tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post2738031390694391590..comments2024-03-28T20:31:17.737-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: The Watson-Kasabian DynamicMatthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-4668944977497289302019-05-19T21:17:48.333-04:002019-05-19T21:17:48.333-04:00It wasn't a LSD murder with Tex& Sadie it ...It wasn't a LSD murder with Tex& Sadie it was the meth murdersAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612036386194803956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-1502527836047250012019-05-19T21:16:13.695-04:002019-05-19T21:16:13.695-04:00Linda was the only only got away with murder?Linda was the only only got away with murder?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612036386194803956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-42488631693753700012018-12-23T19:51:00.854-05:002018-12-23T19:51:00.854-05:00Dreama Wallace said...
I totally agree it was... Dreama Wallace said...<br /><br /> <b>I totally agree it was a way for them to turn everyone's attention from all the politics and wars at the time</b><br /><br />Lots of people like to say that. It's nonsense. The Manson case didn't stop the focus on the politics and Vietnam war. <br />No, the reason it stayed in the news was because for a number of years......it was newsworthy. And Charlie brought as much attention to himself as any journalist. He liked the limelight until he couldn't control it.<br /><br /> <b>and focus on a guy who the worst crime he ever committed was bad checks. (Fraud)</b><br /><br />Even if the worst crime he'd committed was fraud, so what ? The worst crime Tex had committed was being publicly stoned. You can't say "well not charge a guy with murder because until this time, he's never murdered !" Charlie was done for conspiracy to commit murder as well.<br /><br /> <b>Not to mention Sharon Tates famous Husband,(Polanski) raped a underage girl and got bye with it. Come on now. How is that fair. I guess poor guy must had still been hurt, devistated and in shock ?</b><br /><br />Well, it was 8 years after the murder of his wife. He should have been banged up and possibly would have been.<br /><br /> <b>so what's the difference? Is it because he is rich and never had to write a bad check or live of the land?</b><br /><br />No, it's because he fled the USA and has never returned. The reason he fled was because justice was about to have its way. He's still, 41 years later a fugitive.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-77230520348915244812017-08-30T23:51:32.048-04:002017-08-30T23:51:32.048-04:00Not to mention Sharon Tates famous Husband,(Polans...Not to mention Sharon Tates famous Husband,(Polanski) raped a underage girl and got bye with it. Come on now. How is that fair. I guess poor guy must had still been hurt, devistated and in shock ? (Bye the way that was a sarcastic comment) so what's the difference? Is it because he is rich and never had to write a bad check or live of the land? Dreamadjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149054912346140797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-27985437985708890382017-08-30T23:40:47.774-04:002017-08-30T23:40:47.774-04:00I totally agree it was a way for them to turn ever...I totally agree it was a way for them to turn everyone's attention from all the politics and wars at the time and focus on a guy who the worst crime he ever committed was bad checks. (Fraud). I so agreeDreamadjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149054912346140797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29218185520321515362016-01-22T11:00:46.499-05:002016-01-22T11:00:46.499-05:00Yes, but her truth was the copycat motive, not Lin...Yes, but her truth was the copycat motive, not Linda being cheated for $1000 on an MDA deal. Where would Linda have got $1000 anyway ? She gave the $5000 away !<br />Susan doesn't clear up every last morsel that we might want her to. She doesn't clear up about tasting Sharon's blood, about fellating her son, about whether or not Tex and Charlie knew Wogiciech Frykowski and were connected through drugs, about the murders that would never be solved or about the guy who apparently shot his brains out as he ejaculated in her.<br />Her silence on these matters doesn't make any of them true though.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-6621497450428615272016-01-21T16:51:51.259-05:002016-01-21T16:51:51.259-05:00According to Sadie, their strategy for the penalty...According to Sadie, their strategy for the penalty phase was to mix lies with the truth. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-68687857992344287002016-01-21T14:57:43.081-05:002016-01-21T14:57:43.081-05:00Kevin Marx said...
Strange she didn't mention... Kevin Marx said...<br /><br /><b>Strange she didn't mention it - I would have thought that she would have taken the opportunity to put to bed that theory</b><br /><br />Why would she need to ? She says the penalty phase Linda painting was bullshit. That covers the spectrum.<br /><br /> alwaysamy69 said...<br /><br /><b>When looking at anything written about serial killers it just always seems like Manson does not belong in the category</b><br /><br />I would hazard a guess that most people that have bothered to look into this case would not view Charlie as a serial killer. He's a legal killer at best. Even Tex would not make the grade of 'serial killer' and he actually, by his own hand, killed.<br /><br /> Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>fabricated evidence</b><br /><br />Which evidence was fabricated ?<br /><br /> Professor said...<br /><br /><b>She responded pretty emphatically, and very quickly...."tall, dark, and handsome, with deep blue eyes." She sounded infatuated by him still at that point</b><br /><br />During the trial, while talking with Paul Fitzgerald, she recalled making love with Charlie four times. She remembered the exact location of each time and Fitzgerald asked her why she remembered each time. She mentioned making it with Tex just once. When Fitzgerald asked her if she was emotionally involved with Tex, she said no.<br /><br /> Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>I think that $5000 had a lot more significance to it</b><br /><br />Yeah. It brought Tex's contribution to Family funds in just 4 days to $7500. 4 days previously he'd ripped off Lotsapoppa for $2500.<br />One thing it demonstrates is how much Tex aspired to be like his 'master', Charlie. Charlie often managed to net big cash or goods by guilt tripping the likes of Juanita, Dennis Wilson and even Tex himself. It is said he acquired big bucks from Sandy when she joined, had a pipeline to funds via Pat and Brooks Poston {or more specifically, one of their parents' cards} when they initially joined up. Being able to provide was one of the things that really impressed Pat about him. Tex thought the girls thought he was a bit of a hick ~ Paul Watkins certainly did. He said that he had a hard time being sexually open and uninhibited with the girls so shagging Linda just like that and netting all that money went a long way towards showing people that he had absorbed Charlie's ways. That's what followers do, they imitate the one they are following. Charlie led the way, Tex followed in his wake. The killings should have cemented his rep of trustworthiness but he reckons the opposite happened ~ people got scared of him.<br />We keep reading of the budding, blooming romance of Tex and Linda. I think you'll find that seeing him blow Steve Parent away and slice and club Wogiciech Frykowski and her exclamation of "you killed for money !" and the fact she ran off a couple of days later shows any emotional attachment she might have had to Tex died with that night. Recalling how cute he was when she first saw him, all these years later, is no different to people who are known to hate their situation {say, an actor or band member}, recalling the fun & joy of the days when it <i>was</i> fun.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-82138361311762740182016-01-21T13:13:22.931-05:002016-01-21T13:13:22.931-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
I think that $5000...Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>I think that $5000 had a lot more significance to it rather than something than was brought up simply to discredit Linda and make her look bad.<br /><br /> Charlie really pushed Fitzgerald to ask about that money</b><br /><br />Linda's <a href="http://truthontatelabianca.com/threads/friday-july-31-1970-am-session.4436/" rel="nofollow">testimony</a> on the morning of 31st July is truly revealing in this matter. Paul Fitzgerald was keen to bring out that Linda snaffed the cash to show she'd been lying about her reasons for coming to Spahn in the first place but legally it wasn't allowed because she'd never been charged, much less convicted, of the theft. Trying to be clever, he asked her what she did on July 5th, her second day at the ranch. Here's the thing <b>¬></b> <i>it is Linda who brings out the circumstances of the theft</i> by saying that to answer that, it would be important to tell him about the 4th ! <i>She's</i> the one who brings out Tex telling her to steal the cash. She concludes by saying she accepted what he was saying about the money being everyone's. William Zamora, the juror, stated that she never did categorically say if she took the money or not but with Charlie shouting out "about the $5000 she stole," Linda stating that she went to the Melton trailer with Mary & Gypsy while Charles Melton and Bob were absent and her taking some items like a knife and also her stating that Bob & Melton came up to Spahn looking for her, it's pretty clear that she took the money. Besides which, in Bugliosi's summing up, he stated "she and Gypsy and Mary Brunner left the Spahn Ranch to go to Charles Melton's truck for the purpose of having Linda steal $5,000 of Melton's money, which Linda did.......now, let's face it, Linda stole $5,000....I am not covering up for the fact that she stole the $5,000......She testified that she took the $5,000....." <br /><br /><b>Based on what I know about him, I seriously doubt he would call somebody out on stealing cash simply to make a person look bad. I don't think that's his style</b><br /><br />When someone is facing the death penalty, they will call out anyone on any basis. It's one thing to preach about death and lambast people for having the fear of it. It's another thing altogether to actually face it with the possibility that it is coming to you.<br />And you're wrong. Charlie on a few occasions tried to make Linda look bad during that trial. And he tried to intimidate her, telling her she'd told three lies {in George's book, he tries the same tactic regarding Pat & Leslie}, drawing the finger across the throat, saying she couldn't face death in regard to looking at Wogiciech Frykowski......<br /><br /><b>For him to bring it up, I think it had to have a deeper significance. One that would really make the prosecution sweat and it did</b><br /><br />Your main witness being a person that would separate from her husband and on the same day be having sex with a guy she'd barely met ten minutes previous then going and nicking $5000 from someone you considered a brother to give to a group of people you'd not known for 24 hours, yeah, that could cause the prosecution to sweat a little. You never know how a jury will gauge a person. I wouldn't want to risk any bias insinuating itself into any of their minds.<br />Your point of trying to allude to deeper significance is cancelled by the fact Kasabian herself brought up the circumstances and the jury was made aware she'd filched the wads.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-78313372856742615262016-01-21T12:17:57.607-05:002016-01-21T12:17:57.607-05:00Strange she didn't mention it - I would have t...Strange she didn't mention it - I would have thought that she would have taken the opportunity to put to bed that theory. <br /><br />It must be difficult for librarians to know which section to put Tex and Sadie's books - true crime or fantasy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-80657930716620344612016-01-21T11:34:58.895-05:002016-01-21T11:34:58.895-05:00Kevin Marx said...
Its been a while since I read ... Kevin Marx said...<br /><br /><b>Its been a while since I read it but I remember she put a lot of emphasis on dismissing the testimony in the penalty phase - did she actually mention the MDA comment?</b><br /><br />While she doesn't specifically mention the MDA, it is equally significant that she <i>doesn't</i> mention the MDA. She doesn't mention Linda getting burned for $1000, hence her choosing the Tate house, as the penalty phase theory went. She does say things like "he’d [Manson] also take every opportunity to try to slander the prosecution’s main witness, Linda Kasabian.....The second most important change was that Linda Kasabian would be portrayed as the main ring~leader in the murders. This would help discredit her as a witness against Manson and give the illusion she was fingering Manson just to remove herself from the picture as much as possible. Once again, to anyone who knew the Family or Linda Kasabian, the charge was ridiculous.....It should be pointed out that Linda Kasabian was not the angel Vincent Bugliosi claimed she was but she was certainly not responsible or culpable in any way for the murders. She was just as frightened and unwilling as the rest of us {during the Cielo murders she actually ran away, and the next night she deliberately steered Charles Manson away from potential victims in order to avoid any bloodshed}.....The final {fictional} version would run something like this; Linda Kasabian was madly in love with Bobby Beausoliel. When Beausoliel was arrested she became frantic to find a way to free him. She then came up with the idea of performing copy cat murders so the police would see the murders were continuing and conclude they must have arrested the wrong man....there was only one hope for all of us and that was to discredit the prosecution’s case. We couldn’t defend ourselves from all his charges, Manson said, but we could throw dirt on Linda Kasabian and completely undermine the Helter Skelter motive. If we could convince the jury the prosecution was completely wrong about the motive for the murders, there was a chance they could be persuaded they hadn’t been given the whole story, there might have been mitigating circumstances the prosecution had hidden. <br />This tactic didn’t work. All four of us ended up on death row"<br /><br />Make of that what you will, but it seems clear to me that the MDA story was akin to "Goldilocks & the 3 bears." <br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-74124014808691053402016-01-20T17:34:17.332-05:002016-01-20T17:34:17.332-05:00Grim - Sheyi Ojo looks a real prospect, hope to se...Grim - Sheyi Ojo looks a real prospect, hope to see him regularly in the prem squads.<br /><br />Yes I read Sadie's second book online and then bought the book, just for the collection! Its been a while since I read it but I remember she put a lot of emphasis on dismissing the testimony in the penalty phase - did she actually mention the MDA comment? I can't recall that tbh. Its another one of those loose ends.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-63980319830526275112016-01-20T14:47:25.937-05:002016-01-20T14:47:25.937-05:00Kevin Marx said...
Hey Grim, hope Sundays debacle... Kevin Marx said...<br /><br /><b>Hey Grim, hope Sundays debacle didn't hit you too hard, I've just about got over it - Rooney of all people!</b><br /><br />I don't know which was worse, losing at Anfield, losing to UTD, them having just one shot on target or having an ex Evertonian hit the winner with that one shot !<br /><br /><b>When you say Watson and Kasabian's movements that week are irrelevant I assume you're talking in terms of WHAT happened and WHO did it, rather than WHY?</b><br /><br />Other than the snagglepuss of the penalty phase, there's never really been any doubt as to who did what. As to why, one fact remains: each person had different motives for what happened at Cielo or to put it another way, the men involved {Manson & Watson} were not on the same page as the women who left the ranch not knowing what was going to happen. Bugliosi even says this in his closing argument, which may surprise some.<br /><br /><b>Because if as Susan Atkins stated Linda was burned for $1000 in an MDA deal in Beverly Hills then their movements could well be relevant in terms of possible motive</b><br /><br />I don't know if you've read "The Myth of Helter Skelter" but basically, you can disregard pretty much all that came out during the penalty phase. All three women have said that what came out there was utter bullshit, scripted by Charlie to ensure that he would not be sentenced to death. And they're not the only ones. Gypsy has said the same thing. Lying on the stand was not some groundshaking bombshell where the Family was concerned. And one can understand why they did ~ their way of life was under threat. And people for example have made a big song and dance about Diane Lake lying at the Grand jury without focusing on the reasons she gave for doing so.<br />The only reason Susan Atkins came up with the MDA story was because it was established that MDA was found in the systems of two of the victims and there was some at Cielo. I notice it was a pattern with the Family that their defences all came in the wake of someone else that was not in the Family having suggested it first.....grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-42613645316070909762016-01-20T08:46:59.002-05:002016-01-20T08:46:59.002-05:00Hey Grim, hope Sundays debacle didn't hit you ...Hey Grim, hope Sundays debacle didn't hit you too hard, I've just about got over it - Rooney of all people! :(<br /><br />When you say Watson and Kasabian's movements that week are irrelevant I assume you're talking in terms of WHAT happened and WHO did it, rather than WHY?<br /><br />Because if as Susan Atkins stated Linda was burned for $1000 in an MDA deal in Beverly Hills then their movements could well be relevant in terms of possible motive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-987544053023520992016-01-20T07:41:25.461-05:002016-01-20T07:41:25.461-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
Their whereabouts ... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>Their whereabouts in the days leading up to the murders are a mystery, yet they went to great lengths tracking Manson's activity in those days</b><br /><br />Their whereabouts in the days leading up to the murders are no more a mystery than that of anyone else. Where was Pat on the 6th ? What did Susan do on the 5th & 7th ? Can Leslie be accounted for on the 4th, the 6th and the morning of the 8th ? What is known of Ouisch, Barbara and Kitty's movements on the Thursday of that week ? Or Clem's ? Or Bruce's ?<br />And <i>of course</i> they went to great lengths tracking Charlie's activities that week. The prosecution contended he was the lead part of the conspiracy. They suspected that his friends would contend that he wasn't even in the area at the time and possibly build his defence on that. Up until very recently, when she used to contribute to Col Scott's blog, AC Fisher Aldag still maintained that.<br />Watson and Kasabians's movements that week are irrelevant because Watson's fingerprint, made sometime after Mrs Chapman had washed the door on Friday prove he was there and Kasabian never denied it. She told Bob Kasabian and Joe Sage about it within days.<br /><br /><b>Bugliosi said that when he took this case, right off the bat, he KNEW Manson had to be involved. In other words, it was a hunch really</b><br /><br />That's as maybe. The fact remains that before November 18th and Bugliosi's entrance to the case, there were a number of strands that had Charlie as being either down for the murders or in some way connected. Even if one wants to discount Brooks Poston, Ronnie Howard, Danny DeCarlo, Al Springer, Kitty Lutesinger, Virginia Graham, Joe Sage, Bob Kasabian, Paul Crockett, Jeffrey Jacobs, Steve Zabriske and two unnamed and never before located hitch hikers that Linda gave a ride to on the day she fled Spahn, you cannot discount the second LaBianca police report of October 15th, <i>34</i> days before Bugliosi is on the scene, that lists Charlie as a suspect.<br />But you can keep on trying.<br /><br /><b>Doesn't it strike anyone as being way to convenient that out of that pack of devils, there was one little innocent angel?</b><br /><br />Biblically, Satan was an angel !<br />Fact is, to start with there was Susan. No holy innocent. But had she not recanted, she would have done what Bugliosi required. <br />According to Karlene Faith, the police offered Leslie immunity, protection "and maybe money" to testify against everyone else. The prosecution thought these were dangerous people that needed putting away. They needed an insider. They would have taken Leslie had she said yeah. But she said it would have made her feel like Judas.<br /><br />They were fortunate with Kasabian because she hadn't killed anyone and despite attempts to woo her back, had made a break, psychologically from the family. She was also inexplicably burdened with guilt which was a real plus because it showed her as a real person. When Tex tried to play mad, then the helpless Charlie controlled zombie then Mr Clean & remorseful, it didn't work because it came across as what it was ~ the next in line attempt to get off.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-46310292044949718812016-01-19T18:57:18.246-05:002016-01-19T18:57:18.246-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
She answered the p...Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>She answered the phone when Bobby called to let Charlie know he was busted</b><br /><br />Proving ?<br />Honestly, you could feed the 5000 with the number of red herrings that you liberally toss out.<br /><br /><b>I can see a situation where she being the newcomer and wanting to prove her loyalty to the group, came up with the idea to commit a copy cat murder</b><br /><br />That would, I suppose, make sense if the general tenor of the group that summer {and therefore, in the lead up to her arrival} was one of violence or open willingness to murder.<br />You know, they could have easily got Bobby out of jail without killing anyone by simply providing a false alibi for him. Brenda was willing to do it for Charlie. She does it in Robert's book. All they needed to do was have one of the women say that he had been with her for the previous few days before the police found Gary's body. Or have the guys back him up.<br /><br /><br /><b>Gypsy said during the penalty phase she suggested the Tate house because of a drug burn</b><br /><br />Gypsy also said <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR-EqsE8lHc" rel="nofollow">years later</a> that she lied under oath, was forced to lie under oath and say that Linda had masterminded the whole thing. Susan Atkins in her last book also said exactly the same thing. I'd say you could disregard most of what came forth during the penalty phase and given that this would have made up much of the defence had they put one on......<br /><br /><b>Watson and Kasabian both really, really liked drugs</b><br /><br />Making it seem like they were somehow unusual in this regard is a case of trying to make a mighty something out of nothing because the Family per se really liked drugs. As did lots of people in that period.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-76252675883303769272016-01-19T17:50:26.153-05:002016-01-19T17:50:26.153-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
This why she wasn&... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>This why she wasn't allowed to see Bobby Beausoleil the day after the murders to deliver a message to him.</b><br /><br />Is it ? Do we know that ? What do we actually know about the day Linda went to see Bobby in the jail ? Again, living in England, it's a different system but there may have been similarities once. I remember the first time I went to see someone in jail, during the summer of '83. It took me ages on the bus to get there and when I did, they wouldn't let me in because I didn't have a VO {visiting order}. I thought I could just turn up to see my mate. It didn't matter what I showed them, they weren't having it. <br />I suspect that if Linda Kasabian had been family and able to prove it, she might have been able to see Bobby. As it happens, she was a nonentity. Maybe the authorities had stricter policies than Charlie thought and her driving licence wouldn't do. On the other hand Charlie sent her the next day to see Bobby. Why would he do that if there was some problem with her ID ? Come to think of it, has it ever been verified or even suggested what her ID was ? Did she ever say what it was ? It's an assumption that it was the driving licence, in the absence of her confirmation. It could have been her wedding certificate ! Or Tanya's registration bearing her name as mother. Why didn't Charlie send one of the Family that had known Bobby for a long time ? Why didn't someone go <i>with</i> Linda ? Could it be because she was the only one that had valid documents ?<br />I guess I'm just thinking out loud but being careful not to assume what appears to be obvious until one takes a second glance.<br /><br /><b>Another similarity between Kasabian and Watson is that both had good lawyers that built a wall around them</b><br /><br />You say that like it's proof of some dodgy doggy deed ! Isn't that part of what a good lawyer does ?<br />However, the wall around Watson did him no good at all. He ended up sentenced to death. Regardless of what anyone wants to say about his lack of public notoriety profile, he got the gas chamber and remains in jail.<br /><br /><b>If one would remove Manson from the scenario, this case could be called the Kasabian/Watson murders</b><br /><br />Not the Watson/Krenwinkel murders ? Wow, your bias shows through stronger than the one on magnetic chrome tape ! Obviously, you won't be going to Kasabian's 70th birthday celebrations !<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-39624531204985880962016-01-19T16:41:06.410-05:002016-01-19T16:41:06.410-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
Only recently has ... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>Only recently has it been discovered that her driver's license wasn't even valid at the time of the murders! </b><br /><br />The above statement, especially when read in conjunction with the <a href="http://www.tlbradio.com/2015/05/drivers-license-we-dont-need-no-stinkin.html" rel="nofollow">newspaper article</a> that throws the doubt on Linda seems like an open and shut case.......but then, in the thread on Ed Sanders' book it seemed like an open and shut case when it came up that Hatami said he had no recollection of Charles Manson which led some to conclude that Bugliosi had got him to lie. However, some digging and a good look at what actually happened showed an open and shut case to not be a case at all.<br />The newspaper article in question is dated 7th May '69 and the murders happened over 8/9/10th August. That's three months in which to do something about not having a valid licence.<br />Being from England a question that I'm interested in is what could "not operating with a valid licence" mean for a 19 year old in 1969? Did it mean that whenever she was apprehended for whatever, she did not have her licence on her ? Did it mean she did not possess a licence at all ? Did it mean she had a fake licence ? Did it mean that she had a graduated licence, that her licence didn't enable her to do what she was doing {such as driving a certain kind of vehicle like a bus} ? I don't know, so if anyone could answer the question I'd be grateful.<br />In court, she was asked by the defence lawyers a few times about her driving licence and she answered the questions. Given that it would be so easy to check her licence status, it would be beyond stupid to lie about it. I mean, Irving Kanarek went and found June Emmer and flew her over and paid her expenses just for the purpose of trying to show Kasabian to be a liar and unreliable witness. He went to some serious effort there. If there was anything dodgy about Kasabian's licence, I doubt that would have escaped his attentions. Charlie & Pat were caught in daft lies during the trial, things that were easily verifiable. As it turned out it made no difference as the jury never heard Charlie's and Pat had already been found guilty when she made hers. But the point is, there are some false statements that get found out because the evidence to the contrary is readily available. That must surely apply to Linda's licence so can it be said without doubt that "her driver's license wasn't even valid at the time of the murders" ? How do we know this ? Is this another red herring ?grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-79631433702364945852016-01-19T13:20:06.750-05:002016-01-19T13:20:06.750-05:00St Circumstance said...
They all had issues with ... St Circumstance said...<br /><br /><b>They all had issues with there parents and had been kicked out or ran away</b><br /><br />Just out of interest, apart from Squeaky, which of the Family members were actually kicked out by one or both of their parents ? While it's true that a number of them were runaways, it's perhaps a bit of a stretch to say that they were not wanted by their parents {barring Susan Atkins}. When Charlie says he found these kids and picked them up when no one else wanted them, that does not seem entirely true. Speaking as someone who himself is a former runaway that never went back after running away, it wasn't a matter of not being wanted, it was a matter of wanting to go. My parents could do little about that.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-91420167990521067112016-01-18T10:59:43.764-05:002016-01-18T10:59:43.764-05:00Sun King said...
I suspect Linda stayed stayed on... Sun King said...<br /><br /><b>I suspect Linda stayed stayed on for Tex more than Charlie</b><br /><br />In this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MU01KZEFKs" rel="nofollow">2009 documentary</a>, check out what she says about Tex and her attraction to him and then compare it to what she says about her excitement about meeting Charlie before she'd ever met him and what she says about him thereafter.<br />In my opinion, in her mind, Tex is definitely rhythm guitar to Charlie's lead solos ! <br /><br /><b>People say Clem was lucky but Linda is by far the luckiest to have been taken under Bug's arms and spared from prosecution</b><br /><br />I don't think Clem was lucky. He merely came to his senses as did a number of young Family members.<br />I don't think Linda was lucky either. I think a combination of drugs and fragility messed her up good and proper. The ones that ended up in jail had to get clean, even though early on drugs could get into jail. <br />That hasn't changed !<br />What they all had in their favour was that they were young and they had enough of a support structure of people that cared about them, be it family members {biological} or crusaders within the jail system. Unlike Charlie in <i>his</i> days as a youngster within the system, they didn't have authority figures that took it upon themselves to make life a living hell, maniacs that were self appointed guardians of what was "right", that made it their life mission to repeatedly 'punish' those they should have been helping. People that deliberately looked the other way when their charges were being violated in ways that one might not even want to see simulated in a gritty movie about jails and young offenders institutions that you know is just a movie.<br />Arguably, Linda Kasabian didn't have that either. The whole TLB saga <i>did</i> wake <i>some</i> people up and they were determined to try and stem what they saw as a rather dangerous tide. The young Family members that escaped the gas chamber but got life were the beneficiaries of that stemming process. Most of them came through the bumpy ride, if not smoothly or smilingly. But Linda just carried on along the trajectory that she'd been on before she came to Spahn. And burned quickly.<br />People say that Bugliosi portrayed her as the innocent flower child. Actually, that is not strictly true. Aaron Stovitz is the one that did that in the Rolling Stone interview that came out as "Porfiry's complaint." Bugliosi presented her as a bit of an air head, pliable and malleable, looking for God, a hater of her stepdad, a little estranged from her Mum, a woman of two failed marriages by the age of 20, morally loose, a mother prepared to relinquish responsibility for guiding her child, someone not opposed to stealing or screwing around.<br />Although Sandy Good cuttingly referred to her as "experienced", LK strikes me as a lousy advert, in many ways, of the notion of young people being the ones to make the kind of deep seated changes that an ailing world was in need of. <br />Fortunately, the counterculture had more among it's number that were able to sustain some of what was picked up in the 60s. And left to her own devices as she had been from fairly young, Linda Kasabian seems to have imploded to some extent.<br />Interestingly, in Robert's book, "Death to pigs" Bugliosi says that had Susan not recanted and Linda not testified, he would have gone for 2nd degree murder regarding her. He states categorically that he would never have asked for the death penalty for her though he also says emphatically that she was guilty because of the events of the 2nd night. I would argue that without Susan Atkins, he had no case against Linda.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-61126182830742011592016-01-17T16:47:21.511-05:002016-01-17T16:47:21.511-05:00George Stimson said...
Grim, I'd love to sit ...George Stimson said...<br /><br /><b>Grim, I'd love to sit down and have a conversation with you some time!</b><br /><br />Likewise ! I absolutely love your book. I think it's required reading for those that have an interest in Charlie in particular and this case in general. grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-47797874427066657772016-01-17T09:44:19.225-05:002016-01-17T09:44:19.225-05:00Grim, I'd love to sit down and have a conversa...Grim, I'd love to sit down and have a conversation with you some time! George Stimsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01335003151229883480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-79349185261583343302016-01-17T08:33:23.962-05:002016-01-17T08:33:23.962-05:00George Stimson said...
But whatever the true natu...George Stimson said...<br /><br /><b>But whatever the true nature of the relationship between Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian was or is, no one can deny that death followed in the wake of their fateful introduction to each other on July 4, 1969</b><br /><br />Death had already begun to flow Familyward before they met. Well, kind of. Everyone thought Lotsapoppa was dead. That was before any of the Family had even heard of Linda Kasabian or she them. And she had nothing to do with Hinman.<br />She wasn't with Tex at LaBianca. She helped avert more death at Ocean Walk. And Shorty died a good two weeks after she'd gone. Mysterious deaths connected to the Family continued happening {though I don't believe Joel Pugh or Ronald Hughes had anything to do with them} like Zero or even ones with tenuous links like James & Lauren Willet ~ long after Kasabian had fled the scene.<br />The <a href="http://www.comicvine.com/entropy-twins/4060-57592/" rel="nofollow">entropy twins</a> they were not.<br />I just can't see Linda Kasabian as the death machine. The way her subsequent life crumbled is an indication of that. She seemed to have feelings of guilt even as far away from the killings as 2009. She seemed <i>affected</i> by murder rather than revelling in it.<br />Whether she was an innocent little hippy at the age of 20 is kind of a moot point. When Bugliosi described her as "frank and repulsively truthful" he was cleverly summing up the yin and yan of Yana....<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-54996721001563664702016-01-17T08:22:17.156-05:002016-01-17T08:22:17.156-05:00Grim i just love reading your comments. Although a...Grim i just love reading your comments. Although a little extensive - you need to - you bring back facts and details we tend to forget in thinking the whole picture. Very articulated.<br />And for most of the time you have said things that go along with my thinking of the case. Good job!<br /><br />The thing to me is, it doesnt make sense sending 5 people to the gas chamber to save one Bobby. Were they really that stupid? Or they really believed they were not going to get caught - specially leaving so many indications on the crime scene. The Helter Skelter written on the fridge - why? Was the term common knowledge around the blacks and police to be used as a misleading clue? I can only think about the family philosophy and that door at the ranch. <br />Was it a mistake done by Patricia?CrisPOAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09295095196597816876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-35207274959756324262016-01-17T06:52:23.606-05:002016-01-17T06:52:23.606-05:00George Stimson said...
Much of all of this, incid...George Stimson said...<br /><br /><b>Much of all of this, incidentally, is at variance with the testimony that Watson gave at his own murder trial in 1971</b><br /><br />Charlie boy lied his blaggers off during his trial. I find myself cringing with embarrassment for him when I read his testimony. It's even more cringeworthy than Susan and Pat in the penalty phase of their trial. He put as much as was humanly possible on the women, including Linda. He denied telling her to nick the $5000, he placed Charlie at Spahn on the morning of the 8th August when friend and foe alike all said he wasn't there, he said that morning he ran into Sadie & Linda dressed in black having gone out and nicked some credit cards, he had Linda driving to Cielo and inferred she knew where to go, he had Charlie telling him movie stars lived at Cielo, he had the girls telling him to cut the phone wires, he didn't see his accomplices till he was in the house, he walked right in the door.....the list goes on and on and it is so embarrassing.<br />It's a good thing he put out his two books after. That trial testimony would be one hell of a thing to be remembered on !<br /><br /><b>But by the time he wrote Will You Die For Me? seven years later his recollection accurately mirrored that of Linda Kasabian. Did Watson actually later remember the exact same chain of events that Kasabian did? Or was he merely parroting the story put forth by his former lover in order to provide her version of events with false corroboration?</b><br /><br />I've frequently noted that his recollections of the nights of murder don't appear to come from his memory but from what he's read. He uses a combo of Atkins and Bugliosi for Cielo and his take on the White album is straight out of Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter." Neither were his former lovers. Susan got him indicted, Bugliosi got him convicted. <br />I don't see his LaBianca memories as being a case of providing false corroboration for his former lover. Part of the Family <i>schtick</i> was no one belonged to anyone. And besides, her words played a huge part in putting him in the flaming gas chamber !<br /><br /><b>Was the "one other" Charles Watson referred to at this parole hearing Linda Kasabian? And was Watson still being protective of her by not naming here over thirty years after the murders because he still had special feelings for her?</b><br /><br />The "one other" was Bruce Davis. That's what Tex says in his first book. It wasn't Linda, he was not protecting her nor exhibiting special feelings for the woman whose testimony played a huge role in getting him sentenced to death. Unless he was a masochist, for as my old boss used to say, <i>you can't hurt a masochist</i> ! <br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.com