tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post2068377233326871055..comments2024-03-28T23:53:16.262-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: THE MURDER OF GARY HINMAN: Drug Burn or Robbery? by D. LaCalandraMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-56120169586800526762018-06-16T23:13:18.396-04:002018-06-16T23:13:18.396-04:00Bobby didn't want his folks to know he was a m...Bobby didn't want his folks to know he was a murderer; how would he feel about them knowing he was a gay prostitute for Charles Manson? I have no corroborating evidence as such, but the Manson m.o. and this possible relationship between GH & BB is the only thing that makes this nonsense make sense. Bobby tells Charlie Gary owes him for three BJs two handies and 4 toppers; that's gotta be a thousand easyDan Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17058602981660065969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29154101430041594242015-10-11T16:32:51.383-04:002015-10-11T16:32:51.383-04:00D. LaCalandra said...
"Al Springer: 'my ...D. LaCalandra said...<br /><br />"Al Springer: 'my club brother said this Dan, I mean this Charlie has some arsenal up there'.<br /><br />LOL....oops."<br /><br /><br />Well, everyone can make a slip of the tongue. From "Trial by your peers" by William Zamora: <br /><br />"'Charles Manson & these defendants cannot be tried for their behaviour as hippies ~ even if they were right wing hippies. I have confidence that you will have the courage to declare the verdict of conviction.' Mr Fitzgerald promptly excused himself and smiling, half embarrassed, corrected himself, 'I mean, the verdict of innocence.'"<br /><br />That was Paul Fitzgerald !<br /><br /><br /> D. LaCalandra said...<br /><br />"There is however plenty of evidence to suggest that they based this case upon the words of people who either A: didn't know what the hell was going on at that ranch and B: people who's asses were on the line"<br /><br /><br />Those in category A actually make for really powerful witnesses. They have no axe to grind or story to fit into. In fact, they might even wonder why their testimony is necessary. The prosecution of course, see the completed jigsaw. The witnesses only see their little piece.<br />The B category come under the heading of "Get real, people." If you're dealing with a host of people whom you want to testify and they have somewhat dodgy lives and are or have been involved in crime or criminal cases, some current, then you're just going to have to get real and accept that to fry a much larger, more lethal fish {like a suspected murderer}, you might have to let a smaller fish go {like a woman that forged a cheque or a guy that supposedly stole a motorbike engine}.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-47239709827972120932015-10-11T16:17:30.289-04:002015-10-11T16:17:30.289-04:00ColScott said...
"I have no doubt anymore an... ColScott said...<br /><br />"I have no doubt anymore and never will again. Bobby killed Gary over drugs. 100%"<br /><br /><br />George Stimson said...<br /><br />"Yep, 100%"<br /><br /><br />Well that's not what your book says. According to "Goodbye Helter Skelter" you, through what Charlie quotes, point out that Hinman had paid up, with the two cars {though Charlie couldn't recall if the pink slips were signed when he was there} and everything was cool and then three days later, Hinman gets the gun {Bruce's gun, how, we're not told !} and decides that he's going to Spahn to kill Charlie and so Bobby says that he can't do this because Charlie was defending him and it's not cool so as Gary walks past, Bobby stabs him, after first offering his own life by handing him the knife and saying "kill me," a Charlie trick, if we are to believe him, but a Bobby one ? Now, you use Charlie quotes in all of that and that has nothing to do with drugs.<br />So which is it ? 100% drugs or Bobby protecting the man who supposedly saved his life ? Which he denies, incidentally. In fact he goes further than that, he says Charlie's entrance into matters is what sent things spiraling out of control, a situation that he had under control.<br />What I find really interesting about the Hinman case is that when you start to put together the various accounts of what happened, it turns out to be just as, if not even more, fantastic than......Helter Skelter.<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-72958662641951701662015-10-11T14:12:07.480-04:002015-10-11T14:12:07.480-04:00Reading the instructions that the Judge gave the T...Reading the instructions that the Judge gave the TLB jury {Found in William Zamora's book "Trial by your peers" it's an eye opening 78 point document to assist the jury in it's deliberations} and applying that to Hinman, I was surprised at how complicated and wide the definition of 'murder' is. Now, whether it should be or should have been so wide is another discussion for another time but at the time of the killings, trials and convictions, it was. That's why Bruce Davis & Susan Atkins were convicted for the murder of Gary Hinman, even though they didn't lay a death hand on him ~ indeed, neither even witnessed the murder. Davis wasn't even there. But Davis furnishing the gun, being there for the sword strike and driving off in Gary's Fiat, Atkins remaining after all that had up to then transpired & wiping the house down for prints, this made them both legally culpable. Mary Brunner was equally culpable and more so than Atkins for nicking $27. Beausoleil says he hadn't gone to the house intending to hurt Gary Hinman and I believe him, whatever the original intention for going was. I don't believe Manson "sent killers to kill Hinman" but whether it was robbery or going to try and straighten things out so the Satans wouldn't come and whip Bobby's arse is moot.<br />According to the law, they were guilty and got their just deserts. Except of course, Mary who received immunity.<br />All immunity meant at the end of the day, where she was concerned, is that because she could help the prosecution, her guilt is set aside. Had she <i>actually</i> killed Hinman {putting the pillow on him didn't kill him} she may have received immunity that meant life in jail but no gas chamber. It wasn't unusual for an actual {as opposed to a legal} accused murderer to be given immunity {check out Billy Goucher in relation to the murder of James & Lauren Willet} in exchange for testimony but I doubt Mary would have been spared just to "get Manson." The State already showed it had no qualms about executing women.<br /><br />If the drug deal gone wrong is what happened, as the essay puts forth, the only thing of significance that changes is Danny DeCarlo's place in it. And given that nothing Bobby, Charlie, Susan, Mary or Bruce could say to implicate him as a co conspirator/defendant could be used in the absence of corroborating evidence and given that absolutely nothing other than Bobby's word even has DeCarlo as involved and there is no corroborating evidence, <i>even DeCarlo's place does not change.</i><br />So ultimately, the status quo remains whoever's version of events you want to run with. grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-54292940605297771382015-10-11T13:57:04.800-04:002015-10-11T13:57:04.800-04:00I was thinking about Bobby's version and the l...I was thinking about Bobby's version and the legal definitions that California had about conspiracies, co conspirators, murder and murderers when a thought struck me in regards to this case.<br />Let us suppose for a moment that everything presented in Bobby's latest version of things is absolutely true. <i>It makes absolutely no difference to the eventual outcome.</i> The prosecution's version or the "official version" isn't even needed. Bobby's version will do.<br />It matters not one jot nor tittle whether or not Charles Manson sent the three musketeers to Hinman's with instructions to get his money. In fact, in Charlie's case the motive couldn't be less relevant because; a)He went to and inside the house of Hinman, b)He struck Hinman with a blow that the medical examiner wrote up as "possibly fatal" and testified in court what that meant ¬> that unless Hinman had received proper medical attention, his wound was possibly fatal. In other words, had Bobby's stab wound to the chest not killed him, Charlie's sword strike {which Susan Atkins wrote up as Charlie trying to behead Hinman, though I don't believe that} would have, c)He arrived with Bruce in one car and <i>knowingly departed in the same car while Bruce departed in Hinman's car.</i><br />All of these things ring fence him in as a co conspirator. According to the law, he didn't even have to know that a killing was <i>going</i> to take place. He didn't have to say to Bobby "finish him off, Bob" or any kind of command for a kill to take place. He didn't even have to be at the house at the time of the actual murder. All that was needed was a phrase like "you know what to do" to be able to argue that there was a high degree of probability that a death was <i>likely</i> to occur.<br /><br /><br /> "Malice is implied when the killing results from an act involving a high degree of probability that it will result in death, which act is done for a base anti social purpose and with a wanton disregard for human life or when the killing is a direct casual result of the perpetration or the attempt to perpetrate a felony inherently dangerous to human life"<br /><br /> [Instruction given to the jury by Judge Charles Older to assist in deliberations during the Tate LaBianca trial]<br /><br /><br />That's why Charlie was convicted. In George Stimson's book, he actually makes that observation, adding that he would have said that {"you know what to do"} to anyone. But even without all that, points a & b have Charlie well and truly caught by the short & curlies.<br />If you accept Beausoleil's version that this crime is mitigated by his fear of reprisals due to Gary Hinman selling bad mescaline to these vicious bikers and Hinman going to the police about the current events, then you <i>absolutely must</i> be consistent and take all that he says and part of what he says is that Charlie "slashes him [Gary] across the face with the knife. Walks in the room, says something like he's showing me how to be a man. And I'm just, I'm dumbfounded...."<br />Showing Bobby how to be a man signed Charlie's death warrant.<br />By the way, Charlie Manson himself {Quoted by George Stimson in "Goodbye Helter Skelter"} claims that he "agreed with everybody, I got along with everybody and I did everything that everybody asked me ~ up to a point. <i>And that point was when I cut Hinman's ear off.</i> And then I started pulling back, saying 'whoa, man. This is all going into insanity.' And I <i>told</i> everybody there 'you're all putting me back in the penitentiary. I'm getting out of here.'"<br />Charlie being portrayed in the media as the hippie cult leader in control of the mindless lackeys <i>that had to be put away regardless of guilt or innocence</i> is the true myth here and is the myth that needs to be put to bed once and for all at least in relation to the Hinman case.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-92190103819967113502015-08-08T22:29:52.880-04:002015-08-08T22:29:52.880-04:00D. LaCalandra said...
"Since we want to go b...D. LaCalandra said...<br /><br />"Since we want to go by what Ella Jo Bailey said....."<br /><br /><br />"D", are you Pheonix Rising ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-17912730905044816472015-08-06T10:05:54.415-04:002015-08-06T10:05:54.415-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-36844656552349363982015-08-06T09:59:46.905-04:002015-08-06T09:59:46.905-04:00What's heartbreaking to me more than anything ...What's heartbreaking to me more than anything else is that killing Gary Hinman has negated all of my creative efforts." -Bobby Beausoleil <br /><br /><br />Notice that BB's only freakin concern is about HIMSELF.....I need not say more.....AustinAnn74https://www.blogger.com/profile/06342503212454947554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-24175997663753000142015-08-01T03:56:44.642-04:002015-08-01T03:56:44.642-04:00Since we want to go by what Ella Jo Bailey said, t...Since we want to go by what Ella Jo Bailey said, this is rather interesting:<br /><br />From the actual case file:<br />That night at about 6 p.m. Bailey saw Manson talking to Beausoleil and Davis. Beausoleil had a knife (People's exh. 18) and Davis had a nine millimeter Radom gun (People's exh. 30). Subsequent investigation by officers established that Davis had purchased the gun under an assumed name. Bailey saw Brunner and Atkins dressed in dark clothes. Bailey saw Brunner, Atkins, Beausoleil and a fourth unidentified person drive off in [71 Cal. App. 3d 14] a ranchhand's car which was driven by the fourth person. Davis was still in the parking lot.<br /><br />So Ella Jo basically saw and heard everything. She knew it all to a "T". But when it comes to that fourth person, suddenly they are "unidentified" and Davis, who was said to be the driver....is still in the parking lot?<br /><br />Funny how the gun was found to belong to Davis who purchased it under an "assumed name". Because correct me if I'm wrong, but DeCarlo had a pending charge for the same exact thing.<br /><br />Didn't Beausoleil have DeCarlo hand him the gun and drive them to Hinman at one hearing? <br /><br />Certainly the State of California wouldn't white wash the involvement of a witness of theirs, would they? ...and switch his role with Davis? Considering how DeCarlo was one of the first to run to cops, seemed to know every detail of the Hinman murder, it gels with what Beausoleil rather said. Who else could that fourth person be?<br /><br />I got to do an updated version of this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-22239285021370002322015-07-29T04:58:12.390-04:002015-07-29T04:58:12.390-04:00Great thread.
Dawes, I believe Mary got involved ...Great thread.<br /><br />Dawes, I believe Mary got involved with the Hinman murder because she had a previous relationship with him (not necessarily sexual) with regard to his address being used as her address when the authorities took an interest in the welfare of her baby. Beausoleil I believe stayed with Hinman for a while.<br /><br />Robert Hendrickson, one of the things that keeps me coming back to this case is the variance between truth (say of an event that actually happened) and truth in law (what is recorded in to a legal document as being true). Added to that is the legal pressure put on potential witnesses and the offers of immunity. Bugliosi did as he was expected, using all the advantages of his profession and the California legal system. So, Ella Jo Bailey, Danny DeCarlo, Linda Kasabian, Mary Brunner, Kitty Lustesinger, Dianne Lake and Susan Atkins to name but a few were offered carrots and/or sticks to testify. Offers of immunity, the dropping of federal charges, the lose of their children, taking a death sentence away, the loss of immunity from prosecution, these all remain tactics available for a DA to use.<br /><br />On an aside, Beausoleil, if he had been convicted in Dec 1969, may well have served 13-16 years and been released. Or, without the late inclusion of the testimony of DeCarlo may have been found not guilty. I do wonder if he was ever approached about becoming a star witness for the Tate-LaBianca trial. <br /><br />His second trial, for me, demonstrates the snow-balling effect of convicting the Manson family. It was Brunner's testimony from that trial that was used as the truth for Manson's later Hinman trial. In effect, the DA simply read from the transcript of what Brunner had said in another trial, legally it was already true (bear in mind she was given immunity from prosecution for her part in the Hinman murder (for which Atkins pleaded guilty and received a life sentence), recanted her testimony, un-recanted it, then recanted it and faced a lengthy appeal against her loss of immunity which was eventually upheld in 1973 when she was in prison for the Hawthorne shootout).<br /><br />Another exampe would be Dianne Lake with her perjury. The maximum sentence for perjury in a capital case is the same as that faced by the accused. So technically she could, had she been charged and later convicted, faced a death sentence. That said she was an underage pregnant runaway who was placed in a mental institution before giving evidence on behalf of the prosecution.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-9674431095214693772015-07-26T22:30:14.845-04:002015-07-26T22:30:14.845-04:00PAUL CARUSO: Do you remember where Frykowski’s pan...PAUL CARUSO: Do you remember where Frykowski’s pants were? Did that make an impression on you?<br /><br />SUSAN ATKINS: Where his pants were?<br /><br />PAUL CARUSO: Do you recall if his pants were up around his abdomen or did they fall, do you recall?<br /><br />This struck me as odd. I then looked at a hi-res version of the crime scene photo and never noticed until then that his pants were pulled down a bit, almost with his butt exposed.<br /><br />Then I thought back to Schreck making the claim that Watson was designing the scene to pin it on the three Canadian drug dealers, one of which was said to have been "video buggered" as they put it by Frykowski.<br /><br />Of course it's highly possible that happened during the struggle, but it does make a bulb light up and makes one wonder if Schreck might not be so crazy after all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-90710248109633998442015-07-26T22:23:27.956-04:002015-07-26T22:23:27.956-04:00You think Ronnie Howard or Virginia Graham were pl...You think Ronnie Howard or Virginia Graham were plants, don't you? Which did she really tell first? aside from Nancy Jordon? Because both claimed Atkins told them first. My money is on Howard.<br /><br />cielodrive.com recently uploaded the conversation Atkins had with Caberello and Caruso and a few of Caruso's questions are odd and very interesting. It's clear to me, his real interest was in his other clients of his and how they MIGHT be connected to what happened. Names only mentioned in passing in Helter Skelter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-75156510704204982232015-07-26T15:38:34.462-04:002015-07-26T15:38:34.462-04:00I forgot, but YOUR comment re-reminded me. Merrick...I forgot, but YOUR comment re-reminded me. Merrick had a very good friend in the D.A.s office. IE: He got us Nancy Jordon, who was the FIRST person Susan Atkins talked to - about the murders.<br /><br />In my films you might also notice WE got access to C. M. and others where NO news cameras were allowed.Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-89816368869346042032015-07-26T10:22:29.905-04:002015-07-26T10:22:29.905-04:00Great question LaCalandra: and as Bruce Davis woul...Great question LaCalandra: and as Bruce Davis would say: The "Answer" is IN the question. Just as YOUR question has it's answer in YOUR question.<br /><br />In the English Language, a question can actually be a "statement" intended to draw a response. On the other hand, at the time, because most everyone in certain classes were on drugs, this was not an unusual question. But "drug dealer" - obviously Merrick KNEW something !<br /><br />AND not unlike the Bernard Crow situation, many things were not kept secret.<br /><br />BUT that's what helps to make the Manson Case Story so interesting. Anyone can easily "spin" the story anyway they want. Just take a look see at the new Aquarious TV show. Which really tells alot about the story "spinner."<br /><br />Jesus, just look at the true life story of the guy who walked into a Jewish Temple and beat the shit out of folks. He's NOW a world-wide hero ! Does anyone ever ask: "Was HE on drugs on what" ?<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-50943965648536593422015-07-25T23:04:30.596-04:002015-07-25T23:04:30.596-04:00@Robert Hendrickson: what did you first hear of po...@Robert Hendrickson: what did you first hear of possible drug involvement with Hinman? As I pointed out in the essay, I mention that Mary Brunner was asked by Merrick about Hinman dealing in dope. I wonder what prompted that question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-28971723567856713492015-07-25T06:28:43.669-04:002015-07-25T06:28:43.669-04:00I'm not sure what the "issue" is:
...I'm not sure what the "issue" is:<br /> <br />A) Charlie told Bobby to go get some of Gary's "drug" money.<br /> <br />B) Charlie told Bobby to get get some money from Gary for Helter Skelter.<br /> <br />C) Bobby went to go collect Gary's monthly "dues."<br /> <br />D) Bobby went to go "ignite" Helter Skelter at Gary's FOR Charlie - as a presnt for HIS favorite guru.<br /> <br />E) Etc., Etc., Etc.<br /> <br />WHERE the Hell is Bugliosi when you need HIM ? <br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-83829060946972243892015-07-24T21:52:24.460-04:002015-07-24T21:52:24.460-04:00Yep, 100%Yep, 100%George Stimsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335003151229883480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-68087968140585577572015-07-24T18:27:52.551-04:002015-07-24T18:27:52.551-04:00Not sure what Austin Ann is being didactic, A goo...Not sure what Austin Ann is being didactic, A good researcher keeps an open mind. Saying "something would have come out" is not good logic. It is belief not fact. I believed in the drug burn. Ann's discourse made me rethink it. LaCalandra made me re think it. I just came back minutes ago from the largest collection of Straight Satan materials in the world. I have no doubt anymore and never will again. Bobby killed Gary over drugs. 100%ColScotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04198505620789173534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-74182789612935832572015-07-24T11:33:38.616-04:002015-07-24T11:33:38.616-04:00There isn't much information on Straight Satan...There isn't much information on Straight Satans. Most of it revolves around the Manson connection. I originally had the impression they were a bunch of wannabes. Weekenders who talked the talked, but couldn't walk it. But when looking at the few photos of other members besides DeCarlo, they didn't look friendly at all and there are a few old news articles about them and violence, including murders.<br /><br />My personal opinion, based on my own looking into the case, is I suspect they sensed Bobby was an eager to please kid and the burn was directed at him. I think they knew they could get their money back easily just by telling them the drugs were bad or using a little intimidation and I think he knew this and was embarrassed he was being played, thus didn't tell Brunner nor Atkins just why he was going to get that cash and then Straight Satans wiggled and jiggled to keep their name out of the picture when they learned he killed Hinman.<br /><br />As far as evidence, what is on record, why this person wasn't named, etc.<br /><br />Well, why weren't the various accessories to the murder of Shorty Shea never named? There is a lot that was said and never documented here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-38486936132716852092015-07-24T10:54:10.499-04:002015-07-24T10:54:10.499-04:00Maybe I can make it easier to understand the 1960&...Maybe I can make it easier to understand the 1960's "Biker" situation. At the time "Biker" clubing was coming of age because of all the "Hell's Angel's" media attention. BUT there were all kinds of levels associated with Biker Clubs / Gangs. The Hell's Angel's were on top of the "GANG" list (and rightly so) and at the botton you may have a club for sissys like a "Jan Leno and the Lenoettes".<br /> <br />In "Inside the MANSON Gang" is the only known footage of Danny DeCarlo at the Spahn Ranch. You can see what a shorty non-dangerous character, but President of the Straight Satins, he is. Upon seeing HIM, I thought the "Satins" were a club for little people. On the other hand, the "Angels" were "bad-ass" all the way.<br /> <br />While filming the Manson Family I was also involved in filming a documentary with Laurance Merrick about "Bikers." I still have all the footage from that, but never put it all together. Could really show the wide spectrum of "Biking." back in the day. From beer and cool-aid drinkers to the "killer-dillers."<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-43182599200014866152015-07-24T03:49:24.964-04:002015-07-24T03:49:24.964-04:00D.LaCalandra said:
"...1% bikers generally a...D.LaCalandra said:<br /><br />"...1% bikers generally aren't supposed to run and tell the cops and turn informant."<br /><br />I think they would if there were seven dead bodies lying around. They wouldn't want implicated in that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-61416706524710955802015-07-23T23:19:11.236-04:002015-07-23T23:19:11.236-04:00Al Springer: "my club brother said this Dan, ...Al Springer: "my club brother said this Dan, I mean this Charlie has some arsonal up there".<br /><br />LOL....oops.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-76144486887651917942015-07-23T23:17:45.136-04:002015-07-23T23:17:45.136-04:00There is however plenty of evidence to suggest tha...There is however plenty of evidence to suggest that they based this case upon the words of people who either A: didn't know what the hell was going on at that ranch and B: people who's asses were on the line and we can easily rule out more than half the motives these people gave.<br /><br />Two girls, one of which had no idea the murder even happened till weeks later and two %1 bikers, one of which was named a suspect in the case and there is "evidence" that two of them had a discussion before or after one went to the police. Then what they said was corroborated (partly) by a girl who had federal charges dropped. Is that good, "evidence" to you? Everything we know about the motive for Hinman, is based on what these people have said. <br /><br />I like your tone of finality, especially when it comes to what bikers do. 1% bikers generally aren't supposed to run and tell the cops and turn informant. But the Straight Satans did. Shortly after they were named suspects too, what do ya know.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-53123119512136289782015-07-23T22:56:04.448-04:002015-07-23T22:56:04.448-04:00When cowardly, lying murderers start having their ...When cowardly, lying murderers start having their idiotic lies being spread all over the place, so people will feel sorry for them, it's time for me to take a hike from this subject matter. I will repeat what I said in my posting about Gary Hinman's murder I did just a few months ago though: Bobby Beausoleil murdered Gary Hinman, because Manson told him to go over there and get money from him. There isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise. Something, anything would of come out to prove otherwise in the years since it happened, but alas, nothing has, except for the hot air that has come out of BB's mouth, which he cannot even keep straight. He's trying to divert attention away from the Manson connection, so he can get out. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to accept. He probably would of had a chance to get out of prison, if he hadn't done a few questionable things during his incarceration history, such as requesting to be housed with Manson, opening his yap to Capote, lying any chance he can get, smoking dope as recent as 1999, oh, and let's not forget his Sassy Bottoms catalog business for perverts. Come on, man! The parole board hates him too, because he's argumentative, a know-it-all and comes across acting like the whole thing is a big mix up, like he was railroaded; a victim of circumstance. The only victim in this is laying at rest in a cemetery in Colorado. <br /><br />PS: Bikers obtain their own drugs and don't need a "go between" to score, ever! It never happened. Not in 1969, not in 2015, either. <br />AustinAnn74https://www.blogger.com/profile/06342503212454947554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-27426917345965266162015-07-23T21:11:19.787-04:002015-07-23T21:11:19.787-04:00I was going to add that both could be truth. So, t...I was going to add that both could be truth. So, there ya go. I wish the quality of her tape was better or there was a transcript.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com