A member from Hong Kong asked this question and added her own thoughts..........
If Sadie, Katie and Linda had been in jail instead of Mary and Sandy at the time of the murders - Who does everyone think Charlie would have picked to go? NOT Squeaky, she's his fav.
Not Ouisch to young, ditto for Snake. Brenda, Sandy, Gypsy, Ella, Cappy, Kitty, Barbara, Mary.
If Sadie, Katie and Linda had been in jail instead of Mary and Sandy at the time of the murders - Who does everyone think Charlie would have picked to go? NOT Squeaky, she's his fav.
Not Ouisch to young, ditto for Snake. Brenda, Sandy, Gypsy, Ella, Cappy, Kitty, Barbara, Mary.
Who do you think it of been?
32 comments:
Liz isn't is proven shorty was killed after T&L? I always thought that anyway
totally with ya on the "dirty hands" thing Liz. I have always believed that Charlie, convinced he had killed Crowe, wanted a level playing field with everyone having a sword hanging over their heads as he did. between Hinmann and TLB he got 8 family members with blood on their hands.
I say no on Ella Jo because I read somewhere she turned Charlie down when he asked her to do something with Hinmann. But a definate yes to Gypsy, Cappy, Brenda and Sandy.
I truthfully wonder if Cappy, Sandy and Lynn might still do something outrageous if Charlie asked them to. One last mindfuck for the road, as it were.
Marc said...
Liz isn't is proven shorty was killed after T&L? I always thought that anyway
yes eight days after my bad.
i will edit that. ty
told you guys i need a proof reader
and now a fact checker too.
i often wondered the same thing.
why Sadie? she was known to have a big mouth and often left the Family for peroids of time on her own. wasnt he worried she would blab?
Tex - i can understand. charlie probably wanted at least one male to go. it was known Tex would do anything to be fully accepted.
Katie was around since almost day one. (that hairy bitch) she was loyal. I agree about Dianne and RuthAnn being to young.
maybe Charlie's plan was to eventually over time, get EVERYONE'S hands dirty. he set out on night 2 with Linda, Clem and Sadie to do a seperate muder in addition to LaBianca. but plans were foiled.
they always said they were planning more murders, maybe Charlie would send one veteran murderer along with a few "greenhorns" on the next killing spree. rotating
people for every time until everyone got dirty once. well, the hard core inside cirlce.
Bruce and Clem were already dirtied from Shea, that was proven.
they also say the whole Family was involved right down to the clean up and disposal.
i dont know just my thoughts. ; )
Not to mention that 'if' it was loose lips among some device by which other Family members came know (though they may not have participated), guilt under the United States code/"maybe" too state code(s) some for failure report a felony ("misprision") witnessed or privy too.
Am reminded those M Family folk who claim they 'heard', or 'saw' things but did not snitch until aft the proverbial 'due' form John Law came calling / inquired.
Well, this is how I don't see things the way most of you do. I don't think it was a big planned event to start helter skelter or negros rioting or any such thing. I think a bunch of high kids in Chatsworth got into a beef with some big shots in LA. It didn't end well for the folks in LA.
Moreover, I don't think Charlie Manson handpicked anybody. They asked him for advice, he gave it. A few snorts from the gerbal jar, they are on their way.
But I could be wrong and I don't get mad if people have other points of view.
TomG said.........
But I could be wrong and I don't get mad if people have other points of view.
i feel the exact same way Tom. and i always enjoy hearing other peoples opionions on the motives.
I do feel this was spontaneous combustion....kids on a hot summer day drinking, getting high, talking shit about pigs, the establishment. Some of them jumped into a car to show they were serious. That's how I think it came down.
When it came to trial, they had to convince a jury that it was more sinister and planned than that.
TomG said...
I do feel this was spontaneous combustion....kids on a hot summer day drinking, getting high, talking shit about pigs, the establishment. Some of them jumped into a car to show they were serious. That's how I think it came down.
i and countless other teenagers/people have spent many a hot summer day drinking, (the family didn't drink only DDD and the other bikers when they visited)getting high and talking shit about the establishment. we never went " hinman,tate/labianca" on anyone.
TomG also said.............
When it came to trial, they had to convince a jury that it was more sinister and planned than that.
that i agree with.
Charlie's Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie basically created his Spahn Ranch cult by utilizing the Ponzi Scheme methods.
Each recruit bought their way in. Sandra gave Manson $11000 to join. Kasabian paid $5000 to join. Some gave Charlie vans and cars, etc, etc. Charlie had to keep recruiting new members in order to keep supporting the previous members. As long as he kept recruiting cash and credt card laden hippies his Ponzi scheme continued to work until just like happened to Bernie Madoff; the plan eventually became too top heavy and Charlie reached a point where it cost too much to maintain the cult just like Bernie couldn't continually maintain his phony stock swindle. Bernie found one day that in order to continue his Ponzi Scheme that he needed $7 billion. On that day the House of Madoff went under and took the Western economies with it. Charlie too reached a point where he didn't have the cash coming in to pay his expenses going out. Charlie desperately needed operating funds to continue his Family Ponzi Scheme so he sent Bobby Beausoleil to rob Gary Hinman. Beausoleil's arrest for murder took down the House of Charlie and took the lives of Tate-Labianca with it..
Interesting thoughts, Poirot. Add two years of acid, sleep deprivation & the perceived murder of Crowe & we have a real powder keg.
yeah, Poirot's thesis is provocative and sound. But it does beg the question why TLB didn't have a stronger financial/robbery angle to it.
Tom's combustible theory too is interesting. But it does require concluding a whole lot of Family folk were/are liars when they talk about the paramilitary training (Tex's lessons on how to kill etc).
But yes, absolutely, it was all a Perfect Storm of financial pressure, drug burns, bobby concern, Charlie paranoia resentment and rage and the santa ana winds.
The Bug had to sell a singular cause to get the conviction. But even he acknowledges that HS is an "umbrella theory" - that there were multi forces at play.
Money to do a hit. And there are countless speculations.
BTW, anyone think it is strange that after the Tate deal, it was said, I think by Dennis Hopper, that there had been a mass whipping at Cielo of 'a dope dealer who had given everyone bad dope': who could that be? The Cielo people must have been very very angry.
Do we know of another dope dealer who gave people bad dope, inadvertently or not, and they almost died and were very very angry?
If Tex did not have prior military experience nor killed before, then how could he really teach anyone how to kill. It would be just a game.
you can learn the most efficient way to knife somebody from a textbook or an instructor in less than a half hour. regardless, there are testaments from several Family members that Tex did in fact give knifing and other lessons. Why do people assume thnowinesat everything Family members testified to was a lie? Clearly, the creepy crawls, the dune buggy prepping, the posted sentries etc were all part of a quasi paramilitary thing Charlie got high on.
The attacks at Tate/bianca's show little evidence of weapons training. Rather ineffective use of weapons, panic/rage attacks, and inadequate weapons considering the aresnal reported at the ranch.
I'm sorry, no offense, but I have read some nonsense on these blogs but someone describing TLB as an "ineffective use of weapons" really takes the cake. Bundy used but a crowbar to murder dozens of beautiful women. Was that ineffective weaponry use as well? Would you respect the murders more if he had used an AK-47?
and the fact remains that numerous Family members testified to weapons training. Why someone would insist that testimony is a falsehood boggles the mind. Has the Manson story become so fictionalized that simple truths are irrelevant?
The "training" was a game, I never said it didn't take place. And they didn't seem to use any of that training in the actual murders.
Why did they use some really crappy weapons when they had better weapons?
The training was a game.
The choice of weaponry ineffective.
Everyone is entitled to their perspective/spin.
Even, respectfully, the inane.
Matt said...
Interesting thoughts, Poirot. Add two years of acid, sleep deprivation & the perceived murder of Crowe & we have a real powder keg.
April 3, 2011 8:27 AM[end quote]
MrPoirot replies:
I have read where Charlie told Tex to set up the Lottsapoppa burn. That it was a Manson setup not a Tex setup. Dunno if that's true but Tex did give Charlie $1500 from that burn. The burn was a robbery so it's possible that the Hinman and Lotsapoppa incidents were both simple robberies gone awry. Charlie was very pressed for money. He was under stress which is why he took a vacation from Spahn and met Stephanie Schram at that time. When he got back to Spahn's all hell had broken loose. Charlie was even angry at how little money the killers took from the Tate murders. However TLB were not robberies: they were misdirection crimes. They were also crimes of revenge. Charlie hated society. Charlie had a "{I'll show you not to eff with me" mentality".
wouldn't it indeed be ironic with all the theories about drug burns and double crosses and race wars and Mafia hits etc etc etc....
if in the end it was really just a stressed out Charlie lashing out at a society he hated, and getting his drugged out zombies to do the dirty work.
To simple, I suppose.
leary7 said...
wouldn't it indeed be ironic with all the theories about drug burns and double crosses and race wars and Mafia hits etc etc etc....
if in the end it was really just a stressed out Charlie lashing out at a society he hated, and getting his drugged out zombies to do the dirty work.
To simple, I suppose.
April 4, 2011 1:14 AM[end quote]
MrPoirot replies:
Ironic? Too simple? No, I think you could be dead right. Charlie folded under the stress of obligation. Charlie said he was the type to get very interested in something and then drop it. But when Charlie wanted to run away from the Family he couldn't. He felt trapped. The stress of financial obligations led to TLB. That's definantly one of the many motives. Bug himself said there were multiple motives and that Helter Skelter was but one of the motives.
there had been a mass whipping but it was at cass elliot's house and involved frykowski and sebring whipping pic dawson chained to a tree. tate had nothing to do with it and i believe would not have allowed it on her property.
yeah, two quotes, paraphrasing...
Sadie supposedly yelling out the car window to a ranch hand as they were leaving Spahn..."We're going to kill us some motherfucking pigs."
And Charlie's immortal..."Maybe I should have killed four or five hundred, then I would have given you something to really remember me by."
Paranoia, hatred, pressure, snapped.
Lashing out.
and what do you mean by a 'mass' whipping?
ok, beauders...do tell...I've heard of the whipping at Cass Elliott's, but how do you know it was Pic Dawson, and how do you know he was chained to a tree?
I found a photo of Pic Dawson: http://img511.imageshack.us/i/casselliotandpicdawson.jpg/sr=1
More on Pic. Sounds like he was the guy that they were talking about in the Laurel Canyon book as being an early suspect: http://media.photobucket.com/image/%252522pic%20dawson%252522/burgermeister/clearpic.gif
Pristash said...
ok, beauders...do tell...I've heard of the whipping at Cass Elliott's, but how do you know it was Pic Dawson, and how do you know he was chained to a tree?
i have heard the same except for the "chained to the tree" part.
well not heard but READ it somewhere, one of the books i think Sanders. everyone at Tate was also aware of what happened to Pic. Pic was originally suspected in the Tate murders. since PIG was written on the door, after the cops questioned people Pic's name came up and the cops thought PIC was written on the door not PIG.
SHAK EL-
welcome to the blog! hope you are enoying it.
as you can see we all agree to disagree and -we fight nice here.
i was wrong it wasn't pic dawson that was whipped it was his friend billy doyle. i also heard that frykowski sodimized doyle but i'm not sure i believe this. the book that deals with this incident is edie fiegal's book cass elliot, "dream a little dream of."
as i've wrote about before i am writing a book on the case and am almost done. it is approx. 1500 pages and is an encyclopedia. i was wondering if anyone wants a paper copy or if it should be an ebook, please let me know at
beauders@aol.com
this is why i know all this misc. information about manson etc.
Post a Comment