The banter about satanism should stop. I understand that he is no longer connected to it. Doesn't matter anyway. The social beliefs connected to eugenics, etc trouble me much more. Does he still believe that the handicapped are a drain on society & should be allowed to die?
I haven't read Shreck's book (and I won't) so I really can't comment on what's in it. But in Styx's video he states his case about a drug motive. His evidence is so ridiculous that it actually supports the fact that it wasn't drug motivated.
They went to Cielo to get drugs because they knew that Jay was getting $10/20,000 worth of drugs from Joel R? The problem with this theory is that he says it was Jay making the drug deal - so why then didn't they go to Jay's house looking for him?
How did they know to go to Sharon's house to find Jay and his drugs? Or, if set up as a deal, why on earth would Jay set up a major $10/20,000 drug deal at the home of the person that he probably loved most in the world and jeopardize her and her baby's welfare not only that night but every night after if revenge ever became a factor? And if he says because of Woytek, why not do it at the Woodstock house where a known drug dealer had already taken up residence?
Makes absolutely no sense. Only an insane person would use their own house (or a friend's house) to set up a drug deal. And, he will never convince me that Jay would ever set up a drug deal with Watson or anyone else at Sharon's house while she was in residence. Out of the question - Polanski yes, Jay, no.
He comments that Jay & Woytek were stoned out of their gourds - and Abigail too. False. We know that by the autopsy reports.
Jay & Sharon are killed, but they leave Abigail and Woytek alive?? - they're both so stoned that they can't even get out of their restraints - again, the tox screens prove this is false, and, I believe if Woytek was left alive and alone (or with just the women while Watson reported to Manson at the ranch? Really?) in that house he would have escaped.
Manson going to Cielo? I have to agree with Bugliosi on one point, and that it is absolutely preposterous to think that Manson went back to that house after the murders. His whole point of sending others was to not be at the scene of the crime and therefor not indicted. Five people brutally murdered - by Watson's own admission people running around screaming like chickens with their heads cut off - gunshots, etc, and Manson's going to return and therefor place himself at the scene? Not knowing the situation after the killers left or if the police were notified? Extremely improbable.
Manson says, "please don't kill the LaBiancas"? C'mon, man. Seriously?
Manson’s lack of a fair trial: Manson is the single biggest reason that he did not get a fair trial. He was the one that wouldn’t allow the defense attorneys to put on a defense. He was the one that turned the court into a circus of antics. He did all this in hopes of a mistrial or later reversal.
The bottom line here is that Manson never thought in a million years that he would be convicted for these murders - he wasn’t there. What Manson never counted on was California’s law of conspiracy. This was one of the first cases in which someone was not only convicted of first-degree murder by conspiracy, but sentenced to death for that conspiracy.
Manson not allowed to represent himself? Manson was so far off the charts in what he was doing as his own attorney that the bottom line is that if the court had not revoked his right to represent himself this case would have been overturned by the Supreme Court. No conspiracy, just trying to save the tax payers a couple of million dollars. And, in all fairness, the trial judge may have been trying to even save Manson from himself.
Impartial jury? I totally disagree. First, his info on Nixon is incorrect. He says that Nixon made his comment before the jury was selected. They were in fact mid-trial and the judge had the jury voir dire after. The rest equally stupid and not worth thinking about.
14 minutes in he starts on a diatribe of Manson has never actually killed anybody - this of course is inaccurate because he physically participated in Shea and Hinman’s murder - the ear slice with the sword was life-threatening.
Brainwashed followers? No. Helter Skelter as a motive? No, but if you go back and listen to the early tapes the police were making with informants or suspects - before Bugliosi was brought onto the case, they were saying Manson called them "The Family" that he talked about Helter Skelter - or a race war. No one can not deny that Manson was preaching this and I believe that he used it with the women to give them a reason to murder, all along intending for them to take the fall if caught. Like the National Enquirer there is some truth to what Bugliosi pushed on the jury.
Good morning, good afternoon & good night!
53 comments:
Awwwwww my comments seem to have upset you.
This may come as a shock to you but your ad hominem tirades against Nikolas Schreck are the root cause of this "drama" as you term it- YOU are the cause, not the one responding to it.
I feel quite flattered that although a wondrous figure like Nikolas Schreck is not able to get you to read his book, I was somehow able to get you to view my videos on Manson. I also find it hilarious that at least two folks closer to Manson than I am have called you out on your (patently false) comments about Manson disowning Schreck- and I have a sneaking suspicion it was you who not long ago came onto at least 2 pro Manson Facebook groups and started whining about Nikolas, and then whined about me when I pointed out how lacking in fact your comments were.
Again though since you have no evidence for your claims (Manson disowning Schreck/ Schreck a eugenecist) I chalk it up to your hatred for actual evidence that you doom and gloom Manson File without having read it.
You, sir, are stupid.
And by the way you are a continuous laughingstock in the chat section of Star City Radio's TLB page- I believe as one obviously perceptive individual termed it: "Eviliz.com is the tabloid anus of tate/labianca. It's also heavily censored."
I find myself chuckling that when I speak to other folks who actually have a friendly relationship with Manson, almost all agree that your blog is the sort of rabid, fanatical underbelly to what is otherwise a good movement.
Good post Matt. Two things I want to put out there. First, in Manson In His Own Words Manson himself says he and a friend went to the Polanski house after the murders. Second, I think the whole helter skelter thing was a way to keep his people paranoid as a way to control them.....
Corrections needed: Your wondrous figure did not get me to respond. A polite reader (not you) convinced me to watch your videos carefully. I did.
You are false in guessing that I have commented on other forums about Barry Dubin. I have not. If I had I would have no qualms in telling you.
I won't reach into the gutter and insult you like you have me, either. I'm done with you.
Matt, you just outed yourself as one of two things with your Barry Dubin comment, you are either:
1. A CoS member (and thus intrinsically hate Schreck.)
2. Fooled by CoS members who started that tale in the first place.
Have fun with your little corner of propaganda and silliness- I am building an empire, I'll make sure the hammer falls from far above when I hit the top.
As per usual, you prove that you have no knowledge about anything, you just want to appear the winner.
I don't know what CoS is.
I knew very little about Schreck until Saturday morning.
If you want to prove yourself young man, address the facts of the case as I have. I noticed as everyone observing has that you know NOTHING about TLB except what you parrot from Schreck.
C'mon kid, tell us what YOU know about the case. We're waiting...
Matt, you admit you have not read Schrecks book so what makes you an expert on the subject of his book?
Like so many sself proclaimed gurus and assorted tinhorn style leaders you have dedicated your time to goofiness.
A casual review of your posts shows that you do indeed know very little about him- considering earlier you posted saying he was a Satanist (when he clearly left Satanism two decades ago.)
You calling him "Barry Dubin" shows you have been listening to someone within the Church of Satan- which famously managed to convince folks that he was, I suppose, an orthodox jew (their purpose in doing so seems to be to alienate him from the semi eugenecist followers of Boyd Rice and his ilk and to incite anger.)
Ironically they also label Nikolas a nazi.
You yourself believe Nikolas is a eugenecist/nazi, and yet you refer to him by a seemingly semitic name- so you seem to be convinced that these folks- who were never honest to begin with- are somehow right in claiming he is a nazi jew.
Again- I have spoken with Nikolas, you obviously will not do so, so why do you bother vainly trying to convince folks you know absolutely anything about him or his book which you haven't read?
Noting of course, the videos I made which you refer to, are merely a brief look at a very small part of what Nikolas wrote- and that all your views of his work are based on outdated interviews, or else secondhand "facts" you have gotten from your well meaning but blatantly foolish yes men here on your blog.
Every one of these blogs and the thing Brian calls a radio show have their own feel.
Styx, whoever the heck you are, you probably would be more comfortable elsewhere, no? And if it were up to me I'd delete you. But they won't let me do that anymore. Even though this would be a much more civil place if they let me be the Soup Nazi.
I'd say God Bless, but in your case, to be "polite" I will say Go To Hell.
Also as to your post itself and the questions you raise about the drug deal etc:
If you were to actually read the book, you'd find it explains absolutely every query you posted.
No soup for you!
BAH-dump-bump!
Again Styx, my comments were derived from your videos, not Schreck's book. I was clear about that. A friend of yours requested that I publish them and I did. I not only published them I paid attention to them and my response was based on your statements about TLB. My contention is that YOU know nothing about TLB except what you memorized from Schreck.
Forget Schreck. He's not the focus. It's just you, me & TLB. You know NOTHING about it. Your avoidance of the issue at hand proves it.
You can continue to make veiled threats and defend Schreck if you like or you can tell us all what you know about this case. My guess is solid. You know nothing.
It's a bit of a shame to see this blog degenerating into a squabble over Satanism, of all things.
"Have fun with your little corner of propaganda and silliness- I am building an empire, I'll make sure the hammer falls from far above when I hit the top."
I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise it comes off as somewhat deranged.
Matt, I agree with Nikolas on major parts of the case- but this does not mean I required Nikolas to tell me how to think.
I do contend that he overlooked parts of the copycat possibility with Atkins, other than that I believe his book was essentially spot on.
You will likely take this to mean I am his flunky or lapdog- but my own connection to Nikolas, while supportive of his efforts, is hardly the position of some underling who marches forth at a whim and command.
Yes, I understand your comments were made about my video rather than the book directly- how is this helpful? My videos were a very brief, very specific general account of a very small portion of the books content- half the book is about Mansons youth, spiritual background, and dispelling various myths (IE: Manson the scientologist, Manson the MKUltra experiment, Manson the Satan worshiper, Manson the tibetan guru, whatever.)
Styx, your nose must be really brown. Your so far up Schreck's butt. You obviously don't like this site so why would you waste your time viewing it & commenting over & over, repeating the same thing? Go to where you enjoy yourself with people who think like you. Or are you just the type who likes to argue for the sake of arguing? If I didn't agree with a site or it's views/comments, I would find better things to do with my time.
Styx, I told Matt Schreck's birthname, Barry Dubin. Maybe others did too, don't know about that. I know it because it is on Schreck's IMDB bio page not because I have any knowledge of it from the Church of Satan. Your assumptions are way off base.
I agree with sherm. This blog is too good to be bothered with discussions on who is a satanist, etc. No one will take this person seriously until he grows out of the stage in his life where his cries for help are still focused on freaking his poor parents out.
Have fun with your little corner of propaganda and silliness- I am building an empire, I'll make sure the hammer falls from far above when I hit the top.
Styx, could you explain what type of empire you are bulding- please enlighten us all.
“He was but as the cuckoo is in June,
Heard, not regarded.”
William Shakespeare
I thought I was the laughing stock around here???
I guess after my foray into serious journalism my credibility and stock have risen...
Now that I am a real on site interviewer and have press credentials I have to stay above the fray and maintain my neutral status to protect my credibility...
This carries a great deal of responsibility:
no more getting drunk or high and typing away at night against angry fanatical maniacs
no more fighting or taking bait from strangers whom are in reality 15 year old boys who are hiding under fake names typing from their parents bedrooms computers
no more vicious arguments with wannabee demons or dark lords who want to start revolutions...
I am a role model now and take my new position very seriously
I have not read the book - but will because it is new and about this subject...
I have not heard the new interview- I tried, but after 80 minutes it was inaudible and still I look every day for the podcast to hear him out and give him his chance to make is case...
The videos posted on this site over the last week speak for themselves- everyone has a good mind of their own. Make your own opinions of the man and his ideas and then when the next person comes out with his/her book...
we can do it all again :)
To argue among ourselves is acceptable and debate is the purpose we all seek. Name calling and casting evil spells are not welcome friends of productive conversation so please use restraint and caution when you feel you must use them at all....
The Devil and Satan have no power here...
This website is watched over by a real Saint :)
LOL, St. I knew you'd say something appropriate.
Josh, you were deleted for cursing (MF). Period. Would you want your mommy to hear you talk like that?
Glad you read us, Josh. Our harshest critics seem to visit the most often.
All opinions are welcome. Styx is out there but he was for the most part, civil. That's all that matters.
As far as "questionable practices in regards to privacy", remember that we have been the biggest victims in this regard. You can't blame us for protecting ourselves.
I don't think Manson ever said "kill the Labiancas, he just never gave any indication to do so. But it was certainly implied and they knew what they were there for. So, with that being said- it never had to be said.
And I do think Manson went back to the Tate home. He went there because he feared being caught and when they told him it was a mess, it worried him.
Manson was at the Labianca scene and the Shea scene, so he wasn't against going to the scenes.
Also regarding Sebring and drugs; I don't find it far-fetched that he would set up a drug deal at Tate's. Sebring was not a good business man; that's why he was living beyond his means and his business was not doing enough to sustain his lifestyle (as per the police investigation report).
Frykowski was no doubt a sketchy dude, and Sebring was his chum.
If Sebring had any sense he wouldn't have been near Frykowski.
I believe the police investigation report that reports a drug deal with Joel R.
Styx you obviously have issues if you hate or blog so much just be gone
If you like to argue with people
Col. Scotts page would be perfect for
You you have wore out your welcome here my Man Matt is much kinder then I'd be
Hello Patty nice to have you back
So I just finished the podcast and listened to the most recent interview of Schreck...
It isn't going to make any converts. I think Brian Davis did a nice job of trying to get the interview broken into two parts. He wanted to get to who he is today in the first hour and into the book in the second...
Also- Brian Davis sounds like a pretty good interviewer. I have only listened to his show twice but in both cases he sounds very professional in his tone and comfortable doing interviews...
Schreck never really addressed who is is today outside of mentioning being a Buddhist. His first question was about how he came into the case and decided to dig deeper. In answering this question he mentions some things which did shed a little light. These characteristics of him displayed one viewpoint he seems to have held for quite awhile which is at the heart of why people in the two camps will never agree on this or Charlie...
outlook on life. Simple as that. we seem to have vastly two outlooks and that directs us in our views...
Schreck talks about the counter culture and the " Age of Aquarius" as cites that as when he was initially joining witchcraft and called himself a " warlock". He says that his interest in the occult was developing basically just prior to his discovery of the case. It was the dark side of this which drew him in. He also goes on to say Squeaky attempting to assassinate the president brought his interest back to the case after some time....
He seemed to view the 60's as a vehicle to get involved with the darker elements of society and life.
Others saw that same movement as a movement of light. Summer of love happened in summer cause kids were out of school. most hippies used the times for things very bright and colorful. Tie dye and weird clothes.. But they were thoughtful and intelligent and they were turned on by life.
People who grew up with different influences and different values...
Screck has lived a very unique life and has been involved with some very deep and very dark people. Who he is today? I still couldn't tell you. He has had a bunch of experience with some very freaky stuff most of his adult life - that's for sure
He tried very hard early to call for peace among all of us on the blogs and I am sooo with him there.
He seems to give much deference to the group of Charlie supporters out there, and I feel it is because he has been very pro- Charlie himself at points of his life.
I do not accept pro- Charlie as a side at all. The guy never did one thing but hurt people and cause trouble his whole life. He used , lied , stole and raped. he shot, stabbed and beat people. He ran with a group who were very rough, dirty, and just plain bad people. In 1945, 1969 and 2012 there are lots of kids growing up in broken homes, and with lots of problems. the times were different in 1945, 1969, 2012 but the choices are not. Some will use the latest vice ( alchohol, then acid/pot, today X or oxy) and the times to get in trouble, give up, or act out in strange scary ways. others will overcome and thrive, or at least find a way to live the most productive life possible...
you can shine light or you can drain light- its always up to you...
Charlie Manson is a life long hustler and con man. He wouldn't hesitate one second to take from any one of these people who support him. He is a user and manipulator by his own account.He sits back all these years and laughs about this whole thing without a sliver of remorse for any of the hurt or trouble he has caused... will die without ever giving a minute of thought to any of the pain. It is all our fault to him.
Had he not been jailed for this crime and had he stayed there before TLB- nobody would give a frogs fat ass about him at all..
but the gory scary details and stigma of what he is associated with is a turn on for some people and then they stitch together all the problems with society and attach that to Charlies cause. They cant defend the man so they give you great principles to stand behind instead...
Schreck seemed to have lived most of his life as one of these people. Has he grown up or out of that today???
lets hope so :)
Everyone's a critic. I love you, Mattie.
ILY2PP
I dig you too Matt-
this is a useless fight anyway.
People who are into Charlie are going to love a guy like this. People who understand what it means when a grown man refers to himself as a warlock- will never give him a chance....
all the back and forth in the world wont change a single mind either way
Most of the people who are Charlie fans have never met him as a free person. They have no relation to him. By the time they became aware of him- he had already been locked up for the rest of his life ensuring they would never have a chance to really get to know him intimately or privately. He had been involved with some of the most brutal crimes ever, and made a mockery of the entire thing in front of grieving moms and dads, sisters and brothers. A guy who you never met and who has spent his entire life breaking laws, and hurting others is your pick for inspiration???? Even the people who were with him back in the day realize what a bad deal that turned out to be... they had to learn the hard way.
People today who have the benefit of hindsight??
What are you really going to say to people like this that is ever going to make a difference??
Not that a grown man calling himself a Saint is any better lol
:)
Oh well- I never claimed I was normal either...
And that in a nutshell was the point of the posts. A guy goes on trashy talk shows like SJR with a Christian Minister there to slam him is only on there for the negative publicity. He was basking in it.
Why then would anyone take anything he does seriously?
Charles Manson, a shapeshifting shaman? LOL. That's hysterical. He's a career inmate. Nothing more, nothing less.
The way people portray themselves does indeed cause people to prejudge them. I know of people that could never be hired because of the way they present themselves. That is terribly unfortunate, but a reality of life. Do we all need an attitude adjustment, probably, but some of us need it far more than others.
There is more than enough prejudgement to go around in this society and culture; but those that cry wolf over nothing, and wish to create attention and fame while serving nothing positive, do far more damage to the cause and create a real backlash that further distances us all.
The Nikolas podcast is up- I suggest Matt listen to it several times to familiarize himself with reality.
Styx I just listened to it- what is your point you want to make??
no arguments from me- I dont want any- whats your point of view about Schreck that is so different from the videos I have watched and the guy himself interview I just heard??
The point of posting the videos was that to let everyone hear him then, and the point of the SCR interview was to hear him now. I did both I have the same opinion Matt does- He is a wackadoodle
What is the question??
Nah. That would involve going to SCR.
Styx I dont want to speak for you, and we dont want your trouble here- so if you have a point make it- debate it and lets move on-
you seem to think this kind of lifestyle and these beliefs are o.k. and I don't - whats the big deal. I am not stupid, and so far you get the benefit of the doubt. we both feel strongly but differently....
He has views and has lived a life which is way out of the boundaries of what some of us grew up with. It is somewhat shocking to hear someone say some of these things he has said in public....
If he and you and others are so proud of it- it should not be so hard to own it...
If you feel he is a great man- you have the right to shout it to the Heavens and I have the right to disagree and say that too...
all Matt has done is put him out there for everyone to make their own decision, and Brian Davis did an excellent job of doing the same..
It is what it is
I have been coming to this website for a year now and I love it. My mom and I are fascinated with this case and we both have our own opinions on the motive. I do believe Manson went back to the house later in the night.
Styxhexenhammer666 said...
Matt, you admit you have not read Schrecks book so what makes you an expert on the subject of his book?
Matt, I have to agree with this. I read the book twice, and can say it is worth a read.
As Maury Terry and Schreck both claim in their books, "TLB was all about drugs, not Helter Skelter."
The Saint quoting Shakespeare. Does it get any better than that? I am a big fan of the Saint's new professional role.
And as always, Matt's command of the ship while under pirate attack is a wonder to watch. Good stuff.
Matt if you dislike SCR, I have been given permission by them to upload the interview to Youtube, and I am awaiting permission from Nikolas.
I will surely post it here when it is uploaded in full length form- in fact that may be a good blog post for you to make.
Wow, I am sad at how negative some people on this blog are lately. While I understand polite discussion and disagreements about motives etc. will happen, I don't get why someone would be so argumentative and hateful on here. Why visit the blog if you dislike it so much?
I don't like cauliflower so I don't eat it.
The irony is I don't like my fave Manson family blog to be so hateful.
:)
Can't we all just get along? Where's Rodney King when we need him?
I really don't get the arguing. At all. Styx if you don't like this blog go away.
And Patty if you run for Soup-Nazi you have my vote.
rodney king is dead.
Beauders, I know.
"Only an insane person would use their own house (or a friend's house) to set up a drug deal."
Drug abusers can, will, and have endangered their friends, family, loved ones, children, parents, and grandparents to get the substances they crave. Drug abusers hide dope in their baby's diapers, cook meth next to their babies' cradles, sell drugs out of their family's homes, steal from their mothers and grandmothers in order to get drugs, make dope deals in their fathers' places of work, set up their wives to be drug mules. Jay wouldn't do this to Sharon? Please. Don't be naive.
"Drug abusers can, will, and have endangered their friends, family, loved ones, children, parents, and grandparents to get the substances they crave... Jay wouldn't do this to Sharon? Please. Don't be naive."
Have to agree with AC on this, Sebring doing drug deals in Sharon's house is not at all out of the question. From all accounts (I certainly wasn't around then) the 60s had a much more 'live-and-let-live' attitude, so it's not even impossible that Sharon suspected/knew of Sebring's activities and didn't worry too much. That is based on my own suppositions though, rather than any hard evidence. Grain, salt, etc.
For those of you who don't know of Styx, he has quite a few videos on YouTube. I occasionally check them out because he has an ENORMOUS collection of Manson's music up there; it's an excellent resource. He also says he is a supporter of ATWA, and does seem to have some inside knowledge of that group.
If you watch his videos it's clear he's quite a rational, reasonable, intelligent person. I do think though that he'd be slightly more rational, reasonable, and intelligent if he dropped the Satanism, stopped taking the internet Seriously ("And by the way you are a continuous laughingstock in the chat section of Star City Radio's TLB page" LOL who cares), and maybe stopped dressing like John Lennon. Those are quibbles, though. Having huge access to Manson's music is worth a few odd idiosyncracies.
/hyperbole
"The problem with this theory is that he says it was Jay making the drug deal - so why then didn't they go to Jay's house looking for him?"
You've never robbed a drug dealer/criminal before have you. :-D
Element of surprise. You couldn't jack me at my house, it's familiar and I know it intimately - all the weak spots and all the weapons, but you get me outside my place and them I'm at the mercy of my surroundings. Think about things before you instantly dismiss them. Peace.
Styxhateveryourstupidname is. Building an EMPIRE?! That is the damn funniest thing I have read in AGES. Most of the world couldn't care less about ANY of what is being discussed here...an iota of us have marginal interest. So cut down your ego just a little bit...unless you are curing cancer or creating a new software super corporation you are building nothing more than an anthill, and a small one at that.
Post a Comment