prisoners, even if true, seems like an easy way for gurus and sycophants to duck questions and explain away what they can't prove

I don't know whether it does, but I don't buy it and never have because every one of the perps goes against the official narrative in one way or another."

Your answer, raises one of my main default points: what I think I see as the most likely scenario seems to be pretty close to the "official narrative", if I understand the term to mean how Bugliosi describes it in Helter Skleter (more or less).

I'm in no way married to that conclusion and would certainly enjoy exploring it. I could be persuaded, one way or the other, for sure.

...and I'm a pretty nice guy, I'm told, and don't get all snotty and mean-spirited... ;^)

grimtraveller said...

Greene-Whyte said:

I could be way off base here, but I only want to hear law stuff from lawyers and former judges

I think you are way off base there. True, the law is difficult to get one's head around in many aspects ~ but not impossible. For example, once 'Aranda' is understood, some of the whys and wherefores of this case become clearer.

Lawyers go to school for at least seven years at my alma mater. Their understanding of nuance & etc should not be overlooked

I agree with that, but let's not forget, lawyers are people too. The consensus of the LA law fraternity at the start of 1970 was that Manson was never going to be convicted. Aaron Stovitz's experienced opinion was that HS was a crock and the jury should be given something they could accept. But the perps are still banged up or died in prison. And don't even get me started about Irving Kanarek.

A lay person reading the transcripts is a lay person reading the transcripts

Yes, but I have found repeatedly over 4 decades, that sometimes, a lawyer's training blinds them to certain things that a lay person can see all too clearly, rather like how a trained musician can sometimes be hamstrung by their training and miss things a primitive musician might do, disregarding 'the rules' ~ and come up with greater music. Matt used to quote, I think it was Lincoln, saying words to the effect that "a fool has himself as a client." I used to think "well, as a lawyer, he would say that !"
One can glean a lot from the transcripts of trials and LE interviews and if you like getting into people's heads, you can develop some very interesting opinions and thoughts from them.
That said, having David and Simon Davis around for a while was invaluable.

Jay said:

I do think Susan, due to how she ran her mouth and her penchant for lying, gets kind of a raw deal compared to Leslie sometimes

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction ? You seem to be saying she gets a raw deal in comparison to Leslie...because she was a liar and has been responsible for so much misinformation in this saga. She should get a raw deal !
I don't think she does get a raw deal. But I do think few attempt to understand her.

Mario said:

Fayez has pointed-out on other Blog-Posts here, situations that I knew about that only a person who had personally experienced them would know

Name 3.

D. said:

In other words, bullshit. Much like Leslie's interview that everyone acts as if it's a smoking gun that proves braining washing

Naw, it wasn't a smoking gun that proves braining washing. It was a smoking gun to anyone that denies HS as one of the motives, that decries the racial element in the crimes and slaps up those that would seek to dispose of any Beatle aspect in the case. A smoking gun that such would like to ditch, rather like Clem did in the early hours of 11th August '69.

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

what I think I see as the most likely scenario seems to be pretty close to the "official narrative" if I understand the term to mean how Bugliosi describes it in Helter Skleter (more or less)

I'd be in broad agreement with that, with caveats.

if I understand the term to mean how Bugliosi describes it

There seem to me to be 4 meanings to the term "official narrative." I was criticized once, for pointing this out, but as I looked over some past threads, it became clear that different people ascribed different meanings to the term.

tobiasragg said:

I'd always assumed that Atkins was charged & convicted on the five Tate murders + conspiracy + Hinman in a different trial

From her final parole hearing, 3 weeks before she died:

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER O’HARA: We’re on record. The time is 2:00 or 1450 hours and this is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Ms. Susan Atkins, W-08304. Today’s date is the 2nd of September of 2009. We’re located at CCWF. Ms. Atkins was received from Los Angeles County on 12/18/1972. Her term started on the 23rd of April of 1971. She was received by Department of Corrections for a conviction of Murder 1st or the controlling offense is Murder 1st, Case Number A253156, Count Number One. It’s a violation of Penal Code 187. She also has six other counts of 187 and that is Case Number A253156. There are seven counts of Murder 1st. Count Eight is a conspiracy to commit murder. There is also Case Number A267861, Los Angeles County, and that is one count of violation of Penal Code 187, Murder in the 1st Degree.

Kasabian played a large part in securing the Atkins conviction and she, too, testified to Clem's involvement

Yes, but there was independent corroboration of some of what Linda said about Susan. None at all regarding Clem.

All in all, Clem has gotta be the luckiest elderly Manson murderer out there!

On 3 counts. Avoiding TLB indictment, getting his death sentence quashed by the judge and parole.

shoegazer said...

GT:

I exchanged with David quite a bit. I think he was very intelligent and knew rules of procedure and common courtroom practices/ploys, for sure, but over time I got the impression that he had become emotionally involved with a particular narrative that allowed him to maintain certain deeply felt notions about some of those involved.

I did one year at Southwestern, in LA, in 1983; I was...what..36. My fellow students put me off my feed, and I bailed after the 84 spring term. I then fell into software development and it was a very good natural fit.

That's what's really unique about this event, Cielo especially: it seems to attract an emotional, idealized response, and yet what's needed is as much objectivity and detachment as you can muster--the more, the better.

shoegazer said...

GT:

"All in all, Clem has gotta be the luckiest elderly Manson murderer out there!

On 3 counts. Avoiding TLB indictment, getting his death sentence quashed by the judge and parole."

And looking at all of the homepage photos of him, he looks like a cool old hat-wearing dude, like Roger McGuinn, hiding his baldness with a sad display of hip bravado.

Reminds me of the Homer Simpson episode where he imagined that being overweight would be "cool"...

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Here grimtraveller.
Here's 1 of them about Fayez KNOWING
👇
https://www.mansonblog.com/2020/02/the-mansonshea-lawsuit.html?m=1
Let's see if you can figure out what he is talking about.

There are others. See if you can figure out what Fayez KNOWS about
👇
"situations that I knew about that only a person who had personally experienced them would know"

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

grimtraveller said...

D. said:

In the very early pre-trial days, Kasabian's attorney did the same thing. They claimed she was madly in love with Charlie and under a spell, even wanting to bring in the hypnosis expert from the Sirhan Sirhan case. They even tried to prevent her from attending the grand jury hearing with the excuse it was dangerous to have her in the court room with Manson since he had hypnotic powers. This is 100% fact

I know you don't answer any questions I ask you, nevertheless, I'm at a loss how Linda's lawyer could attempt to stop her from attending a Grand Jury when she wasn't even in the state at the time it happened, nor was she aware that it was happening and therefore was not in line for a surprise appearance. She didn't know Charlie, Susan, Leslie and Tex were in custody or that Pat had run off to Mobile. She came into Gary Fleischmann's orbit regarding the crimes, after the hearing had happened. She turned herself in.
I asked you a couple of months back to link to some stuff that shows us what Linda's lawyer was up to, pre~trial. It's stuff I'd like to read, if it's 100% fact. I have to say though, that some of your facts, merely start with F.

and most likely where the rumor of Bugliosi trying to prevent Manson from giving testimony before the jury stems from

Are we talking about the same case ? Bugliosi said the biggest disappointment he experienced during the trial was that he never got Charlie on the witness stand. When Judge Older asked him why he didn't seriously cross examine Charlie during Charlie's speech, he told him there was no point; the jury was not there.
He also stated that he had several notebooks full of questions that he wanted to ask Charlie in front of a jury. So those rumours are based on less than fart gas.

Torque said:

Further, Susan denies hearing Tex fire two rounds into Voytek, effectively omitting this fact

I wouldn't quite put it that way. She didn't remember seeing him shoot Wojciech. But neither Pat nor Linda did either. Watson reckons he shot him on the porch, as he was screaming. But Tim Ireland didn't report hearing any gunshots or anything akin to it, though he heard the screams. Susan doesn't mince her words regarding anything else that Tex did. Her descriptions of his actions towards Sharon and Abigail are chilling. She describes him viciously stabbing Jay as he lay shot, on the ground.
The shooting of Frykowski and the stabbing of Parent remain 2 mysteries, even though Watson cops to both.

grimtraveller said...

Mario said:

Here's 1 of them about Fayez KNOWING
👇
https://www.mansonblog.com/2020/02/the-mansonshea-lawsuit.html?m=1
Let's see if you can figure out what he is talking about


As I thought. You got nothing.
You know I'm not in the slightest bit interested in working out your mysteries that don't add up to anything, Mario old friend.
I'm actually almost afraid of that day when you actually say something that has meat on it. I don't know if my system will be able to take it. 😩

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said...

That's what's really unique about this event, Cielo especially: it seems to attract an emotional, idealized response

I have an idea of what you mean, but what do you mean ? 👨‍🏫

shoegazer said...

GT:

He really wanted to see Tate in a certain way, a way that neither any evidence nor testimony supports.

He want to think she resisted or tried to escape, and nothing to me indicates that she did much of either.

So here's the thing: I think Granado completely fucked up the blood evidence so far as labeling and typing goes. David wanted to stick closely to the blood evidence, and based on that to impeach all of the testimony, from private interviews with attorneys, thru GJ testimony, thru trial testimony, and thru subsequent interviews and statements.

The most economical explanation, overall, is that Granado's blood evidence is worthless.

As always, I could be convinced otherwise. It would be fun to kick it around.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

grimtraveller.
It's probably best then
"old friend,"
that you DON'T question me about anything.
I'll just leave it that.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

shoegazer said...

Mario,the problem is this... both you and Fayez, when asked an honest direct question, first want to play some kind of mysterious guessing games.

Now, you've convinced me that you know what you're talking about on some important things, but since you have the goods, why not just answer a question directly instead of playing hard to get? Generate a level of trust instead of sleazy evasiveness.

Why, shoot. There may even be people out there reading who suspect that you and Fayez are one and the same--sock puppets.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Shoegazer.
I comment on this blog the way I do for my legal reasons.
And I have thanked Matt in the past for letting me comment here.

You've asked me some direct questions, and I have given you a direct answer.

I can positively 100% assure you Shoegazer, Fayez and I are not
👇
one-in-the-same
👇
https://mobile.twitter.com/nitrini1950

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

shoegazer said...

Mario:

I comment on this blog the way I do for my legal reasons.

How about a 40,000 foot view of the legal reasons? Make it general enough to be safe for yourself.

Seriously.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ok shoegazer, here's one legal reason.
👇
Due to my personal involvement in The OJ Simpson Case and Saga, specific Law Enforcement Agencies read everything I "say" on The Internet.
And I have no problem with that at all.

At this moment, I am personally involved in a few matters related to the Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein Saga.
Here's one of them
👇
https://mobile.twitter.com/nitrini1950/status/1495772205027938307
The Prince Andrew BODY-DOUBLE.

And let just state. Some specific Law Enforcement Agencies are very well aware of the comments I make on this blog. And especially the comment that David the Lawyer posted about my direct message on Twitter I sent to the former National President of The Hells Angels George Christie
👇
https://www.mansonblog.com/2020/08/interview-with-simon-wells-author-of.html?m=1

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

shoegazer said...

Thanks, Mario.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

You're welcome shoegazer.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

tobiasragg said...

"That's what's really unique about this event, Cielo especially: it seems to attract an emotional, idealized response"

Spaces like this . . . this is where sensational murder cases go to when they retire ;)

Speculator said...

Shoegazer - you seem to make the assertion that Granado’s blood evidence is worthless. I’ve seen the same view taken on here by others in the past. Maybe not worthless bit seriously discredited by some. I’m assuming for absolutely no other reason than it doesn’t fit with how events are supposed to have gone down according to the killers. So we have the evidence of a professional who one would assume to be at the very least competent at his job against the evidence of a bunch of self-serving, proven liars and cold blooded killers??!! Hmmmmm who should i believe and who should I discredit..........!! I don’t think there’s any need to seek verification of the veracity of Granado’s report and evidence. He was presumably employed as a competent person. His competency wasn’t questioned at the trials or at any other stage as far as I’m aware. So why should we question it just because it doesn’t seem to reflect what the killers are telling us occurred??! Shouldn’t the emphasis on questioning be the other way around?!!

shoegazer said...

SPECULATOR PART 1:


Speculator:

No, I can't be certain about the blood work being fatally flawed, and I welcome discussion on this topic.

I gradually came to this conclusion after exchanging--at some length--with David, who posted a 7 or 8 part series on the crime and crime scene. It was very well done.

"you seem to make the assertion that Granado’s blood evidence is worthless.[...]. I’m assuming for absolutely no other reason than it doesn’t fit with how events are supposed to have gone down according to the killers."

Yes. The killers and one co-conspirator, and also the blood evidence itself, independent of the testimony.

"So we have the evidence of a professional who one would assume to be at the very least competent at his job against the evidence of a bunch of self-serving, proven liars and cold blooded killers??!!"

Yes, but I would add that most effective liars tell the truth when it serves them, and lie when it doesn't.

There's a reason for this: when one sticks to the truth (or a fairly accurate portrayal of actual events), it requires no detailed reconstructions of a false reality that tend to drift a great deal thru repeated re-tellings. Lies tend to drift,and so they instinctively minimize the areas of falsehood if the truth serves as well.

These are the kind of liars who can tell truth from falsehood, and tailor their falsehoods for personal advantage, as opposed to delusional or semi-delusional individuals who cannot reliably tell the difference. I think all of those involved in the crime were of the former kind.

So this is a personal call--I can see where people would not want to agree with how I evaluate. I, myself, am quite satisfied with it, having spent many years trying to optimize my life chances. It's one of the things I noticed and I use it to keep myself out of potential trouble.

So I'm saying that while it's easy to dismiss everything a person says if they've been caught in a lie elsewhere, you risk bypassing true and verifiable statements if you do.

...and the police and prosecution are not above this tailored lying, either, so one has to be very careful, examining everything individually and closely *without regard for its source*.

END SPEC PART 1

shoegazer said...

SPECULATOR PART 2:

"Hmmmmm who should i believe and who should I discredit..........!! I don’t think there’s any need to seek verification of the veracity of Granado’s report and evidence.

That's fine. It's understandable. It's not that simple, however: liars at times relate factual evens, and honest people can make mistakes--and also they can lie, too. So you've got to keep on your toes and evaluate everything individually and separately, without working from a conclusion and trying to prove it right.

"He was presumably employed as a competent person. His competency wasn’t questioned at the trials or at any other stage as far as I’m aware."

I think you have an excellent point. What I'm finding now, since I've had access to Peter's trail testimony spreadsheet, is that many important questions that I've had for a long time are answered.

E.g., I had long wondered about the trigger guard of the Buntline, as found for evidence. I noticed some other stuff, too, and none of this was mentioned in these discussions, discussions elsewhere, nor in any of the excerpts from the GJ testimony, or other edited pieces of testimony. But it's in the trial transcripts.

De Carlo explains it to my satisfaction in trial testimony.

So what I need to to, today or tomorrow, is to go to Granado's testimonies and read them. Maybe I'll form a different opinion, which will be just fine. I'm not looking to *be right; I'm looking to *get it right*.

END SPECULATOR PART 2.

shoegazer said...

SPECULATOR PART 3:

"So why should we question it just because it doesn’t seem to reflect what the killers are telling us occurred??! Shouldn’t the emphasis on questioning be the other way around?!!

Briefly, here's what bothers me about the blood evidence.

We've got Frykowski's body on the lawn, and he had bled *a lot*. There's a large pool absorbed by the lawn. We can safely infer that he was in the house at one point and he either moved or was carried out there. It seems pretty certain that he was not waiting out on the lawn, that night of all nights, for someone to come down the driveway and kill him there.

Every related version of the events--Atkin, Kasabian, Watson--I haven't read enough of Krenwinkel's parole hearings to know if there is anything specific about Frykowski--has Frykowski struggling in the LR and probably getting stabbed some (we don't know how badly) and beaten over the head pretty severely. The various sources then say that he ran outside and collapsed on the porch, with Kasabian the clearest on that point. They even said he even bumped into the trunks, I think.

Now nowhere in the blood evidence is there any indication of his blood type along a path from inside near the couch (where Tate was later found), to the porch, on the walkway.

Conversely, no related version of the events has Tate or Sebring anywhere near most of the stuff toward the front of the house, yet the blood evidence shows that they were.

If one were to try to make up a scenario to fit the blood evidence, you'd maybe conclude that maybe Frykowski was marched out onto the lawn (no other examples of his blood anywhere, right?), and he was either murdered there, and later Tate and Sebring were marched out to see all this, stabbed just a little, then stabbed a lot more on the porch--in about the same locations where Kasabian and Atkins say they saw Frykowski fall. Now, all this time there would not have been a rope on their necks, but after having stabbed them a bit out front, the killers marched or carried them in, tied up Tate and Sebring, put a towel over Sebring's head, shot, kicked and stabbed him some more, then hauled Tate up just a bit--not enough to strange, and stabbed her then lowered her, moved her a bit, and left.

Now this is a lot different than the official version, and yet the official version, while drifting in fairly minor details, sticks pretty close to a single narrative, and here's an interesting thing...

If we simply go on *where* blood was found, and ignore typing, the blood *locations* match well with the narrative.

For example, according to the narrative, Folger struggled in the LR, closest to the hallway entrance. She was stabbed, some, then ran down the hall and out near the pool, where she was killed. Given this, we'd expect to find a sort of blood trail going from the LR, to the hall, out the door and ending up around Folger. And we do find this.

If Frykowski was supposed to have been stabbed somewhat near the front door, then beaten on the head until he collapsed. and stabbed some more, maybe, then got up and started across the front lawn, was shot, caught and stabbed a lot more, we'd expect a blood trail to start near the front door, go out onto the porch, maybe drip some on the walkaway as he headed down the front lawn, and end up with a pool near his body.

And that's what's there, all right.

shoegazer said...

SPECULATOR PART 4:

Similar analyses could be done with Tate and Sebring and they'd be similar, although these two instances have some interesting open questions.

I agree that it's best to stick with the evidence and build from there. But if this does not fit the crimescene well, without glaring anomalies (no Frykowski blood anywhere except around his body on the front lawn) it's time to re-examine the evidence for reliability,

That's all I'm saying.

Now I'll read the trial testimony of Granado and see if he's a prosecution witness or a defense witness and in either case I'll read what cross-examination brings out. It may clear all this up.

Good discussion, Spec!

Vera Dreiser said...

Trim Gravel-for-brains,
WTF are you talkin bout, Willis?
"I'm at a loss how Linda's lawyer could attempt to stop her from attending a Grand Jury when she wasn't even in the state at the time it happened, nor was she aware that it was happening and therefore was not in line for a surprise appearance. She didn't know Charlie, Susan, Leslie and Tex were in custody or that Pat had run off to Mobile. She came into Gary Fleischmann's orbit regarding the crimes, after the hearing had happened. She turned herself in."
Kasabian arrived in LA on 12/3/69 from New Hampshire in police custody.
The grand jury hearing began 12/5/69. In fact Bob Kasabian was scheduled to testify to the GJ but didn't for reasons that were never explained. But how can you, the big expert on the case, get something so fundamental so wrong?!

tobiasragg said...

I think you're both pretty off-base on this one.

Kasabian couldn't have attended this Grand Jury in the first place, she was being indicted for these crimes along with the others in this hearing.

Vera Dreiser said...

Tobias Rag, she could've been a witness, like Susan, if she wanted and, regardless, I said it was BOB Kasabian who was on the witness list, not Linda. Never question Madame.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Sup Bings? I just had a delicious fish dinner. So good. Crinkle fries are THE frozen fries I think if a place goes with frozen. There's a constancy that reminds me of childhood. Also, did you ever think about the machines that get a tiny amount of ketchup into those little packets? Imagine in we used our minds for good.

tobiasragg said...

Technically, Kasabian could have served as a Grand Jury witness and, according to her she was more than willing to do so. The State was already dealing with Atkins at that point though and according to Bugs at least they weren't particularly interested in doling out deals to other Manson people when they were already having to probably offer something to Atkins.

Speculator said...

Shoegazer - I’m not necessarily saying that Granado didn’t get any of it wrong or even the whole of it! The point I’m making is that it’s too easy to point to inaccuracy and/or
incompetence simply because the mapping doesn’t seem to chime with what the killers have said went down. And I get your point about truth/lies coming from the killers. I’ve made the point before that I think they’ve all lied to some degree in order to omit or gloss over certain parts of the events and their own participation in them. That’s why imho certain bits of evidence and crime scene don’t chime with their accounts. And also why they add and/or omit or change what they say over the years.

shoegazer said...

Spec:

Since this AM I have read all of Granado's testimony. I think he is a relatively strong, qualified witness. It's still possible for there to be an error, but I want to play with the permutations some more. There *may* be an explanation or series of plausible circumstances that permit both *most* of the blood evidence, and most of the narrative told by Atkins, Kasabian, and Watson, over time.

It's like this: the narrative, the one they've more or less repeated since of them admitted involvement, is bad enough to get them the death sentence: this means that they gain nothing by lying. Someone needs to demonstrate convincingly to me why they'd make up this solid, basically unchanging narrative, and stick to it. Nothing that they might have done that yielded the same result (5 dead at Cielo) would have been worse enough to have made any real difference in the sentencing.

Some people here have darkly intimated that they made up the current narrative to cover up something worse--but what might that be? They could have hung Tate, but didn't, really. They could have mutilated the bodies worse than they they did in the processes of killing them, but didn't. They could have targeted the unborn child, but avoided it. What they admitted to doing was no better than what the physical condition of the bodies indicated.

So I see it as almost impossible for three "confessed" participants (Atkins, Kasabian, Watson) and one muddled, confused one (Krenwinkel) to say mostly the same thing so far as in what order the people were killed, when, and by what means. They slide around some on who, exactly did it, but as to the victims of the crime it was pretty much identical in order, location, and means. At one point when Atkins was talking to her attorney, Caballero, she mentioned that Parent was killed first, and Caballera said that he had thought hat he had been last. She firmly asserted that he was indeed first. This tells me that she was basically sticking as close to the events as she could recall, and at that time she was still considering turning state's evidence.

This has gone on for years. I see no likelihood of them being able to maintain a significantly different scenario in terms of order, location, and means over the years, and what's more, in no significant way would it benefit them if it did.

Too, there is another confounding factor: no one person saw the entire rampage completely--they were separated at times and are relating what they saw first hand--and guessed or heard about later.



grimtraveller said...

Vera Dreiser said:

Trim Gravel-for-brains,
WTF are you talkin bout, Willis?....But how can you, the big expert on the case, get something so fundamental so wrong?!


Whoops !
You're absolutely right on that. I was thinking of Chief Davis' announcement to the press about the case being solved.

💩 Naughty grim ! 🤐

D. ~ I humbly apologize.

I could remove my comments, but I think it's best to leave them as a lesson in something or other. 🤐
Why, it may even act as inspiration for Mr Putin to do the same.

grimtraveller said...

Speculator said:

The point I’m making is that it’s too easy to point to inaccuracy and/or incompetence simply because the mapping doesn’t seem to chime with what the killers have said went down

Just out of interest, what do you think the killers have said that is patently false, and why and what do you think it might be covering up, if anything ?
And what do you think has been deliberately omitted from the tales of the perps ? We do have one example that comes to mind ~ Atkins' omission of what happened after her troupe left the LaBiancas. And of course, there's another, Linda's omission of taking out Steve Parent's wallet and looking in it before putting it back {not to mention Tex ordering her to get his wallet}.

shoegazer said:

since I've had access to Peter's trail testimony spreadsheet, is that many important questions that I've had for a long time are answered

Those transcripts are gold dust. Of the bundle I got from LA county, some are missing. I'd love to get my hands on Paul Watkins', Terry Melcher's, Barbara Hoyt's, Stephanie Schram's the 2nd half of Brooks Poston's and Dianne Lake's testimonies and in particular, Pat's penalty phase one, and her interview with Dr Claude Brown of Mobile. There are other testimonies of some of them from other trials that I've read, but from that original trial are the ones I really want, and Bobby's 2nd trial, which you need some kind of court order for.

Speculator said...

Grim - you ask what do I think that the killers omitted or lied about in terms of the events at Cielo. Well for starters, how the towel ended up secured over JS face under the rope around his neck i.e. it didn't just land under the rope miraculously after having been thrown there. What really happened to ST and by whose hand(s). The blood on the porch, attempts to move the bodies after the event, the guest house and Garretson, one or more of their either knowing one or more of the victims and/or having been to Cielo before (other than Watson). Prior knowledge of who was going to be there. Quite a bit really. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all of the above is open to question but I do think that there are a helluva lot of gaps that they could fill in.

tobiasragg said...

I think a lot of the points you raise, Spec, are answered about as completely as they're ever going to be at this point.

-Assuming that the testimony on the towel was an accurate description, the only person who could answer that question (Manson) is dead. Pitman, if she really was the person who accompanied Manson on a return visit to the scene, might be able to fill in this blank, but she has shown no sign of being willing to talk. If Manson's companion was TJ, he too is dead, and the other rumored person, Bruce Davis, seems unlikely to waver from the narrative he's been maintaining for years now, given how close he has come to being paroled.

-I think the ST question has been answered pretty thoroughly. Both Watson and Atkins attest to the same thing, though Susan did deviate from this very early on. I think she explained her motivation for the early-days lie pretty believably, though.

-Blood on the porch? That just is what it is. The record is the record at this point, and the weird dichotomy on this one is that the very people swearing there were large pools of Tate/Sebring blood on the porch are the very ones calling the entire body of blood evidence into question. If one is questioning or denying the validity of the blood evidence as reported, it makes little sense to then rely on that same body of evidence as proof or suggestion of something or other.

-Movement of bodies, again no evidence to support this. We're kind of back to the whole towel question on this one - there is only one person alive who could potentially speak to this, and that person may actually have nothing to speak of (e.g. the re-visit may have never happened). There was the mention in the report of Tate's body having blood smeared on it and looking like it may have been handled in some way - which may or may not align with Atkins' statement that Tate's body looked a lot more cut up when she went back to collect the blood for the door than it had when she left it. Tex supposedly made his rounds of the bodies to deliver a bit of extra stabbing to each, and this may account for some of this. Unlikely that Tex would remember or mention this at this point, though.

-The Krenwinkel/Garretson statements on the guest house matter align quite neatly, though of course Bill did go a bit bonkers and changed his story a lot many years later. I don't think his mental state in latter years really puts a question mark over the matter though.

-As for anyone knowing anyone else prior to these events, there has been a whole lot of talk and big claims on this point, and not a shred of actual evidence that this could be true. There's just nothing there.

Honestly, I think we have gotten all we're going to get from Krenwinkel, Watson, Kasabian & Van Houten at this point. The only area of possible new info really seems to be in those non-incarcerated family members who remain alive. I imagine there is some pretty decent retirement money waiting for at least some of these folks who ever might be motivated to do a book on their experiences back then.

shoegazer said...

Spec:

how the towel ended up secured over JS face under the rope around his neck

This is a legitimate question to resolve an ambiguity, but what would lying about when and under what circumstances they put the towel on Sebring gain them?

I mean this not as a rhetorical question: I am seeking an answer. And I'm asking in all respect. I'm saying that for them to consistently choose to lie about it, they'd do it for a reason. The placement of the towel, in itself, seems odd, but not a major factor in the crime.

What really happened to ST and by whose hand(s).

There is testimony about it, and it's pretty consistent. Again, what do you supposed they'd have to gain from a consistent lie that does not seem to exonerate anyone from conspiracy to commit murder?

The blood on the porch,

If we accept the blood evidence as accurate--and after reading Granado's testimony I am more like to accept it it as valid--it exposes an anomalous scenario. I've been kicking around he idea that the large pool of blood near the northeast edge of the porch, shown with broken bushes and a vertical support beam, corresponds closely to where Kasabian and Atkins both say they say Frykowski falls. This pool was not tested.

The other two blood pools on the porch--the spatter to the left of the door, could be Tate's, all right, and the other pool on the right side is supposed to be Sebring's but seems less likely.

In both cases you have to not only get them back into the house without distributing much blood--and both pools, but especially Tate's--seems to suggest copious blood flow. We should see a pretty significant trail back in.

attempts to move the bodies after the event,

I've so far encountered only mention of Tate's body being moved, and inspecting the photos as best I can, I could see where she could easily have been moved around somewhat while in front of the sofa, and possibly Sebring a bit, too, but noting the major blood pools at these sites, without blood trails to or from, I'm not sure that they we moved very much.

And again: how would a consistent lie about this help them in any significant fashion?


shoegazer said...

Spec:

the guest house and Garretson,

I'm reasonably content that either: a) they never got back there; and/or b) Garretson did not hear them, or maybe he did and just hid out.

one or more of their either knowing one or more of the victims and/or having been to Cielo before (other than Watson).

Has there ever been any credible testimony or narratives that anyone other than Watson and Manson had been there before? If so, can you link it?

Prior knowledge of who was going to be there.

Same as above.

Thanks!

shoegazer said...

Tobias, re the towel:

I think it very unlikely Manson went back, based on the fairly well-attested timeline, and factoring in for Manson to have heard a pretty good description of what happened (from Watson), thought about it just a little, decided to go back up there not knowing if the police were already there, or if they were and you were still up there, being trapped up on the property if they arrived while you were there.

It think that it might be more reasonable to postulate another scenario. I'm not sure, but there may be some narrative that indicated that for just a bit after the crime, everyone except Watson was outside. He then came out, told Atkins to write something, and they left.

While he was inside he may have attempted to stage a more gruesome scene, roping Tate, trying to hang her, failing (she was dead or dying), putting a towel on Sebring and roping him up.

But I'm far from sure, of course.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Perhaps Tex found himself in a Telltale Heart scenario and tucked the towel around Sebring's face because of it. Manson had some giant grapes if he went to that murder scene afterward.

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

"Manson had some giant grapes if he went to that murder scene afterward."

It would be fairly close to being there when the newsdelivery guy came by, I think.

More important: Manson had the knowledge that it had been chaotic, and after talking to Watson he'd likely know there had been screaming and gunshots. Much blood. Five victims. This would be a BIG reason to suppose that it may have been reported, and that police were already there, or might soon be.

There's reason to think that when the killer left, they went all the way up Benedict Canyon to Mulholland to dump clothing, then back down Beverley Glen to dump the gun, then back to Benedict Canyon to Portola to wash off, then down to Sunset, to a gas station to wash off, then back to the ranch, maybe down to 405 then up to Santa Susanna pass. Even if you reverse parts of this (Benedict Canyon to Portola, to Mulholland, to Beverley Glen to Sunset. this still atke a lot of time.It was probably close to 3 AM when they got back to the ranch, and Manson would have to do all the asking, thinking, finding an available car and driver, going back down. The direct drive, alone, would be at least 40 minutes. Say 2o0 minutes for talking, thinking, getting a car and driver, this means they would be up there at 4 AM at earliest--very risky.

Then *why* would he go? The scenario as described by Watson was essentially what Manson had asked for, and so he got it. What's to check? What could he improve? Whatever it might be, was it worth the risk of being the actual guy caught up there, and not the party he had sent?

So we know the wires were cut and the phone lines (two: likely on for the guest house and one for the residence, with a separate communication line (intercom) cut, but not draped over the gate, as per testimony. Each time the gate is opened, it would further befoul the cut wires. So lest's see...

If Kasabian went out to wait in the car, that's one time. When the three killers left, that's two. When Chapman arrived that's four, when she left, five.

If Manson had come, entered, then left, that would be 7 that we know of. I wonder if the wires were all that messed up?

Too, there's testimony that a bell would ring when the gate opens/shuts, and indeed there appears to be a sort of mission bell atop a support pole that accommodates the gate. This may well have rung each time it was opened/closed.

Mason probably did not know about the bell or the wires, but but if he came, there is further complexity due to this factors.



Speculator said...

Tobias - you’re quite right in asserting that the race is essentially run in so far as anything new or value come to light. Other than possible evidence of connections between Manson and/or one or more of the killers and one or more of the victims. There are the Watson tapes too of course that might provide some interesting additional information. In many ways I guess the clarification on some of the anomalies is simply a morbid interest in The Who/why/what of the crimes. The right people were convicted it’s simply the finer details of how they executed the crimes and why in the way they did so.

shoegazer said...

Spec: Yes, agreed, but it's not always morbid (sometimes it is) but more like a full, clear picture, just for the hell of it.

E.g., I've seen picture of the gate button area inside the property. In some photos there appears to be a fairly tall (10-12 ft) pole with a sort of louvered aluminum diffuser. It makes a great deal of sense so that people, when leaving, can see where the button is from insider their car at night.

a) is there such a light fixture, and b) was it on?

That's actually the sort of stuff that interests me most.

Speculator said...

Tobias - if Pitman and/or Davis did go back to Cielo with Manson that scene must be a helluva lot to carry around on your head all these years. You’d think that it would be good therapy for them to get it out there.

Torque said...

Shoe, and if Manson or anyone else decided to return to Cielo post murders, they would most likely not drive the original murder car back up there. Of course we know that car was seen at Weber's house, and that the license plate was recorded by him. All said, there was plenty of heat, so to speak, on that car.

If there was a return(and I very much doubt it), the returnees would arguably need to scrounge a different vehicle. But what was available? Interestingly enough, though, the Cielo murder car was used for the LaBianca's. That particular car arguably would have stood out in both Cielo and Waverly, so a rather gutsy decision to use it one night after Cielo.

Concerning blood apparently smeared on Sharon, I have always considered that Susan may have done that, in some bizzare way, but of course offer nothing on that in the way of proof. Looking at one of Sharon's legs in the crime scene photos, there is an obvious line where blood ends and unbloodied skin begins. To me it would appear that she was pulling her legs up tight toward her abdomen, in an effort to protect her baby, thereby creating this pattern. As I've said before, the sheer volume of blood on the floor beneath Sharon could easily have transferred to other parts of her body as she struggled hysterically with Tex, thereby explaining the smearing.

Speculator said...

Shoe - I’ve always thought that the “why would they carry on lying/what do they gain from it” is flawed and the wrong way of looking at things. They’re proven criminals and proven liars to a greater or lesser degree. So I start from the point of why would they tell the complete truth and what would they gain from telling the complete truth. Particularly when other available evidence doesn’t properly support their stories. I think they all fed off a basic original narrative and have told a changing mixture of truth and lies over the years. That’s just my thoughts and I’m not asking anyone to agree.

Speculator said...

Shoe - I take what you’re saying about the unlikely scenario of Manson visiting the crime scene. Although it is interesting to note that your estimated time of arrival for his visit to the scene I think pretty much matches the times that the kid across the canyon heard the arguing coming from the direction of Cielo

shoegazer said...

Spec:

Yes, there is narrative supporting activity at 4-ish. I'd have to review how credible I think it is. The most credible independent source of activity is by Ireland, from Harvard-Westlake. This doesn't mean that another incident at about 4 is eliminated. But I think we need to eliminate Manson encountering any one alive, and finishing them of at 4 or so. This is because, as I understand it, the time of death of all 5 is fairly consistent. If there was a survivor for an additional 3-4 hours, this would come up in the post-mortem.

Does anyone argue with Manson, do you suppose? Would he take someone along with him who was not committed--if indeed there were many up there at Spahn?

What other cars were available? Did anyone at Spahn ever mention that he left or seemed to leave right after they killers returned? Remember, if Bugliosi could have gotten any evidence of that, his case against Manson would have been infinitely strengthened.

So I think not, without something solid.

Speculator said...

Shoe - I’ve often wondered myself whether it was indeed Watson who created the final crime scene (and thus the anomalies) and has just lied/omitted it from his testimonies. Reading between the lines of the evidence of the other killers there was probably a period of time before they left the scene when Watson could have been alone in the living room and tried to string up ST and hood Sebring. Maybe PK and even Atkins were involved too. They could all be lying.

tobiasragg said...

"While he was inside he may have attempted to stage a more gruesome scene, roping Tate, trying to hang her, failing (she was dead or dying), putting a towel on Sebring and roping him up."

Well, we know this didn't happen because everyone involved has spoken of the two women and (at times) Sebring as having been tied up prior to the major murder effort began. We also have the rope marks & burns on Tate that corroborates this point.

On the towel, Atkins used this to write PIG and she was the last one in the house once all was said and done, so if the towel was truly as "tucked in" as was stated in testimony, that tucking would have to have happened after the killers left the premises.

As for the porch, we have Tex out there directly after having stabbed Sebring and again after stabbing Tate, and we have Atkins handling Tate blood out there, as well.

shoegazer said...

Spec:

"...they could all be lying".

They could, but they're damned consistent about it.

For Watson, the only info about his action I have are from his book, "Will You Die for Me?". This is not of great value, other than it corroborates the basic sequence of the crime.

So far as dodging out on degree of culpability, he says he slashed Tate's face. This is a pretty bad thing to admit, but in fact Tate's face was not slashed by anyone. Folger's face had what I at first thought was a long and gruesome slash, but Naguchi testified that it was in fact a stab wound--implying that rather than an aimed purposeful cut, her attacker was in more of an unfocused frenzy, poking all around with the knife. It kinda skittered up the side of her face. There was a smaller one just below it, on her chin.

I'll re-read Watson material now. My recollection (always suspect!) is that he less fabricated the end of Cielo, but more like he glided over it after admitting to killing Tate--also disfiguring her--which he obviously didn't do.

This is not consistent with someone who is trying to lessen the degree of his involvement, the way I see it.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

Me: "While he was inside he may have attempted to stage a more gruesome scene, roping Tate, trying to hang her, failing (she was dead or dying), putting a towel on Sebring and roping him up."

T: "Well, we know this didn't happen because everyone involved has spoken of the two women and (at times) Sebring as having been tied up prior to the major murder effort began. We also have the rope marks & burns on Tate that corroborates this point."

Yes, there has been this testimony, and it sure could be accurate. So Tate, Folger and Sebring were tied by their necks (Tate's was looped, not tied, we don't know about Folger's but since she got loose it was probably looped, too, and Sebring had a sort of overlaid "knot" which was not truly tied, either.

If Tate had a fairy significant rope burn on her upper left cheek, it looks like this came not from the loops, but from the rope as it went up to the beam, sliding across her face. This could have happened if she was pulled upward from a prone position. It would of course also possible from any position, but more likely to mark if pulled upward from the floor.

Still not sure that Sebring was not re-tied after an attempt to jerk Tate to her feet. If so, it gives time put a towel on his face, then wrap the rope around.

Was any blood evidence taken from the towel?

Do you think Sebring was kicked in the face before or after the towel? Specualtive, I know, but...

"On the towel, Atkins used this to write PIG and she was the last one in the house once all was said and done, so if the towel was truly as "tucked in" as was stated in testimony, that tucking would have to have happened after the killers left the premises."

If it was even the same towel that was on Sebring. Again, there should be O-M on the towel.

"As for the porch, we have Tex out there directly after having stabbed Sebring and again after stabbing Tate, and we have Atkins handling Tate blood out there, as well."

I thought that too, but after really looking closely at the spatter on the left side of the entry (as you go in), this does not appear to be blood dripped secondarily from clothing, but more like a fresh arterial wound. It is not internal bleeding, either.

tobiasragg said...

"What other cars were available? Did anyone at Spahn ever mention that he left or seemed to leave right after they killers returned? Remember, if Bugliosi could have gotten any evidence of that, his case against Manson would have been infinitely strengthened . . . So I think not, without something solid"

We'll never have anything solid on this one, unless the companion is alive and chooses to share, but personally I *do* believe the tale. For me, for something to rise to any point above mere speculation, there has to be multiple sources or bits of evidence that line up with the theory. On this one, there is plenty:

-Three people mentioned hearing that Manson did return to Cielo, though all of them fall firmly into the vague "I heard . . . " territory. One of these people was Tex, the others were two of the girls but for the life of me I can't remember which ones right now.

-Manson's own description of this return was highly detailed and completely unnecessary. Yes, Manson talked a lot of shit, but why make this particular admission to a prison neighbor? Either the neighbor studied the crap out of this case and pulled together details to form a great fictional story or Manson was being straight. Charlie did speak of doing a detailed case of the scene to make certain the police hadn't arrived yet. The other details he provides align with other supporting "evidence" of this notion, some of which I will mention here.

-The vehicle(s) they used to return were dune buggies. This aligns with . . .

-Carlos Gill, the teen whose statements were not used at the trial, as they did not align with the prosecution timeline of these events. Gill woke with a start after having fallen asleep, starts to write to a friend, hears fierce arguing involving males and females, closes his window, and goes back to bed. He has trouble sleeping and notes that much later "the dune buggies were back." Gill estimated this argument as happening at perhaps 3-4 in the morning, but if that were the case the "much later" timing on the dune buggies would have fallen after daybreak. My theory (and it's only that, obviously) is that it was the Parent shots that awoke young Carlos and it was the in-house arguments/fighting between perps and victims, which he described as growing more and more heated over time, that drove him to close his window on one of the hottest nights of the year and return to bed. The dune buggies he mentions were well known by everyone in that neighborhood by this point. Some of the Manson dudes have talked about racing the vehicles around those hills that summer, and there are numerous people living in the area who talked of the hippies in their dune buggies disturbing their suburban peace. "Then the dune buggies were back" aligns pretty well with all of this.

tobiasragg said...

-Watson has spoken multiple times of pushing Parent's car up toward the house after killing the lad, and yet no finger or hand prints were found on the vehicle. Rather, the police report mentions wipe-type marks having been found on the front hood area. Manson's tale to the prison mate included the detail of his using a towel to wipe down the car, based on what Tex had shared with him about that night. I believe Manson indicated that this towel, which he brought with him, was the one he placed "over the head of the man in the room." I do have to wonder, was Tate's blood (or any blood) found on the Sebring towel? If so, Atkin's story is likely the correct one. If not, that could point to the Manson returns notion.

-There is also the bloody heel print found on the sidewalk. Watson was wearing moccasins that night and the girls were barefoot. The heel print could have been left by a police officer the next morning, but according to Bugs, the print (which bore a distinct crack line) was checked against the officers' footwear and these were eliminated. Then again, of course, Bugs was never able to locate a match with any boot found at the various Family locations that were searched, either. Did Manson wear boots on occasion? Davis or JT?

-The entire notion of Manson returning to double-check or verify the work of his "children" is very much in line with his view on Tex. Let's remember that Tex completely fucked up the Lotsapoppa thing and Manson had to fix Tex's mess, according to his POV. We have Manson issuing detailed instructions to Watson and Tex replying at times "I'll never remember all of that . . . " It is easy to imagine Manson feeling as if he really DID need to double-check Tex's "work" given the relative dopiness of the young follower.

I dunno, this is one of the many unknowables but there is enough "there" there that I do find it much more plausible than others do. I must admit that I do find the "oh, he'd never have the balls to go back there" suggestions more than a bit laughable, given who we are talking about here. I mean, this is the guy who lunged at and tried to attack the very judge presiding over his trial - a trial Manson was hoping would save his hide (at the expense of the girls). This is not exactly a logical, clear-headed gentleman we are discussing here.

Torque said...

One should also not forget the autopsy findings on Abigail's neck. She was found to have dark contusions, compatible with the diameter of the rope, on the side of her neck. These were not visible on the autopsy photos, but were described in the autopsy report.

tobiasragg said...

"Still not sure that Sebring was not re-tied after an attempt to jerk Tate to her feet. If so, it gives time put a towel on his face, then wrap the rope around."

Before diving into a response to this, I should note that I type very quickly and my brain often moves even faster than my fingers do. That is to say, I apologize to anyone trying to read these comments who might be afraid of words:) Cause I can use a lot of them.

Shoe, your comment brings up an interesting little point, actually. You may recall a police photograph with a cop or investigator standing in the living room and pointing up to one of the rafters. On the white rafter, one can see a line of blood - which was obviously transferred there by the rope.

The recollection from all of the killers, though, is that the tying preceded the destruction. Tate & Folger at least were tied and the rope pulled taut before any stabbing began. Watson stabbed Folger rather brutally in the midsection as she was bound or looped still, causing her to double over. It was after this she freed herself from the rope and ran. Tate, of course, was stabbed much later.

Everyone who has spoken of these events is quite clear and consistent on the tying of the two women, but no one is at all clear on the Sebring/rope matter. Even in that first book, Watson is saying that "I must have tied the rope around Sebring's neck in there, somewhere, but he is entirely unclear on when this might have happened in the sequence of events - and he admits as much. As for the women, I can't recall any of them ever speaking on this point - can you?

The point I'm driving at, and I'm sure you're way ahead of me here, is this: if the three victims were tied and then killed, how did blood from the rope end up being transferred to the rafter?

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

Is it possible to link to the Manson discussion with the prisonmate?

Can you link to Carlos Gill?

To Tex wearing moccasins?

It would be great to read this stuff, rather than simply hear about it.

tobiasragg said...

"So far as dodging out on degree of culpability, he says he slashed Tate's face. This is a pretty bad thing to admit, but in fact Tate's face was not slashed by anyone."

I have to disagree on this one, despite the testimony cited here.

In the family book on Sharon Tate, her father recalls running his fingers over the side of her dead face when he first encountered her in the coffin. He was marveling over how life-like they made her, he explains, until his fingers encounter a long bump on her cheek. He describes wiping the makeup away from that area and encountering the wound that was there.

The moment I read this, I recalled Tex's admission that he had slashed Tate's face. Before reading this from Paul Tate, I had always figured that Tex was confused and was thinking of Folger when he spoke of slashing Tate's case, but once I encountered the father's description, this connection clicked immediately in my mind.

As for the coroner, he supervised the autopsy - he did not conduct it himself. This means that he double-checked the report compiled by his person. Possibly he compared these notes with what he was seeing on the body before him, or perhaps he was simply reviewing them after the fact.

Let us also remember that these bodies were autopsied in close succession. One after the other after the other. Personally, I believe that there was just so much damage to these people that it would have been easy to overlook or omit a non-fatal laceration like the one possibly on Tate's face. I'd never have thought this until, as I said, I read the recollection from Col. Tate.

tobiasragg said...

"It would be great to read this stuff, rather than simply hear about it."

Agreed! Here ya go . . .

-The Manson prison-mate story comes from a book the guy wrote. I cannot remember the title but someone here will recall it (or I'll look it up later when I have more time). Manson himself disavowed this book once it was released (the guy who wrote it had been paroled), saying it was all bullshit, but that's usually what Manson would say about stuff that wasn't exactly complimentary.

-The Tex footwear detail comes from Tex himself. He mentions this in his first book and he's repeated this since, I guess in parole hearings. You may recall Tex speaking of his "fucked up foot" . . . one of the girls mentions this too, somewhere (sorry-TOO many sources for this shit). Tex was limping around for several days or a week after Tate. The injury happened when he kicked Sebring in the face, he says, which speaks to the severity of the actions that night.

-Carlos Gill is in the police reports from that weekend and it is summarized in the opening of Bug's book. Side note, I have tried a few times to find this guy online just out of curiosity. He was 14 at this time, so he'd be an older dude these days, if he is even still alive. I had zero luck. One CAN check out his address (9955 Beverly Glen Dr.) on Google Maps, though. Mr. & Mrs. Gill must have done quite well for themselves, as this is quite a nice home. There is also a straight line-of-view between his home and the Tate address - they sit at the same elevation with only the narrow Benedict canyon separating them. Were one to be sitting in the Gill front yard that evening, they would have had a very clear view of the four Manson people heading up the incline of Cielo Drive just as Steve Parent was exiting the guesthouse, they'd have heard everything quite clearly and seen the outdoor events of that night. Those canyons are weird - you can literally hear someone across the gap speaking in a conversational way on the telephone clear as day, while other sounds you'd completely miss. It's weird.

shoegazer said...

Let's see:

As to a towel with Tate's bloodtype:

https://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol71.pdf

page 9097 lines 13-20, Granado testifying that he found a towel between Tate and Sebring with type O-M

I don't take this to be the towel over Sebring's head, but perhaps the one Atkins said she threw back into the house after writing pig.

Blood on rafter or beam:

https://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol71.pdf

page 9098 Line 1-5 Granado testifying...

Checked overhead beam, no blood reaction. This was not blood.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

So far as "wounds" such as caused by a sharp instrument on Tate's face, no testimony supports this. And Naguchi did indeed do the Tate autopsy himself, and testifies to it under oath:

https://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol66.pdf

Page 8689, Lines 8-19

He did this one himself, and did not supervise it.

Tobias, I enjoy these discussions, but simply telling me that you've read something in a book or on a site is not the same as reading it myself. You could be erroneous in your understanding, as with the blood on the overhead beam, or whether Naguchi personally did the Tate autopsy. This stuff is literally on the record, under oath, by persons who do not stand to gain by lying, and stand to lose all professional credibility if in error or if lying. They are confronted by Irving Kanarek, and truly aggressive and able defense attorney.

I misremember all the time, it's why I tend to supply links if I'm trying to make a definitive point. All else is speculative hearsay. Interesting, intriguing, but until linked or supported otherwise, it's hearsay.

And the Manson sites are completely filled up with hearsay and innuendo. Let's neither of us contribute to it.

tobiasragg said...

Pardon me, but the photo of the blood on the rafter is everywhere, this is not obscure at all. I belive the photo is even in the HS book, I would have to double check. The info on the rafter blood is in the police report and it is discussed in HS too.

The Tate facial cut is mentioned in Watson's first book and he details this in one of the parole hearing transcipts, which are freely available on cielodrive. The Paul Tate quote on the facial wound comes directly from the family's book, which is also widely available for you to read, should you care to.

In other words. There is nothing specative at all on what I have shared here. You may not belive it, that's fine. But when you have two people independently speaking of the exact same thing (both Watson and Tate), I would call that rather compelling.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

Every thing you mention is contrary to sworn testimony. This would seem to mean that you think that personal recollections from her father--which you've left pretty vague--and from Watson, are of greater weight than sworn testimony that is subject to rigorous cross-examination by the defense' attorney.

If you're referring to this photo, and other close ups...

http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-living-room-02.php

and

http://cielodrive.com/photo-archive/10050-cielo-drive-beam.php

That's what Granado is saying is not blood. Read the link of his testimony, to be sure.

Do you really want to go on record here as saying that this is how you make judgments, Tobias? Why would you want to do this? It's almost self-destructive.

...and still no links, just have to take your word for it.

tobiasragg said...

Show me where in the testimony the coroner states that there was not a wound on Tate's cheek.

I see the perp stating twice that he wounded her there, and I see the victim's father describing that he discovered a wound there and yes, this does make sense to me. Perhaps the coroner overlooked this wound, or perhaps both Watson and Col. Tate were mistaken in what they shared on this point. I am stating what makes sense to me in my own head, you are welcome to do your own math.

As for sources, I provided those for you. Would you like me to actually link you to thes ebooks so that you can buy and read them for yourself? You can read of Carlos in HS, just open to chapter one, lol. You can download the Watson book yourself ... or is your Google broken, perhaps? The same goes for the Tate family book, jeez.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

Me: "So far as "wounds" such as caused by a sharp instrument on Tate's face, no testimony supports this. "

No no wound by a sharp instrument--Naguchi under oath.

https://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol66.pdf

page 8713 Lines 12-26, page 8714 lines 1-26, page 8715 lines 1-24

There.

Now if you want personal credibility you need to supply something like this. If it's from books, you need to realize that books are opinion, unless they've undergone some from of analytic review of content, and even then they're still speculative.

If you cannot or will not recognize the difference between sworn testimony on the legal record and subject to criminal charges for perjury if found to be intentionally false, and open speculation without footnotes, we're done exchanging. You'd be wasting my time with hearsay, and I'd be threatening your beliefs.

tobiasragg said...

"Charlie's tape whirred, “Kill her!” inside my head and I looked at Sadie. But she just sat there holding Sharon, so I reached out and made the first cut across her cheek . . . " -Tex Watson in Will You Die For Me, 1978

"Sharon was in her favorite blue and white dress. The studio artist who had done her makeup and hair created the illusion of sleeping life. I caressed her cheek, tracing a half-inch scar that she had acquired as a six year old . . . Below the scar, I felt a rough edge. When I smudged away the makeup, I uncovered a slash wound that shattered the illusion of her sleeping." -Paul Tate, Restless Souls, 2012

Please fuck off with your lecture bullshit. I am here doing what everyone else does, sharing personal thoughts and connections I make via the things I encounter on this case. I have no "beliefs" - just curiosity and it is fun to compare notes. Fun.

From now on, I'll confine my comments to you to the sworn testimony found on the trial record, for as we all know from this and the OJ case and many others, police & officials never get anything wrong. We shall believe only what we read testified to in court and disregard any and everything else.

I'm not actually as angry as I sound above, more amused than anything. Perhaps you might start gazing at some books rather than dem shoes you gots on your feet. Anyway, you are allowed to be Mister Correct on all things and I shall bow and defer to your correctness forevermore.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

"-The Tex footwear detail comes from Tex himself. He mentions this in his first book and he's repeated this since, I guess in parole hearings."

Tobias, so far as Watson and moccasins, this is what *he* says in "Will You Die for Me?":

We piled into the car, me in the driver's seat with Sadie next to me, Katie and Linda in back, all of us in dark shirts and jeans. I was wearing cowboy boots, but the girls were barefoot.

Link:

https://www.aboundinglove.org/images/bookPDFs/Will_You_Die_For_Mesmall.pdf

PDF file page 71, book page 68.

We're basically done, Tobias. You don't work hard enough.

TabOrFresca said...

Tate cheek abrasion:
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/18447d1213303924-charles-manson-crime-scene-pictures-tateside.jpg

Tate cheek abrasion part 2:
https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/18449d1213303933-charles-manson-crime-scene-pictures-tatefrontal.jpg

Folger facial slash:

https://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/18399d1213303571-charles-manson-crime-scene-pictures-folger.jpg

shoegazer said...

TorF:

Thanks!

TabOrFresca said...

Check out the Steven Weiss interview from 2018. No reward received, didn’t watch Dragnet, wasn’t trying to not get fingerprints on the gun.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=ODe4VtYBXzA&feature=emb_title

tobiasragg said...

Thank you, Tab.

And yes - I have always loved that Weiss meeting! So weird to think of that little boy pic of him while watching this middle-aged man speak of that time. I was also a bit amused to learn that the actors who played him & the father were actually neighbors.

Scott Michael is an awesome source and very generous with his knowledge and stories. I get it, but it's too bad he has pulled back from the touring biz as he has.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

Show me where in the testimony the coroner states that there was not a wound on Tate's cheek

We had this debate a few weeks ago on the "Will you die imprisoned" thread.
The coroner doesn't say there was no wound on Sharon's cheek. As far as I'm aware, no one is or has been saying that. I certainly haven't been. What I have been saying is that there was no knife wound. I don't really care what Col Paul said in the 'Restless souls' book. I certainly am highly dubious about some of the stuff in "Will you die for me" ~ and you ought to be too, rather than put as much trust in what Watson says, as you do. For example, he says that Sadie rode up in front with him, even though she had said to the Grand Jury:

Q:As you left the ranch that night did Charlie Manson see you off?

A:Oh, I just remember sitting in the back seat of the car and waving goodbye.

and it has been established right from the start that it was Linda that was in front.
He said there were 3 reasons the Cielo murders happened, one of which was to get $600 bail money for Mary {he doesn't mention Sandy}, which could not have been known at the time, given that she was arrested on a Friday and court wasn't going to sit until Monday. Also, glance at the time Mary is booked on her mugshot on Cielo.Drive.com ~ that whole story is a crock. But he tells it. He states he drove the car down the hill after cutting the wires, yet now, he's telling the story that it was Linda.....Like with Susan's books, most of his first book is unreliable, almost to the extreme ~ and unsurprisingly, this is what we find in relation to slashing a woman's face, something he says he did "over and over..."
Twice is not over and over.
But 5 times could constitute that. And that's exactly what we find in regards to Abigail Folger.
Watson has consistently shown since 1970 that his recall of details is almost non-existent. he takes already printed details from all kinds of sources ~ which is why he gets called out so frequently. He can't remember where he's got things from, which is accurate, which is a lie. He even did that in his trial, repeating stuff he's 'heard' but not known for sure. Stuff that wasn't true. Even Bugliosi called him out at trial.
Furthermore, as I said back then, if you've ever had rope burn, you could easily have a sharp and jagged wound. I used to work with rope and you could do all kinds of damage with it ~ and I don't just mean strangling or hanging. You could whip someone to death with rope, knock an eye out, choke someone by stuffing it down the throat, you could lacerate them and leave very ugly wounds with it. And yeah, I would trust a coroner that had done 4000 {not 40, 4000 !} autopsies and overseen a further 4000, to know what they are talking about if they said a particular abrasion was consistent with a kind of rope burn. Whether I would if I hadn't seen what rope can do, I can't say. But having seen it and felt it, I can. A coroner in a murder case will see many gunshot wounds and knife slashes. They won't miss something so, to use a Vera~ism, fundamental.
If I was a betting man, the odds are stacked against Watson on this one and I would not be laying any money on him !

tobiasragg said...

"What I have been saying is that there was no knife wound."

It is not Tex alone - or Col Tate alone - that I base my belief on. It is the conjunction of those two statements taken together that makes this point ring true to me. They both describe the same thing from different points of view, and this makes for a compelling bit of verification if one is, say, a non-fiction writer who seeks to verify the things they choose to include in their work before publishing.

To this I add photos, such as the ones shared by Tab above. That facial wound on Tate's cheek is not consistent with what you are suggesting, at least not to me. Have you ever seen the rope in question? I belive it has been on display at least twice, but I saw it in Vegas during a public law enforcement exhibition that included a few Manson-related items. This rope was extremely soft - I believe it was woven of nylon or a similar material. This doesn't seem to be the type of rope that would leave deep burns or abrasions like the one depicted in the Tate photos.

Further, the killers indicated that the female victims had this rope looped around their necks and then the rope was tossed over the rafter overhead & pulled until the women had to stand nearly tip-toed to avoid being strangled. One can imagine the rope rubbing against a cheek, given this description, but a resulting wound or burn would be caused vertically, because the taut rope is positioned vertically as it held its load from above. Tate's wound is horizontal across her cheek. Not consistent with this theory.

I generally place my faith in the practitioners in matters like these, and on this case I place an abundance of faith on the prosecution side of things. But everyone involved in this thing is a human being, and all human beings make mistakes. Disregard him as you care to, but I can see no reason for Paul Tate to have included the detail on this wound discovery in his private writings, which is where this published quote was pulled from.

As you suggest, I tend to take Watson with several grains of salt. And I did not belive this detail when I first read it in the "Die For Me" book. I thought he was thinking of slashing Folger and applued this memory to Tate as he dictated the tale that informed this book. But then, much later, I read the Tate family book and this Paul quote jumped out at me. "Holy shit, maybe Watson wasn't wrong" I thought, and the next morning I pulled up the pics and reread various things on the matter and I came to the conclusion that the coroner was just wrong on this point, which let's face it, is a relatively minor point considering the massive damage done to these people.

It is perfectly fine if you disagree, such disagreements are part of what makes blogs like this so fun. I would suggest that everything taken together as mentioned above is a bit more compelling than a brief exchange in a courtroom.

tobiasragg said...

P.S. apologies for the various type-os above, I was typing this from my phone. Hopefully it still makes sense.

tobiasragg said...

Hey, btw grim, the Bobby B parole transcript has released.

shoegazer said...

While on the topic of personalities, I believe that Beausoliel was philosophically closest to Manson. Both were notably amoral and narcissistic, it appears to me.

They both could charm people; they had started early in life. And they were successful at it so frequently, and so early on, that their biggest weakness is that they have trouble recognizing when they've been seen thru. In a way, they can't believe it...

So they carry on the BS well past the effective stage, sometimes.

What they seem to think is that I'll fabricate something that will benefit me, put it our there, and if they buy it, great. If they don't I've lost nothing, and I'll just keep going, see what turns up.

The best way to cure this is to apply B. F. Skinner's principles of behavior modification: immediately after they utter an untruth, apply a strong negative stimulus, like a kick in the balls, without warning.

Over time, and correlated with level of intelligence, the unwanted behavior would tend to go "extinct" (Skinner's term).

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

It is not Tex alone - or Col Tate alone - that I base my belief on

I didn't think you would.

It is the conjunction of those two statements taken together that makes this point ring true to me. They both describe the same thing from different points of view

Well, that's debatable. You see, if Watson is conflating what he did to Abigail, then he isn't describing the same thing as Col Tate. It is very interesting that Susan doesn't say anything about him slashing her face. When asked where Tex stabbed her, both to Caballero and the GJ, she says the heart area.

To this I add photos, such as the ones shared by Tab above. That facial wound on Tate's cheek is not consistent with what you are suggesting, at least not to me

The problem with the photos Tab shared is that they are both very poor pictures, if one is looking for real detail. It's virtually impossible to determine exactly what is what in anything other than a basic, distanced way {no offence Tab ~ that's entirely to do with
factors beyond anyone's control}.
There was a blown up colour photo that I once linked to, back in 2018, of Sharon on the mortuary slab. It was by far the clearest photo I'd seen; in fact that site had a few really clear ones. It's no longer up, but believe me, it showed her face clearly, and it was a really good size. One had the opportunity to really examine her cheek and that wound was not a knife slash. The way it is described in the actual autopsy itself, on 10th August or thereabouts, is consistent with bruising rather than stabbing or slashing. I'd never noticed that before because I'd never looked into what some of the medical terms meant.
The wound looks worse in the photos, because Sharon was laying on her left side and therefore, any blood was coming down from right to left {for example, out of her mouth} and collected and eventually dried/congealed on the left side of her face {or at least, any that went to the face}. That's what we see. It never comes across clearly in b&w or in small pictures that are in colour.
I also have to say, it's pretty difficult to mistake some kind of rope burn or bruising for a stab wound. Every knife wound on Sharon was obvious and identified. they were unmistakable. The face one was not. And it was never mistaken for a knife wound, even mistakenly.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

Have you ever seen the rope in question?..This rope was extremely soft...This doesn't seem to be the type of rope that would leave deep burns or abrasions like the one depicted in the Tate photos

The consistency of the rope doesn't really matter, if a weighty person has been suspended by it and it's made marks. And Sharon was weighty. She was pregnant weighty.
Not to put too fine a point on it, kids' skipping rope is pretty soft and if it passes through your hands fast enough {eg, if you slide down it fast}, it will leave a wound {and a pretty jagged one, at that} that can leave one howling like a wolf, because of the pain.

Further, the killers indicated that the female victims had this rope looped around their necks and then the rope was tossed over the rafter overhead & pulled until the women had to stand nearly tip-toed to avoid being strangled

Yeah, but that was early on in the proceedings. If Sharon was hung, even if only for a short while, it was later on, not at the point where they had to stand up.

One can imagine the rope rubbing against a cheek, given this description

Watson wasn't Randy Starr, experienced in fake hangings. As far as we know, he'd not hung someone before. And with the awkwardness of weight, rope could rub anywhere.

but a resulting wound or burn would be caused vertically, because the taut rope is positioned vertically as it held its load from above. Tate's wound is horizontal across her cheek

If you've ever tried to steady something like a pulley with rope, you might notice that the rope goes in all directions, especially when there is something heavy on it. When I worked on adventure playgrounds and we used to have to get a telegraph pole up, I was often surprised by how straightforward it wasn't. We weren't experienced rope hands !

Hey, btw grim, the Bobby B parole transcript has released

Ah, thanks for that. I'm curious as to what went wrong for him this time. I agree with what Shoegazer said a couple of posts ago.

Speculator said...

Grim - you point to Atkins saying that Watson stabbed to the heart area when you discount the possible slash to ST face. Don’t forget however that she also said that when she went back in to dip the towel in blood that ST appeared “a lot more cut up than when I’d seen her earlier” or words to that effect. That could point to her seeing a slash wound on the face of ST.

shoegazer said...

Spec:

In all due respect, if you think that Tate's face was slashed, you are effectively saying that Noguchi, a respected professional with excellent credentials (try to separate any opinions of his personality, and limit it to his professional capabilities) was committing perjury, or that he was unable to differentiate between a rope burn and a knife cut.

Are you really saying this?

What possibly could he gain by this? What would he stand to lose if he was found to be lying, or grossly incompetent?

Remember: no one is saying that there are no marks or wounds to Tate's face. They are simply saying that the wounds are not consistent with a sharp instrument.

For those who see Bugliosi as a high-level manipulator of fact, would he gain anything by encouraging Noguchi to lie on the stand, implying that instead of cutting Tate twice on the face before killing her, that didn't happen: he tried to hang her?

I see either as equally damning before a jury, and since there's nothing to be gained by either Noguchi or Bugliosi by bending the facts, and everything to lose if they hand Kanarek (an extremely aggressive and intelligent defense attorney) tools to use to impeach Noguchi's testimony, it seems very unlikely, to say the least.

So far as Tate being a lot more cut up, I've noted that nowhere does Atkins mention stabbing Tate, anywhere, and mentions only Watson stabbing Tate in the front, only. Yet she was stabbed in the back area 8 times, according to the autopsy report.

I postulate that either: a) Atkins stabbed Tate in the back while Tate was trying to run out the front door (accounting for O-MN at the doorway); or b) Watson came back and stabbed Tate in the back a number of times after he had stabbed her in the chest and she lay dying, and after Atkins left the room, but before she came back it to get blood to write on the front door.

This is of course quite speculative.

tobiasragg said...

"Noguchi, a respected professional with excellent credentials (try to separate any opinions of his personality, and limit it to his professional capabilities) was committing perjury, or that he was unable to differentiate between a rope burn and a knife cut."

Not really looking to reignite this one, but is it so impossible that the dude just made a mistake? This guy was as human as every other human is, and all humans make mistakes.

Watson was quite consistent with his damage-doing:

-Kicked Sebring in the face
-Kicked Frykowski in the face
-Slashed Folger in the face
-Shot Parent in the face
-Slashed Tate in the face (per him)

With the LaBiancas? He covered the faces, presumably so that he wouldn't have to look at them as he ended their lives.

The dude obviously had a thing for delivering facial damage, and Sharon Tate's father spoke of discovering a gash on her face.

Different people believe different things, and that's perfectly fine. Especially on something as minor as this. But the notion that he did, in fact, deliver a cut to the woman's cheek seems entirely possible, if not even probable.

P.S. For a good while, Atkins claimed to have killed Tate, remember. It wasn't until the parole hearings kicked in that she changed her tune and said that she actually didn't. I do believe that Tex did the stabbing on this victim, but Atkins has been anything but consistent on this (and many other) points.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I think he slashed her face.

shoegazer said...

For those who think Watson slashed Tate's face, although Noguchi testified under oath that it was a rope burn, let me ask (again, all due respect--I'm not going to get snotty, like before), if it was an error, what else might be in error in his testimony? I mean, do we have any reason to accept anything else he said as definitive?

I'm assuming you've read his testimony. It is very strong and certain. More so than Granado, for example, whose testimony I now accept for my current default scenario--which has holes in it for me to try to resolve in some reasonable fashion.

Also, if I recall, going by Watson narrative in Will You Die for Me?, he says this:

Finally I stood up and went back inside with Katie. Sadie was sitting next to Sharon on the couch as the pathetic blond woman sobbed, begging us to take her with us and let her have her baby before we killed her. It was the first time I'd
realized she was pregnant, and for a moment it almost seemed like a good idea. But then Katie hissed, “Kill her!” and Charlie's tape whirred, “Kill her!” inside my
head and I looked at Sadie. But she just sat there holding Sharon, so I reached out and made the first cut across her cheek.


As told, this is the very first wound he delivered, and as he tells it, Atkins and Krenwinkel are both right there. Atkins has never mentioned this to either her first attorneys, nor at the GJ. I don't know if she ever addressed this in later books or narratives.

Why would she not mention this?

I'm not sure how much Krenwinkel has ever said, but she's never mentioned it before either, so far as I know.

I don't care if you don't agree, but I would like you to give my points some level of consideration. No need to mention anything here, of course.

tobiasragg said...

"if it was an error, what else might be in error in his testimony?"

Who knows? But I don't think it has to be all correct or all incorrect, nothing is ever that black and white. Having a strong and certain demeanor on the stand is not the same thing as being correct, after all, and a person can be mostly right and definitely credible while still making a mistake.

I dunno what the real truth of the matter is and neither does anyone else. In the overall scheme of things, this is a rather small point. I have always thought, though, that when faced with so much, such massive damage it can be easy to overlook or misinterpret one relatively minor wound.

"Atkins and Krenwinkel are both right there. Atkins has never mentioned this "

Sure, but neither does either woman mention the third stab wound Watson delivered to Tate, or the 14th. Frykowski was shot at least once and this often goes unmentioned completely. Even Watson cannot quite remember when that happened. Again, in the face of such massive damage it can be very easy to leave any particular element unmentioned - and unremembered.

There is no right or wrong here, as the thing is unprovable. All one can rely on really is common sense - and that can differ from person to person.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

So then it's OK for me to ignore Granado's blood analysis and testimony so that I can say that neither Tate nor Sebring were ever out of the house?

I'd like to. I would make it a lot easier...

;^)

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

Again, I feel like you are insisting on taking an all-or-nothing approach to some of this stuff, when reality tends to demonstrate that everything is really shades of grey.

I think anyone can ignore or believe whatever suits them, obviously, but the reality is very likely that Granado got many things correct and some things incorrect. I believe the same is probably true of the Coroner, too. He seems to have gotten most things correct but probably not all things.

But we may be talking about two entirely different things when we speak of the state of Tate's face. Just killing a bit of time before bed, I did some poking around and ran across this quote from an LA Times piece on the whole thing:

"Stephen Kay runs one hand slowly down his cheek, describing the mark a thick rope scraped along actress Sharon Tate’s face. The rope was tied around her neck and looped over a living room beam in her rented Benedict Canyon home."

This makes sense to me. If the woman were hanged, the rope would be positioned vertically, of course, running from her neck to the beam, and it would make sense that the resulting burn runs down her cheek, rather than across.

The visible wound featured in the photos Tab posted here a week or so ago is horizontal across Tate's cheek. Someone here - could have been you or green or someone else, I can't remember - was stating how it could be possible that this rope burn could have happened horizontally, but as Kay indicates in his quote, the burn ran down her cheek, not across.

A horizontal cut across Tate's cheek is consistent with the picture painted by those involved - Tate sat on the floor with Atkins behind her keeping the arms restrained while Watson attacked from the front.

Paul Tate's quote about exploring Sharon's face on her funeral day is consistent with what I describe above. In the family book on her, Tate describes running his fingers across her cheek to find the scar from a childhood accent that lay there. Sharon was quite proud of not having this facial blemish corrected; the scar can be seen in this photo of her, it is on her left cheek:

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/haunting-memories-of-helter-skelter-ring-of-death-26801439.html

The senior Tate then says "Below the scar, I felt a rough edge. When I smudged away the makeup, I uncovered a slash wound . . . "

The photos that Tab posted display what looks very much like "a slash wound" running across Tate's cheek, below where the childhood scar would have been. It can also be seen in the more easily-discovered pics of Tate's face in the autopsy photos, though many of these were taken before the blood was washed away.

Given all of this, what I think we may really be exploring here is a notable rope burn running up Tate's cheek and a knife wound running across it - a wound not incredibly deep like Folger's wound, but significant enough that the father discovered it with his fingertips a few days later.

tobiasragg said...

I meant to add one other fact to the above post, which is to say that the autopsy diagram detailing all of Tate's wounds indicates nothing about the head area, other than that lividity has occurred there. Otherwise, nothing at all is noted in the diagram involving her face - no slash, no rope burn or wound. Interesting.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

I meant to add one other fact to the above post, which is to say that the autopsy diagram detailing all of Tate's wounds indicates nothing about the head area, other than that lividity has occurred there. Otherwise, nothing at all is noted in the diagram involving her face - no slash, no rope burn or wound. Interesting.

Tobias, please be real careful when saying things like that. I like and respect you, but if you make an outright direct claim like the one above that is contrary to hard fact, if I let it go, it means I agree with you, and I can sure let speculate slide, but not errors in fact. This is just something I cannot do; it runs deeply against how I construct my worldview--the one I have to live in, and while I cut exceptions for my daughter when she was in pre-school, I don't do that with any functional adult, or myself, for that matter.

About two years ago I bookmarked all five Cielo autopsy reports. I've got Tate's open now, in front of me.

http://www.autopsyfiles.org/reports/Celebs/tate,%20sharon_report.pdf

I urge you to read it all, if you want, but look at page 12 of 13.

Again, I agree that speculation, even nearly baseless speculation, is fine here--although I personally find it unappealing unless it's fairly firmly based in verifiable fact. But if you want to refer to factual evidence that's available to all, please check it first. You can burn a whole lot of personal credibility if you don't, which tends to erode any speculations you may ennunciate in the future.

tobiasragg said...

Oh calm down, lol.

I was referring to the full-body diagram, which I'd pulled up as I was typing the above. But you are right, there was also a head diagram with some markups done. Thank you for sharing that. Two injuries are noted there, with notes about their length scribbled to the side. This is not inconsistent with what I describe above though: two different wounds on Tate's cheek.

For me, the totality of the information on this small matter points to a reasonable conclusion that Watson delivered a knife wound to the face of this victim. Others may assemble things differently though, and that's completely fine.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

It's probably a good thing that you don't have to appear before parole review boards, then... ;^)

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

"It's probably a good thing that you don't have to appear before parole review boards, then... ;^)"

Oh my gosh, how right you are!

I am responding to this because the latest Bobby Beausoleil parole transcript released last week and is posted over on the cielodrive site. Green & I were just chatting about this offline, this current Calif parole board iteration is tough as nails and that hearing was absolutely brutal. The bulk of the hearing involves this rather contentious bickering back and forth, one can almost see the Commissioner's pen tapping impatiently against the table as Beausoleil - and his rather confrontational lawyer - drone on and on.

In 2019, Beausoleil was granted parole but the Governor ultimately reversed the result. This time around? He didn't even get that far.

Definitely worth the read.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

Read it and commented yesterday. Thanks for the pointer, anyway!

I was interested to read the hearing, and came away thinking that hearings like that one are probably a part of the punishment... ;^)

ASIDE...

There is archival footage of the "trial" that Hitler's attempted assassins were subjected to. The hearing seemed to me like an understated version of that. It's like they are having their collective ass kicked by Kafka's indifferent, somewhat malevolent bureaucracy.

Let me make it clear where I stand on this. I think that the case can be made that all could be released, and very probably would have been if they didn't have the Manson connection in the popular consciousness. In this regard they're being treated unfairly--if you believe in "fairness". I do, but with caveats.

But I also think that the legitimate, lawful intent was to have put them to death.

So we've got a sort of public policy conflict:

1. Treat them consistently under the rules of parole grants (and the original intent was that they would never have appeared before a board, many of them) and let the man in the street--such as he is, a lot like Homer Simpson, at best--vaguely think that what the Manson killers did more than 50 years ago was not so bad, after all; or

2) To hell with the actual parole procedures; use the convicted as an example of a 20th/21st C drawing and quartering.

Ugly as it sounds, the latter has the greater social value at this point in time.

Life is very fun to consider on an intellectual level--with all its odd contextual nuances, huh?

Chris B said...

She pled guilty to Hinman and waived trial and went straight to verdict. Life.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Wow Chris B in the house! Old school week up in here.

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said...

the legitimate, lawful intent was to have put them to death

The same applies to the two women that were on the lady version of death row when Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten were first sentenced.
Within 10 years, both were paroled.