tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post379784800517183802..comments2024-03-28T20:31:17.737-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: THE TATE LABIANCA MURDERS - IS THE TRUTH UGLIER THAN WE THINK?Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-52608405854631914882016-01-22T12:14:55.573-05:002016-01-22T12:14:55.573-05:00Matt said...
Catherine Share once said in an inte... Matt said...<br /><br /><b>Catherine Share once said in an interview that she never heard Manson say the words Helter Skelter, "not once".</b><br /><br />Maybe she wasn't listening !<br />I find that an incredible statement of hers. I've seen the interview or rather, a YouTube clip of it. I don't know if it's part of a longer interview. One thing I did notice is that it was made what seems to be quite a while before that 2009 documentary where she <i>does</i> talk about Charlie's interpretation of Helter Skelter. <br />I can't find the clip anywhere {I only saw it 6 days ago but I wasn't looking for it, I came by it by accident so I didn't note where it came from} but I want to hear it again in context.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-76795833985646677632015-12-29T01:54:38.751-05:002015-12-29T01:54:38.751-05:00CrisPOA said...
I was reading part of a "boo... CrisPOA said...<br /><br /><b>I was reading part of a "book" by Will Cavanaugh online, where he describes his meeting with Manson. He was Manson parole officer for a short period of time around January 1969.<br /><br /> Well he says that Steven Parent was on probation to L.A. county on a dope charge. I tried to get information on that but only found a theft charge (the one the p.o. says he had homosexual tendencies).<br /> Is that correct? Was he buying or selling drugs? Or just using? Just curious</b><br /><br />Is that the book "My life in crime" ? If it is, I'd disregard most of what Cavanaugh says. The <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LAnMJRuhr0YC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=Will+Cavanaugh+,+manson+parole+officer&source=bl&ots=YOQpO4ArYO&sig=MGUJStk4bVG_X2kjRM-IWOaRuWc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW16rosoDKAhXFvRoKHbbGDOsQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Will%20Cavanaugh%20%2C%20manson%20parole%20officer&f=false" rel="nofollow">5 pages</a> {103~108} in which he speaks of Manson are filled with inaccuracies. That's being generous ! He claims he was Manson's parole officer for 5 months in '69 and only met him once, in February. He says one of the trial lawyers managed to get himself murdered, keeps calling Bugliosi the DA, says VB theorized that Manson sent the killers to Cielo because he thought Terry Melcher lived there, says Melcher had left 2 years before, says Steven Parent was on probation on a dope charge, says VB couldn't have known what was said by the killers to Manson once they returned to Spahn {Atkins ? Kasabian ?}, claimed William Garretson was the gardner, claimed that the killers followed the LaBiaancas home the next night, says Manson stayed outside in the car while the LaBiancas were killed, says none of the killers implicated Manson in the murders, says that Bugliosi's big lie in his book {on page 74 !} is that Manson was arrested in the 6 months prior to the murders and as his <i>piéce de resistance</i>, states Manson was not arrested from his arrest in Ventura county in April '68 {he says it was December} until his arrest at Barker in Oct '69, totally ignoring at least the Spahn raid arrest. He finished by saying it was after several months in jail that Manson was connected to the murders which is nonsense given that he was in the LaBianca police report of 15/10/69 and had only been arrested 3 days before.<br />Steve Parent may well have been a probationer on a dope charge but this guy's credibility in just 5 pages is at least 45 below 0 !grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-10610336635844470692015-12-27T01:29:05.084-05:002015-12-27T01:29:05.084-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
Atkins attorney sa...Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>Atkins attorney said Voytek Frykowski was a drug connection to both Charles Manson and Tex Watson. Now. Let me ask YOU something. Under what circumstances would she say such a thing? Did it just pop into her imagination and she blurred it out without consulting with her client? Did Atkins lie to her own attorney in private?</b><br /><br />Debbie Fraser also said about Frykowski "He struggled very hard for his life. He probably would've survived if he hadn't been coming down from a 10 day high." Did that just pop into her imagination or did she get that from Susan Atkins too ?<br /><br /><b>If you ask Bugliosi what he thought of Atkins last book, I'm sure he'd say she lied there too</b><br /><br />I agree, he probably would have. Ironically, his own book actually demonstrated that Susan Atkins didn't kill anyone <i>by her own hand</i>. Bobby stuck Hinman, Tex stuck Tate & Frykowski {though she admits she stabbed his legs but none of them were fatal}, she was never in the running for Parent or Folger, all of which are recorded in his book, all of which he ascribes to the people who in actual fact admit to the actual killings. <br /><br /><b>Susans obsession with what she said during the trial all came down to one issue and one issue only: she didn't want the world to think she killed Sharon Tate</b><br /><br />I partly agree with that, she was keen to not be known as the woman that stabbed Sharon Tate or tasted her blood. But that penalty phase threw up a number of lies and in "The myth of Helter Skelter" she goes into detail about what wasn't true. She does definitely say a lot about not stabbing Sharon, alludes to not tasting her blood and she actually makes a very logical and eloquent defence of how she wasn't the knifer of Tate and she uses Bugliosi's words to do it. She also talks at length about the ridiculousness of trying to blame the murders on Linda, the lies they told on that and how they were put up to it, thereby clearing Linda of all that MDA nonsense because let's face it, the two went hand in hand. So if you lose her mastermindedness, you lose her drug dealership. Though she claimed the motive was the copycat, she says they told the wrong copycat so that it would look like Linda masterminded it all. It can be found in chapters 24~26 and says more than simply "I didn't stab Sharon."<br /><br /><b>But you seem to brush off and over look important questions</b><br /><br />Do I ? I've answered absolutely tons of your questions and statements both in this thread and in a few others we've butted heads in on other sites. Not everything you count as an important question is important or relevant to me and I'd be very surprised if the vice was not versa.<br /><br />Well, for now, "I've relieved all my pressure !"grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-86130810762584932042015-12-26T23:20:08.632-05:002015-12-26T23:20:08.632-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
and ducked and dod...Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>and ducked and dodged any other possible motives</b><br /><br />A good month before Bugliosi was on the case, the police had run out of leads. They had gotten nowhere with the ideas of motives that they had been pursuing. Look again at those Tate progress reports. They tell you what had emerged in the investigation and what they'd looked into. If it was drugs, no one was talking. If it was a copy cat of some kind, no one was talking. If it was a Black power uprising no one was talking. If it was robbery no one was talking. If it was a hit no one was talking. If it was revenge no one was talking. By the time Bugliosi came on the scene, all that had emerged were the fragments of HS. And over the next few months, quite a few people were talking. <br />In the course of his investigation no one came forward and said, oh, it was done to free Bobby. By the time the trial had started, Bobby had already been sentenced to death. But no one came forward to help him. No one came forward to say to Bugliosi or Stovitz 'these murders happened to help our brother Bobby who we love so much' even though Stovitz thought that to be the case and did so till at least a few years before he died. The women were prepared to take the fall. They could have gotten both Charlie and Bobby off; Two had already confessed to murder and had implicated the one whose actual prints tied her to the crime. <br />No one came forward to say, look, there's a connection between Tex and Voytek that needs to be looked into or hey, Linda has had some druggy dealings with some cats up at Cielo.<br />So to say that Bugliosi ducked and dodged other motives is at it's very best, pissing in the wind.<br />He followed the evidence. And in court, during trial he clearly said to the jury in his opening statement that HS represented <i>circumstantial evidence</i>.<br /><br />Did he <i>over</i> emphasize HS ? If he did, he explained why; that if you heard it from the lips of just one person, you'd never believe it.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-17514750988572074612015-12-26T21:46:43.075-05:002015-12-26T21:46:43.075-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
I never claimed Bu... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>I never claimed Bugliosi invented Helter Skelter. I think he over emphasized it and ducked and dodged any other possible motives</b><br /><br />Ok, fair enough, I take that back.<br />However, when you drop in asides like<br /><br /><b>Bugliosi's fantasy version...<br /><br />The idea that the killers and victims were strangers is perhaps the biggest lie told to conceal the truth about what happened....<br /><br />So much emphasis has been put on the "total strangers" thing. It's nonsense....<br /><br />The Manson case was twisted and shaped into what it was by three Italians...<br /><br />Bugliosi said "Pigs" was the word they used to describe the rich, white establishment. That was a bold face lie...<br /><br />but believe Bugliosi's b-movie bullshit.... <br /><br />Prosecutors and lawyers are scumbags. That's just a fact. They have a job to do and that job isn't to "tell the truth" or establish what "really happened" and why. Their job is to win convictions and they will do whatever they can to do that....<br /><br />To imply that I'm out of line for saying Bugliosi would lie, is bullshit my friend. Because Bugliosi DID lie...<br /><br />Bugliosi: who knew a "far out" case would be a headline grabber and keep his name in the press. The angelic the victims, the more deranged the killers, the more of a hero he is...<br /><br />and once he was assigned the case, he wasn't looking into anything except a Beatles lyric sheet and a bible...<br /><br />Right, nobody said Helter Skelter would start with murders and blood on the walls....until they were testifying for Bugliosi...<br /><br />Bugliosi erased the real reasons why that explosion of violence occurred...</b><br /><br />then you're sailing mighty close to the wind in alleging that he did indeed make it up or was certainly it's prime architect. If you are saying that he over emphasized it, are you daring to suggest that there was perhaps some truth in it ? Or are you sticking with what you've long said, that it was bullshit ? <br />You see, you play with words and don't always leave clarity in what you are saying. Did he over emphasize something that was totally wrong or did he over emphasize something that may have had some truth to it ?<br /><br />When you say <b>I think he over emphasized it and ducked and dodged any other possible motives</b> that's your head putting it rationally while your heart is actually saying "<i>he didn't pick the motive[s] that I wanted him to</i>."<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-4872991260759150572015-12-25T02:34:02.916-05:002015-12-25T02:34:02.916-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-77866337190282581842015-12-24T21:11:05.938-05:002015-12-24T21:11:05.938-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
You're very go... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>You're very good at picking apart what I write and offering rebuttle after rebuttle with Bugliosi's official narrative</b><br /><br />Because most of my answers have been to <i>you</i> in particular, bearing in mind what you said to me about not accepting anything from the official version because you think it's bullshit, I have gone 75 miles out of my way to answer your points that I've chosen to answer, drawing as little from the official narrative as possible. It hasn't always been possible and 14 times, I've used the official narrative in the answering or rebuttle of some of what you've written. I've also used historical references 6 times and I have used other sources {some of which I've actually linked to} around 53 times. George Stimson does not subscribe to the official narrative. I've used some of his writing. Michael White does not ascribe to the official narrative. I've used some of his writings. Bobby Beausoleil, Charles Manson and Susan Atkins do not ascribe to the official version. And so on. A large number of your points can be rebutted using info that comes from people not in the slightest bit sympathetic to Vincent Bugliosi.<br />If you go public with your opinions, expect them to be picked apart if there are aspects that aren't agreed with. You should also note that there are times when I do agree with you.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-5093858380296754512015-12-24T17:13:33.842-05:002015-12-24T17:13:33.842-05:00Another thing to consider: Pornography.
Supposed...Another thing to consider: Pornography. <br /><br />Supposedly, a lawyer representing a young well known actress contacted Kanarek and Shinn about trying to get back a reel of undelevoped film from the Tate house in which she appeared. <br /><br />Hal Lipset, the private eye was a pretty respected guy and he was convinced there was a lot of truth too all of that.Manson Mythoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10335867657444116691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-36525685113069387352015-12-24T15:48:57.933-05:002015-12-24T15:48:57.933-05:00Do we know the what/how of Caruso becoming involve...Do we know the what/how of Caruso becoming involved with Atkins?<br /><br />I see he was known as "Call Paul" to the rich and famous of LA as the guy who could help you when you had to go to court.<br /><br />Atkins did well to get him. In 1967 or so he received an award for aquittals in 3 or 4 murder trials in one year.<br /><br />I can see that the book deal would have paid his fee, and perhaps the high profile nature of the crime may have attracted him to the case.<br /><br />...but the nature of Atkins grand jury testimony pretty much screwed any chance of an aquittal.<br /><br />One thing I have noticed is that the girls, in particular Atkins really had an idea that a life sentence was around 9 years. I do wonder if Atkins thought that by confessing it would only cost her 9 years. <br /><br />Bear in mind that the death sentence repeal was apparently common knowledge prior to it happening. So the drama of a death sentence wasnt quite as sobering as we might expect.Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-24427625711951478092015-12-24T15:05:17.522-05:002015-12-24T15:05:17.522-05:00Here is an interesting little statement from Billy...Here is an interesting little statement from Billy Doyle's LAPD interview:<br /><br />WILLIAM DOYLE: I think his relationship with Gibby – I think Mr. Folger should and will soon investigate everything and everyone. Gibby Folger was not a drug addict. Gibby Folger, I repeat, was not a drug addict. And, and – thought it was a big deal, and thought she was being incredibly mischievous to take a poke off of somebody else’s joint. <br /><br />Clearly Peter J. Folger had a little chat with Doyle. After revealing that, he REPEATS she was not a drug addict and claims it was "mischievous" of her to poke off a joint, yet we know she had MDA in her system that night.<br /><br />Protest too much? Why would he need to put such emphasis on that?<br /><br />Then, another suspect Bill Reinhart reveales Caruso had another client in connection with the case and that he was "working with" Evelle Younger as early as September. The same Caruso of course that swooped in to rescue Susan Atkins with that whole shady little opperation. Of course her "confession" didn't involve drugs, knowing the victims, etc....totally random. Just a bunch of dirty hippies attacking some clean cut rich people enjoying a nice evening of milk and cookies.<br /><br />You're very good at picking apart what I write and offering rebuttle after rebuttle with Bugliosi's official narrative.<br /><br />But you seem to brush off and over look important questions.<br /><br />WHY WOULD AN ATTORNEY LIKE CARUSO BE SWOOPING IN TO REPRESENT ALL SUSPECTS IN THIS CASE? WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS "WORKING" WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY?<br /><br />Was he just a good hearted fellow? Manson Mythoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10335867657444116691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-36553055907164561522015-12-24T14:45:14.013-05:002015-12-24T14:45:14.013-05:00I never claimed Bugliosi invented Helter Skelter. ...I never claimed Bugliosi invented Helter Skelter. I think he over emphasized it and ducked and dodged any other possible motives. Your right, he went to Spahn for PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Because he wanted a "far out" motive. Because you know, "far out" cases make for "far out" headlines and "far out" headlines keep your name in the press. Which is great when you have ambitions to run for Attorney General. A mundane drug crime would be detrimental. Allowing for a motive that would pull the sheets off a lot of powerful people might hurt your campaign.<br /><br />Bobby's action after Hinman mean nothing in regards to Helter Skelter. It was a last minute decision to thrown suspicion at the Black Panthers and this was inspired by the recent concerns over the Crowe shooting, not a silly plot to bring about Armageddon.<br /><br />DeCarlo and Springer said nothing about Helter Skelter. Springer said the murders were simply robberies. He did say one thing that stands out. That the Tate murders wasn't the "score" he hoped for. It's funny that, while their details were off, they knew more about the crimes and murders than some of those in the Family, including Charlie's supposed "right hand man". The males hanging around knew what was happening and it wasn't some Helter Skelter bullshit. Maybe the runaway kids thought that.<br /><br />Right, nobody said Helter Skelter would start with murders and blood on the walls....until they were testifying for Bugliosi. That's when little Paul Watkins even including the word Pig in blood being involved in the whole thing! Yet that started with a red herring left by Bobby at a crime Little Paul knew little about.Manson Mythoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10335867657444116691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-52327178917133269632015-12-24T04:33:04.089-05:002015-12-24T04:33:04.089-05:00Another angle of fun and games is to look at the s...Another angle of fun and games is to look at the system of carrots and sticks offered to potential defendants who are given an opportunity to become prosecution witnesses.<br /><br />I believe De Carlo had at least three charges against him, felony weapons charges, drug smuggling, stolen goods, and a fourth the assaulting of his wife.<br /><br />Obviously Kasabian had multiple death sentences hanging over her.<br /><br />The decision not to prosecute Dianne Lake for perjury is of interest because she was a key witness against Van Houten (and also Tex in his trial).<br /><br />Mary Brunner was all over the place facing possible Hinman murder charges, followed by perjury and a lengthy battle not to have her immunity withdrawn.<br /><br />Ella Jo Bailey also had a charge withdrawn in exchange for testifying.<br />Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-66522071097699037332015-12-24T01:14:24.415-05:002015-12-24T01:14:24.415-05:00MHN said...
Where is Trilby when you need her.......MHN said...<br /><br /><b>Where is Trilby when you need her.....?</b><br /><br />You may have to ask Svengali about that....grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-77286028208199205662015-12-24T01:11:48.416-05:002015-12-24T01:11:48.416-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
What did Springer ...Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>What did Springer and DeCarlo say about Helter Skelter? Aside from a comment, "he has this thing built up to where he'll be king of the world". None of them uttered the term "Helter Skelter". Howard described it as a "movement". Something about "die to live"</b><br /><br />Between them, they outlined some of the tenets of HS. The concept is what's important, not the phrase. You allege the prosecutor made it up. The evidence tells otherwise. That outsiders grabbed even tiny bits of the picture, though they didn't understand it, is significant. There is plenty of evidence {even Bobby's actions after killing Hinman, though they were not done in actual furtherance of HS} to show that HS was in the air that the Family breathed. Their actions and words in that July to December period show it demonstrably, even to the extent that outsiders picked up on it, at least in part. It really is as simple as that.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-85076905417980664692015-12-24T01:02:21.372-05:002015-12-24T01:02:21.372-05:00I believe that while the motive was to free Bobby
...<br /><br /><b>I believe that while the motive was to free Bobby</b><br /><br />One of the question marks against it is something Pat said when she had her first parole hearing. She said "I know that like, when you say ~ I did not know that night where I was going. We had never discussed in that family killing anyone really, as far as like anyone going out to kill someone. I had known there had been a murder of a Gary Hinman, but it was kept very quiet and I had no idea that what ~ Mr. Kay makes sounds like there was these big times when people sat around and talked about killing. I was never there. So if they happened, I wasn’t there. And when you start, you know, a whole lot of ~ I did not know that night until I was in the car. I was in taking care of the children at the time at ~ when I was awakened in the night and I was told to go with Tex by Charlie. I got into the car with Tex and it wasn’t but way late down the road somewhere that I asked Tex what we were going to do. And it was when we were ~ and for a long time he said nothing. And then eventually, and so we just gabbed and whatever and we drove. Eventually, when we went up Cielo Drive, Tex said that we were going to go in the house and kill everyone there. I had no idea where I was going. Yes, I followed directions from Tex from then on. But I did not know where I was going."<br /><br />Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br /><b>BUT then the Judge allowed Manson and the co-defendants to be convicted WITHOUT their lawyers even putting on a defense - that was the most blattant denial of "due process" I have EVER witnessed</b><br /><br />Irving Kanarek went on to say the reason <i>he</i> never put on a defence was because as far as he was concerned, the prosecution had no case and had failed to prove their case.<br /><br /> Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>How was the drug angle looked into deeply? By LAPD, it was. But Bugliosi painted a portrait of them as bunglers and once he was assigned the case, he wasn't looking into anything except a Beatles lyric sheet and a bible</b><br /><br />Actually, one of the first things he did was to go to Spahn and look around for physical evidence like bullets and the like. Your bias unfortunately tends to steamroller the actual facts. Which it doesn't need to. You could accept the factual realities and still have your view.<br />Over at Truth on Tate/LaBianca, there is an interesting interview with Irving Kanarek and in the course of it, the interviewer mentions that she threw away her copy of "Helter Skelter" because she thought it was crap and he tells her off a few times because of this. His reasoning, he says, is because it should be used to verify facts. I thought it was a good point. You could use it as factual and still have a totally different conclusion from the one Bugliosi had.<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-20733536066535940032015-12-24T00:58:15.309-05:002015-12-24T00:58:15.309-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
For what it's ... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>For what it's worth. Pat Krenwinkel said something rather interesting during one of her parole hearings as well. That on the night of the murders, it was their understand there were "two women" in the house. Despite the record saying they had no idea who was there. If that was her understanding, then I believe she purposely misworded or made a mistake</b><br /><br />If you look at Pat's hearing transcripts that are available it's quite noticeable that she's not often articulate. She kind of rambles nervously and so often doesn't complete sentences and other sentences just run into new ones. It's even more noticeable when you hear her in some of those hearings.<br />In the hearing you mention, she's talking in the context of reflecting that she should have left before she ever climbed the fence with Tex because she'd not long been made aware that they were to kill everyone in the house. I think her mentioning foreknowledge about the two women in the house is a slip of the tongue. Her main emphasis isn't so much on who was there as much as it was clear to her that whatever was going to happen in that house was not going to be good. I don't think she knew the victims because she has always maintained that.<br /><br /><b>People accept at face value the most simplistic explainations of so many things</b><br /><br />Which people ? And how do you know that people just take things at face value and haven't in fact gone through a vigorous weighing up process and concluded that some of the things you call simplistic explanations are actually true ? You make out every sentence of explanation to be pregnant with intrigue and deceit.<br /><br /><b>Why did he shout so many objections to June Emmer when she wanted to talk about Linda being up at houses in Bervely Hills? </b><br /><br />Because that's what lawyers do in court. Kanarek also <a href="http://tatelabianca.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=June+Emmer" rel="nofollow">objected</a> many times and sometimes his objections were sustained, just as some of the prosecutions' were overruled. Remember, June Emmer was questioned outside of the jury's hearing.<br />Kanarek payed for her trip and June Emmers' role in that trial was simply to make Linda Kasabian look like an unreliable witness. And it turns out she was unreliable herself and her testimony was stricken from the record.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-74643727950968452022015-12-23T22:18:22.877-05:002015-12-23T22:18:22.877-05:00Anyway, I listened to the Inyo police tape with Po...<b>Anyway, I listened to the Inyo police tape with Poston and while he did explain what Helter Skelter was, said nothing about murders, igniting it with murder, etc</b><br /><br />Murder was never part of the narrative of HS. The Family igniting it was never part of the narrative of HS. That it was imminent was part of the narrative and that the Family would escape the heavy shit by being hidden in the desert was part of the narrative. Most of us wouldn't give HS a second glance had that summer been uneventful. Gregg Jakobson didn't seem to have been worried that it was going to truly result in anything dangerous when it was being spoken of as "the shit is coming down." Stephanie Schram's sister didn't run out and call the San Diego police when Charlie laid it out for her the day before the Cielo killings. I get the impression it was seen as the ramblings of a druggie or free thinker at best. Though subtle hints were being dropped I don't even believe that Family members were walking around thinking that they must commit murder to ignite HS. I don't even think the three women had that thought in their minds on the way to Cielo......<br /><br /><b>Also, by a lot of accounts, Helter Skelter wasn't something that had to be ignited, but something already happening</b><br /><br />That's absolutely right.<br />I don't overlook simple human traits in exceptional people. Charlie seems to have become impatient. And the sequence of events starting with Lotsapoppa and continuing with his music stalling, the Hinman affair, paranoia over the Panthers, more encounters with cops, dissed at Esalen, arrests of his friends and in both sets of arrests, people connected to Hinman's murder....I just think these and more combined with the processes of his mind to produce what we've been talking about for goodness knows how long.<br /><br /><b>Manson wouldn't risk going back to prison for a such a stupid idea</b><br /><br />But he would for a stupid idea like copycat murders ?<br />Murders !<br />On the other hand, you could argue that the way he was going on, he was pretty much risking going back to prison most days.<br />Fact remains though, he did not want to go back to prison and whichever motive one ascribes to, as far as I can determine, it explains pretty much his stance and actions from August of '69 all the way to spring of '71.<br /><br /><b>To imply that I'm out of line for saying Bugliosi would lie, is bullshit my friend</b><br /><br />I never once stated or implied that you were out of line for saying he <i>would</i> lie.<br />Sometimes however, I think you need to understand what <i>lying</i> actually is.<br /><br /><b>the little episode where he was brought up on perjury charges to me is proof he was a liar and Stephen Kay busted him and it's no wonder why he'd refer to Kay as, "that little cocksucker" years after the trial was over</b><br /><br />People get brought up on charges all the time. Was he found guilty and convicted of perjury ? To say that being brought up on charges is proof of one's guilt is a horrifyingly dangerous road to go down and frankly, I am surprised you do go down that road. You argue the opposite for Charles Manson but that's inconsistent. By your Bugliosi logic, Charlie is guilty of murder and conspiracy simply by dint of the fact that he was charged for it.<br />With Steven Kay, you should go and look at exactly what Steven Kay did testify to. You couldn't convict someone on that evidence. Maybe he referred to Kay as a little cocksucker years later because Kay's story is essentially the one that brought the charges. If you were in his position and you'd been innocent, maybe you wouldn't just be inclined to write it off as a mistake on Kay's part. Maybe you'd call him something stronger too.<br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-56362924313994768102015-12-23T21:36:06.540-05:002015-12-23T21:36:06.540-05:00St Circumstance said...
I dont want to become kno...St Circumstance said...<br /><br /><b>I dont want to become known as the Defender or a proponent of the HS motive</b><br /><br />It's really not that bad a life !<br /><br /> Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>Paul Watkins would say anything to draw attention to himself</b><br /><br />Even after he suspected that it almost cost him his life ?<br /><br /><b>and he had not the slightest idea of what was really going down</b><br /><br />Which could perhaps indicate the truthfulness of what he said ? His main use for the case was to articulate HS. He could not prove anyone had anything to do with the TLB killings. And he didn't.<br /><br /><b>It's arguable that much of the Helter Skelter story came from him</b><br /><br />If you mean he made it up, then how do you explain Gregg Jakobson and Leslie Van Houten ?<br /><br /><b>He was after all a former Bible student and much of what he and Brooks Poston said about Charlie sounded an awful lot like Krishna Venta</b><br /><br />If anything, that demonstrates the number of different movements that had very similar thoughts. You yourself have pointed out how aspects of Black Muslim thought came out in HS. It could also demonstrate that Charles Manson was a good listener and with the way acid can bring up lots of what's going on inside and the mind rearrange things....<br />Besides which, Krishna Venta died in 1958 and one could easily draw parallels between him & Charles Manson.<br /><br /> Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>Let me recap: Watkins was a bullshit artist who wasn't even at Spahn when things started to get nasty</b><br /><br />He, along with Juan Flynn & Brooks Poston spoke at length with Ivor Davies and Jerry LeBlanc who ended up writing "Five to die" before the trial ~ stuff they said made up part of the book. It, along with John Gilmour's "The Garbage people" and William Zamora's "Trial by your peers" is a much forgotten book but it's packed with fantastic information that many present day interested parties wouldn't be losing out by reading.<br />Watkins spoke to those writers long before he spoke with the DA's office.<br /><br /><b>Brooks Poston was never an accepted member of the Family. But from what Juanita Wildebush had said, he wanted to be</b><br /><br />If you're going to accept <a href="http://tatelabianca.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/tin-house-part-2.html" rel="nofollow">Juanita's words</a> about this in order to try and show that Poston's words couldn't be trusted because he wasn't a Family member and was pissed off, are you going to take on board all she said about Helter Skelter and the Family's mental preparation for it and the way they dosed up on the White album and saw the Beatles as their prophets from the very same interview ?<br /><br /><b>I think Poston had some animosity towards Manson for leaving him up at Barker Ranch</b><br /><br />I agree with you that he had some animosity towards Charlie. I don't think it was because of Barker though. You see the same animosity bit by bit from a number of those that were with him in that period, not least those that did time in jail. So it's not particularly surprising or noteworthy. Some artists in the film and music biz bear animosity towards former managers, despite the strides they appeared to make in their time with them or towards former bandmates or actors they've acted with. Animosity doesn't necessarily equate with lying.<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-27334806422474373122015-12-23T16:24:22.862-05:002015-12-23T16:24:22.862-05:00He told them rifles were trained on officers and t...He told them rifles were trained on officers and they didn't act into August 16th. Something doesn't add up with these reports.Manson Mythoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10335867657444116691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-90572765988037803432015-12-23T11:15:05.901-05:002015-12-23T11:15:05.901-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
When you watch the... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>When you watch these TV specials and read the books, they always say that the case really broke when Susan Atkins started to blabber to her jail mates. That is 100% bullshit</b><br /><br />Here's an irony for you. The book "Helter Skelter" does <i>not</i> say that. It outlines in increasing detail how a series of roads led to a common destination starting from October right through to December with November being commented on as the month of confessions that initially no one believed.<br />The book "Five to die" which came out even before the trial began in 1970 does not put it as simplistically as you put it in your quote.<br />I've rarely found any of the TV specials to be of too much interest in their entirety. At best there'll be snippets here and there and in my opinion, too much lazy/sensationalist journalism.<br /><br />Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>The Manson case was twisted and shaped into what it was by three Italians</b><br /><br />Sort of like, mind controlling, criminal masterminds that used legality as their kind of LSD and were able to dupe the thinking of much of the population through repetition and deviousness ? So you <i>do</i> believe it's possible !<br /><br /><br />I jest brother man, I jest !<br /><br /><b>Manson sees the Underworld of crime being just a mirror reflection of the overworld. Racial conflict in the underworld was just as real as that in the overworld</b><br /><br />Jesus was pointing in that direction long before Charlie was being messed about by straight and respectable authority. It's one of the basic understandings of God's view of humanity, that it's what is inside a person that determines what they really are and as our world has shown us for centuries, it's not the heroes that are written about in glowing terms that are always the "good guys" nor vice versa, the villains are not always or exclusively the "bad guys" {Lenin, Christ, Che Guevara, Mandela.....}<br />And yes, all the shit that exists in the real world exists in the criminal world because the underworld is made up of flawed people that came from a so called respectable world filled to the gills with.....flawed people.<br /><br /> Robert Hendrickson said...<br /><br /><b>the powers that be, don't WANT the public to KNOW the TRUTH</b><br /><br />Agreed in some instances. But that truth that the powers that be don't want the public to know, has to be known at least by those powers. We're talking about a case in which none of the powers <i>knew</i>.<br /><br /><b>It also appears THAT that is what Bugliosi was actually going for, BUT if HE truely believed that a Black and White "race" WAR was even in the wind, WHY didn't HE CALL in the FBI ?</b><br /><br />I don't believe he did think a race war was in the wind. His thrust was that the Family had tried to ignite it ~ <i>and failed</i>. In his book, he asks Charlie when he thought the Black man was going to take over and Charlie replied that he may have put a clog in it, which Bugliosi understood as the trial alerting "Whitey." <br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-49625027532690703682015-12-23T10:11:36.957-05:002015-12-23T10:11:36.957-05:00The real problem is, as more recently demonstrated...The real problem is, as more recently demonstrated by the LAPD cops WITHHOLDING the Watson "audio tapes," the powers that be, don't WANT the public to KNOW the TRUTH.<br /><br />BUT Grimm has made a VERY relevant POINT with his "RAIN" anology. EVERY "drop" of water contributes to the resulting FLOOD.<br /><br />THUS, it is possible that Helter Skelter actually DID begin with the release of the Beatles White Album. AND every predicate act of violence from then up until the Tate / La?Bianca Massacre - and even the violence AFTER that climatic weekend - may LEGALLY be considered a REAL "revolution" against the American "establishment."<br /><br />It also appears THAT that is what Bugliosi was actually going for, BUT if HE truely believed that a Black and White "race" WAR was even in the wind, WHY didn't HE CALL in the FBI ? Imagine if TODAY, nobody called the FBI when radical "terrorists" were planning a religious ATTACK in America.<br /><br />Was HE actually playing some kind of "Don't ASK, don't tell," GAME or was HE just as "crazy' as Charlie. Kind'a like a "two peas in a pod" thing ?<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-16482658183534271442015-12-23T04:45:18.219-05:002015-12-23T04:45:18.219-05:00RE: police instructed not to bother those at Spahn...RE: police instructed not to bother those at Spahn Ranch:<br /><br />4 June the date given for the rape that was reported to police.<br /><br />Sometime around 17 July 1969 two homicide detectives visited Spahn Ranch as part of their investigation into the recent murder of 16 year old Mark Walts.<br /><br />During the week of the Hinman murder one of these detectives received from patrol officers three loaded clips of ammunition clips for a .30 calibre carbine that had been found on the highway. It was noted Manson had contacted the police to claim ownership.<br /><br />24 July fireman on routine fire patrol observed at the ranch a flat-bed truck loaded with car parts and VW engines covered over with sleeping bags.<br /><br />Around this time two officers on patrol at Spahn Ranch had a conversation with Manson during which he boasted about the quantity of weapons available and how rifles at that moment were trained on officers and that this was standard procedure when police approached the ranch.<br /><br />28 July is when the conversation took place at Spahn Ranch which probably places the Crowe incident as happening before August 1. Manson (using the alias Summers) in answer to why they were armed replied that they were anticipating an attack by Black Panthers because "...we got into a hassle with a couple of those black motherfuckers and we put one of them in hospital." And those offer was made for both groups to join together to solve the problem of their common enemy.<br /><br />30 July firemen heard gunshots and spoke to 'Jack' who explained that they had guards at each road and a telephone system (this is also the day Lutesinger first went to the police).<br /><br />August 9 a VW spotted by police a short distance from the ranch reported stolen 15 July.<br /><br />Around this time the Butlers who run a mechanics notice that a recently purchased dune buggy from Manson was made up of stolen parts from their storage yard (Phil Butler was also a police officer).Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14711422705919582549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-75671750012080412832015-12-23T02:38:33.473-05:002015-12-23T02:38:33.473-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
The post should at... Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>The post should at least show the amount of people with vested interest in concealing what happened</b><br /><br />You keep saying or implying that. But in order to have a vested interest in concealing what happened, then: i] something <i>other</i> must have happened and ii] those with the vested interest must have known what had really happened.<br />I do not dispute that a number of folk connected with this case had dodgy intent. But that applies on virtually all sides and you know the one thing it still doesn't do ? It still does not change the events, the motivations, the intents, the moves....of prior to 11th August. Throwing in a box of red herrings involving corrupt cops, judges, lawyers, and all the rest ultimately has little to do with what this band of people that killed felt it was all about. It's all very interesting and adds to the greater drama of the overall story but really, tells you nothing about what came before.<br /><br /> Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>That tape was made for the purpose of trying to convince the court she was insane</b><br /><br />Yes, that's right, it was. But be sure to tell the right story. Having spoken with her and heard what she had to say, Marvin Part <i>did</i> think she was insane. He's not the only one. Lots of people have thought that, both at the time and since. Part thought that she was incapable of making a rational decision and was desperate to prove this to the court. On that tape, he asked her things he'd obviously asked her before and I say 'obviously' because he would want evidence of what he felt was her madness on tape so he knew what to ask her. From his perspective there's nothing unusual about that at all as to him it seemed rather obvious.<br /><br /><b> As little LuLu too was trying to go for a Diminished Capacity defense in hopes she'd walk out of the courtroom a free woman</b><br /><br />Leslie Van Houten was <i>not</i> going for a diminished capacity defence ~ her lawyer was. Big, big difference. She refused to be examined by the psychiatrists. She tried more than once to get rid of Part. She even fired him before the court ratified it. She was clear that she was going to do whatever Charlie wanted her to do and she was not going to tell the world she was mad. Part actually said, when opposing Leslie's motion to fire him, that she didn't care if she got the gas chamber.<br /><br />Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>How come nobody ever considered the girls to be groupies instead of followers?</b><br /><br />Well, groupies usually go home after the night's extra curricular activities !<br /><br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-11916864364671805202015-12-23T01:40:06.170-05:002015-12-23T01:40:06.170-05:00Manson Family Archives said...
I believe the moti...Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>I believe the motive, first and foremost was to get Bobby out of jail</b><br /><br />I have my doubts about this now. Up until a while ago, I felt it was possibly in the ether, along with other things. For me though, there are some serious question marks against the idea. However, it is certainly plausible.<br /><br /><b>I do believe the Crowe shooting was the catalyst for a lot of nonsense</b><br /><br />If the shooting of Lotsapoppa really was at the start of July {for some reason, during the penalty phase it kept being stated as August 1st rather than July 1st}, then I can't see how it couldn't be a catalyst, and a major one, for what went on to happen. For me the part the Crowe shooting plays {regardless of which motive[s] one ascribes to} in the overall narrative is the same part that rain plays in the eventual flooding of a town or village after a river bursts it's banks.<br /><br /> Manson Family Archives said...<br /><br /><b>He, Atkins and Kasabian being on speed (or Cocaine, Atkins wasn't sure). Where where they getting it? We know Joel Rostau was supplying Sebring. I'm not going to go into the long winded detail of how, but it's pretty obvious</b><br /><br />It's not really obvious. Statements made without back up to verify them or at least point to a general truthfulness are anything but obvious. The very thrust of your original piece is that people have, for decades and in a most unthinking way taken what was put out by the prosecution as 'obvious' and right....yet you keep doing the very thing you castigate others for supposedly doing. Where <i>were</i> Atkins and Watson getting their stuff ? You don't know.<br /><br /><b>Given the small world this was and that fact Watson was more Hollywood than SPahn, it's no stretch of the imagination he most likely knew Sebring and Frykowski</b><br /><br />The small world it was ? You make it sound like everyone lived on the same street and bumped into each other every other day. In my druggy days, I knew a few people that were dealers and runners. And there were tons that I did not know.<br />It's by no means beyond the realms of possibility that Watson knew Frykowski or Sebring. He may well have. They could have been pool and drinking buddies on the sly. They could have enjoyed evenings talking about Jefferson Airplane lyrics & European cuisine. "Could have" is a far cry from "most likely did" however. Especially when you're trying to make a connection that no one has ever been able to make tenuously, let alone definitively.<br /><br /><b>Did he ever admit to killing Shea?.....*crickets*</b><br /><br />Do you know for an absolute and unshakable fact that he did kill him ? Those that mention him in connection with it {such as Kitty, DeCarlo or Bruce}, you've cast off as liars who said whatever suited them when it did suit them. The one whom you infer never lies {Charlie} says in George's book that he doesn't know that Tex was there.<br /><br /><b>His defense was that he was just a good ol' Texas boy who was brain washed by Charles Manson and he didn't even cop to even the killings at his trial</b><br /><br />He did.<br /><br /><br />CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI:<br /><br />Q: Mr. Watson, I show you some photographs here: People's 87, a photograph of Sharon Tate; People's 107, a photograph of Jay Sebring; people's 102, a photograph of Abigail Folger; people's 89, a photograph of Wojiciech Frykowski; people's 42, a photograph of Steven Parent, people's 91, a photograph of Leno LaBianca; and people's 93, a photograph of Rosemary LaBianca.<br /><br />Now, just for the record, did you kill all seven of these people?<br /><br />A: Yes.<br /><br />Q: So you also killed Sharon Tate, then; is that correct, the female Caucasian depicted in people's 87?<br /><br />A: As far as I know, yes. <br /><br /> <br /><b>I'd hate to see any of you ever on trial for murder. By your logic, you'd confess to everything like an idiot</b><br /><br />I'd hate to see you on trial for murder. By your logic and reasoning, you'd dance your way to the lethal injection.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-74997071866882963552015-12-22T10:10:17.396-05:002015-12-22T10:10:17.396-05:00Last night I was switching TV channels and hit upo...Last night I was switching TV channels and hit upon an OLD episode of OZZY and Harriett. We're talking<br />B & W TV with a story line about preparing for Christmas. I actually LIVED that era (hanging the colored lights outside and putting on skits for the PTA / Church crowd) and still I could NOT even relate to the trival non-significance of such a program TODAY.<br /><br />SO what Happened to CHANGE all that ? VIETNAM ! Was that a Good thing or a BAD one. ?<br />I don't KNOW, but I'm now thinking, to make ME watch such dribble now, could be considered "cruel and unusual punishment."<br /><br />Keep-up the GOOD work MansonBloggers<br /><br />Robert Hendricksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02880909248364077567noreply@blogger.com