tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post1436088737628380281..comments2024-03-28T20:31:17.737-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Take the Back Alley to Langley - Part ThreeMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger272125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-5765159397678761412023-09-03T18:22:23.190-04:002023-09-03T18:22:23.190-04:00Tobias didn't make that statement, I did.
Seco...Tobias didn't make that statement, I did.<br />Secondly, don't take what was said out of context ~ that quote is directly referring to the notion of Manson being at Cielo in the aftermath of the murders. He did not want to draw attention to himself.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-39105355963092526352023-08-23T21:13:29.177-04:002023-08-23T21:13:29.177-04:00tobiasragg said:
Let's examine this. A felon ...tobiasragg said:<br /><br /><b>Let's examine this. A felon out on probation/parole goes to a murder scene in which there are 5 bodies and he engages in a heated argument with someone, knowing that it is the quiet hours and that there are houses nearby and they could be heard. Surely discretion would be the greater part of valour, here ? When it comes to crime, Charlie's thing was not to attract attention to himself ~ unless he was bigging himself up to the Family or other criminals. I do accept that he was into doing things a different way, a psychedelic way, but that didn't extend to being caught.</b><br /><br /><br />Didn't Charlie threaten a bunch of firemen with a machine gun on the trail next to the ranch? And wasn't he driving stolen cars all the time (which he was arrested for) despite never getting a license (which he was also arrested for, along with DUI)? And didn't he get an interfering with an officer charge with Ouisch? And didn't he get caught by cops trespassing in a cabin next to the ranch, with a bunch of weed, having sex with an underage Stephanie Schram? Sorry, but the idea that Charlie was being careful or "discrete" while on probation is kinda laughable; he was driving stolen cars without a license while intoxicated, arguing with cops trying to arrest his underage girlfriends, and threatening firemen with guns that he couldn't legally possess. He was the opposite of discrete.twominutehatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11533371633554242775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-45620567448353689282023-02-10T02:23:38.691-05:002023-02-10T02:23:38.691-05:00I just wanted to point out, regarding the claim &q...I just wanted to point out, regarding the claim "People who work for Uncle Sam have insurance. Former service members have VA records. Everyone pays taxes," you should look up the <a href="http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/NicholsTranscript/NicholsTranscript-Part1.PDF" rel="nofollow">depositions</a> of ex-CIA contractor Robert Booth Nicholls from the fraud case of Sam Israel. Starting on pg 32, Nicholls is asked, "You mentioned that in 2004 you had personal income of over $10 million. Did you file any tax return for that money?" He answers "No", and explains that he'd been told by his CIA case officer to never file income taxes:<br /><br /><br />"He told me I was involved in projects that were sensitive, of an extremely sensitive nature. He said he did not want these projects nor any of the electronics, engineering or any part of them ever reaching the public and I was -- I would never be bothered and to proceed with my life and do not file. And I asked repeatedly what should I do about this. You pay me, what do I do? You will never be bothered by the United States government. You keep what you do private and never let this reach the United States -- never let the things you are involved in reach the public. They are national security matters. That's what he told me."<br /><br /><br />It became an issue in this case because creditors were suing to recoup money Nicholls had received from a Ponzi scheme, but when the court was trying to establish Nicholls's assets, it came out that he had never filed tax returns, despite owning real estate worth tens of millions all over the world and having no visible means of income. So when Nicholls was deposed, he admitted under oath that he'd never paid taxes on millions of dollars in income over decades from US intel agencies, but he was never pursued by the IRS, even after the deposition. Which is just to say, I don't think we can categorically state that because someone isn't on paper receiving money from an intel agency, that necessarily means they never worked for that agency.<br /><br /><br />I previously wrote a less-detailed version of this comment that its not letting me delete. Sorry.twominutehatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11533371633554242775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-59350280741457701892022-04-10T23:15:10.616-04:002022-04-10T23:15:10.616-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.twominutehatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11533371633554242775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-1757487745813352432022-04-02T10:21:50.958-04:002022-04-02T10:21:50.958-04:00GT:
Thanks for the reference to the Unterberger b...GT:<br /><br />Thanks for the reference to the Unterberger books. I will try to find them. They'd be enjoyable reading.<br /><br />...and I just found 8 of them at the local library! E-books, too! I can start on Turn, Turn, Turn today.<br /><br />One of the aspects of the era, of the zeigeist (hate using that word, but it gets the job done in eight characters) was a really, really naive belief--and let me assure you that even I entertained this as likely, did not reject it outright, with scorn--is that "love", the agape form, I suppose, was the overlooked panacea. Our parents had somehow overlooked it, it was simple, and it would cure EVERYTHING.<br /><br />"All you need is love", and "Come on people, smile on your brother, everybody get together, time to love one another, right now, right now..."--these were actually taken seriously to a large degree. I would say that 67 was the high water mark of this sentiment on the west coast of the USA.<br /><br />I mean, my peer group actually believed, for a little while, that none of this had ever been considered by our parents (or any previous generation, either), they had simply overlooked it. We failed completely to realize what coming out of the Great Depression and right into WWII would mean the the previous generation's worldview.<br /><br />Much of this was driven by escapism WRT to the Vietnam war--it was despair at being drafted, let's be honest...shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-14150156585212140802022-04-02T04:56:21.162-04:002022-04-02T04:56:21.162-04:00shoegazer said:
Here are a couple of articles abo...shoegazer said:<br /><br /><b>Here are a couple of articles about the song</b><br /><br />I love that second article, the liner notes one. The way the album, the band, the mix of genres, orchestration and its making is described, it really reminds me of "Christian Lucifer" by a guy called Perry Leopold that came out in about '73.<br />The author of the article, Richie Unterberger, is a tremendous writer. I have 3 damn hot books by him, "Turn turn turn" and "Eight Miles High" which is a really good {and I'd say almost, if not actual, definitive} two part book on folk-rock and how it morphed into psychedelia and encapsulated the countercultural changes of the 1960s. Many of the musical figures that come up on this blog are in the book. And the other one is "Urban spacemen and wayfaring strangers ~ overlooked innovators and eccentric visionaries of 60s rock." It's one of those books that is easy to miss its significance....until you get its significance ! And its greatness is assured because it features the Pretty Things and talks a lot about "SF Sorrow", an album that actually, justifiably, can be described as a lost psychedelic masterpiece.<br /><br /><b>I searched for YEARS for this, and finally found it as a Japanese import, maybe 15 years ago. Now anyone can hear it for free</b><br /><br />I used to hunt down obscure records, or try to find out the names of songs I knew, but didn't know the title of or the artist. I used to actually go into shops and sing the piece to the people working there. Most of the time, I came out with either the record, the name of the song and artist, or where I could get it if I couldn't get it there. When the internet came along, I'd hum or sing it and make an MP3 and e-mail it to specific stores or individuals. The only one I've never been able to get an answer on was one that I'm sure was a Hendrix piece from some obscure live recording I heard at the tail end of 1979. <br /><br /><b>According to the 1st Police Progress Report, under REPORT ON STRANGE SOUNDS, GUNSHOTS, INDICATIONS OF VIOLENCE, RELATED BY PERSONS WHO WERE IN HEARING DISTANCE OF THE POLANSKI RESIDENCE ON THE NIGHT OF 8-8-69, AND THE MORNING OF 8-9-69<br />Gill is listed here, along with 6 other separate ear witnesses who say they heard something worthy of note between 0030 and 0411 on 09 Aug</b><br /><br />At the time of the report, it is understandable that the police had to list all of those sounds heard. They had nothing else to go on. They pretty much had to consider everything that came to them ~ which makes it all the more amazing that Jess Buckles so easily dismissed the info that Whiteley and Guenther brought him about the Hinman murder. Actually, it's not really amazing. Police officers wore some of their prejudices on their sleeves.<br />But all those sounds heard had to be taken into consideration.<br />Most of them became moot, once Susan Atkins {via Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard} appeared on the police radar.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-49615709301404617642022-04-02T04:55:45.341-04:002022-04-02T04:55:45.341-04:00shoegazer said:
It is astounding what you can hea...shoegazer said:<br /><br /><b>It is astounding what you can hear in an urban environment. Many times I thought: "By God. I'm sure to read about this in the news tomorrow."<br />But nope</b><br /><br />Even where I live, in sedate, relatively quiet north west London, if you shut out everything at night and just listen, you'll hear sirens, screaming, crying, foxes, arguing....<br /><br /><b>American Rubber Soul</b><br /><br />The American one is very different to the British one, which was the version that the band intended as the definitive one. Yet, it is an amazing historical point worth noting, that both versions in their respective parts of the world, were true groundbreakers. Certainly in the UK, "Rubber Soul" is the specific point at which albums began to take over from singles as the dominant medium for showcasing what artists could do.<br /><br /><b>IN my peer group of the time, this changed everything WRT the Beatles</b><br /><br />It's important to hear that. In the past, it has tended to be artists like Brian Wilson that have extolled its virtues. But the artists of the time don't tell the whole story.<br /><br /><b>Here in the USA, maybe in 70 or so, there was some kind of pushback against songs that might suggest drug use</b><br /><br />That process began in England somewhat earlier. "Eight miles high" from '66 was criticized in certain papers for having drug content and even the Beatles were getting into trouble and having songs banned due to suggestions of drug use by 1967.<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-52706897971181913402022-04-01T21:30:11.403-04:002022-04-01T21:30:11.403-04:00GT:
English bands were starting to get a little r...GT:<br /><br /><b>English bands were starting to get a little risqué by 1966, after "Satisfaction" and "Norwegian Wood."</b><br /><br />Here in the USA, maybe in 70 or so, there was some kind of pushback against songs that might suggest drug use. There was an FCC crackdown on songs that mentioned drugs; they got radio stations to quit playing them.<br /><br />I can recall this song, Junkie John, as having a whole lot of airplay maybe in 70 or so, when I was a student in San Diego, and then it just disappeared.<br /><br />It is not much musically, but tremendously evocative. If you listened to this song, they very last thing you'd do would be to shoot up.<br /><br />Here are a couple of articles about the song.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2014/08/27/rediscovering-junkie-john-tim-dawe-and-penrod-after-40-years/" rel="nofollow">text</a><br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.richieunterberger.com/dawe.html" rel="nofollow">text</a><br /><br /><br />Here's the song, itself:<br /><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj0bz5F5ijA" rel="nofollow">text</a><br /><br />I searched for YEARS for this, and finally found it as a Japanese import, maybe 15 years ago. Now anyone can hear it for free.shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-30262618987128168802022-04-01T19:24:02.738-04:002022-04-01T19:24:02.738-04:00GT:
I just wonder how many times prior to the mur...GT:<br /><br /><b>I just wonder how many times prior to the murders, multiple sounds like the ones heard that night were heard and no great significance was attached to them, or minor significance was attached to them...</b><br /><br />Anecdote time...<br /><br />Fir many yers I have had trouble sleeping thru the night. As a consequence I read a lot between the hours of 1-4 AM.<br /><br />It is astounding what you can hear in an urban environment. Many times I thought: "By God. I'm sure to read about this in the news tomorrow."<br /><br />But nope.<br /><br />American Rubber Soul.<br /><br />IN my peer group of the time, this changed everything WRT the Beatles.shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-8245738727967655012022-04-01T19:16:14.563-04:002022-04-01T19:16:14.563-04:00shoegazer said:
In addition another Stone song th...shoegazer said:<br /><br /><b>In addition another Stone song that really stood out was "Let's Spend the Night Together"</b><br /><br />One of my favourite Stones' songs. This song was the one that first alerted me to Charlie Watts' drumming, which I love in that '65-'69 period.<br /><br /><b>Prior to Rubber Soul, the Beatles were becoming a bit old hat</b><br /><br />Keen observation. Not many people catch that.<br />By the way, do you mean the British "Rubber Soul" or the American one ? After Dylan, the Kinks, the emergence of the Stones, the Byrds and the Who, and PF Sloan {Eve of destruction} all in '65, with their more adult and incisive lyrics, lyrically, the Beats were kind of old hat. Rubber Soul changed that, because even though 10 of the songs were about boy~girl matters, they were delightfully cynical and misogynistic twists that the Beatles hadn't explored in depth before. They were never the same again. Mind you, they were never the same before !<br /><br /><b>Clearly Gill and the four other earwitnesses did not hear the same thing</b><br /><br />Back in July on another site, I stated:<br /><br /><i>A simple experiment: just take the evidence of timelines from what is generally regarded as the official narrative, with all their flaws and changes {yes, very few cases are totally perfect}, with the ending point being when the killers claim they went to bed.<br />Then take the timeline evidence of Steele, Gill, Bullington, Karlson, Correll, Mounton, the unknown caller, the unknown officer and Seymour Kott. Forget anything the killers have said, in fact, forget the Cielo crime for the purpose of the experiment and just bundle that lot together and ask yourself, honestly, if they could all possibly be witnesses to the same event. </i><br /><br />I just wonder how many times prior to the murders, multiple sounds like the ones heard that night were heard and no great significance was attached to them, or minor significance was attached to them...grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-37513748225463031322022-04-01T14:53:02.404-04:002022-04-01T14:53:02.404-04:00GT:
Yeah. It was originally "That's the ...GT:<br /><br /><b>Yeah. It was originally "That's the best way I have found" but they decided to change it because they thought the BBC would ban it. English bands were starting to get a little risqué by 1966, after "Satisfaction" and "Norwegian Wood."</b><br /><br />Wow, this is taking me back...maybe that's the biggest attraction of this forum is--it's trigger more detail memories of that era, like no other discussion I've been in.<br /><br />I can recall being at a party likely in 66 probably. Rubber Soul was a major revelation, it had lots of appealing hooks.<br /><br />In addition another Stone song that really stood out was "Let's Spend the Night Together", somewhere in this time frame.<br /><br />Prior to Rubber Soul, the Beatles were becoming a bit old hat.shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-70886812887639544322022-04-01T13:05:48.289-04:002022-04-01T13:05:48.289-04:00GT:
There is a whole lot to think about WRT to th...GT:<br /><br />There is a whole lot to think about WRT to the Gill account, and it's this:<br /><br />According to the 1st Police Progress Report, under <i>REPORT ON STRANGE SOUNDS, GUNSHOTS, INDICATIONS OF VIOLENCE, RELATED BY PERSONS WHO WERE IN HEARING DISTANCE<br />OF THE POLANSKI RESIDENCE ON THE NIGHT OF 8-8-69, AND THE MORNING OF 8-9-69</i><br /><br />Gill is listed here, along with 6 other separate ear witnesses who say they heard <i>something</i> worthy of note between 0030 and 0411 on 09 Aug.<br /><br />So does anyone think that ALL of these were related to the killings? No?<br /><br />Then which ones, and why do you say this?<br /><br />I think that Bugliosi shopped these and took the one he liked best--to establish a soldi timeline. You had Friedman testifying that Partent called him at 11:30, saying that he'd be at Friedman's in 40 min, and this suggests that if he indeed tried to keep to that commitment, he was prevented sometime before midnight. And Garretson confirms this.<br /><br />So the jury sees that <i>something</i> unusual is happening up there ~12AM. <br /><br />Then Bugliosi selects Ireland (who originally says 1-1:30, but changes this to 12:40 on the stand, saying that his supervisor told him that he had reported the noise to him (the supervisor) at 12:30. Bugliosi does this to provide acoustic confirmation that a possibly violent event happened at that time, and this is implied to be Frykoski being killed at he front of Cielo.<br /><br />Clearly Gill and the four other earwitnesses did not hear the same thing--they reported shots at different times, one of which was *after* Gill says he heard the argument--so why choose Gill?shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-65720636900169195202022-04-01T05:45:37.471-04:002022-04-01T05:45:37.471-04:00tobiasragg said:
I tend not to try and attribute...tobiasragg said:<br /><br /> <b>I tend not to try and attribute ideas of "normal" behavior to Charles Manson, because he did not operate in normal ways</b><br /><br />As a follow on, I would say that there are many times when Charlie Manson <i>himself</i> presented himself as reacting like other people or being like other people, for example, talking of being a father to Dianne lake and conditioning her mind with pain {by beating her} to stop her burning down the ranch. I know tons of Dads that would do that, including my own, when he was around.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-21648740807005888512022-04-01T05:40:41.282-04:002022-04-01T05:40:41.282-04:00shoegazer said:
OK, it's partway in my head n...shoegazer said:<br /><br /><b>OK, it's partway in my head now, an earworm. Who sang this?</b><br /><br />The Yardbirds.<br /><br /><b>Seems in my head the next lyric is:<br /><br />"Backward, forward, square and round..."</b><br /><br />Yeah. It was originally "That's the best way I have found" but they decided to change it because they thought the BBC would ban it. English bands were starting to get a little risqué by 1966, after "Satisfaction" and "Norwegian Wood."<br /><br />tobiasragg said:<br /><br /><b><i>"Susan told one of her jail pals, Roseanne Walker, that the glasses had not come with the killers."</i><br />That is not what is being suggested. No one that I know of has spoken of the killers bringing the glasses with them. The story is that Manson brought the glasses with HIM when he returned to the scene</b><br /><br />I don't think you've understood the point I was making.<br />We were talking about Manson having told one of the lawyers {you say it was Paul Fitzgerald} that he'd gone to Cielo to see the crime scene. That moved onto him now altering the scene and wiping prints and dropping the glasses. I then went on to say that there are two direct quotes attributed to him in George Stimson's book "Goodbye Helter Skelter", in which he blatantly states <i>he</i> gave the glasses to the troupe before they left for Cielo and that I think he was lying to George {actually, it was from a taped phone call to Sandy in 1996, so to be accurate, he was lying to her}. I went on to point out that this has certain implications, hence pointing out the thing that Susan said to Roseanne. In terms of the glasses, however you look at it, Charlie was bullshitting.<br /><br /><b>"My mind doesn't work like your mind does." This was another of Charlie's favorite lines and I often find myself thinking of it as I read your reactions to some of these things. It's never a good idea to apply normal standards or expectations to Charles Manson, that's not the way he operated</b><br /><br />It's ironic that anyone should say that to me of all people, because I've spent the last 7 years taking flak from friends and foe alike on the blogs for continually making the point that the Family and Manson in particular, operated from a different thought process. Even more ironic is that I make the point in the post directly before the one of yours that I'm quoting from.<br />Yes, Manson's mind didn't work like most others. But not in everything. Not in every aspect, all the time. For example, his willingness to throw the women under the bus {or to be more precise, into the gas chamber} in order to save himself wasn't psychedelic, unconventional or the slightest bit unusual. He did what probably most of us would do if faced with a situation where you might have to pay with your life. His appetite for sex with very young girls wasn't some great <i>out there</i> piece of uniqueness. Tons of blokes are like that. Him not wanting to get caught in crime wasn't different to any other criminal. Him not being backchatted to by a woman is the norm in most cultures outside of the west {and even in much of the west}. Etc, etc, etc. There are hundreds of examples where Charlie Manson showed himself to act and react just like anyone else would.<br />Equally, there are hundreds of examples where he showed himself to be on a different plane. Part of trying to understand any human being involves the difficult process of trying to ascertain which particular mind they are thinking with or acting from, in any particular situation, especially if they don't bat on a straight wicket all the time or if they have delved into the psychedelic experience.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-28269602360966259902022-04-01T04:53:57.785-04:002022-04-01T04:53:57.785-04:00starviego said:
Was the window open at midnight-1...starviego said:<br /><br /><b>Was the window open at midnight-1am? If so, then Gill's not mentioning any gunshots at that time is telling</b><br /><br />Yes, it would be telling. It would be telling us that whatever Carlos says he heard, had absolutely nothing to do with the events at Cielo.<br /><br />tobiasragg said:<br /><br /><b>Gill mentions no gunshots, but it is worth reporting that prosecutors chose not to use him during the trial because his time estimate on overhearing the heated argument differs significantly from the LAPD's timing estimate - Gill has the argument as happening more toward 3am or so</b><br /><br />That just makes it all the more obvious that whatever he heard had nothing to do with the events at Cielo.<br /><br />shoegazer said:<br /><br /><b>Who'd be arguing at Cielo at 3-4 AM? Manson and the person who went with him? Did anyone argue with Charlie? Three or four people, Gill thinks...</b><br /><br />Aside from the fact that no one argued with Charlie, let alone loudly, let alone at the scene of a murder, it seems to me there is being made an attempt to shoehorn in Carlos Gill's statements. Why do we automatically assume that what he heard came from 10050 ? Would we assume that if there had been no murders that night ? Or would we assume that it could have come from anywhere in that general direction ? Carlos said he looked over and didn't see anything.<br />There seem to be 2 points being made regarding Carlos; that he heard the murders or that he heard Manson and his cohort trying to stage the scene <i>after</i> the murders. There are very solid reasons to conclude he heard neither.<br /><br />tobiasragg said:<br /><br /><b>Sanders and Hendrickson were outsiders, but they were young and hip and semi-trusted within the family back then. Charlie had given each the nod, therefore they were welcomed into the fold in a way that other outsiders were not</b><br /><br />I can't remember about Sanders, but Hendrickson, yeah. However, they weren't welcomed into the fold to tell the world that Charlie Manson had been complicit in murder. Or to make it known that he'd been to the scene of the murders.<br /><br /><b>Charlie's motivator was to get his word out</b><br /><br />Yes. But the word didn't include "I went to Cielo after the murders" because that would be shouting from the rooftops that he had knowledge of it <i>prior to the cops</i>, which would scream conspiracy.<br /><br /><b>he was always a fame seeker</b><br /><br />Sure, and doubtless he dug it back in the day. But prior to conviction and sentencing, he didn't want to be famous for dying in the gas chamber at age 36.<br /><br /><b>and folks like these two guys could help him accomplish this</b><br /><br />Possibly. But not by telling the world that he had, in actual fact, been involved in the murder of pregnant Sharon Tate.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-37350340063254076352022-04-01T04:24:22.750-04:002022-04-01T04:24:22.750-04:00tobiasragg said:
"He was stating right from ...tobiasragg said:<br /><br /><b><i>"He was stating right from the moment he was charged that he had nothing to do with the murders."</i><br />This isn't what Manson ever said</b><br /><br />Actually, that's inaccurate. He may not have used that exact form of words, but it is what he was "saying." In the bundle that LA County send, with transcripts and stuff, there are a plethora of newspaper stories and court motions from the back end of '69, right through '70, pre~trial stuff. The Charlie word games are not much in evidence there. The word games <i>really</i> begin after conviction and sentencing. For example, during his trial, he testified:<br /><i>"I have killed no one and I have ordered no one to be killed."</i> In other words, "I had nothing to do with these murders." <br />In his March '70 Rolling Stone interview, he said, regarding Susan Atkins:<br /><i>"She is going to change her testimony. She's going to say that she was there, but that I didn't know anything about it. Even if she wasn't there, she is going to say it."</i> In other words, "I had nothing to do with these murders." <br /><br />In those press stories, everything he says adds up to him stating that he had nothing to do with the murders. As a follow on from that, what do you think the penalty phase of the trial was about ? That penalty phase was what their defence would have been. And notice, Charles Manson is conspicuous by his absence from it. In other words, "I had nothing to do with these murders." <br /><br /><b>Charlie's go-to line was "I didn't kill nobody!"</b><br /><br />Actually, that became his post-sentencing go~to line. That's what he said to psychiatrists, interviewers, parole boards, authors....He added to that "I didn't break man's law or God's law."<br /><br /><b>Back then and over the years, Charlie has admitted to most everything he's been accused of - except for thrusting the knife or firing the bullet into someone. He admits to being in the LaBianca house, to stopping at the church, to shooting Lottsapoppa, to making suggestions to Tex and the girls that night</b><br /><br />Yes, all true. <i>Over the years</i>. Now show me where he did <i>any</i> of that prior to his trial, conviction and sentencing. He never admitted to being at the LaBianca's before then because that would be tantamount to saying "I am guilty." Where, prior to the trial did he admit making suggestions to Tex and the women on either night ? He admitted to Bugliosi that he'd shot Lotsapoppa, but said it was in self-defence. When, in front of the jail guards, he apologized to Crowe for shooting him, he didn't specify what he was sorry for, just that he had had to "do it." Crowe knew of course. No one else did.<br /><br /><b>Conspiracy? That concept doesn't exist in Charlie's world. Therefore he can never be guilty of something that doesn't exist, you dig?</b><br /><br />Not true. He has frequently spoken of conspiracy and not getting involved in someone else's conspiracy. What I would say is that he had little real understanding of what, legally, conspiracy is. But he soon learned it. Which was precisely why he, in those pre~trial days, always distanced himself from the murders and didn't play the kind of word games that he did afterwards. The weight of evidence was so much against him however, that subsequently, he adopted the "I didn't kill anyone or tell anyone to kill so I can't be guilty" line.<br />In terms of the TLB murders, Charlie can be accurately split into 2 phases; pre and post conviction.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-22356498024075433612022-03-31T16:59:23.568-04:002022-03-31T16:59:23.568-04:00while he sometimes spoke of being a father to the ...<b>while he sometimes spoke of being a father to the people on the ranch in those days of 1970~71, does he usually refer to them as his children ?</b><br /><br />Actually, he did so during his court testimony in November 1970.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-72422248537958808212022-03-31T10:47:04.575-04:002022-03-31T10:47:04.575-04:00"My mind doesn't work like your mind does...<b>"My mind doesn't work like your mind does." This was another of Charlie's favorite lines and I often find myself thinking of it as I read your reactions to some of these things. It's never a good idea to apply normal standards or expectations to Charles Manson, that's not the way he operated.</b><br /><br />I think that really, Manson's main difference in philosophy was that he was simply amoral.<br /><br />I honestly don't think that most people have ever wrestled with what "amoral" means, since the majority have come from some a background of a moral code derived from those looked upon as guide figures. Often this is parents. So they see "amoral" as similar to immoral, maybe even congruent.<br /><br />Basically, it means that the *only* restriction to what you, the individual, wants, is your lack of ability to get. If you want it, that's the sole necessary justification, and there is no counterbalancing possible social impact. There is no internal wrestling.<br /><br />One might think of morality as "conscience", and that Manson basically lacked, or suppressed, his.<br /><br />I think his actual thought processes were fairly sound, or potentially so, right up to the time he unleashed a bloodbath, but muddled by drugs and his unique position as the leader of a insular secular group whom he dominated.<br /><br />Where he was weak was mid/long-term planning--strategy. He tended to be unable to foresee likely consequences out a ways in the future, and so he optimistically glossed over them as manageable.<br /><br />Simply my guesses at this point.<br /><br />shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-17420866006047129322022-03-31T10:24:17.144-04:002022-03-31T10:24:17.144-04:00GT:
Filtered through my over under sideways down ...GT:<br /><br /><b>Filtered through my over under sideways down logic,</b><br /><br />OK, it's partway in my head now, an earworm. Who sang this?<br /><br />Seems in my head the next lyric is:<br /><br />"Backward, forward, square and round..."<br /><br /><b>he definitely beat a different drumbeat to the prevailing society and the counterculture</b><br /><br />Not am I convinced that it was a drum he was beating. It was <i>that</i> different.<br />shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-78234645385562842502022-03-31T10:12:27.583-04:002022-03-31T10:12:27.583-04:00GT:
Re Manson diction, I agree with your observat...GT:<br /><br />Re Manson diction, I agree with your observations. He could shift gears, without doubt.<br /><br />It's just how I tend to evaluate: line up the pros and cons. The final hypothetical outcome is after weighing them all, as best I can at the time.<br /><br />Same with the idea of a Manson visit to Cielo after the crimes. I need to lay it all out there to see it, evaluate it, because a second pass at Cielo certainly could resolve some anomalies.<br /><br />But we have to work at it from the other direction. Not that because a visit would explain things nicely, and I want it resolved, so I'm looking for facts that resolve it, but because after an evaluation of the facts it looks like that's the most likely answer.<br /><br />Don't start with the outcome and find the facts, but find the facts that point to an outcome.shoegazerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14073693271676337152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-78065614656704499692022-03-31T09:52:22.147-04:002022-03-31T09:52:22.147-04:00"Susan told one of her jail pals, Roseanne Wa..."Susan told one of her jail pals, Roseanne Walker, that the glasses had not come with the killers."<br /><br />That is not what is being suggested. No one that I know of has spoken of the killers bringing the glasses with them. The story is that Manson brought the glasses with HIM when he returned to the scene.tobiasragghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01390878277344521524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-5014036312983284302022-03-31T09:46:44.880-04:002022-03-31T09:46:44.880-04:00"He was stating right from the moment he was ..."He was stating right from the moment he was charged that he had nothing to do with the murders."<br /><br />This isn't what Manson ever said.<br /><br />Charlie's go-to line was "I didn't kill nobody!"<br /><br />Back then and over the years, Charlie has admitted to most everything he's been accused of - except for thrusting the knife or firing the bullet into someone. He admits to being in the LaBianca house, to stopping at the church, to shooting Lottsapoppa, to making suggestions to Tex and the girls that night. But that doesn't make him responsible for anything, he says. Society, or "your world" is to blame for fucking up the kids and as for what Tex and company chose to do that night - that's on them. <br /><br />Conspiracy? That concept doesn't exist in Charlie's world. Therefore he can never be guilty of something that doesn't exist, you dig?<br /><br />Fitzgerald and the others were doing their job, they were providing the accused with a defense. But there was never any kind of illusion that these folks were innocent. "We're not here to talk about the sex lives of these people, we're here to discuss the murder lives of these people", dontchaknow.<br /><br />Sanders and Hendrickson were outsiders, but they were young and hip and semi-trusted within the family back then. Charlie had given each the nod, therefore they were welcomed into the fold in a way that other outsiders were not. Charlie's motivator was to get his word out - we was always a fame seeker - and folks like these two guys could help him accomplish this.<br /><br />"My mind doesn't work like your mind does." This was another of Charlie's favorite lines and I often find myself thinking of it as I read your reactions to some of these things. It's never a good idea to apply normal standards or expectations to Charles Manson, that's not the way he operated. <br /><br />tobiasragghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01390878277344521524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-57267947315965057892022-03-31T05:38:35.018-04:002022-03-31T05:38:35.018-04:00tobiasragg said:
As for Charlie, I long felt ...tobiasragg said:<br /><br /> <b>As for Charlie, I long felt "oh, surely HE isn't stupid enough to actually believe that! But when he is warning a sheriff who is hauling him in that, as a white man, he's in trouble & should retreat to the desert for safety - and when I hear Steph Schram recalling Charlie preaching the stuff to her San Diego roomie peeps, just a day or two before the murders, people who were complete strangers to him - then I have to think - well, maybe that really was Charlie's whole deal</b><br /><br />I've always believed that he believed it, especially having once been atheist and then becoming a Christian and not only experiencing <i>belief</i>, but being around thousands of people that believe and seeing both the benefit and damage of it, and also from my cultural upbringing in which belief in various things, many of which we'd dismiss as insane, is not only prevalent, but the norm. And even in the enlightened 😳 west, people genuinely believe in character designations according to star signs and planets, genuinely believe in "the universe" directing the fortunes of their lives, genuinely believe in reincarnation and a whole host of things that <i>somebody else, somewhere,</i> would think of as ridiculous. <br />I think the Family believed HS and all its components, <i>precisely</i> because Charlie did. The idea that he needed HS to control them and keep them from leaving him simply ignores the blatant evidence set before us ~ and I'm not going to do that, no matter how out of step with the general consensus it is. There's often an attempt to pitch Manson as a typical cult leader of a typical cult. I just don't think it applies to him or them. He was in control long before HS came along. Squeaky's book actually shows us <i>how</i>.<br /><br /><b>and when I hear Steph Schram recalling Charlie preaching the stuff to her San Diego roomie peeps</b><br /><br />It was actually her sister. I've long wondered how Bugliosi learned this detail {as I do with how he learned of Steve Zabriske}, because in his & Gentry's book, he says it was while Stephanie was packing her clothes that Charlie laid HS on her sister. Did Stephanie tell him ? How did she know, if she was out of the room packing ? Did he speak to her sister ?<br />It was more than just laying HS on her though; it was him describing the images of people lying dead on their lawns that is the real eye opener, as it happened the next night.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29881836970689106752022-03-31T05:16:23.933-04:002022-03-31T05:16:23.933-04:00tobiasragg said:
In short, I think he was wrong o...tobiasragg said:<br /><br /><b>In short, I think he was wrong on his time estimate</b><br /><br />I don't. There's a 5 hour span of time that he speaks about, from 23.00 to 4am. I don't think what he says he heard is any more significant to the murders than the tales of Emmet Steele or Robert Bullington or any of the other things heard or related to between 2 and 4am.<br /><br /><b>Charles Manson...didn't seem to be allowing his status as a felon deter him from shooting drug dealers, butt-fucking 14 year olds, and threatening people with bullet gifts</b><br /><br />Well, let's look at those one by one.<br />a]A felon shooting a drug dealer <i>dead</i> {as he supposed, at the time}, what has he to fear ? The other people in the room didn't know him. To this day, there has never been any comeback on Charles Manson as regards shooting to kill Lotsapoppa.<br /><br />b]Most of the girls that ended up having sex with Charles Manson, let's face the uncomfortable reality of the times, wanted to. There were clearly codes of silence at play there. Witness the testimony of Nancy Pitman during the trial. In a sense, it reads as chilling, even now. But young girls that wanted sex wanted sex. Even the accusation of rape that was made against him, what happened with it ? Did it go to trial ? #me too didn't exist in them days. And as Rosie Boycott observed, the major beneficiaries of the sexual revolution during the 60s <i>were the men, not the women</i>. Their time was still to come. A felon like Manson could be pretty sure he was on fairly solid ground, parading his wares, unfortunately.<br /><br />c]Since when is it a crime to give someone a bullet ?<br /><br /> <b>Sanders...lists a number of reasons that he believes that there were two visits to crime scene</b><br /><br />To me the theory has never made sense. None of the perps had a good look at the scene as they left, in order to be able to photographically reproduce it for later comparison with the police. They wanted to get out of there quick time ! So all we have are descriptions and wholly incomplete ones from the side you need them from ~ the perps. They were murderers, not reporters.<br /><br /><b>Sanders asked Fitzgerald to ask Manson if he had returned and Manson said that he had, explaining that he left the glasses there to "create confusion"</b><br /><br />Many years later, he said to George Stimson {or at least, it is quoted in Stimson's book} that he <i>gave</i> the specs to the group, more or less for the same reason. <br />But I think he was lying to George {or at least the quotes in the book are lies}. And I'll tell you why. Susan told one of her jail pals, Roseanne Walker, that the glasses had <i>not</i> come with the killers. She actually thought it quite funny that someone could be arrested for murder when all they had done was to lose their glasses. So that's one strike against Manson's claim. There's also the reality that nowhere does Watson mention it. Nowhere does Atkins talk about it coming with them. As far as I know, Pat hasn't mentioned it {although I clearly don't know everything Pat has ever said !🤧}. Furthermore, for the women to mention it would clearly show they knew why they were at Cielo and Susan told Paul Caruso in '69: "We were instructed to go to this particular house. It was at night and I had no knowledge of what was happening until we actually got there." grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-36991571831202114802022-03-31T04:12:08.296-04:002022-03-31T04:12:08.296-04:00GG-W said:
Charlie did say he went back to see wh...GG-W said:<br /><br /><b>Charlie did say he went back to see what his children had done</b><br /><br />Filtered through my <i>over under sideways down</i> logic, I've long doubted the veracity of that. Particularly when I learned that its source, Ed Sanders, says that he got it from one of the defence lawyers <i>during the trial</i>. Now, to be fair, George Bishop, writing in his 1971 book "Witness to evil," tells us of pre~trial conversations he had with Pat's lawyer, Paul Fitzgerald, and Paul makes it clear{it's a fascinating set of quotes actually, considering this is before the jury has even been picked} that the girls committed the murders, but he doesn't go as far as to say they are guilty <i>of</i> murder {a cleverly subtle distinction}. And Pat's plea was 'not guilty'. But he at least accepts that she did it, even if privately.<br />But Manson was different. He was stating right from the moment he was charged that he had nothing to do with the murders. He did not speak in a personal, "I've had something ~ just a smidgen ~ to do with these events" kind of way. He distanced himself from them to the courts, to his lawyers, and most importantly, to the world's press and media. He went on and on about representing himself, even after his <i>pro per</i> {being his own lawyer} status was revoked. He didn't even speak about Lotsapoppa back in those pre~trial days, or Gary Hinman or Shorty, in terms of any involvement. So to believe that he, while on trial for conspiracy to commit murder, would admit to a <i>journalist,</i> through a <i>defence lawyer</i> that he engaged in activities that identify him as part of that conspiracy {even though I have long identified many ways over the years, in which he definitely beat a different drumbeat to the prevailing society <i>and</i> the counterculture}, I just can't do. People do strange things. People play arcane head games and engage in all manner of weirdette for all kinds of strange reasons {strange to anyone but the person, that is}. But for all his attacking the judge and disruption, Charlie wasn't <i>that</i> mule-headed.<br />Also, on a lighter note, while he sometimes spoke of being a father to the people on the ranch in those days of 1970~71, does he usually refer to them as his children ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.com