"The above is excerpted from my 1993 autobiography, Confessions of a Raving, Unconfined Nut: Misadventures in the Counterculture. Simon & Schuster has since reverted all rights back to me, and an expanded edition will soon be published online by New World Digital."
If you read closely the interview begins by stating facts and morphs into asking questions.
There's too much mention of Charlie's racist beliefs. Why? Is that suppose to influence me? the fact is Charlie shot Crowe only days before TLB. The raid then began to take shape whether by coincidence or not right after that. This is the normal way raids develope. Raids don't happen in 5 minutes. The raid also leaves out the fact that Shorty was heard by Squeaky telling George Spahn he'd get the hippies off the ranch. This happened after the Crowe shooting. Shorty was known to be the inside man. Clem stated this. The cops knew things only Shorty knew.
Basically the interview is just an ex cop wondering why Charlie was never picked up for parole violations prior to TLB.
The fact is that no cop or sheriff ever thought Charlie would commit TLB. Cops don't see the future any better than anyone else.
The ex cop is fallatiously claiming the Sheriffs dept knew Charlie was going to attack the Black Panther and supported his plan. This is conspiracy BS.
Why was Charlie never picked up for rape? Because the acts probably weren't rapes. It was the era of free love remember? Charlie even ran off perspective members whom he felt were just at Spahn's to get laid.
The California area was crawling with a million hippie thieves. Charlie was just a little 125 lb hippie runt in their minds. As long as the hippie/Manson commune stayed out in the boonies police figured they couldn't do much damage. After all, Crowe never called the cops. Drug dealers get shot everyday; who cares? Cops were probably glad Crowe was off the street laying in a hospital bed. Also remember that Crowe had NOTHING to do with Black Panthers. Only paranoid Charlie thought that.
TLB happened on the spur of the moment after Beausoleil, Bruner and Sandy were arrested. Charlie never knew he was going to attack TLB until the night it happened.
Krasner loves to mix fact and fiction.
There ain't no way in hell the cops knowingly released the killers of Sharon Tate. They would have been heroes had they accidentally caught the killers the same week as the murders. Does this ex cop really believe that the Sheriff let the killers roam free until December?
from the article- "Three days after they were arrested, 72 hours later, they were all released -- lack of evidence -- after this mammoth raid."
i might be mistaken but- wasnt that the time the Family released because the warrant was outdated?
i really personally try to believe in the police but i know many of them are corrupt. from the article-"the reason Manson was left on the street was because our department thought that he was going to attack the Black Panthers."
that i believe. let charlie clean it up so the cops dont have to.
i never believed in the theory that the Family were a hit squad for the mafia either or, that it was revenge for voytek or jay burning someone for drugs. i dont think it was drug related at all. but eveyone has their own theories.
the article kind of insinuates to me anyway, that the cops knew the Family did Tate and LaBianca but were still letting them roam free to possibly commit more killings come on now.
eviliz said... i might be mistaken but- wasnt that the time the Family released because the warrant was outdated?
Mr Poirot replies:
Yes but only by a day or two misdated. The warrant was good only on the single day specified. I never heard who their lawyer was who caught this technicality. Perhaps it was a judge that caught it.
I don't buy into the whole "hit Squad for the mafia" theroy at all. But I have always wondered how a parolee with a rap sheet like Charlie's seemed to be untouchable almost during 67-69. I'm not sure of the exact number, but wasn't he arrested several times during this time period? If even one of those arrests had led to a parole violation, who knows how many lives may have been saved???
the family assumed that shea was going to the police but were wrong it was actually frank retz who was 'snitching' on them. what would preston guillory get for putting this theory out there, why would he lie?
beauders said... the family assumed that shea was going to the police but were wrong it was actually frank retz who was 'snitching' on them. what would preston guillory get for putting this theory out there, why would he lie?
Mr Poirot replies:
I don't think it was an interview at all. It sounds like a conversation. I think it was a LASO deputy telling Manson stories to Krassner he had heard at the office back in the 70s. You can use simple logic to figure out that the cops didnt stage the Aug 16 raid to cover their asses nor knowingly leave a band of killers loose on the streets for months in a terrified city of millions. Nobody in the world dreamed a predominantly female cult would commit such depravity. Not even Melcher and Dennis Wilson figured out who killed the Tate/Labiancas. It was a difficult case to solve because it is singular in history.
Krassner tells an interesting tale with some facts mixed in. But he isn't always factual. As in most all Manson stories there are inconsistancies and rumor.
It always makes me laugh when people suggest the 'mob hit' theroy. Mobsters do their own dirty work, quickly and cleanly. They don't sub-contract hits out to deranged, drug taking hippies.
As for Charles being arrested but not jailed several times in 67-69? I'd guess he may have grassed on one or two people causing more serious crimes to save his own hide. "Don't snitch" indeed.......
ACFisherAldag said... Adam, mobsters DO subcontract out hits to 1% motorcycle clubs. And the Mafia isn't the only organized crime gang.
Mr Poirot replies:
Again I ask.....
If Labianca had any mob hit aspect why did Charlie drive around LA for two hours hunting a good target that night? If Labianca was a hit he would have driven straight to their house.
Let's play Devil's advocte for a minute. You are Charles Manson. It is August 1969. You've spent months and months preparing to move far out into the desert, where you plan to live off the land, play your guitar, bang Stephine night and day and take lots of peyote(doomed to fail, they'd all be dead or dying of exposure and malutrition in weeks). Yes, you are breaking the law, but you are trying to operate under the radar. The last thing you want is attention from 'the man'. Then weeks before this is due to happen you orchastrate a bunch of gruesome mass murders... Does anyone else see the break in logic here? If the second night killings were commited for fiancial gain why would you go killing other people before and after? That would be just dumb,dumb,dumb.
Adam actually it does cost money to bivuac out in the desert with 20 people. They needed lots of food, transportation, gas, clothes etc. There were stashes all over Golar Wash and still they had to send couriers to get new supplies. It was a major struggle to supply themselves at Barkers. The struggle for money was partly the motive behind Hinman's murder. The TLB murders were not money motivated. They were copycat and revenge motivated. Shorty was killed for ratting. Charlie never ran low on motives to kill. The only murders that were helter skelter motives were TLB. Hinman and Shorty were not helter skelter motivated.
True the preparation would have been expensive, but I was under the impression that they had ample supplies (as you state) stashed in the desert. Guns, ammo, food and lots of gas. I thought the only thing left to do was to fine tune the dune buggys?
I imagine burying canned goods or storing them in caves was the idea. Like I said doomed to fail. Charlie fancied himself a Death Vally style Grizzly Adams I think, living off the land and so. Once the drugs ran out and people started getting seriously ill it would have been over.
Asks Mr. Poirot: "why did Charlie drive around LA for two hours hunting a good target that night?"
Because that aspect of the story is not true.
June 4, 2011 10:48 AM
AC, if Charlie has told you that that part of the story is not true, why has he not told you or anyone else a satifactory reason as to just WHAT he was doing in a car with a bunch of killers on their way to the LaBianca residence that night? If he could then all the charges against him would have fallen like a house of cards.
i doubt this will be read cause its an old post. but if it was in fact (i dont believe this at all) a mafia hit. Wouldnt the mafia have done away with him and several family members as soon as things got hot? They did it to their own all the time for fear of rats, why the hell would a little band of hippies or whatever have made it past. Didnt anyone see goodfellas? If no ones left alive, no one can rat. Why take that chance. Theres just no way.
"The above is excerpted from my 1993 autobiography, Confessions of a Raving, Unconfined Nut: Misadventures in the Counterculture. Simon & Schuster has since reverted all rights back to me, and an expanded edition will soon be published online by New World Digital."
ReplyDeletePatty thinks she needs to read this.
If you read closely the interview begins by stating facts and morphs into asking questions.
ReplyDeleteThere's too much mention of Charlie's racist beliefs. Why? Is that suppose to influence me? the fact is Charlie shot Crowe only days before TLB. The raid then began to take shape whether by coincidence or not right after that. This is the normal way raids develope. Raids don't happen in 5 minutes.
The raid also leaves out the fact that Shorty was heard by Squeaky telling George Spahn he'd get the hippies off the ranch. This happened after the Crowe shooting. Shorty was known to be the inside man. Clem stated this. The cops knew things only Shorty knew.
Basically the interview is just an ex cop wondering why Charlie was never picked up for parole violations prior to TLB.
The fact is that no cop or sheriff ever thought Charlie would commit TLB. Cops don't see the future any better than anyone else.
The ex cop is fallatiously claiming the Sheriffs dept knew Charlie was going to attack the Black Panther and supported his plan. This is conspiracy BS.
Why was Charlie never picked up for rape? Because the acts probably weren't rapes. It was the era of free love remember? Charlie even ran off perspective members whom he felt were just at Spahn's to get laid.
The California area was crawling with a million hippie thieves. Charlie was just a little 125 lb hippie runt in their minds. As long as the hippie/Manson commune stayed out in the boonies police figured they couldn't do much damage. After all, Crowe never called the cops. Drug dealers get shot everyday; who cares? Cops were probably glad Crowe was off the street laying in a hospital bed. Also remember that Crowe had NOTHING to do with Black Panthers. Only paranoid Charlie thought that.
TLB happened on the spur of the moment after Beausoleil, Bruner and Sandy were arrested. Charlie never knew he was going to attack TLB until the night it happened.
Krasner loves to mix fact and fiction.
There ain't no way in hell the cops knowingly released the killers of Sharon Tate. They would have been heroes had they accidentally caught the killers the same week as the murders. Does this ex cop really believe that the Sheriff let the killers roam free until December?
No big conspiracy here. Just the usual stoopid, incomptent police agencies to lazy to go after a small time criminal.
ReplyDeletefrom the article- "Three days after they were arrested, 72 hours later, they were all released -- lack of evidence -- after this mammoth raid."
ReplyDeletei might be mistaken but- wasnt that the time the Family released because the warrant was outdated?
i really personally try to believe in the police but i know many of them are corrupt.
from the article-"the reason Manson was left on the street was because our department thought that he was going to attack the Black Panthers."
that i believe. let charlie clean it up so the cops dont have to.
i never believed in the theory that
the Family were a hit squad for the mafia either or, that it was revenge for voytek or jay burning someone for drugs. i dont think it was drug related at all. but eveyone has their own theories.
the article kind of insinuates to me anyway, that the cops knew the Family did Tate and LaBianca but were still letting them roam free to possibly commit more killings
come on now.
i might be mistaken but- wasnt that the time the Family released because the warrant was outdated?
ReplyDeletei meant to say- wasnt that the time the Family WAS released because the warrant was outdated?
i left out the 'WAS' the first time. my bad.
i have not commented in awhile and it feels weird to me. lol
eviliz said...
ReplyDeletei might be mistaken but- wasnt that the time the Family released because the warrant was outdated?
Mr Poirot replies:
Yes but only by a day or two misdated. The warrant was good only on the single day specified. I never heard who their lawyer was who caught this technicality. Perhaps it was a judge that caught it.
I don't buy into the whole "hit Squad for the mafia" theroy at all. But I have always wondered how a parolee with a rap sheet like Charlie's seemed to be untouchable almost during 67-69. I'm not sure of the exact number, but wasn't he arrested several times during this time period? If even one of those arrests had led to a parole violation, who knows how many lives may have been saved???
ReplyDeletethe family assumed that shea was going to the police but were wrong it was actually frank retz who was 'snitching' on them. what would preston guillory get for putting this theory out there, why would he lie?
ReplyDeletebeauders said...
ReplyDeletethe family assumed that shea was going to the police but were wrong it was actually frank retz who was 'snitching' on them. what would preston guillory get for putting this theory out there, why would he lie?
Mr Poirot replies:
I don't think it was an interview at all. It sounds like a conversation. I think it was a LASO deputy telling Manson stories to Krassner he had heard at the office back in the 70s. You can use simple logic to figure out that the cops didnt stage the Aug 16 raid to cover their asses nor knowingly leave a band of killers loose on the streets for months in a terrified city of millions. Nobody in the world dreamed a predominantly female cult would commit such depravity. Not even Melcher and Dennis Wilson figured out who killed the Tate/Labiancas. It was a difficult case to solve because it is singular in history.
Krassner tells an interesting tale with some facts mixed in. But he isn't always factual. As in most all Manson stories there are inconsistancies and rumor.
It always makes me laugh when people suggest the 'mob hit' theroy. Mobsters do their own dirty work, quickly and cleanly. They don't sub-contract hits out to deranged, drug taking hippies.
ReplyDeleteAs for Charles being arrested but not jailed several times in 67-69? I'd guess he may have grassed on one or two people causing more serious crimes to save his own hide.
"Don't snitch" indeed.......
Adam, mobsters DO subcontract out hits to 1% motorcycle clubs. And the Mafia isn't the only organized crime gang.
ReplyDeleteACFisherAldag said...
ReplyDeleteAdam, mobsters DO subcontract out hits to 1% motorcycle clubs. And the Mafia isn't the only organized crime gang.
Mr Poirot replies:
Again I ask.....
If Labianca had any mob hit aspect why did Charlie drive around LA for two hours hunting a good target that night? If Labianca was a hit he would have driven straight to their house.
The whole mob hit thing is Area 51ish.
Let's play Devil's advocte for a minute. You are Charles Manson. It is August 1969. You've spent months and months preparing to move far out into the desert, where you plan to live off the land, play your guitar, bang Stephine night and day and take lots of peyote(doomed to fail, they'd all be dead or dying of exposure and malutrition in weeks). Yes, you are breaking the law, but you are trying to operate under the radar. The last thing you want is attention from 'the man'.
ReplyDeleteThen weeks before this is due to happen you orchastrate a bunch of gruesome mass murders... Does anyone else see the break in logic here?
If the second night killings were commited for fiancial gain why would you go killing other people before and after? That would be just dumb,dumb,dumb.
BTW, who has need for money out in the desert?
Adam actually it does cost money to bivuac out in the desert with 20 people. They needed lots of food, transportation, gas, clothes etc. There were stashes all over Golar Wash and still they had to send couriers to get new supplies. It was a major struggle to supply themselves at Barkers. The struggle for money was partly the motive behind Hinman's murder. The TLB murders were not money motivated. They were copycat and revenge motivated. Shorty was killed for ratting. Charlie never ran low on motives to kill. The only murders that were helter skelter motives were TLB. Hinman and Shorty were not helter skelter motivated.
ReplyDeleteTrue the preparation would have been expensive, but I was under the impression that they had ample supplies (as you state) stashed in the desert. Guns, ammo, food and lots of gas. I thought the only thing left to do was to fine tune the dune buggys?
ReplyDeleteHow do you stash food for 20 people, especially in the desert?
ReplyDeleteI don't think I ever heard how they intended to keep a supply line going for that.
I imagine burying canned goods or storing them in caves was the idea. Like I said doomed to fail. Charlie fancied himself a Death Vally style Grizzly Adams I think, living off the land and so. Once the drugs ran out and people started getting seriously ill it would have been over.
ReplyDeleteAsks Mr. Poirot: "why did Charlie drive around LA for two hours hunting a good target that night?"
ReplyDeleteBecause that aspect of the story is not true.
ACFisherAldag said...
ReplyDeleteAsks Mr. Poirot: "why did Charlie drive around LA for two hours hunting a good target that night?"
Because that aspect of the story is not true
Mr Poirot replies:
AC I see how your mind works now.
It is a well corroborated, undisputed fact about the long circling drive to the Lab house. AC I don't think truth and facts are really your thing.
Blogger ACFisherAldag said...
ReplyDeleteAsks Mr. Poirot: "why did Charlie drive around LA for two hours hunting a good target that night?"
Because that aspect of the story is not true.
June 4, 2011 10:48 AM
AC, if Charlie has told you that that part of the story is not true, why has he not told you or anyone else a satifactory reason as to just WHAT he was doing in a car with a bunch of killers on their way to the LaBianca residence that night? If he could then all the charges against him would have fallen like a house of cards.
i doubt this will be read cause its an old post. but if it was in fact (i dont believe this at all) a mafia hit. Wouldnt the mafia have done away with him and several family members as soon as things got hot? They did it to their own all the time for fear of rats, why the hell would a little band of hippies or whatever have made it past. Didnt anyone see goodfellas? If no ones left alive, no one can rat. Why take that chance. Theres just no way.
ReplyDelete