tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post7867604446829300833..comments2024-03-28T20:31:17.737-04:00Comments on The Manson Family Blog: Drugs or Money?Matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06766282574442161929noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-28042714259884013732023-05-15T07:25:45.973-04:002023-05-15T07:25:45.973-04:00Nobody was getting them off or minimizing their se...Nobody was getting them off or minimizing their sentences. The murders were too viscous for that. Richard Craniumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10130636843666170092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-51723636759427264402023-05-14T04:09:01.279-04:002023-05-14T04:09:01.279-04:00D. said:
But did anyone see the way she spoke of ... D. said:<br /><br /><b>But did anyone see the way she spoke of Tex on Current Affair (?) in the late 80's or early 90's? She was speaking of him the same way a woman talked of her husband. She had a twinkle in his eye as she discussed how tall and handsome he was</b><br /><br />She said the same sort of thing and in the same way, but double+, about Charlie. In the same show. She spoke similarly of the connection she had with Leslie. <br />Don't leave out the details that derail the point you're trying to make, because someone checking up on your point will find that out themselves.<br /><br /><b>They both took turns driving</b><br /><br />The only time Linda drove on Cielo night was after all the events had concluded, after they'd gone to buy petrol. Tex did 85% of the driving and even had a go at Linda when she started the car immediately after the murders at the bottom of Cielo. <br />That's hardly "taking turns" driving.<br /><br /><b>both of them are similar when it comes to the trial in that they are the only ones who kept their mouth completely shut, got competent attorneys</b><br /><br />What are you on about ? Kasabian was on the stand for 18 days, plus the penalty phase. She was grilled like a ham by Kanarek, Fitzgerald, Shinn and Hughes. You could publish her testimony as a book, and it would take you a plane journey from London to Toronto and back to read it.<br />Tex's testimony wasn't anywhere near as long as Linda's, but it is nevertheless long.<br />If that is your idea of keeping one's mouth shut, I'd love to see your version of shooting one's mouth off !!<br />As for lawyers, Linda's lawyer, Gary Fleischmann, was her lawyer a good 3 to 4 months before she even turned herself in. Incidentally, it was against his advice that she waived extradition and came to LA straight away.<br />Tex got a good lawyer both in Texas and in LA. Shouldn't he have ?<br />But Charlie, Susan, Pat and Leslie all got the lawyers they asked for. And in Paul Fitzgerald, Irving Kanarek and Maxwell Keith, you had 3 more than competent lawyers. Even the guy Susan got rid of, Richard Caballero, was a more than competent lawyer. Fact is, the 4 defendants got rid of lawyers that were good and could have either got them off or minimized their sentences and during the trial made it highly difficult for their lawyers to adequately represent them because they insisted they couldn't be represented. And messed up their chances.<br /><br /><b>and threw it all off on the others</b><br /><br />As opposed to the 4 on trial throwing it off on Linda ? 🤔grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-49678302471583029592021-03-08T03:44:44.665-05:002021-03-08T03:44:44.665-05:00Linda left her children with them
Linda never wen...Linda left her children with them<br /><br />Linda never went to police<br /><br />Linda played absolute hardball to get the deal she got. <br /><br />Linda supposedly was horrified by seeing Tex brutalize and murder Frykowski. But did anyone see the way she spoke of Tex on Current Affair (?) in the late 80's or early 90's? She was speaking of him the same way a woman talked of her husband. She had a twinkle in his eye as she discussed how tall and handsome he was.<br /><br />Tex went in, Linda stayed out to watch. They both took turns driving and both of them are similar when it comes to the trial in that they are the only ones who kept their mouth completely shut, got competent attorneys and threw it all off on the others.<br /><br />D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00987799567880583276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-60754143361698707632021-03-07T07:34:05.502-05:002021-03-07T07:34:05.502-05:00I think she was lying and spent most of the time h...I think she was lying and spent most of the time hiding in "the car."Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-70044044740358568002021-03-07T05:11:12.738-05:002021-03-07T05:11:12.738-05:00Speculator said:
when you look at Kasabian’s life... Speculator said:<br /><br /><b>when you look at Kasabian’s life prior to Manson she certainly wasn’t some sweet n innocent</b><br /><br />No, she wasn't. But neither was she a hardened criminal. She drifted into what I'd call lawlessness ~ not an unusual trait with much of the counterculture. But nevertheless deadly in its potential to help steer a person towards 'criminal pursuits'.<br /><br /><b>I’d go so far as to say that she was more streetwise than possibly even Manson</b><br /><br />My observation of her was that despite Charlie's street smarts, his desire to control others, even in his psychedelic way of appearing not to, left him taking his eye off the ball in terms of taking care of himself whereas Linda's primary concern was Linda. Everything else played second fiddle to her {murders, her daughter, telling LE what she knew but telling others etc} which is not to say those things weren't important to her, just not as important as her. She was smarter than Charlie, really, but she did have one very important ally on her side ~ she was no murderer.<br /><br /><b>when you consider how she (apparently) managed to keep her hands clean during the crimes (unlike for example Van Houten) and maneuvered herself to avoid any charges after the events</b><br /><br />Despite the cynicism that usually comes in the direction of anyone that says anything <i>not negative</i> about Linda, I do not believe that she had murder or even killing for the cause, in her. I don't believe Bobby, Bruce, Pat or Leslie were hardened murderers, capable of sprees, but they did have some aspect of either killing for the cause or killing if they couldn't see a way out, to them. I think Linda was horrified by murder. Not by robbery, not by rape, not by lots of negative things. But murder was a bridge too far for her and ultimately, that played in her favour and goes a long way towards explaining her actions at Cielo, Ocean Front Walk and fleeing Spahn as well as during the trials and why none of the perps have ever {outside of that ridiculous penalty phase} come out and said she killed. The best they could do subsequently was Pat saying she doesn't recall her trying to stop any of the activity at Cielo and Susan trying to say she was in the house after 7 years of saying she wasn't.<br />I don't think she was maneuvering herself out of any sticky situation because she <i>was</i> indicted and charged with 7 counts of murder and one of conspiracy. But she's never been on the same page as the others and if she had killed someone or had some kind of planning role, she'd have done jail time, even if she escaped the death penalty.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-68491915123228935352021-03-06T12:30:05.102-05:002021-03-06T12:30:05.102-05:00Grim - who and what to believe eh. A lot of omissi...Grim - who and what to believe eh. A lot of omissions and inconsistencies are riddled through the case. But as you say it didn’t matter to the prosecution in their aim of securing a conviction. One thing is for sure, when you look at Kasabian’s life prior to Manson she certainly wasn’t some sweet n innocent. I’d go so far as to say that she was more streetwise than possibly even Manson when you consider how she (apparently) managed to keep her hands clean during the crimes (unlike for example Van Houten) and maneuvered herself to avoid any charges after the events.Speculatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489618949347706102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29028756554825906512021-03-06T12:11:01.953-05:002021-03-06T12:11:01.953-05:00Speculator said:
it just feels like a lot of h...Speculator said:<br /><br /> <b>it just feels like a lot of her evidence was manufactured and staged</b><br /><br />It feels like much of her evidence was ragged ~ which, for us, with so many questions, it is. But I find most of it plausible. <br />I think the prosecution {meaning Bugliosi !} utilized of her testimony what it needed to net the result it was after.<br />And why not ? I would if I was in that position. Their first priority was to prosecute. It's then for the accused to do their bit in demonstrating that the allegations are without foundation.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-80512319820929651162021-03-06T12:05:49.728-05:002021-03-06T12:05:49.728-05:00Speculator said...
if you check Kasabian’s tria...Speculator said...<br /><br /> <b>if you check Kasabian’s trial testimony you’ll see that she does say the conversation with Manson about not doing the True house/no it’s the one next door, took place right after they pulled up and before he went up the drive</b><br /><br />It's kind of ambiguous. She says it the same way during the Watson trial yet when she's questioned by Tex's lawyer, that's when it comes out that the conversation took place as Manson was walking up the path towards the True house. And at no point during either trial does she ever mention Tex getting out independently of Pat & Leslie. Yet as early as Dec 1st, before the grand jury even, Susan does. And later, Tex and Charlie do. It's been part of Leslie's official description of the crime found in the Appellate Decision that gets read out in parole hearings since at least 2004. I'd say it was a fairly safe bet that's actually what happened. Yet Linda never mentions this. For the benefit of the trials, it doesn't really matter; her testimony and the leather strips found there corroborate her assertion that Manson went into the house. So there was little reason to push it. And Tex never denies he was there.<br />But it becomes important later on, if only to attempt to glean some insight into Manson's thought process, particularly with that statement by Stovitz and the one during the trial by Bugliosi.<br /><br /><b>If someone you’re with says go and wait by “the” car it’s surely inferred that they and you are meaning your car and not any other car??!!</b><br /><br />Like Torque says, the natural reading of that would be the car that has just been pushed {ie, Steve's}, particularly as Linda had been assigned the role of lookout, to warn them if someone was coming. Ironically, if one believes her story of trying to get Susan to stop proceedings, she actually did just that ~ but she was ignored, which makes one wonder what they would have done if someone actually <i>was</i> coming !grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-32061687334540272492021-03-06T05:01:49.407-05:002021-03-06T05:01:49.407-05:00And I’m afraid that what she says about the car ju...And I’m afraid that what she says about the car just doesn’t ring true to me. If someone you’re with says go and wait by “the” car it’s surely inferred that they and you are meaning your car and not any other car??!! I know that sounds like splitting hairs but it just feels like a lot of her evidence was manufactured and staged. It’s usually the very minor details that are overlooked as being important when a story is concocted and end up being the ones that don’t stack up. Speculatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489618949347706102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-159123657647541022021-03-06T04:38:28.454-05:002021-03-06T04:38:28.454-05:00Yes, that would make sense. It’s just that she doe...Yes, that would make sense. It’s just that she doesn’t specify, or isn’t asked to specify, which car she means ie Parents or their car at the bottom of the hill. Speculatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489618949347706102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-65866133196825982152021-03-05T22:45:57.725-05:002021-03-05T22:45:57.725-05:00Speculator, I believe it is fairly well accepted t...Speculator, I believe it is fairly well accepted that Linda hid out near Steve Parent's car, parked inside the property near the gate button on the driveway, to listen for sounds. That way she could have advised the killers if someone was about to enter the property.<br /><br />Indeed, the killer's car was parked at the bottom of the hill, where the private extension of Cielo Drive meets the main Cielo Drive at Bella Drive. The time to walk from that location to the Tate/Polanski gate, at a brisk pace, is just over three minutes. This was determined during a recent Manson tour, and the video of this appears as a post on this blog.<br /><br />After seeing Voytek and Abigail stabbed in the front yard, Linda ran out of the property and all the way down the hill to where the killer's car was parked. Of course this is why Linda was nowhere to be found when Tex, Susan, and Pat energed from the house. They ultimately found her in the getaway car.Torquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00444301737391992929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-48479455947952636462021-03-05T18:52:19.557-05:002021-03-05T18:52:19.557-05:00Grim - if you check Kasabian’s trial testimony you...Grim - if you check Kasabian’s trial testimony you’ll see that she does say the conversation with Manson about not doing the True house/no it’s the one next door, took place right after they pulled up and before he went up the drive. So if you believe the testimony it would appear that he didn’t have in mind to target anyone in the True house at any stage. But really who knows what’s truth and what’s lies from any of them. I find a lot of Kasabian’s evidence a bit suspect. At Cielo she she went back down to the car after they killed Parent “to listen for sounds” and that Krenwinkel later came down to the car and asked for her knife. And then she heard the screams and ran from the car back up to the house and saw everything. If you look at the distance between the house and where the car was allegedly parked (after they drove it down the hill after cutting the wires) it’s a fair distance for them to be walking up and down in the middle of a frantic struggle! It just doesn’t ring true.Speculatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489618949347706102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-72282077408931577482021-03-05T17:12:51.136-05:002021-03-05T17:12:51.136-05:00grimtraveller said...
Aaron Stovitz made this ... grimtraveller said...<br /><br /> <b>Aaron Stovitz made this statement ¬> <i>"So they, after circling the city for a while, they go into the True, uh, to the True residence. No one is home, so they, go next door."</i><br /> And during the trial itself, as part of his summing up Bugliosi states ¬> <i>"And of course it was Manson who finally decided to drive to Harold True's"</i></b><br /><br />What has for a while really made me wonder is why Aaron made this statement. What caused him to surmise that ? It's not something he was speculating about. He seems pretty certain of it and so was Bugliosi during the trial. <br />The interview came 2 weeks after Susan recanted and he'd obviously {or the prosecution had obviously} spoken with both Linda and Susan so it could <i>only</i> have come from one of them ~ or both.<br />Years later, when Manson would say that he went to Harold's place, it was always with the purpose of trying to deflect, to show specifically that he hadn't targeted the LaBiancas. That their killing was random. Ironically, his original mandate for the evening {showing them how to do it and a random killing} was fulfilled in the end. But we know from Stovitz's interview with Harold True that Charlie knew that Harold had moved out almost a year previous. When Manson would make his "I went to Harold's place" statements, he was not aware that it would soon become public knowledge that Harold had moved out nearly a year before. With that in mind, it begs the question why he told Vanity Fair in 2011 that it was Harold's he went to and why he goes into such detail in George Stimson's 2015 book about how he went to the house as opposed to going right to the LaBiancas. It dovetails perfectly with what Aaron Stovitz had revealed in March 1970 and says to me at least that Charlie had Harold's former roommates in mind for a kill, particularly bearing in mind they fitted the description of 'pigs'.grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-12264323099110495142021-03-05T04:31:34.734-05:002021-03-05T04:31:34.734-05:00Peter said:
Grim. You accept that Manson'... Peter said:<br /><br /> <b>Grim. You accept that Manson's paranoia or delusions affected his thinking when it suits your argument, but reject it when it doesnt</b><br /><br />We all do this if we accept he had paranoid delusional moments. <br />But this is not a bad or negative thing. In fact, it's necessary. We have to make some kind of judgement as to when we think his thinking is affected by paranoia, vengeance, Mommy issues, Daddy resentment, irresponsibility, effects of LSD, distaste for authority, jealousy, misogyny etc and it works both ways. Charlie Manson was a psychologist/psychiatrist/psychoanalyst's dream and let's be honest here, many of us on these pages are little league psychologists on the sly !<br /><br /><b>Gary was one guy, a reclusive music teacher that nobody missed for like a week. Cielo was a massacre of a half dozen of L.A.s most beautiful people chased around the house and out onto the lawn</b><br /><br />The reason I mentioned Gary as a reason why Charlie would not be surprised by the events of Cielo is that by then, he knew at least <i>some</i> of his people would follow him in killing and not say anything to the police {at this point he still thought he'd killed Lotsapoppa}. He may well have been surprised at the scale of the killing or the story surrounding the killing, the "what happened ?" and stuff. But not the fact of killing.<br />I think he'd have been way more surprised at the killing of Gary than anything that happened subsequently.<br /><br /> Speculator said:<br /><br /><b>I often wonder what must’ve been going through the LaBiancas minds in the few minutes between Manson leaving and Watson and the rest coming in</b><br /><br />I would imagine confusion perhaps building up to abject fear. As Manson & Tex left, other than Rosemary's wallet, they hadn't taken anything and Rosemary, if she was aware her wallet was being taken, would know only her cards were in it. But they didn't take Leno's wallet. That might make one wonder, especially if you've been tied up.<br /> grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-69755670088425560472021-03-05T04:09:18.294-05:002021-03-05T04:09:18.294-05:00Speculator said...
Regarding the True house thoug... Speculator said...<br /><br /><b>Regarding the True house though, I’m doubting that he was after the guys that he had previously known there</b><br /><br />In March of 1970, months before the trial even began, Aaron Stovitz made this statement ¬> "<i>So they, after circling the city for a while, they go into the True, uh, to the True residence. No one is home, so they, go next door.</i>"<br />And during the trial itself, as part of his summing up Bugliosi states ¬> <i>"And of course it was Manson who finally decided to drive to Harold True's place and after he got out of the car, of course, he entered the LaBianca residence ~ we don't know how."</i><br />In the archives, go to July 16 2018 ~ there's a tremendous debate that comes after the post entitled "Roommate Revenge" in which both sides of the debate are well and truly covered.<br /><br /><b>I can’t remember the timings of what was said, but didn’t Kasabian say “we’re not doing THAT house are we?” when they pulled up and BEFORE Manson left the car and he said no it’s the one next door?</b><br /><br />In the Watson trial, it comes out that this conversation takes place as Charlie was going up the drive towards the True house. Linda never mentions Tex going to the LaBianca house with just Charlie but Susan {'69}, Tex {'78} and Charlie {'88} all have.<br />It just makes logical sense that Manson would state that he was going next door if he'd already ascertained that there was no one in at the True house ~ but there was a lone guy in the one next door. Manson has stated that it was a dog next door that alerted him to its occupancy as he had always known the house as empty. He'd been in it a few times prior to Sept '68. <br /><br /><b>What is a mystery to me is how a little pos like him managed to subdue LaBianca AND his wife without so much as a fight</b><br /><br />He had a .45, Tex, the element of surprise at 2am with very tired people who had been driving for hours and were ready for bed. Linda never mentions Tex going into the house with just Charlie but Susan in her Dec 1st '69 interview does and Tex in his book does. They tied up the LaBiancas. Charlie wasn't going to do that on his lonesome, even with a gun.<br /><br /><b>You do wonder if they might’ve been able to free themselves what would’ve happened</b><br /><br />Rosemary tried. She went for Leslie and Pat even though she had a pillowcase over her head and electrical cord round her neck. For Pat it must have been Cielo all over again and it's interesting that the response is the same ~ when the victim puts up a struggle, call Tex. I honestly do believe that had Rosemary managed to get free and prevent the women calling Tex, she would have taken them down because Leslie was shitting herself and Pat was no fighter and even a cursory glance at Rosemary's background reveals that she wasn't one to take shit or prisoners. She went down fighting. <br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-5929808884681026352021-03-04T06:27:03.549-05:002021-03-04T06:27:03.549-05:00Grim - it’s good to debate and we can agree to dis...Grim - it’s good to debate and we can agree to disagree. Afterall and as you say - the whole thing is academic! Regarding the True house though, I’m doubting that he was after the guys that he had previously known there. I can’t remember the timings of what was said, but didn’t Kasabian say “we’re not doing THAT house are we?” when they pulled up and BEFORE Manson left the car and he said no it’s the one next door? I think he just decided that it was a less open spot to park the car by the True house and a more covert route to access the LaBiancas. The LaBianca drive was long and completely open to be seen from all directions. Maybe that put him off approaching that way. But hey, who really knows. What is a mystery to me is how a little pos like him managed to subdue LaBianca AND his wife without so much as a fight. I guess he just knew the power that surprise and initial fear had over people. He was clearly a past master of sadistic cruelty. And if anyone doubts his guilt in all of this they should dwell on that point. I doubt that him or Watson would have ever risked a straight up confrontation with anyone. I often wonder what must’ve been going through the LaBiancas minds in the few minutes between Manson leaving and Watson and the rest coming in - if that is indeed how it played out. Maybe temporary relief I guess - which makes the final<br />Outcome all the more horrific. You do wonder if they might’ve been able to free themselves what would’ve happened.Speculatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489618949347706102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-44707044328199151522021-03-04T05:31:00.763-05:002021-03-04T05:31:00.763-05:00Speculator said:
I’d be interested to know what p... Speculator said:<br /><br /><b>I’d be interested to know what part of the Cielo murders and the scene that was left was intended to be linked to the Panthers and/or ignite a race war?! Daubing “Pig” on the door??!! Really?!! In what context?!!!</b><br /><br />I've made this point many a time ~ the Family, like most groups that are prejudiced against a particular group, know very little about the <i>real</i> inner workings and nuances of that group. Thinking that "this is how Blacks talk" is no guarantee that that <i>is</i> how Blacks talk. Bobby made that error. Susan made that error. And Pat made that error. All on separate nights at separate events. And don't forget, 6-8 months prior, long before it was known that the Family would be kicking these events off, Charlie had been telling them that 'blackie' would do these murders, writing things like 'pigs' on the walls in blood. They took him at his word, after all, as Gypsy later said, Charlie had been in jails with Blacks. He <i>knew</i> Blacks. They didn't question it, even though Sandy, Squeaky & Snake <i>should have</i>.<br /><br /> Peter said...<br /><br /><b>You accept that Manson's paranoia or delusions affected his thinking when it suits your argument, but reject it when it doesnt</b><br /><br />Don't we all ?<br />I simply happen to disagree with you on this Peter, and I think it is illogical. I agree with you that Manson was paranoid and I agree with you that he did things out of the ordinary. I disagree with you on this particular matter because it kind of suggests that Cielo was a one-off. And I don't believe it was.<br />It's only an opinion, this isn't university challenge.<br /><br /><b>Hasn't Melcher said that he immediately thought of Charlie when the murders occurred?</b><br /><br />Do you honestly believe that ? Melcher knew Charlie as a guy playing guitar that he'd heard play twice and talked to for a bit. A murder of people he doesn't know takes place in a house he once lived in and straight away he thinks "it was that hippie singer Charlie !" and he turns out to be right. <br />I'm evidently a little more cynical than you when it comes to these kind of extracurricular claims.<br /><br /><b>A murder like that. A creepy bloodbath that makes international headlines. The police are eventually going to check EVERYTHING</b><br /><br />That's what is illogical. The police did no checking on any Melcher connection for the 3½ months they were investigating prior to Susan bringing him into the equation because Melcher had no connection to any of the victims. Taking your line of logic, how far would they go back ? Would they investigate all Candice Bergen's friends and acquaintances ? Mark Lindsey's ? Henry Fonda's ? Anyone that had lived there ?<br /><br /> <b>do you think Charlie believed she would walk to South America and come back with a coconut?</b><br /><br />I don't think he genuinely believed she'd go to South America for one and frankly, in my opinion, to believe he would is, to put it as gentlemanly as I can, "not the wisest thing one could believe."grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-11846864293756152422021-03-04T05:01:38.506-05:002021-03-04T05:01:38.506-05:00Speculator said:
And yes, I have read Atkin’s tr... Speculator said:<br /><br /> <b>And yes, I have read Atkin’s trial testimony</b><br /><br />I didn't mention her trial testimony. I'm talking about what she said to her lawyer in private.<br /><br /><b>The mission on night one was a very specific one from the get-go, to leave Spahn and head directly to Cielo to kill the occupants</b><br /><br />Yes, but with caveats. If no one was there or the supposed $600 couldn't be raised, then they were to move on to other houses.<br /><br /><b>The instruction that they go to other houses on the street was to be do so AFTER business done at the Tate home. Not instead of</b><br /><br />I never said it was instead of. But it's pretty clear Manson did not know for certain what was going to be at Cielo {eg, he didn't want the gun used}, <i>hence the instruction to move on to other houses if the mission was not accomplished there.</i><br /><br /><b>The people at Cielo were the targets and no one else. That suggests to me that Manson and Watson were very confident of who and what they would find at Cielo which in turn suggests prior knowledge</b><br /><br />Well, we obviously see very different things from this. I approach bearing in mind various nuances and the possibilities that may arise from a situation. You don't. You like the security of surety. Yes, the people at Cielo were the targets but you're the one that started to introduce the "what if...." questions.<br /><br /><b>And to further turn your argument on its head, if as you say, Manson found it so difficult to find and settle on a target on night two (in the whole of LA???!!!) how do you explain his certainty of success at Cielo before they even left on night one?</b><br /><br />The same way I explain his certainty of success when leaving Linda, Susan and Clem to 'off' Saladin Nader the next night.<br />What is "certainty" of success ? It only really becomes that when what you've expected to happen happens. He had a good idea there would be deaths at Cielo otherwise he wouldn't have instructed that. Same with the next night. Same with Shorty. He had a good idea Gary would be killed. He knew Bobby couldn't take Gary to the hospital. "You know what to do" tells us much about Charlie.<br /><br /><b>And if the whole thing was purely HS, why didn’t he just send Watson out to do random killings on the first night as they did on the second?</b><br /><br />Hey, you'd have to ask dead Charlie that and as we know, dead men tell no tales.<br />I think sometimes we need to balance a variety of things here. These weren't hardened Nazi soldiers that had seen war, were used to killing people and had no qualms about the reality of ending life. So Charlie took things 'easy' this first time. As far as we know, this is the first time a murder is actively planned, not 'forced' on the situation like Lotsapoppa or Gary. So when things happen for the first time, one might expect that there will be a less than perfectly organised smooth run. After that first night however, the next night what do we see ? We see less caution to the wind and 2 death squads.<br /><br /><b>can you not see and accept the flaws?</b><br /><br />In what I'm saying ? Of course. Any ideas I might have about who thought what 50 years ago and the actions that may have flowed from such are potentially flawed. I do not know, for example, that Charlie was after the ex-room mates of Harold True when he decided to head to Waverly. But putting together a whole host of separate things, including the words of Manson himself in insisting that he went to Harold's house that second night, once I discovered that he had wanted to move into that house and was rejected, it doesn't at all seem like a stretch that having failed in his quest thus far that night, he thought that the ex-True house provided a safer target and would kill 2 birds with one stone. Does the idea have flaws ? Yes. Is it plausible ? Yes. <br />Pretty much <i>everything</i> that is not filmed and viewed live has <i>flaws</i>.<br /><br />grimtravellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00025774296829848608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-75665118326970609772021-03-02T17:30:26.156-05:002021-03-02T17:30:26.156-05:00Peter - spot on about the cryptic messaging. Grim ...Peter - spot on about the cryptic messaging. Grim - I’d be interested to know what part of the Cielo murders and the scene that was left was intended to be linked to the Panthers and/or ignite a race war?! Daubing “Pig” on the door??!! Really?!! In what context?!!! If the purpose really was HS then why didn’t Atkins daub “Whitey Pigs” or something a bit more overtly obvious??!! And why did Manson tell them to leave something “witchy”??!!! Witchy???!! Wtf had witchy got to do with blacks, whites or race??!!!! Also the point about Manson’s connection to Cielo is perfectly valid. As Peter pointed out, Melcher immediately thought of Manson as no doubt did others like Wilson who preferred to keep quiet. And given the fact that the Polanskis had only moved in there in March it’s perfectly plausible that investigations might turn to previous occupants and their connections.Speculatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489618949347706102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-91785712515775478722021-03-02T17:23:08.602-05:002021-03-02T17:23:08.602-05:00Melcher claimed the only person he thought would b...Melcher claimed the only person he thought would be out to get him was his mothers ex husband, who fucked both of them financially. Which is why Melcher was involved in dope dealing with Watson and Moorhouse.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00987799567880583276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-2660194900788035102021-03-02T17:21:13.410-05:002021-03-02T17:21:13.410-05:00Melcher never said he suspected Manson right from ...Melcher never said he suspected Manson right from the start. Though it is highly likely he knew it was the Spahn gang, as I suspect both he and Wilson may have been involved enough to actually be considered accessories. That they had some direct involvement in a rather large dope deal that was in part to pay Charlie for music and broken promises to some others. Melcher actually said years later he thought the murders had to do with pornography being filmed....which no doubt was happening and Altobelli and Polanski were involved and could be why Melcher HAD to sublet to Polanski and the idea that Sharon just liked that house is nonsense. The celebrity porn ring wasn’t just a small crowd doing it for kicks, but unknowingly falling into a blackmail trap. D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00987799567880583276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-13903343028459928872021-03-02T16:29:50.635-05:002021-03-02T16:29:50.635-05:00If he told Sadie to go get a coconut, there is no ...If he told Sadie to go get a coconut, there is no doubt she would walk out the door heading south. But do you think Charlie believed she would walk to South America and come back with a coconut? If she came back with 5 coconuts, I think he'd be surprised. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-29321220747539352302021-03-02T15:41:10.875-05:002021-03-02T15:41:10.875-05:00"Besides, what police force anywhere in the w..."Besides, what police force anywhere in the world, if there's a murder in a house or apartment, starts checking on associates of the previous occupant when the murder has nothing to do with them ?"<br /><br />A murder like that. A creepy bloodbath that makes international headlines. The police are eventually going to check EVERYTHING.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-32316742047179455102021-03-02T15:36:33.744-05:002021-03-02T15:36:33.744-05:00Grim. You accept that Manson's paranoia or del...Grim. You accept that Manson's paranoia or delusions affected his thinking when it suits your argument, but reject it when it doesnt. Hasn't Melcher said that he immediately thought of Charlie when the murders occurred? That's like 98% of making the connection. Even if he didn't, it wouldn't be implausible for Charlie to think that he might. <br /><br />Gary was one guy, a reclusive music teacher that nobody missed for like a week. Cielo was a massacre of a half dozen of L.A.s most beautiful people chased around the house and out onto the lawn. <br /><br />And you know what a cryptic message is? Thinking that the word "Rise"and "Pig" and a Beatles Song would be interpreted as the vanguard of the blackopolypse. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08760641498649508874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8171370990642927748.post-57324942273636035872021-03-02T13:35:05.430-05:002021-03-02T13:35:05.430-05:00Grim - I respect your view but I’m afraid that you...Grim - I respect your view but I’m afraid that you miss the point entirely so I’ll restate it. And yes, I have read Atkin’s trial testimony. The mission on night one was a very specific one from the get-go, to leave Spahn and head directly to Cielo to kill the occupants. The instruction that they go to other houses on the street was to be do so AFTER business done at the Tate home. Not instead of. There was no back up plan - it was very specifically instructed and accepted that everyone at Cielo was going to die. No wondering about photos that might be in the windows or other such deflecting nonsense. The people at Cielo were the targets and no one else. That suggests to me that Manson and Watson were very confident of who and what they would find at Cielo which in turn suggests prior knowledge.. There was no such specific plan or target on night two and no instruction before leaving Spahn as to where they were heading to kill. They were heading out without a plan other than to randomly kill - or so we are lead to believe. And to further turn your argument on its head, if as you say, Manson found it so difficult to find and settle on a target on night two (in the whole of LA???!!!) how do you explain his certainty of success at Cielo before they even left on night one? And if the whole thing was purely HS, why didn’t he just send Watson out to do random killings on the first night as they did on the second?? can you not see and accept the flaws?Speculatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00489618949347706102noreply@blogger.com