Friday, March 4, 2022

Bobby Beausoliel Parole Hearing - 28 Jan 2022

Almighty cielodrive.com carries the Manson research scene through another winter. We are lucky readers. Buy that man a cup of coffee if you can. 

*Thanks to Tobias for sending this along. 

108 comments:

G. Greene-Whyte said...

20th trip before the board.

Jay said...

He ain’t never getting out, but I guess the occasional walk to the other side of the prison once every couple of years might alleviate boredom.
The Hinman murder has no where near the mainstream notoriety of the Tate murders, even though it was the beginning. Wonder what is keeping him in?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Familiar beginnings...


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I thought it was on a separate email, let me look.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, it was sent a separate email.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yeah, I definitely didn't get anything that was in a separate email.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Um, your, uh, your system might have blocked it because it might've thought it was spam.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Look in spam.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Jay - He did tell them to pray he never gets out.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tell it to the papers, pal...

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Then with that, we're going to move on. Um, sir, we're not here to reconsider the findings of the court. We're not here to try the case, the Panel accepts as true the findings of the court. We will incorporate the facts from the numerous past transcripts, the appellate decision, and the probation office report as a starting point, prior criminality is in the probation officer's report, as well as the RAP sheet and the ERMS database. Our expectation is that all person’s present will be polite and courteous during the hearing. We have reviewed your prior transcript, Electronic Central File, WatchDox file, and Comprehensive Risk Assessment. You're encouraged to correct modify, add to, or clarify the record as we go through the hearing today. Panel has also reviewed the confidential portion of the Central File. We will advise if we rely on any confidential information in coming to our decision today. Um, any questions before we move forward, Mr. Beausoleil?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Cassady and Taylor are no joke...


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Are you making your closing now?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, I'm sorry, Commissioner. I'll revert that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You know you are.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Well, I apologize.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Honey, what should we name her?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Let me clarify that, the reason why I don't know what's true or not, but I know several years ago in an article online, uh, Kmart Lee, uh, said that, uh, Gary Hinman sister was supposedly still alive.

Jay said...

Yes, that’s right. Reminds me of Manson’s ‘ if I started killing people for real, there’d be no one left alive’ comment. Probably not going to help you with the board.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Holy cow! Bobby talking about Buddhism might not be the best approach.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Doomed as doom does...


ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You, do you believe that your practice of Buddhism now create something of a spiritual bridge to, between you and the man whose life you, you wrongfully took?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Absolutely. Yes, yes, it does.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Can we move this long, I'm not sure the relevancy of his religion. And, and I don't know how that qualifies as clarification for you, but we're well past 10 minutes. So, if you were really trying to keep it at 10 minutes, you didn't succeed. So, can we move this along?

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Um, I will do my best, um—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: This is not really relevant to our finding a suitability so far. I mean, we're not presenting anything new.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Bobby's health...

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Yeah, well, you know, I have one lung, so, I pretty much my smoking days are over. Um, so, um, I will participate in programs probably more because I get benefit from interacting with people who are involved in them then, because I'm required to, by conditions of my parole, I will follow the conditions of my parole. I will also participate in programs because I want to help. And I want to, to, to be part of that, um, helpful process that people are engaging in, uh, to be better people.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Okay. And you mentioned this a second ago, this is the last (inaudible) of questioning. Um, this last year you were diagnosed with cancer. Uh, what were, what, what went through your mind when you realized you were diagnosed with cancer as it relates to your personal development, growth, and your history, and your life history?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: May I get an opportunity to make a statement as well?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No. You already made one.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: No, I did not (inaudible) one.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: I have not. No, I didn't speak nearly as long as Mr. DiMaria did, I deserve—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. We are gonna go into deliberations. The time is approximately—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: This is due process (inaudible), I deserve the opportunity to make a statement.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Sir, (inaudible) speak last and they have spoken, and we are now going—

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: You have not given me the opportunity to make a, I have an organized statement that I need to make. I have a due process right, or my client's a due process right to have as an Attorney make a statement.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You spoke for over 40 minutes—

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Campbell gets his ten minutes...

And the parole Board has repeatedly acknowledged that Mr. Beausoleil was not responsible for those subsequent murders, and it should not be attributed to him. It would be equivalent to saying that every, every Crip who comes before the parole Board is responsible for the subsequent crimes the Crips commit.

That's not the way the law works.

So, what we're here to do today is decide whether Mr. Beausoleil, as he sits before us today, a 74-year-old man is currently dangerous. And I am absolutely positive that he is not, he has not been dangerous, when he first got the prison, 1969 to, to, you know, through the early to mid-70s, he was a dangerous man. I wouldn't have wanted to know him. I wasn't even alive then.

I'm 44 years old now. That's how long he's been in custody. My mother was 11 years old at the time that he went into custody. We're talking generations now. And you know, for the last, uh, the last, um, several years we've had these hearings, I've been working with Mr. Beausoleil, you know, about 10 years. And just this last year, when he was diagnosed with cancer, it finally really dawned on me help you with these there may be left. And what in the time that Mr. Beausoleil has left to be in the world, at least one more time. He is not a dangerous man.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

VICTIM’S COUSIN MARTLEY: All right. I really appreciate it. Cause you, I think have done an excellent job. So, uh, on August 6th, Bobby Beausoleil was arrested. On August 9th. The Tate murders were committed. The only reason he wasn't part of the Manson groups was because he was locked up. So, he's a psychopath, psychopaths don’t change. Okay. Why does he need a website? Why does he need a trust fund? Art and music has always been an issue here. Uh, I fail to understand why he has to have a website. Why has he have to have a business, and nobody is watching after that and I'm depending on the California system to do it for me. Thank you.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

VICTIM’S FAMILY REPRESENTATIVE TATE:

Yes. I'm going back to the papers stacked in front of me, which it, which is brought us here now that there is a serious violation that constitutes a ground to deny parole as one, he continues to deny it's a violation Counsel and Mr. Beausoleil demonstrated that again today. Two minimization and lacks insight into the crime. Also demonstrated again, in my opinion here today, as well as the 2020, uh, uh, hearing, um, and three, his lack of remorse or making money off the victim's families as, as misery of which our misery is astonishing. This, this failure to follow rules in prison demonstrates he has a current and reasonable risk to safety if he can't follow these straightforward rules in prison, how can he be trusted to follow the rules in a free society? Bobby Beausoleil’s latest violation RVR dated June 30th, 2020, log number 70120494, unauthorized business dealings in violation of section 3024.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Presiding Commissioner Cassady:

The Panel concluded that the aggravating factors do continue to outweigh the mitigating factors at this time, and concluding that the inmate is not suitable for parole and does pose an unreasonable current risk of danger if released. Sir, in considering the entire record, the Panel determined there is a rational nexus between the evidence and the ultimate determination of current dangerousness. This wasn't a particularly easy decision for this Panel. There are a lot of things to be taken into consideration. The primary consideration of course, is the recent 115, um, and your medical conditions. So, we had to balance and we had to weigh and it just weighs, um, for us that the continued negative behavior outweighs, um, the positive behavior of which you have quite a bit.

And...

And the 115 was for financial gain, as well as the commitment offense. And even though you may not be selling for profit now, um, this Panel believes that you're still generating revenue. And certainly, the exposure on your website is of commercial benefit to you. Any type of exposure of that kind is of benefit. So, we're concerned that the same motivation that financial gain that you were robbing Mr. Hinman for is still, um, part of your personality and part of what you motivated, motivates you to act.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Deputy Commissioner Taylor:

But the main problem is the criminal thinking kind of rules violation. Uh, so, just going forward, um, perhaps you could, uh, obey the rules within the institution and, um, things will work out better for you.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

See you in three years...

All three-year denials are reviewed in an administrative review process, you're hearing maybe advanced during that process. You can also request an earlier hearing than the denial period we issued today provided there's been a change of circumstance or new information that establishes a reasonable likelihood that you don't need additional incarceration.

shoegazer said...

I just finished reading the hearing.

Beausoliel is quite polished, isn't he?

D. said...

Debra Tate and Sebring's opportunist coat-tail riding actor Nephew shouldn't be allowed to attend or have any say in his or Davis' hearings.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I get the feeling the nephew is the source of the Bobby-is-still-making-money news.

shoegazer said...

It's interesting to consider how lawful social sanction works, what its purpose is. I think it ideally does the following:

1) Removes the administration of "justice" (this is often synonymous with "revenge" to the injured parties, and a feeling of proper social closure for the rest of the society) from those directly affected and turns it over to a disinterested and objective 3rd party. Effectively, it gives the justice system a monopoly on revenge.

2) Removes the convicted offender from the opportunity to commit additional sanctioned actions or prohibited behaviors in the open society.

3) Related to #2, reduce reproduction to lessen genetic or cultural tendencies toward sanctioned behavior to potential off-spring.

4) Provide a clear and unequivocal message to the remainder of society that the specific behavior or acts practiced by the convicted are repugnant and unacceptable to lawful society, by common agreement, under law.

5) Related to #4, make the convicted an unambiguous, concrete example of the treatment to be expected if an individual flaunts the law.

To my mind, #5 is by far the most valuable to an ordered society: simply put, it's deterrence. And I think that Manson/LaBianca/Hinman convicts serve a very useful purpose by remaining in prison. It is one of the few unambiguous examples of #5 in a society that no longer has the will to ask much in the way of personal accountability of its individual members. Society lacks the stomach to punish. Their continuing incarceration shows that potential lawbreakers cannot rely on mercy--it's a distinct possibility.

It's one of the few clear reminders that yep, you can get your ass in the wringer for wrong-doing. This is of great long-term benefit to the society, in my opinion. Like Madoff; like Weinstein.

Let the firestorm begin... :^)

G. Greene-Whyte said...

One thing going thru my mind while reading the transcripts is the Commish and Deputy Commish positions are filled by fresh new pit bulls every three years while the convicts keep getting older and older.

Commish Cassady says public opinion does indeed matter. But is all public opinion represented at the hearings? Was Werner Herzog invited?

DID ANYONE INVITE GREENWHITE?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Cassady and Taylor ain't there to clown around. I'm happy I'm not under their thumbs.

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

I agree that the commissioners appear to have made the decision well in advance. It's a sort of kangaroo court when compared to a criminal trial, really, but to a large degree Beausoliel is fortunate, in a historical sense, to even have access to a hearing at this stage. In many/most previous eras, he'd be dead already.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

They seem mega po'd at him. Bobby put himself in there and made bad decisions once inside, not that he was ever getting out anyway, but the pace of that hearing bordered on frantic. Kangaroo court indeed.

One issue with keeping a 74 year old man with one lung imprisoned is it doesn't deter crime. Moreover, and not to do the broken record thing, but others have gone home after doing worse.

My brain would rest better if there was some standard everyone was held to across the board.

grimtraveller said...

D. said:

Debra Tate and Sebring's opportunist coat-tail riding actor Nephew shouldn't be allowed to attend or have any say in his or Davis' hearings

I wouldn't say they shouldn't be allowed to attend, if actual family members want their support {Kay Martley isn't exactly a spritely young woman}, but I think it is insane that they should be allowed to say whatever they like, whether it is true or not. I don't know what this Marsy's law is, that the commissioner kept justifying their blather with, but it's getting close to putting some of these family members and reps/supports, on the same level as those they go along to oppose. Debra, Kay and Anthony all came across as shrill and ranting and even I, who have basically no sympathy for Bobby Beausoleil, and who thinks he's long been his own worst enemy, was clenching my toes on his behalf while reading through the transcript. It seemed that minds were made up before the hearing even convened and throughout, there were things said by the commissioner and the deputy that almost defy belief. It made Mr Anderson's 2010 display of bias seem like a well balanced example of the scales of justice being blind !
Today on the news, it was reported that the Russian state has made it an offence, in effect, to say anything negative about their current actions in Ukraine. Well, Bobby's hearing felt uncomfortably close to the kind of thinking that underpins such lawmaking.
I thought their reasons for denying him parole were dodgy. They acknowledged that he was following his lawyer's advice where his business was concerned and trying to do the right thing, yet in the same breath, said it showed that his greed, basically, that got him in trouble back in '69 was rearing its head and made him currently dangerous. They referred to it as his criminal thinking.
I think the same result would have been netted even if Debra Tate and Anthony DiMaria weren't there, but their words, much of which had absolutely nothing to do with Bobby, were additional bombs. It's that thing that Debbie does so often, try to make a bad guy look worse than they are by throwing in all kinds of stuff that is demonstrably false or rationally unprovable. For example, what has the fact that 55 years ago, someone was known as 'Bummer Bob' got to do with anything ? Anthony DiMaria however, has learned his lessons well.

shoegazer said:

Effectively, it gives the justice system a monopoly on revenge

I don't think the continual denial of parole to some of these perps has got anything to do with deterrence anymore.
This seems to me to fall into the realm of pure, sanctioned revenge. Whether they deserve it or not or whether it's right or not is another discussion for another time.
In a way, the entire Manson episode was an offence and foul smelling stain to both the liberal and conservative wings of America. A major part of HS was a civil war between the liberals and the conservatives, and it's as well to remember that Charles Manson did not consider himself or his clan as Hippies and in so doing, set his nose {and by extension, that of the Family} against pretty much everyone. For me, at least, it is no coincidence that possibly the liberal capital of the USA is the state that bends over backwards to keep any perp associated with 'Manson' in jail. If it doesn't happen at parole board level, it happens higher up the food chain.
Whether on the left, right, in between or nowhere at all, we humans are a vengeful bunch.
For all that though, I don't think the perps can complain too loudly, in the overall scheme of things. And Steve Grogan doesn't complain at all.....

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

I understand your position WRT to consistency. I see it a bit differently, and it's really idiosyncratic.

I view the current society in which we live as being sufficiently populated to fill all required social employment, and therefore the need to rehabilitation is not as urgent a social need as say the labor shortage eras in the late 1800s in the US.

So this would argue that keeping people incarcerated would not hurt, and might actually help, a society that values a fair degree of order.

Britain had the option of Australia, and to a lesser degree, the US, to essentially banish lawbreakers, and at one point military service might be substituted for prison time, but those days are long gone. Formerly, they could be used as something like forced labor, but this too, is largely unpopular because currently our society has an overabundance of empathy, and a short portion of common sense.

Sadly, there is little of value for society as a whole to free repeat serious offenders in the name of mercy. They have much greater value in prison, essentially in harsh conditions, stripped of prison bravado, as an example to deter those on the margin, considering crime.

grimtraveller said...

GG-W said:

Cassady and Taylor ain't there to clown around. I'm happy I'm not under their thumbs

Cassady and Taylor.
Sounds like a hard and gritty cop show about two cops that detest any kind of perp and who will do literally anything they can get away with to land a perp in jail.
"Hey ! He flew into my new steel toecap boots with his testicles !!"🤮

grimtraveller said...

GG-W said:

They seem mega po'd at him

You could almost tangibly feel the hate 😾 flying off those two.

the pace of that hearing bordered on frantic

Truly. It was tense. It was intense. At times it felt like I was the one having the hearing ! I don't want to feel empathy for Bobby Beausoleil !!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I take your point. Defending the indefensible is a position I don't enjoy. I'd just like to see everyone living under the same rules. We wouldn't even be talking about Bobby right now.

I have a list of things I don't like about Bobby fwiw. I would've fried his ass.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Grim - My reaction was the same as yours. I exhaled at the end and wondered if I'd been holding my breath.

shoegazer said...

sGT:

I agree that the hearing are a sort of a farce--they're a form of theatre, and little more. They give continuing opportunity for conventional public moralizing, and I think that's their main purpose in the case of the Tate/LaBianca/Hinman murders.

But really: who cares? They transgressed publicly, shocking the society of the day with their devil-may-care attitude toward actions that the entire society recognizes as prohibited. So an example had to be made of them. It had been intended to put them into a small sealed capsule, with windows so that their final moments could be viewed and later commented upon, and when this became impossible, they were to be held and periodically ridiculed in hearings, until they died.

And that's about the size of it.

In my considered opinion, Manson was right, but was too egotistical to refrain from saying it aloud: there is no right or wrong in any absolute moral sense. There is only public opinion expressed as laws and customs.

I'd have to give Manson credit for recognizing what the process was, and having no part in it after his last parole hear--I forget when.

It's the way of the world...

G. Greene-Whyte said...

No more Straight Satans ripoff story I notice. When did that go away?

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

Well, yes, I'd like consistency too--it would be reassuring.

But right now this is the least consistent, most whimsical era I can recall in my life. An exception can be made for anything if the subject can garner enough figurative up-votes in public opinion. The converse is true--special, unprecedented official or unofficial punishments can be applied if the subject is deemed to be of a reprehensible type.

So the highly arbitrary nature of the parole hearing in these case are just normal...

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Sorry to get all jumbly wumbly. I'm not used to more than one person talking to me at once.

TabOrFresca said...

Back when TLB blogs were made of wood, the subject of who could attend parole hearings was discussed on the colonel’s site. The link to the article follows with the relevant post pasted in.

http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2011/10/orca-tate-dives-for-microphone-again.html?m=0

12:15 PM, October 29, 2011

Vera Dreiser said...
Jesus, people, why don't you just go to the rule book?!

From the Board of Parole Hearings Handbook, page 5:

"Who can attend a parole hearing?
The victim or if the victim has died, family members may attend and speak at the hearing in the following order of priority:
• Spouse (including registered domestic partners)
• Children
• Parents
• Siblings
• Grandchildren
• Grandparents
Two representatives may accompany the victim or each family member to the hearing.
Victims and their families may choose to designate a representative to speak on their behalf.
If you choose to have a representative speak on your behalf, please notify the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services. Please be aware that many hearing rooms are relatively small and, therefore, the number of individuals allowed to attend the hearing may be limited."

grimtraveller said...

TabOrFresca said:

Back when TLB blogs were made of wood, the subject of who could attend parole hearings was discussed on the colonel’s site

Phew ! That room got mighty loud.

GG-W said:

I'm not used to more than one person talking to me at once

When you work with kids, it becomes de rigeur. 🥺

shoegazer said:

But really: who cares?

Not President Putin, 🤯 that's for sure. He houses the same philosophy. 🥶

They transgressed publicly, shocking the society of the day with their devil-may-care attitude toward actions that the entire society recognizes as prohibited. So an example had to be made of them

Nobody is denying that.
I'm not even making the argument that Bobby should be paroled. I was really surprised when he was granted parole a couple of years back, and before reading the transcript, thought he was terminally ill or something. I've frequently stated that I think the main reason he has remained in jail is partly the Manson connection, but mainly, his evolving story and attitude, that doesn't inspire real confidence that he has undergone significant change.
However, I'm a great believer that a process that someone is put through has to be fair and just, because if it isn't, the waters get seriously muddied and attention gets paid to the wrong things ie, the process and how it is enacted.
It used to be a lot easier with some of these hearings. It wasn't difficult to see why the board would issue parole denials. I could easily see why Susan, with one leg and unable to string a coherent sentence together at death's door, would be denied. I couldn't disagree with the decision, even though it seemed really harsh, without looking at what comprised their decision. I wouldn't have released her, even if Bugliosi would have.
And they, the boards, would set the hoops and parameters that the perps had to jump through over the next 3 or 5 years.
But then, Bruce, and then Leslie jumped the hoops so well that the boards felt that they should be granted parole and that's when the true flaws within the justice system in California began to rear their heads. That's when Manson's 1970 observation of the people on the outside of prison only pretending to be good {obviously, not everyone !}, started sprouting above the ground. And it is easy to see.
The idea that some louder strands of public opinion are more powerful in reality than the law is bloody scary. We can see how that applied itself, for example, with Black people after "emancipation", we saw last year on Jan 6th how that applied itself. There are many examples that many could give, probably. When vengeance, in the guise of justice, complete with falsehoods and speculations that aren't allowed to be challenged and called out, is allowed to steer and possibly even determine particular outcomes, the actual system becomes weakened and somewhere along the line, the pushback may weaken it further. It may well lead to a scenario where legitimate victim family voices then become silenced and some people who maybe shouldn't be, get granted parole.
That's partly why you should care.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Judge Cassady

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/bph/commissioners/patricia-cassady/#:~:text=Patricia%20Cassady%20was%20appointed%20to,commissioner%20from%201995%20to%202004.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Can't find a photo for Judge Taylor

G. Greene-Whyte said...

One of Bobby's flaws I think is his inability to read a room or a person.

shoegazer said...

G.T.:

I was a primary school teacher immediately out of college. In two years I learned more about basic human nature than I had in my entire prior life, and I found that Machieveli's The Prince was far more useful to me than any ed classes.

I got the rest of my useful education about human nature by watching Jane Goodall documentaries about chimpanzees and comparing/contrasting with my classroom experiences: I kid you not.

As to the rest, I see your point, for sure. But the entire social landscape is so distorted at this point that in order to convince the general populace that conforming to lawful acts is the minimum required to live in an ordered society we still need examples--more than ever. At this point we have:

1) A significant minority of the general population, maybe 30 percent, do only what they want, lawful or otherwise, unless coerced externally by fear, either thru religion, or legal penalties. Literally, they have little or no effective self-restraint, and the id runs the show.

These are the people who benefit from witnessing public executions because a) it would give a clear signal of their possible fate--like the ghost of xmas past in A Christmas Carol; and b) they'd enjoy it as entertainment.

A win-win, huh... :^)

2) We have a significant number of apologists for the group described in #1. These are either informal cocktail party progressives, or paid social service folk. These two subgroups blur the message that effective punishment provides, so that the marginal 30 percent can find moral wiggle room.

Between the two, running non-stop since maybe 1990--although it was going, but not pervasively, since the late 60s--we've created a very ambiguous social environment, fig-leafed as "exercising personal freedom" and so any clear example of culpability punished by the putative system is very probably badly needed, and works as as sea anchor against the aimless drifting of the current society.

So while some of the Manson convicts meet the requirements to be paroled--they serve as a useful example of arbitrary and harsh punishment--not for you and me, but for the 30%, if they are aware of it.

But you are right: it is not consistent, and in a more ideal world I'd want to jump all over it as destructive.

BTW, that note about Manson saying that people pretend to be nice and good--this is why people were attracted to him. This is evident, important, and seldom spoken aloud--and certainly not in today's zeitgeist. It will get you ostracized, at a minimum.

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

One of Bobby's flaws I think is his inability to read a room or a person.

I haven't seen or read enough (and likely won't--not interested enough) but a possible explanation is a combination of personal vanity and arrogance.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Right, Shoe. I was thinking similar thoughts earlier. Bobby and etc's fate scares the crap out of me but I also don't think about breaking into my neighbors' homes and sticking forks into their necks.

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

You don't...?

;^)

Peter said...

The fact he tortured and knifed his friend because he thought it was what Manson wanted probably doesn't help either.

Dan S said...

Just saw the col on forensic files!

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Peter - There's that. And he changed that story up a time or two.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

What's up, Dan? I was wondering what happened to you. You been riding?

Dan S said...

Biannual hell on wheels tour... Just did 50 miles in 2 days around Vegas on a POS huffy with my buddy Buzzz .

Apropos bobby... Horrible murder....tried to weasel out and deny it...The justice system gives the worst penalty u don't cop to what you've done. Mess with the bull, get the horns.

Back to hell on wheels, we haven't played the whisky in a couple years because their new booker Jake Perry weren't give us a good slot. I know the blogtour was in with him so if anyone wants to give James Whitehouse's favorite band (Us: Hell on Wheels) a shout out, that would be nice

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I hope the right people see your request. I'm not sure who knows him.

We've been having fun on a Yosuda stationary bike this winter. Dumb time trials with the tension jacked up so high our knees almost pop the the caps off, backwards races, pretty much anything we can think of to stop from going crazy.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

*crazier

starviego said...

Dan S said...
"Just saw the col on forensic files!"

Link?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Hi, Star. Haven't talked to you in awhile either. Hope your winter has been a good one.

shoegazer said...

At one point I compare Manson and Beausoliel and came to the working conclusion that of all of the people I've heard/read about who were connected with Manson via The Family, Beausoliel was in many regards the closest to Manson in terms of worldview/life philosophy.

Thinking about it a bit more, I think that the main difference was that while Manson was an energetic charismatic (genuine charisma--that valued intangible), Beausoliel was a sort of lazy charmer.

I think they had similar intelligence--somewhat higher than average. Manson tended to focus more, and Beausoliel drifted from one easy gig to the next.

Watson, too, drifted without a goal, but had no special skill. He was a competent generalist, is my guess, making mechanical repairs to VW-based dune buggies and killing people with equal aplomb.

Anyway, that's how it looks to me.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Tex and Bobby are screwed. They might as well go back to acting dangerous.

One thing that always floats thru my mind is Manson was a documented schizophrenic many times over and the records exist to prove it. Researchers who do not have medical degrees often say Charlie was outfoxing the docs every time. That's not my decision to make but I'll always err on the side of empirical every time.

So then, best case, a schizophrenic man instructed the gang to go out kill the TLB victims.

Charlie served a life sentence for telling them to do their dirty deeds. And taking part of course but I get the strong feeling Charlie either rejected the conspiracy and aiding and abetting laws because they did not exist when he began his criminal career, or his mind simply could not work in that way.

Either way, not good.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

*and

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

Charlie served a life sentence for telling them to do their dirty deeds. And taking part of course but I get the strong feeling Charlie either rejected the conspiracy and aiding and abetting laws because they did not exist when he began his criminal career, or his mind simply could not work in that way.

Interesting you should mention this. It's something I thought about, too.

All interviews with Manson that I'd seen that touched upon his involvement, I got the distinct and consistent impression that he really and truly believed that he was being screwed by the judicial system, and the reason for this that they refused to accept that because he never killed any of the identified victims, it was patently impossible, by definition, for him to be convicted of murder--which is an actual physically violent act against another human being.

He didn't do this and hence he seemed to honestly believe that he could not be guilty of murder.

It seems to me that this is the jailhouse lawyer in him. He had somehow come to believe that his conception of the law--how it worked--was correct and ironclad, and that being tried for murder was a distortion of the law, as he understood it--and of this he was certain.

But that's just too bad. It doesn't matter what the individual may think or be certain of, as the IRS has repeated told me...

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoe, I find it hard to move past the point of his schizophrenia when I'm thinking about Manson. Jeff Guinn stays chubby on how bad Charlie's childhood was, although I think he sensationalizes fwiw.

Charlie was unable to bootstrap himself and he's an other because of his unwell decisions and actions.

But what about Tex? Where's his diagnosis? Where's Bobby's? It's likely why I focus more of my anger on them. They had no excuse.

Also, I've been thinking about Judge Cassady. I know they're supposed to be impartial and all that but I know Bobby bringing Mary over to Gary's place that awful Friday night would be on my mind if I was a parole commissioner. Plus all the court bizness with Mary trying to take the fall for Bobby based on whatever reasons. Mary made her own decisions, sure. But Bobby was right there to drag her down with him.

I'd be forced to consider how many other lives might be ruined. Not that I think anything would happen at this late date in Bobby's life.

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

To be clear, I have no sympathy for any of the convicts, nor smarmy moral superiority, either.

As I said before, they serve a useful social service by supplying a concrete example of a significant legal punishment for committing unforgivable acts. It's pretty hard to find any, currently, that are not tainted by identity politics.

If you are an "A" and did "B" to "C", who is a member of "D" identification, you get Punishment X. But not if you're an "E", and/or your object was a "not C". Maybe...

Mix and match to your own satisfaction.

With the Manson case, wrong-doers who happened to be adults committed murder on other individuals who happened to be adults. Fairly simple and straighforward, requiring no mediation or explanation by PhDs in psychology or social work.

Enjoy! :^)

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Yeah they cooked their own gooses.

beauders said...

Does anyone remember the name Linda Silverstein (Sharon Amos) as a member of the Family? She was a member of the Peoples Temple and has been rumored to being a member of the Manson Family.

Dan S said...

Star, i was in a hotel watching tv. It was the episode about the "Bully" murder

tobiasragg said...

"Wonder what is keeping him in?"

IMO, two major reasons:

1. The Manson connection.

Let's face it, that is a mighty hole to climb out of, and all but one have failed to do so, so far. Not likely to change.

2. Ego.

Beausolei was - and is - a tool.

I have read each of this man's parole hearings, some multiple times, and they are always the same. Bobby's arrogance and seeming lack of awareness of his actual position in these things never fails to amaze me. This is especially apparent in this latest hearing. Bobby goes on and on ... and ON ... about himself, his talents, his career, the business he is running & how he pays people to work for him, his semi-faith. Even the kindest of parole boards do not wanna hear this bullshit. They want to hear how contrite you are, how aware you've become of the impact of your actions on everyone in the world, how good you've been and how saintly you will be if you are sprung free. Bobby offers little of this. I think he THINKS he is saying the right things, but he's really not. And it is amazing that after twenty of these hearings, he hasn't figured this out.

By the way, I *love* the Bummer Bob tag. Ima start applying this nickname to this dude from now on.

In recent years, Bobby has spoken very often about what a good friend Hinman had been to him. He did it repeatedly in the recent Epix documentary and he does it here. I wonder if this is him realizing just what a senseless offing this really was. Here Bummer Bob repeatedly describes how he betrayed his friend, and personally I think he is being straight in saying these things. Hard to judge demeanor from a transcript, but this is the one aspect of his rap that I found a tiny bit touching.

They didn't dwell much on the commitment offense, but this was one of the more brutal of the Manson murders. All of the other victims received more damage, but at least they died quickly. Gary Hinman's demise played out in slow motion, over tortuous days. Bobby reportedly encouraged him to chant - to pray - knowing that soon he would be dead. What is one to make of something like that?

One thing I've always found odd, and telling, is Bobby's continuing insistence that he was never a true family member, that he was never aligned with Manson's stated beliefs. His primary interest in Manson, he has claimed for decades, was music-related. And yet in the Himan matter, we see Bobby taking actions very, very much in line with Manson's whole HS rap. He draws the paw-print & quote that he thinks will point investigators to the Black Panthers. When he was discovered and questioned by police on the side of the road, he claims he got the vehicle from "a black guy." Bummer Bob will likely never own up to this, but simply judging from his actions, it seems he was every bit the believer as Krenwinkel was.

And speaking of Krenwinkel, exactly how confident do you think SHE is feeling right now, with a parole hearing coming up in a matter of months?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I wonder if Cassady is her commissioner.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

I have read each of this man's parole hearings, some multiple times, and they are always the same. Bobby's arrogance and seeming lack of awareness of his actual position in these things never fails to amaze me. This is especially apparent in this latest hearing. Bobby goes on and on ... and ON ... about himself, his talents, his career, the business he is running & how he pays people to work for him, his semi-faith. Even the kindest of parole boards do not wanna hear this bullshit. They want to hear how contrite you are, how aware you've become of the impact of your actions on everyone in the world, how good you've been and how saintly you will be if you are sprung free. Bobby offers little of this. I think he THINKS he is saying the right things, but he's really not. And it is amazing that after twenty of these hearings, he hasn't figured this out.

But you know what, Tobias? If Beausoliel was on the outside and this was a job interview and not a parole hearing, he'd be viewed as normal.

"It's a strange world, Sandy."

Dan S said...

Good question above about if he dropped the bad mescaline motive. What the reason was for strong arming gary for money is a prime tlb mystery.

tobiasragg said...

"What the reason was for strong arming gary for money is a prime tlb mystery."

I was just reading some things that Ella Jo Bailey said about the whole Hinman thing. I wish I could remember where I read this, it was just this morning lol.

Anyway, she relates that there was this big discussion involving Manson and a few others about where they could get cash. They were running through options when Ella mentioned Hinman. Manson immediately lit up. "Yeah! He is single and he owns that home and he seems like the type who would have lots of stocks and stuff like that!"

According to Bailey, a plan was hatched to send Bobby and her and one of the other girls - Sadie or Mary, can't remember which - to Hinman's place to get him to sign over the house and other assets he might have. There was talk of the need to take a gun with them and which gun to take.

Bailey said that she didn't feel comfortable being a part of this plan but she was afraid to speak up then and there, so she told one of the guys privately. Can't remember which guy it was, gah! Anyway, the dude spoke to Manson and the plan was changed to include Beausolei, Sadie & Mary.

Dan, your mention of the mescaline thing brought this back to mind just now. If Ella is to be believed, the idea of hitting Gary up for cash was kicking around before any kind of "bad drugs" situation arose. But then, in things like the Epix long-form doc, both Cathy Share and Beausolei himself speak of the mescaline motive as being fact. Manson himself even speaks of this, so I guess I'm inclined not to believe Bailey over the rest of the voices involved.

This kind of thing to me is one of those more minor details that really doesn't matter in the end. Just as it doesn't matter what time of day Shorty was killed, Hinman ended up just as dead if the motive was a bad mescaline deal as he'd have been if "let's get money from him" was the real reason for the confrontation. It is interesting, though.

Gorodish said...

It was Bill Vance who convinced Manson to have Ella removed from the Hinman caper. Vance was in love with Ella. The mescaline story was a total bullshit fantasy, hatched by Bobby after several years in prison to try to disassociate himself from Manson.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Lol Vance said they had better things to do. EJB is super interesting to me. Firmly middle class. Upper midwest background. College grad. She enters our story with Sadie.

Fromme has EJB return from an armed robbery all calm, cool, and collected. And then of course she'a nail in Charlie's coffin.

tobiasragg said...

Bill Vance, thank you! I was struggling to remember that name when typing a response above.

One wonders what motivated Bummer Bob to change up his story so radically. You think it really was to disassociate with Manson? This guy is more all-over-the-map and scattered than Sadie ever was!

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

One wonders what motivated Bummer Bob to change up his story so radically.

Over the years I've read a lot of people placing a lot of faith in finding discrepancies in the narrative related by various of the characteristics. At its most extreme, readers take discrepancies to be evidence of wholesale fabrication and cover-up: they feel that the narrator actually has a crystal clear recollection in there, somewhere, and is carefully tailoring the narrative for some personal benefit as they perceive how well it's received.

Such readers often have their own preferred narrative, and if/when they find any discrepancy in a narrative, they promptly use it to disqualify any additional testimony that departs from their preferred narrative.

Surely you've seen this over the years, here.

I think like most things, there's a bit of purposeful distortion by the convicts, and the degree varies according the the integrity of the teller and circumstances. But I also think that for some of these convicts several other things are going on...

In the case of Watson, I'm not convinced that he *can* remember great detail with any degree of clarity. I've found that just among "normal" individuals, this ability varies greatly: I've actually caught myself recalling a mental image of an photo or painting, but the image is mirrored: what I distinctly recall appearing on the right side of an image is in actuality on the left side. Worse, I've noticed a sort of creeping dyslexia, much more pronounced than even 6-7 years ago.

Maybe my doctor is right to suggest that I cut back from 1.5 litres of Jack Daniels a day... ;^)

My own recollections were never reliable so far as detail, and with age thrown it, they're worse, still. I suspect that maybe both of these things (poor recollection of detail and age) are going on with Watson, but still more: his drug use at the time.

By his own admission (although one needs to question his recollection on this, too), he snorted meth just prior to leaving for Cielo. He may have also done LSD earlier in the day.

These two factors, stacked upon poor native recollection of detail (like me) and now age (also like me), would account for a great deal of variation, and especially to sequence.

Beausoliel I don't know about. Maybe some of this might apply. But I didn't get a warm and reassuring feeling from the parole hearing, that's for sure.

This is not intended to be exculpatory, but more to inform how, exactly, to evaluate the various narratives.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

I was just reading some things that Ella Jo Bailey said about the whole Hinman thing

I'm currently going through this. It's actually every bit as fascinating as the more tried and tested tales from the Family vault.
She confirms mescaline coming from Gary ~ but not him manufacturing it.

This guy is more all-over-the-map and scattered than Sadie ever was!

Maybe this is far-fetched, but I think to some extent, the collective behaviour over the years of Charlie, Watson, Susan and Bobby, either in incarceration or during parole hearings {and likely both} may have played a part in the Guv'nors denials of Leslie and Bruce's recommendations of parole ~ but they can't say it. So anyone seen as having been connected to that milieu is still seen as part of the collective, regardless of denials that stretch back over 40 years. Squeaky and Sandy didn't exactly help that process die, either. They leave the impression that anything connected with Manson, that wasn't a help to various prosecutions half a century ago, just can't be trusted.
Clem had something to bargain with.

shoegazer said:

Maybe my doctor is right to suggest that I cut back from 1.5 litres of Jack Daniels a day

I had an uncle that, for the last 55 years of his life was reputed, by village gossip/folklore, to have downed just a bit short of that, daily, of this local brew called Ogogoro. It was strong stuff. You could smell it several houses away. It looked like it would clean all the grease from a truck engine, and then some.
He lived to be 105 or 108, depending on which story one believed !

GG-W said:

No more Straight Satans ripoff story I notice. When did that go away?

His lawyer wanted it noted that his tale differed substantially from the court record. Now, I think he made a boo~boo in starting off by saying he'd advised Bobby not to talk about the facts of the case, because tough Pat Cassady wasn't interested in discussing the facts of the case. I don't think it has gone away. Bobby literally did not get a chance to evolve it further than it has been evolving since 1978.

ATTORNEY CAMPBELL: Yes, I have, um, a couple of, uh, quick objections, one as we've done in the past, uh, we would like to adhere to the statement of facts that's been presented at prior hearings. And also, I know that the Board tends to rely upon the statement of facts from the court of appeal opinion. Um, I've advised Mr. Beausoleil not to discuss the facts of this case except in as much as necessary to, to, uh, um, describe insight, but not to discuss the facts. And I think it's pretty clear that there's, there factual discrepancies between Mr. Beausoleil’s recitation of, of the commitment offense and the official recitation, they've been discussed at length in prior hearings—

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I am not going to go through the commitment offense.

She signalled as loudly as could be {note how in the transcript, she interrupts the lawyer}, that the lenience granted Bobby in these hearings over the last 43 years, insofar as he could spin his tale of "mescaline manufacturing Gary", is now over. Over and out. She shut it down. She blew it out of the water. Then buried it back 20,000 leagues under the sea in something stronger than a cement overcoat. Bobby seemed almost lost without it.
Interestingly, his lawyer shut down conversation on "the commitment offence" at the last hearing, but Bobby and the commissioner still talked about it. But there was to be no friendly informative running through Bobby's film script.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Grim, imagine how Pat feels right now preparing for her hearing.

shoegazer said...

G.T.:

I'm currently going through this. It's actually every bit as fascinating as the more tried and tested tales from the Family vault.
She confirms mescaline coming from Gary ~ but not him manufacturing it.


This forum is kinda interesting to me. On this go-round, unlike when I participated in 2019, some comments keyed recollections, which seem to have cascaded somewhat.

Recollection over a long timeframe can be problematic, but the one thing I can assure you is that I don't see the 60s thru rose colored glasses, because, simply, I was under great, great duress for years trying to say out of the draft.

So here's a sort of interesting view re mescaline, and the possible transaction between Hinman and the Manson folk. I'm talking from the perspective of lower-middle class college, and these folks were really closer to the hippy lifestyle than college kids--although we'd kid ourselves at the time that we were, indeed, pretty hip in the 60s sense of the term (anti-war, semi-free sex, drugs, anti Establishment, do your own thing, power to the people, etc.).

LSD, mescaline, and cannabis were sort of social emoluments--you often *gave* it away as a social bonding gesture. Drugs like benzedrine, thai stick, peyote were not--benzedrine being a sort of temporary crutch, thai stick too expensive (this applied to hash, also, usually), and peyote was not at all common. I know nothing of mushrooms.

So it could be that Hinman actually *gave* a friendly amount to Beausoliel, or whoever, and that they later turbo-supercharged the story of a simple present (which may have been of low or poor quality--it almost always made people sick..who the hell knew what was in pills/capsules?) into a drug burn so as to justify to themselves coming down hard on him, when all they really wanted was ready cash.

Hard to say, isn't it?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoe, others are free to correct me, but I believe I've only seen Fromme and Good say anything negative about Gary.

tobiasragg said...

A couple of last thoughts from me (until the next parole denial) . . .

For years, I have been buying into the mescaline story, simply because Bummer Bob and so many others from the Family have been repeating it for years.

Gorodish's post above served as a reminder and a point of re-education for me, though: the entire "drug deal" story didn't come up until years after this conviction. Anthony DiMaria's statement that this was really a shit move for Bummer Bob to have pulled on his dear, departed friend (who he also just happened to murder). Way to tarnish the reputation of your victim there, Bob!

There was another factiod that Beausoleil mentioned in his retells that never quite made sense to me, but thanks to Gorodish, it now makes complete sense. In some of the retells and interviews I've read on BB (Bummer Bob, natch), he describes visiting Hinman at home with the girls and sitting around together, becoming reacquainted, reliving past fun times.

I always wondered: why would you be reliving old times with someone you just saw a day or two before when presumably setting up this drug deal and collecting this "bad mescaline" for delivery to the biker dudes?

No sense makes sense. There was no drug deal.

Another really shit thing coming from BB in this hearing is his claim that he is seeking to honor his good friend and victim Gary Hinman by continuing to produce & promote his compositions and artwork. Have you ever had a look at his website? It hasn't a thing to do with Hinman. "Here is a bad acrylic painting I did of a flower that resembles an underaged vulva - THIS ONE'S FOR GARY!"

While I am on the path of delicious Beausoleil irony, there is this: those of us paying attention understand that BB began offering everything on his website in an open-access, paywall free manner because this seemed a major roadblock standing between him and that oh-so-sweet, free air on the other side of the fence...

Most merely-curious visitors to the BB site have no inkling that the parole board is the body that has motivated this change, so to the casual admirers out there, Bummer Bob speaks at great length on all of the troubles plaguing society today: Covid, a sliding economy, goodly citizens "simmering in near-panic." And then he announces, "Then it occurred to me: I could make all of my recorded music and visual art available for free . . . A small gesture to offer my brothers and sisters some solace and support during this deeply stricken period."

Rot.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

"Check out my free terrifying art and also how about some good ole fashioned parole, please."

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

I always wondered: why would you be reliving old times with someone you just saw a day or two before when presumably setting up this drug deal and collecting this "bad mescaline" for delivery to the biker dudes?

No sense makes sense. There was no drug deal.


An added point from the sensibilities of the era...

Mescaline is about as far from a party drug as one can imagine, so things like acid and mescaline had little natural appeal to those looking for a sort of enhanced social experience.

That said, in the late 60s no one (except maybe confirmed long-term addicts of some sort) really differentiated much between how widely illegal drugs affected the experimenter. So I'll bet that the bikers tried all this stuff out, just to see.

To that end, there seems to me to be two broad classes of recreational drugs: social enhancers (coke, etcstacy, meth, etc) and introspective agents (LSD Peyote, mescaline, etc). Marijuana/hash kinda straddled the line--was both social and potentially introspective, dependent on strength and surroundings.

Opiates/opioids are not social drugs, but neither are they introspective. In fact, I'd advise everyone to take a really solid dose of oxycontin or other such oral opioid, just so that afterward they'll truly understand what the term "a deep sense of well-being" means. Other than that, there's just no way to know the depth of its appeal, and of heroin, I suspect.

So when cocaine hit--which was a very social drug--that was when the broad range of recreational users began to differentiate the effects and it's why hallucinogens passed out of vogue--they are not, per se, "fun".

These are strictly my own opinions and others may not agree.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

And why didn't Bobby bring the drugs back if they were bad? And why didn't Gary still have the money when Bobby arrived with the bad drugs?

It's all hogwash. Great point about sitting and reminiscing, Tobias. Bobby would've walked through the door saying, "Hey man, that mescaline you gave me was bad. Dudes want their money back."

He snuck in there to kill and used two girls as his cover.

Also, as far as Bobby's art goes--I've never heard an actual artist say something like oh I don't create anymore because I can't get money for it. Give me a break. 99% of artists aren't making a dime.

shoegazer said...

G. T.:

Clem had something to bargain with.

This caused me to do some odd thinking (is there any other kind, on this forum?)...

;^)

If by this you mean that Grogan could identify Shea's burial site, and this was of value--and this makes sense to me--one would think that the offer was thru his attorney, there was a level of negotiation for a parole, and ultimately he led the authorities to Shea's remains.

Do you suppose that the idea to try to use this knowledge originated with Grogan, or with his attorney?

Now jump to Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel. Disregard Manson (he knew what was up) and Kasabian (changing her story might lead to new charges--I'd need to look at the law, but it may have been possible).

As time passed, if the actual circumstances of Cielo or Waverley were substanially different from the trial narrative, one might offer to bargain for this information, simply to provide closure to those who had any questions.

Now, since all the people got death--later life with parole (wink, wink), it could be that no one much cared if the story was any different--after all, all participants got their collective ass fried to the max, under the law in force at the time.

But just in case, has anyone here ever heard of any offers by the Cielo participants to "set the record straight"?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Hi, Shoe. The experts will all tell say the inmates can't say anything beyond the accepted narrative blah blah blah and they're likely correct. Look how Commissioner Cassady just did Bobby.

Beyond that, things move straight away into the realm of zero empirical evidence and "so and so told me so."

The tabloid Manson community eats it right up.

shoegazer said...

g. G-W:

I've read that, as well, but I'm not sure that I'd accept that argument from authority without a lot of convincing support.

It's funny: to a degree, the TLB case almost functions like a pseudo-religion, with people believing fervently in intriguing, but unsupported, scenarios.

But me, I want to try to stick as closely as possible to verifiable fact. It's why I'm areligious, basically.

But if one day on my way back from the gym, I encounter a continuously burning bush--one that does not consume itself--I'm heading on down to the nearest church, yew betcha...

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoe, agree on this study as a pseudo-religion. It's led by self-anointed priests who produce faux research their fans never check for veracity.

Twice people have told me they are afraid to write here because their leaders will become angry with them and banish them from opposing HTML realms. Talented writers at that. Letting others tell them where they can and can't type.

No pay. No nuthin. Just a nice warm spot under some guru's flabby ass.

Shame on you fuckers. That isn't research. That's you trying to control the narrative.

Misters MANSONCHEVS TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

shoegazer said...

G. G-W:

Twice people have told me they are afraid to write here because their leaders will become angry with them and banish them from opposing HTML realms. Talented writers at that. Letting others tell them where they can and can't type.

No pay. No nuthin. Just a nice warm spot under some guru's flabby ass.


So it's come to that, has it?

Things are even worse than I thought...

grimtraveller said...

GG-W said:

imagine how Pat feels right now preparing for her hearing

I have no idea how much the perps get to hear about what has happened in other proceedings, but if she heard about Bobby being granted parole, then being denied it the following year, then being denied this time round, I'd imagine that Pat, not exactly the most confident jailbird, when being grilled by those with the power, is not feeling particularly great right now.

shoegazer said:

So it could be that Hinman actually *gave* a friendly amount to Beausoliel

I don't have a problem with the notion that Gary may have sold a little weed to a few people now and again. I noted with interest that in a documentary in 2009, Vincent Bugliosi stated as a fact {for what it's worth} that Gary used to "furnish the Family with drugs." And Susan stating in "Child of Satan..." that she knew Bobby would kill, actually works more in Bobby's favour !
But Bobby's story is too far-fetched, with incredibly tight timelines, not to mention $1000 that Gary had only a few hours in which to spend and no trace of any transactions amounting to even a fraction of that {the police were surprisingly knowledgable about his finances}. Plus him turning over the slips on a vehicle that was no longer his as he had sold it to his boss. It's interesting that Susan never mentioned the drug deal, even when she was pushing the copycat. It is also worth pointing out that even Charlie contradicted Bobby, and they're supposed to be the two that prop each other up on this case.
It may be of no interest, but his 1978 parole hearing is worth a read. It's not long and it provides an interesting start point for comparison with subsequent hearings. One might be surprised that even this early on, he was lying his blaggers off. And stating on the record that Gary was a drug dealer.

GG-W said:

And why didn't Bobby bring the drugs back if they were bad?

This is one of the truly weak points in his tale. OK, I can see a situation in which the bad drugs have been ingested and there's no drugs left for Gary to examine whether they're bad.
But 1000 capsules ?
You pick up the drugs on Friday evening, take them down to the Satans and by late morning or early afternoon, they're holding a knife to you demanding their money back because of bad drugs ? Firstly, it's never been established that there were 1000 bikers, or that 1000 bikers were all taking mescaline. Or even 500 bikers taking 2 capsules each. Given that a mescaline trip is anything from 8~14 hours, at what point did they determine the drugs were bad and were the ones that supposedly came to the ranch actually fit and well enough to do so after ingesting these 'bad' drugs ? Bobby insists he was not at Gary's over 3 days. One can see why he does so; how would the Satans know where to find him if he was ? But by limiting his time at Gary's he creates an almost impossible timeline for all the things to have happened that he says happened. It's often painful to witness when someone lying creates further traps for themselves.

grimtraveller said...

GG-W said:

agree on this study as a pseudo-religion. It's led by self-anointed priests who produce faux research their fans never check for veracity

Twice people have told me they are afraid to write here because their leaders will become angry with them and banish them from opposing HTML realms

Can you elaborate on this {obviously without naming names} ? What do you mean by self-appointed priests and leaders who "will become angry with them and banish them from opposing HTML realms" ?

G. Greene-Whyte said...

Grim, great point on Bobby's timeline issues at Gary's. I'd never thought of that before.

So yeah I can elaborate. Other outposts in this funky milieu don't like the Manson Blog and act like little babies about their acolytes going back and forth. Threats are out there. Kicked out of this or that realm. Christmas canceled. No more hot water for showers. It's barbaric.

grimtraveller said...

shoegazer said:

As time passed, if the actual circumstances of Cielo or Waverley were substanially different from the trial narrative, one might offer to bargain for this information, simply to provide closure to those who had any questions

The problem with this notion is, what could Watson, Krenwinkel or Van Houten possibly say that is going to provide any closure, given that the bodies are long buried, it doesn't really matter who did what now, unless Linda actually did kill, and even then, their testimony would be worthless because of Aranda. The question would then have to be asked, why have they been dishonest for 50 years, which would totally nix any parole plans any of them have been making.
With Shorty, the state was always skating on ice. They went on rumour; even down to thinking Shorty was dismembered and beheaded; it turned out he was not. But no one in LE could ever be sure that he wouldn't one day turn up at Spahn. Clem however, could be, and he could put California's mind at rest. I think it's a stretch to say that is what got him parole though. It's a bit more nuanced than that.

Do you suppose that the idea to try to use this knowledge originated with Grogan, or with his attorney?

According to Bobby in his 1978 hearing, it originated with the great Robert Kenneth Beausoleil.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

And great point on the poisoned beans. Ingesting all 1k would be an impressive effort.

tobiasragg said...

"And why didn't Bobby bring the drugs back if they were bad?"

Another great point along these lines was made in a book I am reading on all of this, this one exploring mainly the trials but also recounting the event that led up to them.

Once Hinman had been killed and the automobiles secured in lieu of the phantom "drug money", Bummer Bob made no attempt at all to settle up with the supposedly-angry bikers. He didn't give them the vehicles, he didn't sell the vehicles and give the cash to the bikers. Hell, he didn't even try to AVOID the bikers after the murder. Instead, he went right back to Spahn and hung out for a good, long while before finally taking off in one of Hinman's vehicles.

This whole story is remarkable in its Swiss cheesiness.

Rot.

grimtraveller said...

Bobby insists he was not at Gary's over 3 days. One can see why he does so; how would the Satans know where to find him if he was ?

And also, it looks sweeter to say "I was there for 24/36 hours and Charlie cut his face and I sewed it up and there's evidence of the face being sewn up with dental floss" than to say "I was there from Friday night to Sunday evening, at one point there were 5 of us against Gary, one of us had a sword, one of us had a gun and I had a knife....I smacked him around with the gun...there's no evidence that any attempt was made to sew up his face...we extorted his vehicles, one of which he didn't even own, having accepted a $200 down payment on it..." and more.

shoegazer said:

has anyone here ever heard of any offers by the Cielo participants to "set the record straight"?

To a large extent, they've all been doing that since 1969. And the flip-flops point to a scenario where the perps naturally become less believable. Susan Atkins did the copycat irreparable damage by clinging to it {!!} and Tex, frankly, kills it stone dead by lumping the TLB murders as a tripartite cocktail of starting HS {which was all 3 female perps' understanding initially in '69}, raising bail for Mary {not Sandy}, which was an impossibility of such impossible magnitude that I'm surprised he isn't taken to task on this in any of his hearings, and freeing Bobby. It is noticeable that in his first book, he never ascribes anything statements to Charlie on the actual topic of Bobby and freeing him and in his second book he doesn't mention the copycat at all. I don't think the word 'Bobby' or 'Beausoleil' is even in it.
Pat's words to Leslie, in the hours after the Cielo murders, as well as Leslie's words to Marvin Part show that the copycat wasn't in anyone's head until Aaron Stovitz raised it as a hunch.
So, the idea of "setting the record straight" is, at this point, as likely as President Putin working as a burger flipper in McDonalds in downtown Moscow. If you walked into said establishment and saw him there, behind the counter, you'd never believe it was him. And so it is with the perps, they've between them set the record so "straight" for so long that it forever remains a masterpiece of curvature.
By the way, interesting avatar !

Dan S said:

What the reason was for strong arming gary for money is a prime tlb mystery

Is it ? Charlie wanted to get out to the desert, because of a certain little matter he believed was impending....
The Charles Manson saga is a classic for conflation; conflation of what one thinks is going on {Black rioters, civilization crumbling etc and all that went into HS} and a criminal's criminal instincts and habits that they choose not to alter. This is partly why all, or most, of its aspects are so fascinating.

Gorodish said:

The mescaline story was a total bullshit fantasy, hatched by Bobby after several years in prison to try to disassociate himself from Manson

It seemed to gain momentum as the years rolled by. In his '78 hearing, he even takes the heat off Charlie by claiming that he sliced Gary's face, not Charlie. He claimed then that Charlie's only involvement was to drive one of the cars back to Spahn. That first hearing is partly why Bobby is rarely believed and why I note that his story has been an ever evolving one. He calls Gary a drug dealer...now he back-pedals. He claims he cut Gary and that it was a slice and nick to the ear with a knife not a sword {"There was no sword there. That's kind of ridiculous."}, now he back pedals. He has back pedalled so much, he should inaugurate a new event in the Olympics. The Beausoleil back pedal.

grimtraveller said...

GG-W said:

Ingesting all 1k would be an impressive effort

I've long been curious as to how many bikers you'd ever get at a single gathering. Not being a biker or having been to one, I have no idea. Is 1000 realistic ? Or 500 {and then of course, they'd have to take 2 each, which would probably make you ill !} ? Or even 333 {each taking 3, which would have blown them all off the map !} ?

The experts will all tell say the inmates can't say anything beyond the accepted narrative blah blah blah

Even though every single one of them has.

shoegazer said:

As time passed, if the actual circumstances of Cielo or Waverley were substanially different from the trial narrative, one might offer to bargain for this information, simply to provide closure to those who had any questions

Wouldn't that, though, force question no.1 to be: why have you waited more than 50 years to tell us this ?
Even if the answer was CIA/FBI threats, I doubt, after partner battering suits, giving weight to youthful brain development and a plea to leave prison based on mental illness at the time of the crime all failing, that they'd be believed.
In spite of the flip-flopping, lies, subterfuge, 15 minutes of fame and bollocks, there's been a strange consistency of detail, since Linda first mentioned murder to Joel sage back in Summer '69. Yes, there have been unanswered questions and probably ever more shall be. If Charles Denton Watson hung Sharon Tate before delivering the final death blow, but honestly doesn't remember, then that's going with him to the grave. But no evidence categorically points to a scenario that says he didn't or couldn't have done so.

Mescaline is about as far from a party drug as one can imagine

It does make one wonder if 1000 hairy bikers were going to trip on mescaline, then hop on their bikes and bike it home. Bobby said in one of his hearings, that the bikers wanted a different kind of experience for this shindig they were going to have, which is why he suggested mescaline. That clearly implies that these guys would not be seasoned trippers and would possibly be doing this for the first time. Even in the 60s that would border on the dangerous.
There's so much of his story that doesn't seem grounded in real world happenings, and that's before one even examines the finer details of de tale. ��

shoegazer said...

G. T.:

Good points.

As to my question about "setting the record straight"...

To a large extent, they've all been doing that since 1969. And the flip-flops point to a scenario where the perps naturally become less believable.

Right now, to a large degree, flip-flops and inconsistencies over who did what don't trouble me a lot, and this is for two reasons:

1) The inconsistencies that are over who did what, precisely, but not attempting to modify the actual events or the sequence in which they took place, seem not overly important. What I think I see in subsequent retellings is that more ellipsis dots are filled in. Things that were jumped over in previous tellings may be added. Me, I think that this is a fairly normal phenomenon, and those readers here who take these "differences" as signs of fatal unbelieveability, and hence throw out *all* (except for their favored narrative, of course) of the testimony are making a serious mistake at this point.

Our task is to judge which parts of the "new versions" are relatively legitimate, and try then to fine-tune the hypothetical scenario we're trying to create, simply to satisfy our own curiosity.

2) Let's face it: if we don't add new information, merely as a way to create modified scenarios to thoroughly explore, we're at a dead end. There's no more point in talking about the case, at all, unless we're simply here for company.

...It is noticeable that in his [Watson's] first book, he never ascribes anything statements to Charlie on the actual topic of Bobby and freeing him and in his second book he doesn't mention the copycat at all. I don't think the word 'Bobby' or 'Beausoleil' is even in it.

G.T., I'd like to ask the title of Watson's second book, and how it might be available?

By the way, interesting avatar !

Thanks! My wife took it of me while we were on a camping trip.

I had just had my morning coffee... ;^)

shoegazer said...

G.T.:

Wouldn't that, though, force question no.1 to be: why have you waited more than 50 years to tell us this ?

Hah! We see it differently.

I'd think: what on earth have they got to lose at this point? Or at any point in the last 20 years, really.

In spite of the flip-flopping, lies, subterfuge, 15 minutes of fame and bollocks, there's been a strange consistency of detail, since Linda first mentioned murder to Joel sage back in Summer '69.

DOUBLE EXCLAMATION POINT

The very first level of reflexive conspiracy assignations is culling off the posters who cannot seem to grasp this relatively simple fact: it is, at core, the same story told over and over, from different physical points in Cielo, and over different points in time. No one perpetrator saw the entire thing, and the actual narrative is an assembly of these different views.

This is not hard to understand.

tobiasragg said...

There really IS no point in talking about the case more, at least not in terms of "new" theories or anything like that.

Even the various parole committees don't bother with revisiting the crimes in question ("commitment offence", in their parlance) in anything but surface detail. After this many years, it is accepted that the people in question committed these crimes and no one much cares about whether the candlestick was being held in the right or the left hand anymore.

But the matter remains fascinating enough that micro deep-dives such as "did Tex back down Cielo or turn the car around to drive down properly?" are still of mild interest. Still, the online spaces and the number of those still interested continues to dwindle.

The 50th anniversary in LA was fun, though.

shoegazer said...

Yes.

Boots or moccasins was fun, too.

Seriously, though, it's a simple, harmless time-burner.

I was re-reading David's 7 part series from 2019, and am even more deeply impressed with his work and organization. We disagreed over some small--but to me, significant--points, but he really set those articles up well.

Worth a re-read, for sure.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

This isn't directed at anyone. Just some random thoughts that go through my mind every time I wonder why our scene is so awful.

Imo, people will be discussing Manson in a hundred years. Ever heard of Lizzie Borden?

This study is a hobby for most of us. We meet here because the people in our lives don't want to hear about Manson as much as we want to talk about it. Or maybe we don't have anyone at all in our lives and this is a gathering place where living breathing souls type highfives and/or insults at one another most days of the week and we're those moths.

Whatever created our participation here, True Crime is a top genre that makes a ton of money in the publishing world. Does Jeff Guinn look like he misses any meals?

Moreover, crimes do not die when this or that individual or group decides enough is known about the cases because they had their unpaid researchers bother people on Ancestry and subscribe to Newspapers dot com, etc, to dig up hot reveals. "I called so-and-so and they said blah blah blah so everyone should not think any other thoughts ever."

Screw that. Prove what you say in the regular old ways we consider things proven. We're not your dupes.

Our world is one of mindless teams built upon houses of cards. Newbies join one team and right away think they have all the answers. I was told by someone I was nice to and helped that the MB people all have bad reputations in "the community." For peace, I don't fire back with well I think you're fucking stupid.

And so does everyone else in my "community" lol.

Confirmation bias. Cognitive Dissonance. Posturing. Welcome to Manson

What if I just want to talk about the stuff without studying under a self-appointed expert on August 1969?

*please pardon my typos. I hate that I can't edit here.

shoegazer said...

Very, very perceptive and well-spoken, G. G-W.

...for whatever that might be worth, and which is of questionable value...

I just wanted to let you know that someone out here could see that what you said was on the mark, as grim as it may sound.

Diverting, have you ever read Michele Houellebecq? I discovered this guy about a year ago, and he addresses what it means for a human with normal wants/needs/desires to live in the 21st C West like no one else I've read. He is clearly the grandchild of Celine, but he's more than Celine, because time has marched on since then.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

I have not but it sounds super interesting. For the most part, I only read things that directly have to do with my work that day, or that deal with my posts here. I've also spent an unhealthy amount of free time doom scrolling r/ukraine the past two weeks.

At night, I listen to scholars debate mythicism, historicism, and other Far East religions the Jews and Xstians eventually rewrote as their own. I highly recommend Mythvision Podcast on YT to anyone who enjoys the study.

grimtraveller said...

GG-W said:

Imo, people will be discussing Manson in a hundred years. Ever heard of Lizzie Borden?

I heard of her for the first time, a few moments just after I heard of Manson. Her entry in the book "Infamous murders" follows on directly from his. Her name has shown up a few times over the years. In fact, a few months ago, my son and I were watching an episode of "Alfred Hitchcock presents...." from the 1950s and it was a tale about Lizzie Borden and her crazy eyed sister {crazy eyed in the drama ~ I don't know if she had a sister !}, who, in the tale, was the one that actually turned out to be the one to have axed her Dad and stepmother.
I always thought the Lizzie poem was morbidly humorous {or humorously morbid}.

tobiasragg said:

There really IS no point in talking about the case more, at least not in terms of "new" theories or anything like that

I agree.
Having said that, grappling with the alternate theories has been an important part of trying to understand this case and all its attendant packages. But there comes a point when, at least for the forseeable, one has pretty much said whatever is going to be said that's of any real value to someone that just wants to argue motive.

the matter remains fascinating enough that micro deep-dives such as "did Tex back down Cielo or turn the car around to drive down properly?" are still of mild interest

Actually, things like that are more significant than they initially seem, because such statements give one an important window into the mind of someone like Charles Watson. An old mate of mine used to say "speech is self-revealing" and I think he was right. If someone says X today but Y tomorrow, you're entitled to query their veracity !

Shoegazer said:

I'd like to ask the title of Watson's second book, and how it might be available?

It was called something like "Right Hand Man Speaks Out!" back in the day, but after the 2016 parole board gave him such a hard time over the title, I now see it's called something different ! Anyway, you can read it here because it's a freebie.
It's a useful book, but don't hold your breath ~ it shows you that he never had much of a memory} ~ or wasn't letting on.

Hah! We see it differently.
I'd think: what on earth have they got to lose at this point? Or at any point in the last 20 years, really


Parole, baby. 🧗🏽‍♂️

tobiasragg said...

"Imo, people will be discussing Manson in a hundred years"

Agreed Green and for what it's worth, my intention above was not to suggest that this (or any other) crime isn't worth discussing and continuing to examine. Quite the contrary.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that some of the more glaring mysteries surrounding this case are likely to remain forever mysterious. Something like the blood evidence just is what it is. The reporting is the reporting and unless a sheath of blood test results is discovered laying under a cabinet door or something, there simply isn't much else to learn.

I also don't think the perps themselves are going to be of much more help moving forward. I feel that LVH has been about as honest and complete as she can be, it is hard to imagine her with many secrets up her sleeve. Tex has been on a faith-fueled quest to distance himself from these crimes for decades now and as we experienced with him recently, the best we can hope for from him is befuddled confusion of facts and memories. Krenwinkel and Beausoleil could still surprise us, but they have so little credibility left anything new they might offer would have to be treated with great suspicion. Davis *could* be a source of great fascination, but he has gotten so close to parole in the past that he seems unlikely to be deviating much from what he has already offered. If Sanra Good wrote a book I wouldn't believe it, though a Mary Brunner memoir would be of potential interest.

I will agree that there is likely much still to be "learned" or re-discovered by making connections within information already known. One such connection surrounds the question of whether Rosemary LaBianca was alive or dead when LVH did her thing. LVH has admitted to delivering from 10-16 stab wounds, the number differs from tell to retell. She also says she has no memory of ever seeing Rosemary's face - the pillowcase was in place by the time she had returned to the bedroom with knife in hand, at any rate. And yet we do see some lower back/buttock area wounds that had obviously shed blood in the crime scene photos, which leads one to the idea that LaBianca hadn't quite passed away when Leslie got to work. I also remind myself that the victim's spine had been severed during the attack, most likely via a wound inflicted by Watson's cutlass. This means that Rosemary LaBianca was likely feeling nothing from the waist down as she crawled over those last couple of feet of carpet, and would likely have not reacted to the LVH stabs - simply because she probably did not feel them, lending the impression to Van Houten that her victim was already dead at the time.

So yeah, that is my (long winded) way of saying that the whole Manson thing is still quite interesting in many ways, but almost certainly not in a "big new information" sense.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

We're good, dude. Sometimes I read things like that from five hundred people I don't like and then choose a not ideal time to respond to it LOL! Btw, you sent me so far down a Hatami rabbit hole I almost have a three part series on him completed in a day. Can't wait to talk about it with you all.

shoegazer said...

Tobias:

So yeah, that is my (long winded) way of saying that the whole Manson thing is still quite interesting in many ways, but almost certainly not in a "big new information" sense.

Here's an example of a small, unimportant thing I find really interesting.

Tom Vargas, one of the gardeners, testifies to two aspects that I seldom, if ever, hear discussed. I don't think that they're necessarily important or indicative of hidden motives or events, but, well...interesting.

In https://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol28.pdf starting at page 4727, he gets around to testifying that when he arrive between 4-5PM on 08 Aug, before he went all the way up the long Cielo driveway, he saw first Folger come down in her yellow Firebird, almost immediately followed by Frykowski, who according to Vargas, came out f the house, got into his car and left.

First question: What car might that have been?

Next question: If not borrowed from Tate, do you suppose that he was returning a borrowed or rented car, and that Folger was to pick him up and drive him back? If borrowed or rented, from whom?

Later, starting on page 4730, Vargas testifies to signing for the two trunks at about 6 - 6:30 PM. The delivery man left them on the front porch, and when Vargas left they were still there.

At Watson's trial (https://www.cielodrive.com/charles-tex-watson-trial-08-16-71-pm.php), Dennis Hearst testified that at 7 PM he exchanged bikes and spoke to Sebring at the front door. He was questioned by an attorney, Mr, Kay, if he noticed anything unusual, and answered "no".

I would assume that includes no trunks on the front porch.

Does anyone have any idea who moved the trunks into the house between 6:30 and 7 PM? Sebring?

tobiasragg said...

"a Hatami rabbit hole . . . "

Oh my. That must be a very dank and beetle-ridden hole, I imagine. Glad to have provided a dash of inspiration perhaps, can't wait to read you again!

Speaking of holes, I was reading of a kinda-sorta literal one last night. I normally don't dwell consistently on the Manson topic, but it's been of particular interest over the last few weeks, so what the hell. Anyway, I was sleepily reading Family-speak on the mythical desert hole and the paradise beyond, and LVH mentions the Amargosa River, which actually does run under the Death Valley desert floor. I thought to myself, "ooh, that's a great topic for the blog space" only to find (surprise! surprise!) that it's already been done: https://www.mansonblog.com/2016/04/the-bottomless-pit.html

G. Greene-Whyte said...

One of my friends has like an 8 Stages of Manson or something similar. One of the stages is every idea I have has been discussed in the reports, trials, books, etc. I think about it weekly and laugh every time..

grimtraveller said...

Isn't it weird how, because of Aranda, a perp can't be convicted on an accomplice's testimony without something independent to corroborate what is being said, but in parole hearings, the Aranda principle goes right out the window and anyone can pretty much say anything about anyone and it carries heavy weight one way or the other ?

twominutehate said...

But Charlie went to the Straight Satan's place in Venice on the 2nd night - literally from the scene of the murder - to "pay them back" for something. He's admitted as much. So clearly, Charlie/the family/someone owed the Straight Satans money for something... maybe it wasn't the supposedly bad mescaline, but that version of the story is no less consistent with the established facts than the "who can we kill who has money?" story.



And the idea that Bobby refraining from rehashing the mescaline story at parole hearings is somehow evidence against it as a theory is an absolute red herring. Is the format/structure of parole hearings (in CA specifically) just totally foreign to everyone here? Because disputing the outcome of your trial, or alleging that the jury/judge/prosecutor/whoever got it wrong, making claims of actual innocence, etc. are the complete opposite of what anyone seeking parole should do. You can find countless interviews from lawyers and former inmates saying as much. It is prerequisite for parole that you 1) "take responsibility" for your crimes, 2) show that you understand how you came to commit those crimes, 3) show that you have changed your thinking such that your likelihood of reoffending has diminished. There is no room for "well, actually, the prosecutor was wrong, it was all over a mescaline deal" in this template. That just gives the parole board an opportunity to say you haven't "taken responsibility for your crimes" and therefore have not be rehabilitated. Prosecutors routinely create simplified, whitewashed versions of crimes to make a victim seem more sympathetic or innocent, and a defendant seem more evil, than is warranted by the facts. Those trying to get paroled just play the game of going along with the lies because they know doing otherwise would doom them for another 3 years or whatever it is.