Before Tate-LaBianca
She attended Milford High School in Milford, New Hampshire in 1964 and 1965. After her sophomore year she dropped out to marry Robert Moses Peaslee.
1. 1964 Yearbook - Girls Basketball
L. Drouin is pictured as a member of the freshman girls’ basketball team.
Unfortunately, back in 1964 the Freshman Class did not get a class picture in the yearbook.
2. 1965 Yearbook Class
I am not sure where Linda is in this picture from 1965, her sophomore year. I suspect Linda is the young woman indicated by the arrow I added. Unfortunately, they also did not provide names with their class shots in Milton in 1965.
At some point during 1964-65 Linda began dating a young man named Robert Moses Peaslee (Class of 1964).
3. 1964 Yearbook - Marriage to Robert Peaslee
Peaslee appears to have been a bit of a wild child wracking up several traffic citations and listing as his contribution to the ‘Senior Will’ in the 1964 yearbook: “Robert Peaslee leaves to the surprise of the students, the relief of the teachers and with the luck of the Irish.”
Linda married Robert Peaslee on August 14, 1965 but not before she and her fiancé were involved in a fairly serious car accident on July 2, 1965.
5. 1965 Peaslee Marriage
This is a record of the marriage from The Town of Milford, New Hampshire, Annual Report of 1965. The marriage date is recorded as August 14, 1965
The Peaslee/Drouin marriage didn’t last very long. By January 1966 the couple had divorced. The article refers to the court’s last ‘term’ and was written in May of 1966. However, if a ‘term’ is the same in New Hampshire as what I am familiar with she was actually divorced in 1965.
Peaslee sued and was granted a divorce claiming that his wife’s conduct was such as to “endanger seriously his physical and mental health” according to an article written in 1976 (see, The Unhappy Odyssey of Linda Kasabian, below). Peaslee’s case was uncontested but supported by the testimony of one Dr. Raymond P. Galloway a local physician. This is interesting as the allegation is not the typical ‘fault based’ mental and physical cruelty allegation I am familiar with from those days.
In the small town of Milford (pop: 5,000) this may have been a minor scandal. Linda moved shortly after to live with her father in Florida.
Peaslee went on to have several run-ins with the law. He pled guilty to eluding a police officer in 1966 and in 1967 was convicted of public intoxication and assaulting a state police officer. He served a tour of duty in Vietnam in 1969 where he was wounded and passed away in 2002.
Linda Drouin returned to New Hampshire after a few months in Florida but didn’t stay. She moved to Boston sometime prior to April 1967.
While her name is misspelled, Linda Drowing is Linda.
On April 14, 1967 Linda Drouin was arrested in a narcotics raid conducted by state and federal law enforcement in Boston. This appears to be a fairly big bust involving state and federal authorities and $20,000 worth of LSD and pot. Robert Kasabian was not involved.
She was charged with ‘being present where narcotics are used'. Linda was 17 and based upon other cases I looked at before finding hers it appears to have been common for the authorities in 1967 to release female, juvenile offenders to their parents after arrest. Reading between the lines a bit that is what happened with Linda and she returned again to Milford dodging her first bullet.
Linda’s mother states that Robert Kasabian continued to pursue her daughter after she returned to Milford following her arrest in April 1967 (see, What Linda’s Mother Learned). Mom clearly was not a fan of Kasabian and blames him for her daughter’s ‘downfall’.
At some point between April and September, 1967 Linda Drouin returned to Boston and Linda got pregnant.
On September 20, 1967 she married Robert Kasabian. She listed as her address at the time of the ceremony the American Psychedelic Circus (commune). (See, Odyssey [Exhibit 14, below] which also has a wedding picture).
‘Tonya’ Kasabian was born less then nine month’s later in Los Angeles on March 3, 1968. This places Linda in LA during the timeframe February-April (?) 1968. It might be interesting to see what else happened on the Manson timeline during this time - Harold True?
10. 1969 Kasabian - No LicenseBy May 1969 Linda had again returned to Milford where she had an intriguing run-in with the law.
On May 2, 1969 Linda pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license. Given this event occurred a little over two months before she allegedly was chosen to accompany Watson et al on two nights of murder solely because she had a valid driver’s license it would be interesting to know which version of the offense was involved here.
It could either be she didn’t have a license with her when asked to present one and later produced it or it could mean she simply didn’t have a valid drivers’ license at all. All I have been able to determine is that both resulted in fines in New Hampshire in 1969 and I have not been able to find the fine schedule.
Here’s one I threw in just to challenge the ‘I was always going to testified anyway’ claim. She wasn’t on December 4, 1969.
Linda intended to write a book after the trial. While not stated here Joan Didion was going to be the author. At Vincent Bugliosi’s request Ms. Didion bought Kasabian several dresses for the trial and likely had her change her hairstyle.
13. 1970 Mom’s Story
Written by Boston Globe reporter James Stack this series is Ms. Joyce Byrd’s story about her daughter. Stack wrote the piece as if it were written by Kasabian’s mom and even gave her the author credit.
It has some interesting information like mom noting Linda wanted to lose weight so she started taking three diet pills (speed) instead of the prescribed one to lose three times as much weight. Sure she did.
After
After her testimony ended Linda Kasabian gave a memorable press conference where she stated her intention to ‘move to the wilderness’, ‘find God’ and raise her children. Now let’s take a look at what really happened.
After Helter Skelter came out James Stack (author of mom’s story) tried to do a follow-up story about Kasabian and traveled to Milford for that purpose.
By 1976 Robert Kasabian is described as a ‘Jesus Freak’, which might explain the name change to ‘Christian’.
The Unhappy Odyssey of Linda Kasabian provides some interesting insights into the real Linda Kasabian.
A few quotes:
“Kasabian is a women with a capacity for mysterious shifts of moods and a talent for controlling them. She can be elated one minute, brooding the next, gay in the morning and unlaughing tomorrow.
She can be disarmingly sweet to those whose friendship or favor she seeks. She can be querulous, bitter and suspicious of those she no longer has use of.”
*****
“Kasabian is also thoroughly intolerant of newsmen, and hostile to the point of addressing them as “pigs,” generally with a colorful adjective or two.”
*****
“Continued Globe efforts to report her story drew out another side of Kasabian’s personality.
She lunged at a photographer who had taken her picture as she emerged from the Milford District Court, where she appeared in connection with three traffic violations. She spat on the hood of the cameraman’s car, then charged at him, spewing out a torrent of abusive language.
Kasabian then turned to a Globe reporter and shouted obscenities so shocking as to leave those in a small ring of onlookers in slackjawed disbelief.”
So much for the 'innocent hippy chick’.
This same article discusses the watch placed on Kasabian when President Ford came to New Hampshire in 1976.
She was arrested for an incident involving her efforts with others to prevent firemen from putting out a bonfire. The charges were reduced from ‘inciting a riot’ and the court appears to want the whole thing to go away.
This is a fun one: in 1982 she was arrested for flashing a motorcycle rally on a public street.
In 1987 she was arrested under the name Linda Chiochios in Florida near Cape Canaveral at 4:00 a.m. for DUII.
And in 1997 she and her daughter Quanu were arrested for possession of a controlled substance (meth) in Tacoma, Washington. The Pierce County court website can be used to pull up several of her family members and their friends. Kasabian, still Chiochios, successfully completed drug classes and her charges were dismissed.
Great stuff, Dreath! Thanks for contributing to the blog.
ReplyDeleteThat May 1969 article where Linda had her license suspended is interesting. It's doubtful she would have gotten a California license simply because she had no permanent address and moved around a lot, even from state to state. So did she really have a valid license as was presented in court? Or did she have her license because she did not turn it in when it was suspended and it wasn't valid?
Dont know about license but she did live in nadhia likre you said my mother cashed her welfare checks back in the 70s.
DeleteShe was shocked to see her. Back then nashua was a small town in nh.
Also i personally talked to someone who picked her up hitchiking in nh the 70s.
He said she was pregnant must of been her second child. This guy said she carried a knife eith her at all times linda was still frightened of manson family finfing her.
Dont know about license but she did live in nadhia likre you said my mother cashed her welfare checks back in the 70s.
DeleteShe was shocked to see her. Back then nashua was a small town in nh.
Also i personally talked to someone who picked her up hitchiking in nh the 70s.
He said she was pregnant must of been her second child. This guy said she carried a knife eith her at all times linda was still frightened of manson family finfing her.
Amazing that the defense lawyers never bothered to check on that tidbit during the months and months duration of the trial.
ReplyDeleteI thought Lake Victoria was the source of denial, but it appears to be somewhere in New Hampshire.
ReplyDeleteMother Kasabian is one of those people who live in a vacuum, in some freaky parallel universe.
Linda didn't make a binary change to 16 year old, dropout, and rogue's bride as characterized.
I'm kinda thinkn' there were plenty of precursors, gleefully ignored, or dismissed.
Linda's report cards packed with A's and B's? Truancy? How did Linda's teachers report on her behavior? Did she play well with others?
That job as an aide at a nursing home sounds so kind and sweet. Or was she there to cheek, or kester the comatose, old duff's meds? Perhaps I'm cynical, and she found joy sponge bathing a freshly soiled senior. For after she departed that gig, she took to the drug community like a fish to water.
Florida changed her? Because her fashions were different. Her association with substance abusers was still the same. So that's some good analysis Mother Kasabian.
Great stuff!!
ReplyDeleteLinda probably came from a home where she was ignored, and didn't have much direction or discipline, hence her making extremely poor choices in life, even as recent as 1997. Of course, I never thought she was an innocent flower child, like VB made her out to be, but he needed her as a witness. What if she wouldn't have testified? Those people would of gone unpunished, and were very capable of murdering again, especially Watson.
ReplyDeleteWELL, WELL, there it is folks - the PROOF - the spell of Charlie Manson's "hypnotic" POWER lasts FOREVER, or at least for a few years, depending upon how strongly you got zapped.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dreath,
BTW: the Defense $$$ got had by Daye Shinn. Apparently, NONE was left over for witness research OR a private investigator.
On 60 minutes last night they highlighted the story of a Black man who WRONGLY spent 30 years in prison, because HIS lawyer NEVER asked to have the supposed GUN (found in his mother's home) TESTED to see if the GUN bullets MATCHED the ones used on the VICTIM.
OOPS, apparently back in the day, BLACK lives and Hippies didn't matter.
When Clem had to appear in Court for a "rented" van left in a Death Valley ditch, Irving took HIM to a Salvation Army store for a proper fitting. So when I started my lawsuits, I went to a Salvation Army store and with the luck of the Vikings, some guy had just donated a bunch of HIS custom made Italian suits. I felt like Million dollar Mafiaoso Attorney as I pranced into the Lord's House for some good old American made justice.
Thank You Clem: I won't tell ANYONE it's the clothes that make you judicially savvy.
She was Yana the Fatty in high school I see.
ReplyDeleteYa know- Bugs was never going to use Linda if Susan hadn't flipped on her decision to cooperate.
ReplyDeleteOne wonders how he would have spun Sadie if he needed her instead of turning this obvious piece of trash into a little angel??
Fresh meat! Welcome Dreath and thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou are all welcome.
ReplyDeleteI have to thank Matt and Deb as they did the formatting and such due to my questionable computer skills.
lol- it gets easier he had to teach me too :)
ReplyDeleteSt Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteBugs was never going to use Linda if Susan hadn't flipped on her decision to cooperate
Well, he had no use for Linda as long as there was Susan. But in saying that, he'd never wanted Susan in the first place {"we don't give that gal anything !"}. He also went on to say that he preferred Linda as she hadn't killed anyone but because of the grand jury deal, was stuck with Susan.
Interestingly, even with Susan, he simply had no case against Linda. Susan's deal was that nothing she said could be used against any of her co~defendants and there was no evidence that Linda had been along on either night.
Atkins claimed that the prosecution steered her into recanting but it was she who kept insisting on seeing Charlie, after which, she recanted.
One wonders how he would have spun Sadie if he needed her instead of turning this obvious piece of trash into a little angel??
Hmmmmm.....perhaps I just tend to read through different lenses at times St, but my abiding memories of the Bugliosi~Kasabian makeover are of Vincey describing her and her testimony as "frank and repulsively truthful" and telling Laurence Merrick that he would have gone for a 2nd degree murder charge against her. During his closing argument he actually tells the jury; "now, I am not saying, ladies and gentlemen, that Linda Kasabian deserves any medal, any award from the Kiwanis Club or anything like that; all I am saying is that there is a distinct possibility that she saved the life of a human being on the night of the LaBianca murders, and this act by Linda in deliberately knocking on the wrong door shows, along with all the other evidence in this case about her, that although she is not an angel~and we have never said she was; and she would be the first one to admit that she is not an angel...
Yes, he distinguishes her essential character from those that killed, but he does the same thing with TJ, Paul Watkins and Brooks Poston.
He also did point out about Sadie that he felt sorry for her and that he felt she had more remorse than the others. His questioning of her at the Grand jury didn't minimize the horrors of what she was about. But that wasn't what that was about.
It isn't so much a case of lying about witness as much as emphasizing anything positive you can find lurking in the scum. You'd do it if you were a lawyer ! "Oh yes, Mr Pritchard has been convicted in the past of robbing banks, but he lives at home and looks after his elderly and disabled Mother and his wayward sister's troubled child....."
Matt said...
ReplyDeleteAmazing that the defense lawyers never bothered to check on that tidbit during the months and months duration of the trial
During the trial, she was asked a number of times about her licence. I remember reading it over at the now dearly departed Cat's site. I kept wondering what the relevance was. Then I put it together with Irving Kanarek bringing June Emmers down to testify as to what a liar Linda was and some of the other things the defence exposed about her and despite Robert's point about the guy that spent 30 years inside because his lawyer never had his gun checked to see whether the bullets matched, I find it extremely difficult to believe that she was going to lie about the licence, especially as it was so easy to check on it and it would have severely dented her credibility. Not only that, she said she had to go get it from Squeaky and Charlie, if it were not true, would he have remained quiet about it ? A major opportunity to show the jury that the star witness is a bloody liar ? I doubt it. And I find it hard to believe that Bugliosi was so stupid as to not check either, knowing that his case would be seriously compromised if it came out that LK had no valid licence.
Incidentally, it was Bugliosi and Bugliosi alone that speculated that the the only reason Linda was along both those nights was because she was the only one left with a valid driving licence, being that Mary was in the clink. It's kind of passed into folklore that that is the reason but no reason has ever been actually given.
AustinAnn74 said...
I never thought she was an innocent flower child
Of her being a Hippie he commented that "if any witness was ever placed under a microscope, it was Linda Kasabian, and I am convinced that each and every one of you saw the same thing under that microscope, a young hippie girl whose aimless drug oriented life tragically led her to Spahn Ranch, Charles Manson, and two nights of murder ~ two nights of horror..."
Hippies were not seen as the vanguard of morality or these nice folk that straight society looked to as the shining example of what young people were to be. Hippies were generally viewed as only a couple of notches above the Family {who were themselves viewed as Hippies}. Lots of Hippies were thought of as people that stole, didn't work, openly espoused drugs, were anti authority and anti establishment, sponged, dropped children all over the place and exposed their kids to things no child should even be aware of. Hippiedom often talked a good game and tried to build a weighty paradise on a foundation so shallow and flimsy that it cracked under the weight of reality. So even if Kasabian was a Hippy, when pared down to essentials, Hippiedom was hardly presented as an advert for something wholesome. Therefore, as far as I can see, the description of Linda as a hippy, as was understood by those not in sympatico with any countercultural thought, is pretty accurate. It certainly is not a euphemism for "cute innocent girl that never gets into trouble."
That Bugliosi doesn't speak contemptuously about her should always be balanced by the fact that in commenting on her life at the time, what he says is often negative.
Its Ok to see things differently Grim....
ReplyDeleteYou make alot of eloquent points bud
Though it may sound like an almost insane point to make, I think that the real loser in the entire saga was indeed Linda. Charlie went back to where he'd spent most of his life; I don't believe that he wanted to be there but I think he's long been pragmatic about jail. Bruce, Tex, Leslie, Susan, Pat, Clem and Bobby all in one way or another made something of their lives without imploding. And they all had a modicum of help. But Linda was left to her own devices and ended up pretty much where she had been heading long before July 4th, '69. Her testimony in the Watson trial {can be found at Cielodrive.com} is a real eye opener and fills in some details that hadn't been readily available.
ReplyDeleteIt's no wonder her Mum was in despair.
Linda showed amazing strength and guts to testify in the trials that she did but I don't think it's unfair to suggest that when it came to actual life and real living, she was one of the worst adverts for the counterculture and to some extent, gives the establishment their own justification for trying to pick apart the movement of those heady times. Far more than the others that actually went to jail, fingers can be pointed at Linda about how not to conduct one's life.
Linda got her justice in another manner that's all lol
ReplyDeleteThe real Losers in the entire saga are the victims and their families. Maybe the pity you have for Linda- who walked away free (That She blew it is her own fault)- would be better served to the people affected by what she helped do???
Grim,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you a bit. As soon as Atkins testifies Bugliosi has a pretty good case against Kasabian. In fact, his case is better against her then Van Houten at that point.
I think there is a tendency to look at Kasabian's involvement through the lens provided by what we know (or believe or have been told to believe ) from where we sit today. Remember, she too was indicted following the Grand Jury.
I think what might have happened with Atkins instead of Kasabian is you might not be talking as much about Helter Skelter as a motive. This might have been tried as a felony murder case like Van Houten III.
Yes, it is common for lawyers to try to project a favorable image of their witnesses, especially a witness as 'key' to the case as Kasabian. We dress them up, change their hair and even work on body language (see, RH comment above).
I for one would never accuse Bugliosi of improperly 'coaching' a witness or eliciting perjured testimony. He didn't. That said there are occasions too numerous to count in the Tate-LaBianca trial where he 'leads' his key witness to the answer he wants (and gets away with it).
There are several occasions where he brings out testimony he doesn't need for a conviction just to make her look good. I would have likely done the exact same thing. But it's still 'spin'.
I have for the past many years looked at these crimes from the prospective of how I might have handled the defense. That makes Ms. Kasabian (as the key witness) a bit of pet project of mine.
There are multiple times where her testimony is not supported by the physical (objective) evidence. Her background should have had a greater impact. And there are times her testimony 'just don't make no sense'.
A large part of this never saw the light of day because as Mr. Hendrickson noted there was no $$$$.
Imagine what Van Houten's attorneys could have done with that 1976 Globe reporter and a trip to New Hampshire. How about asking Mr. Peaslee why he wanted a divorce based on her endangering his mental or physical health. Better yet how about asking Dr. Galloway? She down plays her Boston arrest by saying she was present where narcotics were present (technically correct) but wouldn't it have been fun to have a few more details for the jury: a fed/state narcotics raid involving 20k worth of LSD? Remember part of your goal is to get the jury to see her as at least as vile as your client. In my opinion then and only then does the 'immunity' award begin to raise doubts in the minds of the jurors regarding her credibility.
I never could figure out a way any of them would have ben acquitted (Thank God!). Believe it or not the closest I think I could get would be Atkins because IF you believe Kasabian she didn't kill anyone. But...... then I would likely have to put her on the stand and that would...... not go well.
PS: according to her cross examination at the Watson trial she was also arrested in Haight-Ashbury in 1967. I couldn't find any objective evidence of that arrest but there is at least one more.
The License
ReplyDeleteThe license is a bit of a red herring. The argument was not made at the Manson et al trial. It was mentioned but the actual 'only two who had one' argument to explain why Kasabian was sent was made at the Watson trial. Question: Did Deemers know what he was talking about?
Mary Brunner: DL# S420794
Bruce Davis: DL# 3553216 (Tennessee)
Lynette Fromme DL# S145574
Linda Kasabian no license is mentioned.
Diane Lake DL# 3507331 (temp)
Kathern Lutesinger DL# P148000 (Missouri)
Charles Manson DL# 2516372
Charles Montgomery (aka Watson) DL# A162088
Nancy Pitman DL# S4679845 (temp)
Leslie Van Houten DL# DD436893 (temp)
It only matters in my opinion because it explains why she was chosen. 'Best at the backhand slash' might not have sold well to the jury.
Saint said: The real Losers in the entire saga are the victims and their families. Maybe the pity you have for Linda- who walked away free (That She blew it is her own fault)- would be better served to the people affected by what she helped do???
ReplyDeleteHere, here!
It is amazing to me how many people express feelings such as sympathy about people like Leslie and Linda... Good, bright people in some cases?? Charlie as well. So many people make so many arguments about how unfair life has been to them. All the excuses people make for them...
ReplyDeleteI personally know- as we all do I am sure- quite a few people whose parents were divorced when they were very young. People who developed life long drinking and smoking weeds habbits as 15 and 16 year old's with no steady parental influence. Kids who got in trouble in school and did not finish high school- and most of them don't go on to become murderers. I know a couple really well who actually became quite successful.
;)
Their are people who will help and motivate you if you seek them just as there are people who will be happy to drag you down if you let them. Some people are just wired differently and motivated by different things.
Leslie and Linda did not grow up any worse than thousands of other kids. look at there high school pics- they had the same kid of background as me lol.
They were both into really wild shit long before meeting Charlie. Many people came into the family and many left. Only the main core of 20 to 30 stayed consistently. Just the ones with that certain type of character. The perfect storm of just the wrong type of personalities- mixed in with just the wrong type of older influence who made their dark desires ok to live out. He reinforced it was alright to act on the dangerous impulses this particular assortment of people had. Add steady hard drugs and food deprivation= a group of absolute savages...
Don't waste your tears for Linda and Leslie. They both got to live out long lives. Linda basically went through a couple of year speed bump in the Big picture. These weren't and aren't good people. Sympathy is something that just doesn't make sense to me. Linda least of all- the only price she paid at all was karma.
The "They had really bad backgrounds and nowhere else to turn" sympathy is appropriate in cases like Diane Lake and Ruth.... very young, and not absent- but actually encouraging and contributing to the delinquency of their kids type of parents....
ReplyDeleteBut not Linda. She chose to be the way she was and then she eventually became the same kind of parent that Diane and Ruth had.
So Sad
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteMaybe the pity you have for Linda- who walked away free (That She blew it is her own fault)- would be better served to the people affected by what she helped do???
I've stated many a time that my heart goes out to many people on all sides of this saga.
But TLB blogs aren't essentially about the relatives of the victims are they ? We know very little of any consequence about what any of them were like or did prior to or after the murders ~ and to be honest, that's how it should be. I suspect most of "the people affected by what she helped do" just want to live their lives and not be pursued by or pestered by anonymous internetters.
My historical interest is not in any of them, though my heart goes out to them.
Dreath said...
Grim, I have to disagree with you a bit
Only a bit ? ☺
As soon as Atkins testifies Bugliosi has a pretty good case against Kasabian. In fact, his case is better against her then Van Houten at that point
According to his book, nothing said in the grand jury could be used against Atkins and nothing she said could be used against her co defendants. He also said that what was needed was corroboration and that it didn't really matter who ended up as the star witness.
It's true that he had little to no case against Leslie at that point, but Diane Lake changed that forever. What she said about Leslie was dynamite. Mind you, what she told Marvin Part was nuclear !
Dreath said...
I think there is a tendency to look at Kasabian's involvement through the lens provided by what we know (or believe or have been told to believe ) from where we sit today
There's a lot of truth in that. However, if there's one thing I've picked up from Helter Skeptics that I find really valuable, it's to approach this case from a number of different angles, especially angles that are not the standard ones we've been given. That's where I've found some of the trial and grand jury testimonies and police and lawyer interviews and magazine articles from 1969/70 invaluable.
Remember, she too was indicted following the Grand Jury
Which Bugliosi didn't jump for joy about. "We'd got the indictments. That was about all we had" speaks volumes, not to mention his thought at the end of '69 that Manson could well be acquitted and his feeling that it could turn out to be better for Linda to be tried & acquitted than testify against the Family.
there are occasions too numerous to count in the Tate-LaBianca trial where he 'leads' his key witness to the answer he wants
True, but it's an answer that he wants already knowing that answer. It's not like he was shooting in the dark. At one point he actually criticizes one of the defence lawyers for calling a witness without having spoken to them.
I thought all lawyers know what they want those that matter to hear !
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteBut not Linda. She chose to be the way she was
But not in a vacuum. Even her Mum acknowledged that.
Don't waste your tears for Linda and Leslie
I'm a human being, St. I'm affected by tragedies of all kinds, even some of the self inflicted ones.
Sympathy is something that just doesn't make sense to me.
I can see that !
But I feel it for a variety of the players in this saga. Granted, not everyone becomes a murderer because of a rough passage in a part of one's life, but to be honest, that's no argument, because some do.
But this isn't an appeal to feel sorry for anyone, just an observation that life contains nuances that are neither easy to explain nor simple to dismiss.
Ok fair enough :)
ReplyDeleteGrim,
ReplyDeleteI should have been more specific, my bad, I hope I am learning, here. Yes, if you stop at the Grand Jury he has no case against Kasabian as it's inadmissible and/or it was all he had. If, however, Atkins testifies he is in the same position he was with Kasabian testifying and, yes, he still needs corroboration but I wasn't going to try to 'try' that case here. Might be a good post though.
I agree with your comment about multiple angles. I hope I do that.
Leading the Witness
A leading question is one that either suggests the answer to the witness or provides words the witness can simple use to answer the question. They are inadmissible on direct examination because the answers are deemed unreliable.
So if Kasabian stumbles on what he wants and says they arrived at the Polanski residence "4-5 hours after dark". He asks her again and she reaffirms the timeframe. Damn that clock radio. When he then asks "do you mean 3 a.m. or midnight" he's leading the witness. And what that says to me is any answer that follows that last question is unreliable.
You are correct. Defense counsel were not 'the Dream Team'. Maybe they should have had Kasabian try on the smallest pair of genes.
Thank you for this post- very interesting and thought provoking. This post piqued my interest....have not really commented in the past few years but Dreath, great investigative work. I have also enjoyed all of the comments related to this post...love all of the insights.
ReplyDeleteWelcome back, Lynn.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much, Lynn. That means a lot.
ReplyDeleteDreath, pleased to make your acquaintance. Matt, thanks so much for the warm welcome back :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Dreath....outstanding !!!
ReplyDeleteThanks DREATH for a great expose on Linda. Now I wonder IF her previously hidden past was NOT fairly typical for many young folks brought up in almost meaningless environments all across America and beyond its borders.
ReplyDeleteAND now look at Donald Trump's legal "draft dodging" exploits and how THEY are going to lead to the EXPOSURE of many notable "closet cowards" amongst our sacred "establishment." Like how about BILL Clinton. At least ONE Black man personally died in the jungles of Vietnam so HE could get a FREE Blow-Job.
AND it will NOW likely come out that "joining a local police force" was the perfect safe-haven for those WHO only thought of themselves - FIRST.
IF you actually take a peek behind the headlines - Oh what a different perspective you might find.
Like Johnny MaCain, our GREASTEST surviving war HERO shot down from HIS airplane in Vietnam. Did YOU ever THINK "What was HE doing up there?" Was HE dropping Naplam on little girls running for cover down the road ?
Linda K. is the perfect choise for examination IF you want to discover a more human side of the Manson Family Story. AND isn't it about time (over 40 years) for the WHOLE truth and nothing but the TRUTH to leak out from the CRACKS in man's so-called civilization.
Dreath said...
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment about multiple angles. I hope I do that
I think you do.
This is a good piece. Usually, when I'm reading them, I try to guess who has written them before I get to the end. I thought this one was DebS !
Your posts are generally good thought provokers.
Farflung said...
I'm kinda thinkn' there were plenty of precursors, gleefully ignored, or dismissed
I think you're right. Thing is though, it can be hard to spot or be conclusive at the time because it feels kind of heavy to assume a child or teenager is on the road to ruin due to things they might have done or be doing that haven't yet bloomed into something that everyone holds their heads in their hands about.
That job as an aide at a nursing home sounds so kind and sweet.....Perhaps I'm cynical, and she found joy sponge bathing a freshly soiled senior
I don't think you were being any more cynical than anyone else gets when discussing Mrs K and I don't think she was a nursing home aide out of some strong desire to replicate Florence Nightingale. Some people just drift into any old job.
Over here in England, working as a care assistant in a home for the elderly is not really seen as particularly caring work much of the time, it's often seen as a job anyone can do that wants to earn definite {low} money and the overwhelming majority of care workers I've known have not been native to these shores. There have also been a number of stories of the appalling way some care workers have treated the residents so this has also unfairly soured their general image in the minds of many. When family members have secretly filmed some of the goings on, it's hard to get the resultant film out of one's mind and just as hard not to apply the contents to everyone in that line of work. I'd also add that having observed some of the workers over an 8 year period, some of them really should not have been in that line of work. Granted, the residents could be difficult and particularly nasty to those that were not English {ie, most of them} but they can't all have been 'off' days !
Robert Hendrickson said...
I wonder IF her previously hidden past was NOT fairly typical for many young folks brought up in almost meaningless environments all across America
IF you actually take a peek behind the headlines - Oh what a different perspective you might find
I think this is the case. The more I've listened to people that were around and active in that period, the more I've watched and read, the more I can see that there was a wind blowing that caught many in it's slipstream and so many young people with similar upbringings had similar feelings and ended up in many different directions, some exciting and 'positive,' some not.
Even some men that fought in Vietnam committed atrocities that they would never have perpetrated elsewhere or in any other situation; neither were there any clues in their upbringings as to some of these things happening. Retrospectively however.....
Linda K. is the perfect choise for examination IF you want to discover a more human side of the Manson Family Story
That tends to be my chosen angle of approach because for me, it is a very human story, encompassing a large scope of culture, society, rebellion against it, motivation etc. Like any human story, it's the fusion of darkness and light and all those paradoxes and nuances that have kept it so gripping for so long.
Ok- Ill be devils advocate....
ReplyDeleteWhere does light fusioninto anything with Linda? How does Linda represent the "Human" side of the Manson story???
This is a girl who started breaking laws at a very young age. She spent her whole life getting into trouble. She stole money from her friends to impress people she knew for days. She participated in terrible crimes, and then left her child with the people who she knew committed them.
Then she flipped on those people too.
Who could trust Linda??
Then she walks and spends the rest of her live breaking the law and partying wit her own child who she breaks laws with....
Human side? Fusing light into darkness???
I do not get it at all..... there is a human side to this and there are a couple of people to pity who got involved with Charlie. But Linda???
I think Linda is one person people on both sides can agree was no good personally.
I gotta say I lean to the Saint here.
ReplyDeleteWhen I put this thing together while the high school stuff was fun, for me the heart of the matter was the 'Odyssey' article. I think it gives some fairly revealing insights into Kasabian's personality (disorder?) not long after the events in question.
Its not really about dispelling the 'innocent hippy chick' myth its the that I don't believe she told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
"I am here because I wanted to tell the truth. I would have testified without a deal" translates when the evidence is revealed to 'I'm not talking even if the sky falls (but I will for immunity)". She got lucky Atkins folded, leaving her the only game in town and she skated.
Ask yourself: if her story is not accurate why didn't she just tell the truth? I think if you agree with me that her story is not accurate your answer to this question will reveal the real Kasabian.
Drugs, broken home sense of abandonment by her parents. Low self esteem because she was overweight or other childhood issues? Some things I read even suggested physical abuse. Sure, I see all that but what are the statistics for us on this site related to those issues? Those who became 18 before 1980. I can give you a few:
By 1974 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers 11% of boys who came from divorced families ended up spending time in prison before the age of 32. By 1980 50% of marriages had/were ending in divorce.
How many of us became murderers or aided and abetted murder? Hands? Anyone?
Or.....to paraphrase others: Life is going to knock you on your ass from time to time. Who you are is determined by what you do when you get back up."
Very Well Said...
ReplyDeleteand again. I am not heartless.
With a father like Dean who was hitting on girls his teenage daughter hung out with, and did drugs with his own underage kid, or Diane Lake whose parents live a similar lifestyle and literally give her their permission to run around with any group of older people she wants- I do feel sympathy. I do feel in those cases- had they gone along those nights I would still put them away- but I could get the understanding after all these years of why people would feel bad for them.
By the way... ever see what Ruth ended up looking like as an adult? She seems to have done the exact opposite of Linda with her life- which just goes to show you, even in the worst of circumstances- people can make their own fate.
Robert, Robert, Robert,
ReplyDeleteI'm really confused. The other day you were hating on people who never killed one single communist or burned one village, because they used their draft deferrments to wait out the war. Now you seem to be hating on John McCain who enlisted, was shot down, and tortured at the Hanoi Hilton. Do you hate everyone who was of draft age during the Vietnam era. How about the ones who went into service and spent the war stateside?
BTW: I was one of the cowards who got a college degree during that time. Before I graduated my draft lottery number was 289. My number was never called. You plays the game, you takes your chances.
In case anyone is wondering, any reports of Manson's death are at this point to be considered exaggerated. :)
ReplyDeleteSt Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteOk- Ill be devils advocate....
Where does light fusion into anything with Linda?
As far as I'm concerned, every human being has something about them that is positive while at the same time being a container of darkness, regardless of the degree. AustinAnn74 earlier pointed out, regarding Linda,
What if she wouldn't have testified? Those people would have gone unpunished, and were very capable of murdering again, especially Watson
which as far as I can see was a good thing. Even if all the things said about her are true in terms of immunity and self interest, that doesn't change that. Incidentally, it has been well established {by Bugliosi, in his book, well after the trials when there was nothing to gain} that it was Gary Fleishman that pushed for immunity, not Linda Kasabian. When she started testifying, immunity was not a foregone conclusion. After the bulk of her testifying, the judge was petitioned and he signed the papers.
How does Linda represent the "Human" side of the Manson story???
Everybody in this story represents the human side. I know that "the human side" is used to denote the lean towards goodness, softness, something of redeeming value. That's not the way I use it at all. My usage of it is very much in the biblical sense. It has positive aspects but often, is anything but.
Linda is one person people on both sides can agree was no good personally.
I wouldn't say that about anybody. There are definitely aspects of her being that stink worse than any shit a doctor or vet could extract from a creature of any description. But you know, there may well be someone in this world that could say the same about any one of us.
ORWHUT: Very perceptive.
ReplyDeleteMY double talk is meant to show there are, at least, two sides to every person's STORY (especially Linda's) AND I don't hate ANYONE, except maybe MYSELF. BUT even self-hate can have positive results and be a driving force for good.
Supposedly there has been ONLY one person planted on this earth who was ALL good, but even HE committed assault & battery on "innocent" victims. Go figure that one out.
NOW, thank God, the whole issue of heroes, sacrifice and cowards is finally coming out of the closet. AND the Donald Trump (avoiding the Vietnam WAR) issue is the perfect subject to begin the discussion.
IT should lead us directly to LBJ (a loving father to HIS children and a Natural Born KILLER to many of us). It should also lead us directly to Charles Manson (a loving father to HIS Family and a Natural Born KILLER to many others.
Like no other time in History, WE are discovering new facts concerning just what makes the Human Brain tick and hopefully it won't be much longer until WE finally understand exactly why human beings do the "terrible" things THEY do.
AND of course, that understanding will eventually lead to a sense of awareness in humans paralleled in all of history.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSt Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteThis is a girl who started breaking laws at a very young age. She spent her whole life getting into trouble. She stole money from her friends to impress people she knew for days. She participated in terrible crimes, and then left her child with the people who she knew committed them.
Then she flipped on those people too.
Who could trust Linda??
Then she walks and spends the rest of her live breaking the law and partying wit her own child who she breaks laws with....
Yeah, all true.
There again, some of us have brothers, sisters, Dads, Mums, cousins, close friends etc that are in that vein and we still love them just the same and haven't yet abandoned them, though it may have been touch and go sometimes.
Dreath said...
ReplyDeleteI don't believe she told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
That could depend on what you suspect to be "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
She obviously neglected to mention that she got into Steven Parent's car. But so much was made of that in the aftermath of her 2009 revelation by those that thought they'd found Linda's smoking gun, that the facts were not examined and as a result, what is in fact a rather damp squib is felt by some to be the tip of the iceberg of Kasabianesque deception.
During her time on the stand, lots of really interesting, but essentially unimportant stuff was brought out by the defence lawyers, Fitzgerald & Kanarek in particular. Stuff that made her look like everything from a slag to a thief to a patient suffering from some form of mental illness to an unfit Mum to a junkie stealing from her Dad. I've long found it significant that not one of the incarcerated has ever come out in the 45+ years and brought out any details of her nefarious involvement that we are not already aware of. Nothing new. Nothing devious. It's been done about Tex, Larry Jones & Bill Vance in regards to Shorty. The involvement of Susan and Gypsy in the Shorty affair has come to light too. So it's not as though there isn't some kind of precedent for stuff being revealed after the fact. Indeed, Tex has cleared Susan of stabbing Sharon Tate, while Pat cleared up the mystery of who carved WAR on Leno LaBianca and Tex has subsequently revealed he coerced Leslie into doing "something" {which is not to in any way diminish her responsibility}.
But nothing regarding Linda, except the penalty phase debacle which all the main players have since admitted was lies and rubbish. And even during that phase, they tried to paint her as the mastermind, but no one even attempted to say she killed anyone. In fact, one strangely consistent matter during the entire investigation was that of Linda being "the one that didn't kill anyone." Two people had spread that around long before Linda herself was even arrested.
"I am here because I wanted to tell the truth. I would have testified without a deal" translates when the evidence is revealed to 'I'm not talking even if the sky falls (but I will for immunity)"
I thought that story was a pretty lame red herring and so without context. Reporters ask someone who is being arrested for murder to say something to which she replies "I don't care if the whole world comes down, I'm not talking." What does that refer to ? Then and there ? The trial ? Defence ? Prosecution ? Police investigation ? The reporters ?
I certainly wouldn't rely on it for back up proving Linda to be dodgy.
She got lucky Atkins folded, leaving her the only game in town and she skated
As human beings, we have a most wonderful ability to react and make life changing moves/decisions at the drop of a hat.
However, Bugliosi did say that Linda wanted to testify for the prosecution even when they still had Atkins but he got the feeling that Fleischman wanted some kind of deal. He also wasn't interested as long as they had Susan even though it was reluctantly.
That all said, have a look at this interesting piece from Col Scott's site 7 years ago and tell me what you think. It's intriguing if nothing else.
Robert,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the clarification. It'll take a while for me to digest it.
Yeah, all true.
ReplyDeleteThere again, some of us have brothers, sisters, Dads, Mums, cousins, close friends etc that are in that vein and we still love them just the same and haven't yet abandoned them, though it may have been touch and go sometimes.
You have a different sort of connection to your family and close friends than you do to a stranger who you have never met I hope.
Had my brother lived a life like Lindas- maybe I feel some obligation to go above and beyond to feel something he doesn't deserve. As these are total strangers- I feel pity only for those who actually deserve it. A few do...
Linda does not
But that's just my opinion Grim- and it wont change bud :)
Grim,
ReplyDeleteI read Col Scott's piece when putting this together because I found something that led me there- might have been googling Fleischman. If you really want my opinion- to me it confirms she had no intention of testifying. Look at the words Mr. Fleischman uses- I see him convincing her she needed to be a prosecution witness and helping her knock Atkins out of the box. I don't read her responding, "no, its ok I'll testify anyway". It is an interesting piece especially given the Odyssey piece. Fits her personality (disorder?).
I am unclear what you mean by the 'got in Parent's car' issue. Its been awhile but I think I recall she said she took his wallet. You can correct me on that one. But......
1. (One) - wallet - brown plastic with misc. ID of S.E. Parent.
2. (One) - $5 bill; serial #J35728714.
3. (Four) - $1 bills; serial #L713312991, #FS70065680, #G10854391G, #R74795353B.
She didn't- from the Police Property Report (from the coroner)- the wallet is there, his glasses are not (sorry, couldn't resist).
You believe she was largely an accurate witness. You are certainly entitled to that because we can't read her mind. I believe she was not and the same applies on my end.
I see the physical evidence not lining up with her testimony, her line of sight doesn't seem to allow her to see everything she has mentioned (I'm working on that one), several of her statements 'just don't make no sense' and many were brought out by leading questions. I'm not even convinced 100% she was ever standing on that sidewalk nor am I convinced she wasn't inside the house (yes, I see the inconsistency). And there are events that logically it seems she had to see that she says she didn't. That's what I mean by not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You don't agree. All is good.
On a different note: RH- nice post. Made me think.
I will not praise Deb because she is awesome and already knows it.
ReplyDeleteBut no mention of LADY DANGEROUS? I can still see Bill Nelson (Molesto)'s banner headline when he did the Lady Dangerous report. Goddamn I am tripping back to like 1998. How could you skip that?
https://web.archive.org/web/20021014185811/http://www.mansonmurders.com/kasabianreport.html
ReplyDeletehttps://web.archive.org/web/20001003172732/http://www.mansonmurders.com/kasabian.html
Basically lovely Little Tonya ended up in State Prison for drugs
Omg yes Patty remembers that now
ReplyDeletePrevention...that's the big picture
ReplyDeleteInteresting read from a fellow unsuspecting Martial Artist that directly relates to this case.
Here: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-truth-about-violence
NEVER, EVER...let someone tie you up!
As for Linda... I care less about her past as she killed no one!
Are any of you people aware of the history of Jehanna D'arc...AKA Jone of Arc?
ReplyDeleteDelusional...maybe, but it would be the equivalent of Lesley Van Houten taking her knife and not killing innocent soft targets, but storming the LAPD for her beliefs.
Have a look here: https://www.google.com/search?q=jehanne+d%27arc&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=joan+of+arc+book+pdf&start=10
ReplyDeleteBack on subject...read anything by FBI profiler John Douglas and why Linda is a good person compared to the rest. "Journey into Darkness" is a good start.
yeah, let's all comply with Saint. Let's save our sympathies only for those He deems good. Clearly, in his eyes he is as highly qualified to judge as God. And let's take it a step further - let's only have sympathy for the good looking, and also for those making 100K.
ReplyDeleteSaint, my ass. Sanctimonious, elitist narcissist is more like it. As opposite the teachings of Christ as one can get.
Is Linda a good person? Who amongst us can judge? But she testified against great danger. She clearly loved her children and tried to be a good mother. Some folk are just simply born under a bad sign, cursed with to much anger, desperation and bad judgement in their DNA. That just may be Linda's story in a nutshell. There but for the grace of....go you and I.
Barbara Pennell was a hottie.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHope your health is well Leary :)
ReplyDeleteMan, that got ugly in a hurry. Can't we all just get along? :-)
ReplyDeleteNahh... all good :)
ReplyDelete"When they go low- I get high"
ReplyDeleteor something like that lol
I think my age (time to come full circle) gives me an advantage to understand some things others don't have.
ReplyDeleteI have (after many years) had discussions with folks that I had "conflicts" with (earlier in life) and almost always THEY saw the "conflict" in a DIFFERENT light than ME. And then there are universal "changes" in "perceptions" that take place over extended time. The Vietnam WAR and those that "served" and those that didn't is NOW becoming a subject of contention.
'Drunkenness' is perhaps the perfect example of a mental controversy ? Back in the day drunkenness and mentally altering ones mind with drugs was considered BAD, because only losers did that. But NOW, "drunkenness" is considered to be the by-product of a DISEASE. And IF a soldier goes out NOW and shoots-up the town, it's likely because HE has PTSD.
I recently heard that the police chief of a major city was going to bring in "grief" counselers to treat his officers for mental "trama," because some of THEIR buddies were KILLED in a shoot-out with a crazy guy. So I suspect that IF the TATE / LaBianca massacre took place today, they would be filling the ambulances with cops who got nauseated and pass-out.
"It's a different world and it's not even the same ocean." said the leader of some long-hairs - and that's how dangerous DRUGS can be. Obama just pardoned a woman who was serving "life" in Federal prison for helping a friend to launder some "drug" money.
So what can possess an otherwise normal human being to gamble with THEIR entire life on this earth, which is likely to be the REAL heaven.
Saint- I commend you for your deletions. Well done.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Saint do now? Attack me again or some shit?
ReplyDeleteDreath said...
ReplyDeleteIf you really want my opinion- to me it confirms she had no intention of testifying
And yet, she did testify.
I agree with you to an extent. After all, before August '69 was out, she had told at least 4 people {and possibly 6} about the murders or events surrounding them, but not LE. She does go on to say that it was because she did not want to face the whole thing while pregnant, but still, she knew she was pregnant when she told her husband, Joe Sage and Jeffrey Jacobs.
The intention of testifying I guess only becomes a hot issue after the indictments and at that point, is it really unusual for there to have been some uncertainty on her part as to what she was going to do ?
Look at the words Mr. Fleischman uses- I see him convincing her she needed to be a prosecution witness
That was interesting. But again, while Susan was playing ball, Linda was surplus to requirements.
and helping her knock Atkins out of the box
That's the part I really don't believe. I'm not saying the 'Linda kites in Charlie speak' didn't happen, just that I don't believe that had anything to do with Susan recanting. It certainly wasn't even a consideration when she gives her own point of view on why she recanted.
All 5 Tate/LaBianca killers, when apart from Charlie told others he'd orchestrated the murders. When he meets up with or has contact with Pat, she waives extradition, even though she's told Claude Brown she's scared of Manson finding & killing her. When he sends Gypsy & Squeaky to Leslie, even though she's implicated him in the murders and helter skeltered all over the shop, she declares she'll do anything he says and doesn't care if she sniffs gas and what she told Marvin Part is never made public {until 2015}. When Charlie meets with Susan, even though she's plumbed him firmly in it with confessions, articles, interviews,a book and a grand jury starring role, she recants and ends up granting herself a one way ticket to oblivion.
Coincidence ?
Tex and Linda, on the other hand, don't see or have contact with Charlie and stick with their stories {even though we know Tex's is bullshit, some of Linda's is corroborated by Joe Sage}.
Coincidence ?
Fits her personality (disorder?)
I don't see her as having a personality disorder, just a consistently lawless mindset, which doesn't invalidate her ability or sometime willingness to do what is right.
I am unclear what you mean by the 'got in Parent's car' issue. Its been awhile but I think I recall she said she took his wallet. You can correct me on that one. But..
What I meant was that she said Tex told her to get Steven's wallet. She admits to getting into the car and being struck by the body being there but the spirit not. But she never says she took the wallet, though the general assumption was that she had. And the wallet, as you've pointed out, was found on Parent.
You don't agree. All is good
I do believe she was largely accurate for the parts that mattered. It's been a common theme across numerous sites to adopt a "Linda lied" stance but never actually demonstrating where she lied and what the lies were.
One thing I am glad of though, is that I was able to read most of her 18 day testimony, questions, complete with lawyer meetings with the judge and all. That gave me an insight that Bugliosi & Gentry's book doesn't even hint at, though it initially inspired it.
Never Col... lol
ReplyDeleteI let someone else get under my skin for about a minute... But my days of name calling with strangers are over, and I don't want to take any focus off this amazing first time effort from Dreath....
:)
The recent revelation of the close proximity of the apartment where Saladin Nader allegedly lived and the HQ of the Straight Satans is something that cannot be dismissed as pure Coincidence.
ReplyDeleteWhen one looks at this case, it's almost miraculous that Vincent Bugliosi had a scenario that answered so many important questions and that the answers all seemed to help his case greatly. Not only that, they all happened to be dramatic and under the surfaces lurks alternative and more reasonable possibilities.
For example: Bugliosi had a problem. His case went like this:
"Charles Manson sent out from the fires of hell at Spahn Ranch three heartless, bloodthirsty robots and--unfortunately for him--one human being, the hippie girl Linda Kasabian."
How perfect did the stars align for the prosecutor that there was one angel among the group. Of course he knew from the start the jury would question this. The big question: How do WE know she wouldn't kill? How do we know she didn't take part in some act of violence?
Lo' and be hold, Bugliosi had a perfect scenario to answer this very important question and yet, when one looks at where that apartment was, it seems like another kill two birds with one stone job. That is cover something up, replace it with something dramatic to help my case.
Bug said Linda wasn't involved in any trouble prior to being at Spahn, yet he forgets she did admit to dealing drugs. Like the silly hitchhiking story about Wilson, I now wonder if her account of meeting with the Spahn circle wasn't another white wash.
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteThe "They had really bad backgrounds and nowhere else to turn" sympathy is appropriate in cases like....
It's paradoxical. There is simply no hard and fast rule for this. As you pointed out, different people respond so very differently to similar situations.
The real Losers in the entire saga are the victims and their families
I don't know. It probably seems quite insensitive to say this, but lots of people have lost loved ones to murderous violence and in addition, Rosemary LaBianca's daughter Suzan at one point demonstrated that not only was it possible to get over it, but that forgiveness and it's aftermath were realistic propositions.
Dreath said...
I think what might have happened with Atkins instead of Kasabian is you might not be talking as much about Helter Skelter as a motive
Possibly. But I don't think so. In a sense, Helter Skelter and Susan Atkins developed as parallel lines during the investigation. Even to this day, what makes HS so strong is that it kept on coming up. It came up from a variety of sources, some of whom weren't even in the Family. Susan herself brought it up when speaking initially with Howard & Graham. She ran with it all the way until the penalty phase. She was one of the earliest to actually begin the process of putting flesh on Skelter's bones. Linda on the other hand, understood it on a level but it hadn't taken a major grip on her consciousness. Her most interesting revelation on it came actually during the Watson trial, when HS is not emphasized the way it was in the TLB trial. Neither Susan nor Linda were major league contributors to HS in the grand scheme of things.
I guess we'll never know, but there are many people wondering how different things would have been had Pat never daubed "Healter Skelter" on the LaBianca's fridge.
There are several occasions where he brings out testimony he doesn't need for a conviction just to make her look good
There are more than several occasions when Kanarek brings out testimony he doesn't really need just to make her look bad. I guess almost all is fair in love and war.
Dreath said...
ReplyDeleteI have for the past many years looked at these crimes from the prospective of how I might have handled the defense. That makes Ms. Kasabian (as the key witness) a bit of pet project of mine
What sort of things would you have done that weren't done by the defence ?
There are multiple times where her testimony is not supported by the physical (objective) evidence
Can you enumerate some of them ? Not because I'm being argumentative {after all, I am the current holder of the Consensusinidem award of the most pedantic know it all on the TLB blogs ☺} but because I'm curious.
Her background should have had a greater impact
Well, during the 11 days she was grilled by the defence, we learn a lot of stuff about Linda Kasabian. There were bits that really made her look cheap, like when it was brought out that Joe Sage helped her out with money and Gary Fleischman's name because he wanted her to be his doxy.....and she obliged ! While she has a husband who is knocking off some other woman and she's worried about her child.
There were a number of details like this that came out, even worse ones during the Watson trial. It seemed to make little difference because when push came to shove, the jury wanted to know what happened during those two nights of murder and all the sidetracking in the world couldn't get in the way of that. We may be more sophisticated now {or maybe just more easily sucked in by salacious red herrings} but the jury often gets a bad press, being portrayed as ignorant ding~a~lings that were easily swayed by Nixon {never mind that some of them had no time for Nixon} whereas if you ask me, they were pretty conscientious for the most part.
On top of that, Linda bared all, which made it difficult for any historical shit to stick. And wherever she tripped up, she corrected herself somewhere later.
All the stuff we're interested in wasn't of such weighty consideration for a jury that wanted facts about who did what and why and were they guilty ?
And there are times her testimony 'just don't make no sense'
There were times when Kanarek's questions just made no sense ! He'd lose his train of thought and numerous times the Judge would ask him to put things in ways that could be understood because he didn't have a clue what Irving was on about. There are so many times when he asks Linda if she has understood the question. Reading the transcript, sometimes one has to go over his words two or three times and even then they don't line up.
But to be fair, there are quite a few times throughout the original trial where stuff from Family members appears to be translated from Japanese into Russian into French into Balilese into English ! And let's not even go there with Tex and his backward Shakespearean mono~dimensional twang. But at least he had an excuse......
Grim- respectfully one question:
ReplyDeleteNo hard and fast rules agreed, but let me ask you this?
Do you not think there is a difference between a person like Ruth who was 15 when her father starting using hard drugs with her and in front of her, and encouraging her to have sex with older strangers WINDING UP hanging around the wrong crowd...
And a single mother like Linda who has parents willing to help her stay out of trouble and encourage her not to be in trouble yet consistently throughout her life CHOOSES to be with the wrong crowd????
I don't think money or looks has anything to do with it, nor do I personally care much who anyone else has sympathy for. I only decide how I wanna feel. Everyone can form their own about Linda.
Mine is that Linda left her child with a group of people she knew were capable of murder to save her own ass. She did drugs with her child and basically spent her whole life making sure that her child would have the most stressful and illegal life possible. That is not my version of Clearly loving your children, but again these are just my opinions.
Both of these people were involved in murder or attempted murder. All I am saying is that if your going to make a case for sympathy or redemption- who is a better choice? And Ruthann ended up turning out ok- even more of a reason phrases like "Dark to Light" apply- if you have to use them at all.
I admit I am a little surprised people will defend Linda Kasabian so fiercely. I get why people get pissy over Deb Tate and Bugs. But again, I would think people on both sides of this would have issues with her. The people I have met who support Charlie cant stand her. I don't know anyone who defends the victims who thinks she is any kind of a hero...
But again. It doesn't need to be personal. I read this post and it clearly paints a picture to me that maybe others see differently. That is o.k.
If you read this post and think Linda is someone to pity and use positive phrases for, or defend- that is cool as the other side of the pillow. I read it otherwise.
Grim,
ReplyDeleteI love you to death and read everything you post but you have a tendency to 'move the goal posts' which makes responding to you rather difficult. But, again, all good.
I think part of where our paths parallel instead of cross is training. In the most beloved profession in America we are trained to disregard the Parry Mason notion of courtrooms: someone actually out and out lying on the witness stand. In 30 years I have had that happen twice I can remember. You are trained, instead, to focus on "indicia of credibility and reliability". That's why anything said after a leading question should be tossed in the waste bin. You leave it to someone else to decide if someone is lying: judge or jury.
So I'm not trying to prove Kasabian is actually lying. I care what holes there are in her testimony and where those holes actually lead. Or for purposes of this blog do they show an alternative narrative to what is the official narrative.
If I point all these out here I won't have things to post in the future ;-). Some I'm not done pondering, some need more research and I am trying to find an expert or two. Anyone know an expert on 1966 Ambassadors?
I have read the trial transcripts, I know that site.
If Fleischmann actually did come up with that plan to knock Atkins out of the last seat in the life boat it was brilliant.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is an interesting quote from Fleischmann in an issue of the Free Press prior to Kasabian becoming the star witness. He said something to the effect that Charlie had a very strong case and that there was pretty much no evidence against him. Funny how his client shortly after turned out to be the best evidence against him.
ReplyDeleteIF I was one of the defense attorneys, I would have asked Linda and most other Prosecution witnesses:
ReplyDelete1) I'm a little confused and maybe you can help us ALL understand this Helter Skelter business a little better. Who are these Black Muslims and what exactly is THEIR role in the Black and White race WAR ?
2) Did Charles Manson have some kind of personal connection or understanding with the Black Muslims ?
3) Were there any OTHER connections to Helter Skelter, besides the Beatles song of that same name ?
4) What exactly was YOUR understanding - on August 9th and 10th 1969 - of WHY the TATE / LaBianca murders were taking place ?
I am quite sure that the answer to number 4 is Helter Skelter Mr. H.
ReplyDeleteI an not sure that was the real reason Charlie instigated the murders -but that is the reason Linda,Tex,Katie,Leslie and Susan went and committed them.
They have all been saying so for many years.
We can try to figure it out ourselves. We can listen to Schrek and George and the others who came later claiming to have talked to everyone around the actual killers.
Or we can listen to the animals who actually did it?????? Just a thought.
It brings me back to my favorite question about motive. Lets say Charlie did orchestrate the crimes and he had some private or secret motivation only a very few were aware of. But if he did use Helter Skleter to motivate the others to do the crimes for him, and those who actually did the killing- thought they were doing it in the name of Helter Skleter....
Which is the real motive? To me it seems that whatever Pat and Tex thought they were killing people for- would be the motivation or motive for the crime by definition.
Even if they realize they were duped later. At the time they went over and killed those people because they believed it was for H/S. They have all said that. So to me even if there is more to the story- the actual motive = the actual reason they went over and killed. I still see no proof that any of the actual killers had any other reason- outside of runmor and innuendo.
But thy have all said H/S was the driving force behind what they were trying to accomplish.
PS- George and Schreck have spoken to all the people around the killers- not claimed to speak to them- my poor choice of wording... I meant that they claim to know the "Real motive"
ReplyDeleteMy apologies George. I liked your book and you- but don't agree with your conclusions :)
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteand then left her child with the people who she knew committed them
While this is generally taken as evidence of her total unfitness as a parent, for me it's more significant that she left her kid with a group whose child rearing methods she did not like than the fact that they had murdered. But it also denotes the paradox that was the Family. I believe her when she says that she was not worried about Tonya's actually being in danger. It also partly explains why she never went to LE {not that that was uppermost in her considerations !}. But kids were revered in the Family which made Tonya safer. Bob Kasabian wanted to go and storm the castle gates to retrieve Tonya but that would have resulted in danger for all 3 Kasabians. 2 facts will always remain, namely that Tonya was safe and returned safely and that Linda set out out to retrieve her and did so.
even in the worst of circumstances- people can make their own fate / But not Linda. She chose to be the way she was
Around the age of 14, I chose to be the way I am and have been doing so ever since. But this has always been subject to alteration, progression, sideways steps, change, being unwise, you know, life.
Manson Mythos said...
The recent revelation of the close proximity of the apartment where Saladin Nader allegedly lived and the HQ of the Straight Satans is something that cannot be dismissed as pure Coincidence
Of course it can !
In a city where different Family members had various dealings, if some of those places were near each other, what is unusual about that ? It doesn't make sense to suppose that they're all independently connected just because you don't want to accept the overall result and certain aspects that led to that result.
Manson Mythos said...
ReplyDeleteWhen one looks at this case, it's almost miraculous that Vincent Bugliosi had a scenario that answered so many important questions and that the answers all seemed to help his case greatly
Is that not what one might expect when, from a number of disparate sources, details and events match up and dovetail ? Many of those important questions were answered because they could be answered. Does this not happen in many, many court cases ? Did Bugliosi actually use any scenario that did not come from someone else ? A month before he was even on the case, the police had Charles Manson down as a suspect and things were unravelling.
Not only that, they all happened to be dramatic and under the surfaces lurks alternative and more reasonable possibilities
All happened to be dramatic ? Hardly surprising given the dramatic nature of the cast of characters. But that's a subjective judgement. Reading through the court transcripts, what is often presented in HS as a dramatic moment is actually quite tame. A good example is that Mike McGann interview of Leslie that CieloDrive.com put up. You can barely hear the dialogue and the transcript is full of "(Unintelligible)" and there are things she actually says that are not written in the transcript. She sounds very laconic and flat. The parts I found 'dramatic' would probably pass many people by. But Bugliosi's write up of it makes it sound like a sensational groundbreaking moment that was obvious to all.
I was made to live in Nigeria at the age of 14 without being informed {I was on holiday}. I ended up running away at 18 and skipped the country. When I've told people of how I came to be living there and what I experienced in those 4 years and how I got away, people think it's ever such a dramatic tale. I've never thought of it like that. To me, it was just what was happening as I went through it.
As for there being alternative possibilities, that's rather like saying there was a Wednesday last week. No big deal. Of course there could have been alternative possibilities. If one of the ones that you obviously wanted {the "reasonable" ones} had been accepted as the one, exactly the same thing could be said.
How perfect did the stars align for the prosecutor that there was one angel among the group
At this point, I always like to say that being an angel is not a guaranteed beautiful thing.
Satan's an angel !
The big question: How do WE know she wouldn't kill? How do we know she didn't take part in some act of violence?
We don't know she wouldn't kill. We don't know you wouldn't strangle a Granny or torch a house while it's occupants are asleep.
We don't know she didn't take part in acts of violence. But if anyone has known for the last 47 years, they ain't been talking. Why ?
Lo' and be hold, Bugliosi had a perfect scenario to answer this very important question
You make it sound like he made it up !
If Kasabian was what you are implying here, Nader would be dead and with Clem and Sadie as accomplices, no one would be any the wiser. In his testimony Clem part corroborated Linda's account and Susan part did to both Richard Caballero and the Grand jury and then later when she was writing her books.
and yet, when one looks at where that apartment was, it seems like another kill two birds with one stone job. That is cover something up, replace it with something dramatic to help my case
I guess there's absolutely no possibility whatsoever that her story was true....
Why would any lawyer not want to help their case ?
Bug said Linda wasn't involved in any trouble prior to being at Spahn, yet he forgets she did admit to dealing drugs
Did he actually say that ? And if so, in what context ?
RH:
ReplyDeleteMaybe like this?
1. They were to be the vanguard the race war. Look at what Malcolm X had said and look at what the Black Panthers are saying in 1969. Besides, counsellor, J. Edgar Hoover head your the FBI agrees with me.
2. No counselor, I think that's a stretch but Manson certainly heard what they were saying while in prison and heard them and knew what they were seeking. He knew the revolutionary struggle had to abandon the failed policies of men like Martin Luther King, the 'old' left and even the 'new' left. Those failed strategies are ineffective in bringing about change. That change must include the BPPs Ten Points. It is time for the oppressed minorities and especially the black man to throw off the continued vestiges of slavery and seize what is rightfully theirs- take back the fruits of their 200 years of slave labor.
3. Groups like the Revolutionary Youth Movement- Weather Underground and precursors to the SLA like those in the Revolutionary Union who support the strategy of urban warfare espoused by people like H Bruce Franklin and the leadership of Venceramos (sp?) are with us in spirit if not in direct alliance. It is time to bring the world-wide struggle- the war, back to the US to raise up the black man and bring down capitalism. The failed policies of passive resistance, marching and speeches must give way to the use of violence to bring about social change because the pigs are using violence against us. All those who oppose us are 'pigs' and to paraphrase a line used in connection with that bastion of capitalism, Wall Street, 'pigs' get eaten.
4. Now that is a great question and I decline to answer on grounds I might further incriminate myself.
How's that?
Dreath, I seem to agree with most things you have said.
ReplyDeleteDoes it carry any weight with you that The Actual Killers say they want there to ignite H/S???
It is very possible and probable that there was other reasons for those crimes and those two houses. But is like a badge of honor to people to refuse to give H.S any weight at all...
And it just seems strange to me that nobody is willing to consider it at all, as even a possibility, when all of the actual killers themselves have repeated the validation that it was for over 40 years with the exact same stories, and memories.
you can hear the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation in the voice of a sobered up- middle aged Leslie Van Houten as she tries to explain H/S and the "Hole in the Desert" to her parole boards. Why would she put herself though that if she wasn't trying as hard as she could to be honest and get herself out? Pat too- and their stories are all the same after all these years.
I ask myself these things when telling myself it cant be H/S because everyone in TLB land says so..
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteGeorge and Schreck have spoken to all the people around the killers
And yet are no more agreed on the motive. Both have different conclusions.
I don't know what you get from that but I know what I get from that.
Dreath said...
you have a tendency to 'move the goal posts' which makes responding to you rather difficult
If by that you mean that I seem to jump around on the subjects and quotes I'll comment on, that's true. That's because sometimes, my thoughts on part of something that someone has said aren't formulated at the moment that I'm answering but other things that have been said have sparked off my train of thought or brought up an answer or a question.
Other times, I'll need to do a bit of research so an answer won't be forthcoming straight away.
Other times, just in general thought, I might have a sudden insight on something someone has said because I've been thinking about it; but that might be days later.
I hope that's what you mean. Over here in Englang, 'moving the goal posts' can mean altering the rules/argument as and when one feels like it. It's not a fair or valuable trait to have.
we are trained to disregard the Parry Mason notion of courtrooms: someone actually out and out lying on the witness stand
That makes good sense and allows for nuances.
If Perry and other legal dramas were like real life in courtrooms, few would watch them !
You are trained, instead, to focus on "indicia of credibility and reliability"
That's partly why people on trial will dress "respectably." ☺ ☺
But always focusing on credibility and reliability of a witness can lead to an assumption that if they aren't reliable, that they aren't telling the truth or if they can be shown to be not credible, that whatever they say shouldn't really be entertained. If it comes out that a witness has two convictions, one for bestiality involving a local horse and the other for sexually abusing one of their siblings, the other side will lean hard on that. Try to make an impact, as you put it previously.
But it could be so that in this particular instance, that witness is telling the truth. Credible doesn't always equal reliable and vice versa.
That's why anything said after a leading question should be tossed in the waste bin
Do you mean by the jury ?
Do you feel Judge Older was somewhat derelict in his duty by letting so many leading questions go through ?
So I'm not trying to prove Kasabian is actually lying. I care what holes there are in her testimony and where those holes actually lead
I can dig that. I find some of the holes {depending on what one may see as a hole} lead to interesting places but still nowhere that dents her essential picture of what happened.
Or for purposes of this blog do they show an alternative narrative to what is the official narrative
In terms of why they were put away, I've yet to be convinced that the alternatives proposed have been what actually took place. When you have three major league supporters of Charlie that have had his ear, for example, such as Nicholas Shreck, our own George and AC Fisher Aldag all espousing different narratives, one can't help but wonder and make the comparison with the confusion that existed in the Family in the first place, with Susan saying this, Squeaky, Brenda & Sandy saying that, Linda saying the other, Tex saying blurb and Pat incoherent yet pointing to a big clue with her writing and Leslie saying something else.
It seems to be catching around Charlie.
If Fleischmann actually did come up with that plan to knock Atkins out of the last seat in the life boat it was brilliant
Truly.
That said, Richard Caballero had said all along that he felt Susan would never testify against Charlie at trial. I wonder if he and Fleischmann were on friendly terms.....
Saint,
ReplyDeleteIf you are referring to that post above, I think that is entirely consistent with HS. Don't get me wrong I do not believe any of these crazies actually had thought processes like that. But I do think that atmosphere at the time contributed to the events.
I think after I began to beleive it was extraordinarily difficult to connect Tate and LaBianca on any other theory you are sort of left with HS or something like it. Perhaps soemthing more general.
Do I give weight to what anyone says after they were convicted: Not much. After they are convicted they need to embrace the official narrative or they don't get out. But now and again one does sort of let something out that is interesting. It is usually something unrelated to what they are being asked like Krenwinkel’s ‘Sharon wasn’t supposed to be there’ comment I read about somewhere.
But ‘no’ I am do not reject HS out of hand.
Sandy Good said that on a talk show she was on with George and Patti and I think Bugs might have been there too.
ReplyDeleteThanks though. I think we agree again. Im open to another motive and assuming there probably is one, but cant find the same evidence for it that I can for H/S- all am I saying...
By the way Dreath - if you have never seen it you can go to Back Porch Tapes and watch the video of Beatrice Berry Show- or Bertrice Berry? One or the other...
ReplyDeleteA young Sprite George Stimson and Sandy sit inches away from Bugs and Patti Tate and they all have a pretty good go at it as far as motive and other things :)
Grim,
ReplyDeleteProbably ‘move the goal posts’ was not the best turn of a phrase. I did not mean to offend and apoligise if I did.
You said: Do you mean by the jury ?
Do you feel Judge Older was somewhat derelict in his duty by letting so many leading questions go through ?
You know I swore I wasn’t going to do this. But here you go.
Short answer: no, Kanarek’s endless objections allowed Bugliosi to get in statements he should not have. Here is an example. The brackets are my comments.
Q (by Bugliosi). About what time did you arrive at the place?
A (by Kasabian). I don't know.
Q. Now, give me an approximation.
A. Maybe around the middle of the night. It was dark for 4 or 5 hours, after it had been dark.
Q. Four or 5 hours after it became dark? [Her statement obviously threw Bugliosi]
A. Yes. [STOP right here! Anything she says next is what I mean by 'unreliable'. She answered the question. She answered the follow up question and confirmed her understanding of the arrival time. She told the jury her perception of what time they arrived at Cielo Drive given they had no clocks. The problem of course is that Bugliosi does not want that answer. He wants midnight. He wants Rudy Weber and the hose at 1:00 but most of all he wants Tim Ireland's description of the scream before 1:00. So here comes the leading question.]
Q. Now, when you say the middle of the night do you mean 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning or do you mean midnight? [Bugliosi gives her the answer. She need only repeat his words. Perhaps he even was trying to remind her about the importance of midnight, we'll never know.]
MR.KANAREK: Compound, your Honor, leading and suggestive. [Kanarek realizes something is wrong but whiffs by making too many objections and making them in the wrong order. Strike 1!]
MR.BUGLIOSI: It is not a compound question, it is one single question. [This is very good lawyering. He ignores the good objection and focuses on the ‘compound’ objection. He is right, the question is not compound. But he never answers the ‘leading the witness’ objection. The question is leading, he’s suggesting the answer in his question.]
MR.KANAREK: He is arguing with the witness, your Honor. [Off course he goes adding a third objection. Strike Two!]
THE COURT: Overruled. [Strike 3! and the reward......]
A. I cannot say a definite time because, as I said before, I had no concept of time when I was there. I would say roughly around midnight. [And Bugliosi leads a reluctant Kasabian to the answer he wants.]
But her last statement in the world of saintly jurists is not 'reliable': you as the listener/ reader should stop listening/reading where indicated. After that it is Bugliosi, not Kasabian who is testifying.
Do I mean the jury should disregard it? If Kanarek had handled this properly they never would have heard it.
I'll stop now. Sorry.
No dont stop Dreath...what happens next ? ...lol... your insight is interesting reading..
DeleteThanks Saint, I will check that out.
ReplyDeleteYou shouldn't stop- that is fascinating stuff...
ReplyDeleteSaint,
ReplyDeleteI just watched that. When Patti Tate asks Good why her sister had to die. Before goofball goes off on Hollywood did I hear her initially say 'she shouldn't have been there'? or is that just my imagination......running away with me.
That's the point lol. You said Kreneinkle said it. It's always the Charlie supporters who make those statements and spread those stories about other motives.
ReplyDeleteThe ones who actually did it and had to pay for it all say the same thing. That matters to me
They have a need for HS to be wrong. It Gets Charlie off the hook. They only want one thing. Charlie out and free.
ReplyDeleteIt can't be HS because that makes Charlie responsible. But the people who count are the ones who did the crime.
So that's who I listen to
Testifying before the jury that it was all them and Charlie had nothing to do with it isn't exactly the best way to demonstrate the prosecutor was wrong. While the attorneys dropped the defense on the ground's they didn't want their clients to commit suicide, Fitzgerald at least voiced the opinion it would have been suicide for Manson as well, as it would have only proven Bugliosi's case right.
ReplyDeleteWhat is funny, is that Manson is demonized for supposedly trying to make the girls take the rap to save him. Overlooking the fact that Atkins sold him out pretty fast and Leslie lined up right behind her to do the same by puttin' on the crazy brainwashed act with Marvin Part...which Tex actually did to, although failed.
We also overlook the fact both Manson and the girls could have easily attempted to put the entire thing on Tex Watson. If Manson was the God to these people and everyone else was disposable.
Lol......I thought you sent me there for the motive bit. I still thought I read something somewhere that Krenwinkel said it at a parole hearing or something. It doesn't really matter.
ReplyDeleteI think if it has any legs it makes it worse if they were stalking the house- can you say 'premeditation' or 'conspiracy'. It just raises for me the specter that if there was more planning ....by whom?
I personally think if you wrote the HS motive out of this Manson ends up exactly where he is. As soon as he enters the LaBianca house, ties them up tells them not to worry it is only a robbery he is done.
I am not convinced the motive as described by Bugliosi is 100% accurate. I think goofy's comments about 'being at war' and 'casualties of war' are interesting. I also don't think it let's Manson 'off the hook'.
Then again if Van Houten really wanted to cut holes in her shirt for her elf wings maybe a bottomless pit with a secret magical realm, living there for 100 years and growing to 144,000 souls was part of it. I wonder if that cabinet they found Manson in was more important...you know, you had to go through a wardrobe to get there.
Favorite Buglioli line: Manson loved children and animals. So did Hitler.
Here is a fact: Krenwinkel never said the motive was Helter Skelter.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point: Kasabian never said the motive was Helter Skelter. She said Manson supposedly announced it was "time" (seemingly out of the blue) for Helter Skelter. BUT Bugliosi said she (only she oddly) thought it was a creepy crawl mission. When Larry King asked her if at any point she asked Manson why are we doing this and why are these people being killed, she was at a total loss for words until Bugliosi spoke up and answered for her. Apprently asking why was out of line and a sin. But telling Charlie "You drive" and "I'm not you Charlie" was OK?
ReplyDeleteAbout the license, it had to be expired. Bugliosi said that was the ONLY reason she was "picked". But the day after the Tate murders, she went to deliver a message to Beausolei and was turned away because she didn't have proper ID. What other ID would she have used? It had to be her DL and it was rejected due to being expired it.
ReplyDeleteThis supports the copy cat motive. Because certainly the message couldn't be, "sorry you're in jail bud, but we kicked started a global race war last night".
MM,
ReplyDeleteThank you on the PK- I didn't recall her saying it was but didn't know.
I think you have to be a bit careful. I draw a line at the trials. Sort of a before and after. When you get to the heart of it, it is Bugliosi who says the motive was HS (+ megalomania+ anti-social hatred of the establishment+ lust for murder depending on when). Of course that's his job. After the trials you have 'the' motive and it is in their best interest to jump on the band wagon.
'Now is the time for HS' only works if you have three parts: (1.) Now is the time + (2.) 'show the blacks how its done' + (3.) ' kill the white man'. You are correct, alone it is meaningless.
That is not a fact at all...
ReplyDeleteHere is just one example- Leslie and Pat on Diane Sawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn2zULFwB_w&list=RDXghrXEKLNhw&index=4
MM said: About the license, it had to be expired.
ReplyDeleteGood one. I don't remember did she show a license or maybe she didn't even have one to show? Deemers doesn't have her even having one but since Mark Ross and others are on the list he must have been updating after she got picked up?
MM said: This supports the copy cat motive. Because certainly the message couldn't be, "sorry you're in jail bud, but we kicked started a global race war last night".
Lol. Don't post that when I'm taking a drink of beer.
Saint said: That is not a fact at all...
ReplyDeleteUh oh, not being a 'motive guy' I best stay out of this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry, St. but there is nothing in that video where Krenwinkel talks about HS. She has always maintained at hearing she knew nothing about that being a motive and says she thought it was a robbery.
ReplyDeleteNice jab at Trump supporters too. So according to you people who defend an alleged mass murderer and those who support Trump are the same "idiots". But a vote for a real mass murderer like Clinton is the better choice. Because the media and Bernie told me so.
I'm with you fellas.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbout Nadar.
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point, Grim. Whether Linda engaged in any violence or had the ability to do so isn't the big question here. But to the jury back in 1969, it was. As long as that question hung in the air unanswered, the jury would have a hard time believing Linda Kasabian and Bugliosi's claim that out of all these people who were fully ready, willing and able to murder for Charles Manson, there was one out of the group who happened to be an angel who thought it was simply a "creepy crawl mission".
Not only did he answer that question, there was an entire scenario where not only was she asked and had a weapon put in her hand, but one in which she also proved to be a hero and thwart the plan and save a life! WOW! How perfect. It's questionable to anybody with an objectionable mind who can smell bullshit. Always was. Now taken into considering the location this apparently took place. With the events leading up to the TLB murders, one is very naive to think the trip to Venice was just for no real reason. But Bugliosi it appears killed two birds with one stone. Replace something detrimental to his case with something beneficial. A trip to see the SS might have broken his case apart and make another witness (DeCarlo) useless. Or even implicate him.
Based upon what ex-members recently revealed about the Hinman murder and DeCarlo, the maker who interviewed these people believes that DeCarlo should and hopefully WILL be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. But I'll say no more and wait for the film to be released.
Also, if you believe what is written in the Guinn book, while she didn't say Kasabian engaged in any violent acts, she claims she didn't do any of what she said on the stand. No screaming for it to stop, etc.
The Clinton supporter saying people blindly follower a liar...LOL.
ReplyDeleteDespite her being responsible for mass destruction and chaos over seas, the death of thousands, creation of a monstrous terrorist organization and lying to the American people and blaming Trump for a rise in animosity towards the west and not her own war crimes.
Try looking beyond the headlines and surface and try to use that brain.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI've also seem Clinton supporters attack elderly people with their fists for having a Trump hat. So shove it up your ass. Maybe you should judge what you think based on your own heart and not others.
ReplyDelete...in other words, you have no arguement.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKasabian Thought for the Day:
ReplyDeleteIf Watson is attacking Voytek.....
"And while this was going on, the man had gotten up, and I saw Tex on top of him, hitting him on the head and stabbing him, and the man was struggling,"
And Krenwinkel is chasing Abigail......
"then I saw Katie in the background with the girl, chasing after her with an upraised knife,"
And this is was happening thirty feet outside the door........
"And then Sadie came running out of the house, and I said, "Sadie, please make it stop." And then I said, "People are coming." And she said, "It's too late." "
Who was watching Sharon Tate?
Opinion: "That just don't make no sense".
MM,
ReplyDeleteShould I assume you don't believe Manson is innocent of any crime and are arguing motive and reasons testimony is weak, etc, a lot of which I probably agree with? If you are saying he is wrongly in jail.....
As soon as Manson enters the LaBianca house, ties them up, tells them not to worry it is only a robbery he is done as soon as someone is murdered, especially IF he then told the rest to kill them but even if he didn't......
That, my friend, is felony murder and, no, it doesn't matter you, personally, didn't 'intend' to kill anyone. Ask Van Houten.
Low level of intelligence: thinking a socialist was going to turn the United States into an idealist utopia where college was free, black people got reparations and Marijuana grew wild for all to partake.
ReplyDeleteLow level of intelligence: Thinking a heavily funded (by much richer and evil "white men" than Trump) warmongering globalist who overthrows other country with aggressive "intervention" while hiding behind noble motives is a leftist savior. Because the socialist told me to vote for her, despite only weeks earlier being the leader of a revolution against the 1%. She's the black loving, anti-racism alternative. She's not the reason why some black males are serving life for Marijuana. She's the better alternative to a man who says "mean things".
I will say Donald Trump and Manson are very similar. Both maligned by so-called democrats and liberal media with out-of-context quotes. Both accused of being racists who will spark a race war. When really, the main reason most people hate them is that they represent a male patriarchy. Which scares people in a society where every wants to blame a white man for personal or political gain.
I do not think that Charles Manson masterminded or ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders. I don't believe he was the masterminded behind the Hinman murder. At the very least, he was an accessory before the fact in that particular crime. As for the night of LaBianca, it's so shrouded in mystery and there are so many questions that I am not exactly sure what his role was. Same with Shea. I believe, in fact I know, others were present when he was killed who were never even charged. So that is another mystery.
ReplyDeleteAll in all, I'd say what he could/should have been charged with doesn't add up to a life in prison and being America's poster boy for evil.
I'll also say I don't think the case was handled properly and that he was used by various people for political and personal ambitions and while he is no angel, I don't think he is all bad and find him to be far smarter than the average idiot you deal with on a day to day basis. So he does have redeeming qualities and a good side as well.
I should also add I think more than half of what is said about him and the various different accounts of life on the ranch is myth and fantastic sensationalism.
ReplyDeleteI give Linda credit for one thing. She had an intriguing last name for someone in a true crime story. Bill Kurtis can make it sound like the best name ever.
ReplyDeleteThank you, orwhut, for lightening the mood. I love Bill Kurtis, just the way he would say "body" (somewhere between body and buddy, so I can imagine his pronunciation of Linda's last name would be intriguing. Again, Dreath, very interested in your knowledge- the information you are sharing is very refreshing.
ReplyDeleteLynn,
ReplyDeleteI love a story with a good narrator and Bill's voice is excellent for what he does.
Low level of intelligence: Blanket judging others as having a low level of intelligence because they don't agree with you on your low intellect, racist ideas.
ReplyDeleteManson Mythos, Obama is:
Community organizer
Attorney
Constitutional law professor
State Senator
US Senator
POTUS
Nobel Laureate
Manson Mythos:
Angry racist moron
My apologies Dreath. I have a terrible habit of taking this too personally. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions including ones that don't jibe with mine. This was a great post and very interesting. I embarrass myself when I insult anyone let along groups of people. That's 3 times in a week. It must be time for a break. :)
ReplyDeleteI'm putting myself in time out for awhile lol
Have a great weekend.
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteit just seems strange to me that nobody is willing to consider it at all, as even a possibility
I'm not nobody !
Do you not think there is a difference between a person like Ruth who was 15 when her father starting using hard drugs with her and in front of her, and encouraging her to have sex with older strangers WINDING UP hanging around the wrong crowd...
And a single mother like Linda who has parents willing to help her stay out of trouble and encourage her not to be in trouble yet consistently throughout her life CHOOSES to be with the wrong crowd????
Most definitely.
Both were at different stages and had come through different experiences.
However.......there were also some similarities. Both began their move away from straight society as young teens. Granted, Dean Moorehouse was the kind of Dad that I'd like to jail for a very long time, notwithstanding acid blitzing his being, but it would appear that Ruth had some things going on within her that weren't vastly different to Linda. You say Linda had some things going for her but her Mum recognizes that she was deficient in Linda's life, paying more attention to her siblings and not really being there for Linda at that critical point when someone who is in that vital crux between adolescence and young adulthood really needs a listening, tolerant but firm and experienced, caring and guiding hand; her stepfather, as many have found with theirs, doesn't appear to have played a valuable part in her life; she saw her actual Dad twice in 15 years. I'm not sure how the neglect of Ruth's teen years inures her from criticism but not Linda. Linda did choose her path, but so did Ruth. But neither emerged in a vacuum.
Ruth's Mum wasn't in agreement with Dean and his changes. That mid 50s to mid 60s period may have been one of the first times that families began finding out that there was more to parenting than provision and discipline.
Diane Lake is the one I really feel for, being 13 at the time her parents started roaming the universe and pushed her into the vortex. She appears to have had no or little choice.
Manson Mythos said...
There is an interesting quote from Fleischmann in an issue of the Free Press prior to Kasabian becoming the star witness. He said something to the effect that Charlie had a very strong case and that there was pretty much no evidence against him. Funny how his client shortly after turned out to be the best evidence against him
What's so funny about that ? In HS Bugliosi more or less says the same thing. Fleischmann's words are logical. It was the general consensus at the end of '69/start of '70 that the prosecution had a very weak case. The DA's office had to get old charges from Inyo refiled to keep Charlie inside. There was little to tie Charlie to the crimes. Even with all the people that eventually formed part of the huge patchwork needed to make Manson's role make sense, without an Atkins, a Van Houten, a Krenwinkel, a Watson or a Kasabian, the case was so limp and that's why people would say to the prosecution things like "shame you had to be landed with such a bummer !"
Saint, no apology is necessary.
ReplyDeleteI didn't perceive you as the problem.
Dreath said...
ReplyDeleteProbably ‘move the goal posts’ was not the best turn of a phrase. I did not mean to offend and apoligise if I did
You didn't offend at all.
I'll stop now. Sorry
Do no such thing ! That was some eye opening insight.
Did both sides not do that quite a lot though ? I remember one of the things that made reading Kasabian's testimony so hard to read were the number of objections and bench conferences. But I'd force myself to read them just in case I missed something.
And I still did !
Dreath said...
When Patti Tate asks Good why her sister had to die. Before goofball goes off on Hollywood did I hear her initially say 'she shouldn't have been there'?
I'm inclined to not attach much credence to what Sandy says regarding the murders because she told Robert that she was probably the last to find out about them and didn't do so for a month, even though she claims she felt her group had done them and reportedly told Mary Brunner this. Given that she says all this in more or less the same group of sentences {in Robert's book}, which is it ?
St Circumstance said...
That's the point lol. You said Krenwinkle said it. It's always the Charlie supporters who make those statements and spread those stories about other motives
During one of her parole hearings, Pat did make a statement about "the two women in the house" which some have picked up and conflated with the "Sharon wasn't supposed to be there" red herring.
Dreath said...
Do I give weight to what anyone says after they were convicted: Not much. After they are convicted they need to embrace the official narrative or they don't get out
Yet the reality is that Bobby Beausoleil, Pat Krenwinkel, Charles Watson, Bruce Davis, Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten have all subsequently deviated from the official record. Bobby about mescaline deals and Danny DeCarlo, Pat about not carving WAR on Leno or instructing Leslie to wipe prints {she told the '78 hearing panel there were "15 or 16" things that she would like to correct that Steven Kay got wrong}, Susan about not stabbing Sharon, Leslie about being coerced to "do something," Bruce about the involvement of Tex, Bill Vance & Larry Jones in Shorty's murder and Tex about Susan not stabbing Tate, carving WAR and making Leslie stab Rosemary when she had chickened out ~ none of these things are part of the official record and are not taken on board as being so but the prisoners continue[d] to follow those lines.
I'm of the opinion that some of what you get from people who are willing to spill the beans after conviction have to be taken on board if one is going to attempt to understand these people in the aftermath of that point they were at when they committed their crimes. But they also shine a light on the crimes themselves.
LISTEN Carefully, Dreath is telling US the LaBianca house was a "robbery" gone BAD.
ReplyDeleteWell Dah ! That is exactly what Leslie Van Houton was charged and CONVICTED for.
One intelligent Prosecutor, One competent Defense Attorney, One Judicially savy Judge and WHO really cares what a bunch of "moon rocks" THINK - it was a "robbery."
The ONLY reason we're all confused is because "Healter Skelter" and "Death to Pigs" were written in blood at the LaBianca crime scene. AND because Bugliosi, a judicial genius, says those phrases equal an attempt to ignite a Black and White race WAR, we got a HUGE problematic controversy.
UNLESS Helter Skelter can make you more money than the word "robbery." In that case, Helter Skelter, even to this day, still STIMULATES the economy which is STILL a good thing, in a capitalist society. Of course, "robbery" also STIMULATES a capitalist society. THUS, when America finally converts to a pure "socialist" society, "money won't mean anything" and "Helter Skelter" will become a moot issue in such a highly progressive society.
BTW; It was Charles Manson who said: "money won't mean anything and the people on the bottom will be on the top." AND Paul Watkins, who KNEW Charlie INTIMATELY said: "The Black Muslims will prevail in the final Black and White battle.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work by Dreath here. It must have taken a lot of time and effort to research and put this post together. Many thanks to you, Dreath. Great job. :)
RH: no that's not what I am saying. I'm saying a good DA could have convicted them using that tool and yes, Van Houten is the example.
ReplyDeleteAnd to ziggy, Lynne penny and the rest you are welcome and thank you your comments mean a lot and inspire me.
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteThey have a need for HS to be wrong. It Gets Charlie off the hook
While getting Charlie off the hook may be paramount for "Charlie supporters" I've found piles more people who are not Charlie supporters, indeed, people who can't stand him or that think he's a shitbag and are quite happy for him to remain in or die in jail, that believe that HS is wrong.In fact, far more people think it's wrong than do, in my on line experience. Do you remember last years motive poll ? HS crawled in 4th out of 6.
Personally, I suspect that the ease and commonality with which Helter skelter is dismissed reflects a discomfort with the notion of God communicating, religion and the spiritual realm being taken seriously.
Manson Mythos said...
While the attorneys dropped the defense on the ground's they didn't want their clients to commit suicide, Fitzgerald at least voiced the opinion it would have been suicide for Manson as well, as it would have only proven Bugliosi's case right
Where does he say that and how would it prove suicide for Charlie ? The penalty phase is, according to Charlie {in his "arresting Bobby wrongly" statement at trial}, Steve Grogan {his testimony} and Susan Atkins {"The myth of HS"} what the defence would have been.
Overlooking the fact that Atkins sold him out pretty fast
She initially told her cell mates of her involvement in TLB and Charlie's leadership never envisioning they'd tell the authorities. And nothing she said could ever be used against her co~defendants.
and Leslie lined up right behind her to do the same by puttin' on the crazy brainwashed act
You frequently say this even though it is frequently pointed out to you that this simply isn't the case and demonstrably so.
Leslie told Marvin Part what she believed.
Marvin Part thought she was mad.
Part taped her and asked her questions that brought the very answers that had led him to the conclusion she was a lunatic.
Part wanted the Judge to hear the tape but he refused and ordered 3 psychiatrists to listen to it to see if they felt she was fit to stand trial.
Leslie herself refused to be examined by any psychiatrists because as far as she was concerned she was perfectly sane.
Leslie fired Marvin Part.
The events mash rather than bear out your assertion.
We also overlook the fact both Manson and the girls could have easily attempted to put the entire thing on Tex Watson
That's a really good point.
Until you examine it. Manson wasn't talking. It was better for him to say nothing at all and deny any knowledge or complicity than it would have been for him to start opening doors and admitting that he'd known what was in the wind. He admits things now but this is not "incarceration '69/70."
Furthermore, to varying degrees the women believed in their cause. If it took Clem 2 years to clear the drug residue from his head and Susan 5 years to be thinking clearly and Gypsy a decade to free her mind of Charlie & Spahn and if Brooks can say Charlie had a vice grip on his mind and if Tex can admit that he ran away then came back, then ran away finally then still made his way back, was somehow drawn back, then you can see that young people aged 20~23 weren't going to suddenly switch back to pre~rebel thinking and self preservation and put it all on Tex when he was part of the Family.
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteIf you read this post and think Linda is someone to pity and use positive phrases for, or defend- that is cool
It's more a case of trying to examine all the angles and conclude based on the myriad differences one finds therein. I try to do that. I find in life very few things to be binary, black and white {no pun intended}. For example where Manson Mythos said:
while he [Charlie] is no angel, I don't think he is all bad....So he does have redeeming qualities and a good side as well I agree with him there. The idea of Charles Manson symbolizing evil is daft to me ~ even though I think he is guilty of what he was convicted for. Equally, the idea of Linda as the heroine of the hour is daft to me even though I think she did the right and good thing by testifying. The reasons why she did so make for an interesting set of discussions but are essentially secondary to me.
I use positive phrases for all kinds of people that have done awful things because there is no such a thing as someone totally bad or totally good. I don't like that Martin Luther King was supposedly caught on tape cheating on his wife but even if true, it wouldn't invalidate some of the good things he did. I don't like what Hitler did or represents in the wider scheme of things but I can see the good side he had in terms of helping Germany back from it's collective knees after what happened with Versailles. And so on.
Linda Kasabian is one of the standard knocking posts of TLB. I try not to view life in a binary way. She, like all of us, was/is a flawed person but not totally on the dark side. So if I appear to be defending her or anyone else that is generally presented as unsavoury, it's because I think there should be a balance to anyone spoken about.
Even Charles Watson.
Manson Mythos said...
Krenwinkel never said the motive was Helter Skelter
Important and true.
However to dismiss her writing of "Healter skelter" in blood at a murder scene when she'd been told to leave a sign {the night before} ~"you girls know what to write"~ is bias on a grand scale.
She herself could not explain, during the penalty phase debacle, why she had written those words. But Pat's "Rise" and "Death to pigs" is arguably the Family's calling card and one of the main pointers to Charlie. The stuff written at Waverley gave the prosecution case legs, backbone and a gravitas it might not otherwise have had.
Another interesting point: Kasabian never said the motive was Helter Skelter
Also important and true. She was initially shocked that they'd killed people for money. HS was something she was getting to grips with. From the Watson trial:
Q: Now, you know helter skelter involved violence, didn't you?
A: Yeah.
Q: Did you tell anybody, did you tell Mr. Manson that you didn't want to be part of any violent scheme?
A: No.
Q: You knew that it involved the killing of people, didn't you?
A: But I didn't know that that was our part in it.
Q: What did you think your part was going to be?
A: Well, that when helter skelter came to the city, when the blacks and whites were getting it in the city, and the city was burning, we were supposed to go in the dune buggies, with the children and bring them back to the home in the desert.
Susan was the one that tied the murders to HS when she spoke with her cellmates but none of them went out on the night of August 8th to consciously ignite it.
Manson Mythos said...
ReplyDeleteHere is a fact: Krenwinkel never said the motive was Helter Skelter
She definitely believed in it though. Aside from what she wrote, in her 1978 parole hearing she stated "so that at the time that even that I was on the witness stand and gave all my testimony, at that time of my testimony, I was expecting any day really for the world to come to an end at that point on the witness stand."
HS in it's entirety, with all it's separate parts and attendant packages were clearly part of her thinking.
Dreath said...
I still thought I read something somewhere that Krenwinkel said it at a parole hearing or something
In her 2011 hearing, she said "When I went to the house with Tex (inaudible), I should have immediately left. I should have found a way and not gone over the fence and run down the hill. (Inaudible) me screaming. Because there was no doubt that I knew that what was ever going to happen here was not going to be good. I did know that that was, the plan was to murder two women inside the house. That was given, was a given...I committed to what Tex said...."
Which, I guess, tells one anything, something or nothing. I think it's just Pat being nervous and trying to show that they were meant to kill everyone in the house.
Manson Mythos said...
About the license, it had to be expired
No it didn't.
Bugliosi said that was the ONLY reason she was "picked"
Exactly. Bugliosi said. It's not fact. He even admitted in his book that it was he and he alone that surmised it. No one knows why. There aren't many theories though. George Stimson reckons it was because she owed him, after Charlie had protected her from her husband and Charles Melton when they came to get their $5000 back.
Dreath said...
When you get to the heart of it, it is Bugliosi who says the motive was HS (+ megalomania+ anti-social hatred of the establishment+ lust for murder
It starts as being the other way around, HS being last on the list. At the start of the trial he said "In this trial, we will offer evidence of Charles Manson's motives for ordering these seven murders. We believe there to be more than one motive. Besides the motives of Manson's passion for violent death and his extreme anti-establishment state of mind, the evidence in this trial will show that there was a further motive for these murders...." By his closing argument, he calls it the main and principle one !
Robert Hendrickson said...
"robbery" gone BAD.
Well Dah ! That is exactly what Leslie Van Houton was charged and CONVICTED for
Yeah, despite Bugliosi saying in his closer:
"One thing is abundantly clear. That the motive for these seven horrendous murders was not money, it was not burglary or robbery. These savage murders were not committed to effectuate a robbery. If that had been the motive, there wouldn't have been any need to stab Voytek Frykowski fifty-one times, to hit him thirteen times over the head and shoot him twice. There would have been no need to stab Rosemary LaBianca so many times. There wouldn't have been any need for any of these victims to have been murdered so mercilessly. One gunshot would have sufficed. And if robbery or burglary had been the motive, there wouldn't have been any need to print the words in the victims' blood at the scene of both residences.
In view of the unbelievably savage nature of these murders, and in view of the fact that hardly anything at all was taken from either the Tate or the LaBianca residences, and in view of all the other evidence in this case, including the statements of Manson, Watson, and Atkins that I have just referred to, a conclusion that these seven murders were perpetrated to help carry out some burglary or robbery would not seem to be consistent with the evidence in this case. The mission, ladies and gentlemen, the mission of these defendants on both nights, was murder. Clear and simple, murder. No other reason."
Grim,
ReplyDeleteOk, but quoting Bugliosi is sort of like quoting one of us. His closing argument, like the closing argument of any attorney, is just that 'argument'. He is expressing his opinion just like RH, me, you, Saint, etc. It means nothing more.
Now that said I happen to agree with this opinion: "The mission, ladies and gentlemen, the mission of these defendants on both nights, was murder. Clear and simple, murder. No other reason." And for me it doesn't matter so much 'why?'.
"I don't like what Hitler did or represents in the wider scheme of things but I can see the good side he had in terms of helping Germany back from it's collective knees after what happened with Versailles. And so on."
At what price, my friend? I gotta disagree with you on that one. Everything he did was part of a plan to wage a horrible war (murder). Hey, there are some similarities to Manson.
St Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteDoes it carry any weight that The Actual Killers say they went there to ignite H/S???
Leslie & Tex are the only ones that have stated that categorically and have remained with it. Susan started off saying it, but in a roundabout way {the crime to shock the world and now HS could begin} but from the penalty phase onwards has denied it. Pat never admitted to it though it was in her thought process, just not as the specific reason for being at Cielo.
And what of the guy that prosecuted them ? In his closing argument, he uttered some very telling words, namely; "The motives that the co~defendants, the actual killers, had, on the other hand, was a very simple motive. It was not bizarre. They killed the people 'Because Charlie told us to.'"
Manson Mythos said...
Whether Linda engaged in any violence or had the ability to do so isn't the big question here
I was responding to your The big question: How do WE know she wouldn't kill? How do we know she didn't take part in some act of violence?
However, when you go on to say but to the jury back in 1969, it was. As long as that question hung in the air unanswered, the jury would have a hard time believing Linda Kasabian and Bugliosi's claim that out of all these people who were fully ready, willing and able to murder for Charles Manson, there was one out of the group who happened to be an angel who thought it was simply a "creepy crawl mission" you're on swampy ground because Linda isn't the only one that didn't know what was going on that night. Pat didn't know {she's said that several times} and as far back as '69, even before the Grand jury, Susan said in an interview with Richard Caballero, "We were instructed to go to this particular house. It was at night and I had no knowledge of what was happening until we actually got there." In fact only Tex knew. Which has always left it an open ended mystery as to what Charlie told him. Early on at least however, Atkins was under the impression that doing whatever Tex told them to do meant "Charlie has instructed, OK'd and ratified this."
Also as stated somewhere earlier, it didn't need some bogus story about a Lebanese actor to cover any Linda murder mania, not when 2 of the murderers had previously told police and other witnesses that she hadn't killed anyone.
Given that no one was charged with even the attempted murder of or conspiracy to murder Saladin Nader, one might have to conclude you're chucking exhibits from that box of red herrings again......
Vincent Bugliosi said the only reason Linda went along on those two nights, is because she was the only one out of the group with a valid driver's license. Right off the bat, any person with the capacity for critical thinking should question that. Manson, the mastermind criminal with an "uncanny ability" to brainwash people sent a girl who was on the ranch for a only a few weeks out on a murder mission, and didn't tell her the plan apparently....because she was licensed to drive?
ReplyDeleteNOW. If Linda did in fact have a valid driver's license. There is no reason why it would be rejected when she went to see Bobby Beausoleil. The only possible explanation, is that on that particular day she forgot it back on the ranch and only brought her library card.
Give the absolutely weak explanation for her being involved by the prosecutor. Considering over a little more than three months prior to the murders she didn't have a valid one, I WOULD SAY she didn't.
I could be wrong, but the use of the word "valid" in the May 1969 news article could be an indication of that. If she just forgot it at home, I suspect it would be mentioned as having "No license" or "without".
Oh and $150,000 sold confession, book deal and promise of immunity from the gas chamber is a sell out move. Especially against a man you think is Jesus Christ.
I fully believe the tape with Marvin Part was a hogwash act in order to plead not guilty by reason's of insanity. If she was serious about half of what she said on it, she wouldn't have tried to avoid arrest. She said on that tape she wasn't afraid of getting busted because what she did was right and had to be done. That's why she denied any knowledge of the LaBianca murders, but accidentally slipped up and supplied information helpful with Tate.
"Also as stated somewhere earlier, it didn't need some bogus story about a Lebanese actor to cover any Linda murder mania, not when 2 of the murderers had previously told police and other witnesses that she hadn't killed anyone.
ReplyDeleteGiven that no one was charged with even the attempted murder of or conspiracy to murder Saladin Nader, one might have to conclude you're chucking exhibits from that box of red herrings again....."
The problem is Grim, Bugliosi painted a portrait of her as being different. She was the angel in a group of murderous devils. Needless to say, they knew the defense would try and destroy her. Secondly...how did the jury know she was different? They only knew she didn't partake in violence because at Cielo, she was look out and wasn't asked. The question: what if she was ASKED? Bugliosi not only had a story to prove it, but a rather dramatic one in which she prevented it.
Secondly, a trip to see the Straight Satans directly after leaving LaBianca could have destroyed the entire Helter Skelter cover story. Bugliosi would want that covered up and it was easy for him to do so...because NONE of them said anything about what took place after LaBianca, until Kasabian got her deal. Not even in her Grand Jury testimony did Atkins say anything. In fact, if I recall correctly...I believe she said earlier to her attorneys they went back to the ranch. She let the cat out of the bag about so many other things. Why not that? To cover up that that tried, but failed to kill some other guy or....to keep Straight Satans out of it?
Let me simplify it: Up until the Nadar story that Bugliosi and Linda told...
ReplyDeleteThere was evidence that Linda wasn't capable of murder like the others. All they knew is that she was a look out and wasn't asked.
Dreath said...
ReplyDeleteAt what price, my friend? I gotta disagree with you on that one. Everything he did was part of a plan to wage a horrible war
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a 3rd Reich admirer or apologist. The price for everyone else was horrific. But Versailles partly contributed to that and some of what he did for Germany was good. I stand by the observation that no one is totally bad. Or for that matter, totally good.
quoting Bugliosi is sort of like quoting one of us. His closing argument, like the closing argument of any attorney, is just that 'argument'. He is expressing his opinion just like RH, me, you, Saint, etc. It means nothing more
Except that his 'opinion' was that of the prosecutor that went towards the securing of the conviction. That gives it more weight than retrospective opinions which sometimes is a good thing, but sometimes is not as in what LVH was ultimately charged with. More weight does not necessarily make it right or definitive.
That said, quoting various bods is more for the interest of seeing exactly what they did say about certain of the incidents/matters we're all discussing and sometimes providing illumination.
If Watson is attacking Voytek.....And Krenwinkel is chasing Abigail......And then Sadie came running out of the house,
Who was watching Sharon Tate?
No one. She was roped up, struggling with it according to Susan.
Even as you're describing all this, even if it all took place simultaneously or bit by bit, the time frame could not have been long. Crucially, Sadie came out, spoke, watched Tex hit Wogiciech then ran back in again. Even if she was alone for as long as 2 or 3 minutes, a pregnant, tied, tired, scared {described by Atkins as "going out of her mind"} Sharon wasn't The Fugitive on TV who would take the first possible opportunity to effect escape.
From the confusion that all of the perps have spoken of that night, what I've gleaned is that we have all the details of what happened at Cielo but the order of events has never been clear after Jay was shot. But I can't see that all of the chronology matters. I can't see what some of those details would substantially change.
But wait a minute Grim, Atkins never mentions this event to the Grand Jury, not a word. So you are relying on two witnesses that are diametrically opposed as to this event. They can't both be right, correct, so pick one. Who should we rely upon?
ReplyDeleteThere is no one inside. I don't care if it's ten seconds, ten minutes or an hour. Why? The point is not why Sharon didn't run.
The question is why would Atkins leave Sharon, alive and alone, in the house to take this little stroll?
That's what makes this incident get a 'don't make no sense' label from me.
Oh and I don't think the events are clear long before Jay Sebring is shot.
ALL this trying to make sense out of the Helter Skelter race war reminds ME of the "Gott'a KILL the Commie Gooks on the other side of the world" MOTIVE for the Vietnam War.
ReplyDeleteThe worst Communists were ONLY 90 miles off Florida and posed a REAL threat to America. So WHY go the distance.
AND were there NOT enough "pigs" in Chatsworth ? There wasn't enough room in the car for Cappy to go, so WHY didn't SHE just hitch a ride down to the hamburger stand, slit a throat and steal some fries ?
Kind'a seems like whenever there's room to squeeze in a little speculation, that is exactly what becomes the imagined TRUTH.
BTW: Dreath has a good point - a "good" DA could have gotten THEM all with a "robbery" charge. So WHY was Bugliosi and or the DA so obsessed with getting Charles Manson instead ?
ME thinks there might be a REAL story there.
Robert Hendrickson said...
ReplyDeleteDreath has a good point - a "good" DA could have gotten THEM all with a "robbery" charge. So WHY was Bugliosi and or the DA so obsessed with getting Charles Manson instead ?
Bottom line question Robert; do you think Manson was guilty as charged or not ?
Dreath said...
But wait a minute Grim, Atkins never mentions this event to the Grand Jury, not a word
There are a number of things that don't get mentioned to the Grand Jury but she mentions a few times the confusion that was afoot and let's face it, she wasn't a reporter on the scene taking in every little detail. Memory is sometimes very specific and other times more general and at other times, not at all. No one else remembers when Frykowski was shot but Tex says he did it on the porch. Atkins remembers seeing Pat struggle with Abigail but can't recall the exact sequence of things where she was concerned or how she ended up crawling on the lawn as they were about to leave. I do agree that some things are unclear even prior to Sebring being shot {such as exactly when the women were told that murder was on the agenda that night and how long they had to process this info}. But when I compare the before with the after in Jay's death, for me there's no comparison.
The question is why would Atkins leave Sharon, alive and alone, in the house to take this little stroll?
Going to get a knife from Linda, struggling with Frykowski towards the front door, shouting to Tex for help.........
There is no one inside. I don't care if it's ten seconds, ten minutes or an hour. Why?
In the grand scheme of things, with all that was going on, perhaps for those few seconds or minutes none of them envisaged Sharon attempting to escape as she was roped up. Atkins did tell the Grand Jury Sharon was still roped up even though Abigail had escaped her ropes. And perhaps whatever incident was going down with each of them at that moment, it took precedence over Sharon. For Susan it was over relatively quickly so Sharon being left alone for a short space of time may not be as relevant as you imply it is. With all the mania going on, Susan's statement of "everything we did from the time he cut the poles to the time we got back to the ranch was spontaneous. It was done with no thought, " may offer a window into the confusion and their lack of planning and co~ordination. The general consensus seems to have been that it all happened very quickly.
But what do I know !
Manson Mythos said...
ReplyDeleteThe problem is Grim, Bugliosi painted a portrait of her as being different. She was the angel in a group of murderous devils
When it came to killing, she was, different. Even Susan who, if Bobby and Tex are to be believed, never killed anyone by her hand, was involved in murder directly.
Secondly, a trip to see the Straight Satans directly after leaving LaBianca could have destroyed the entire Helter Skelter cover story
You have two interesting obsessions running side by side, that HS is a fiction and that the Straight Satans were somehow involved in all this.
Bugliosi would want that covered up and it was easy for him to do so...
In various guises, you've implied that Bugliosi was covering up something he knew to be true. It really does bear examination. Because the logical conclusion of your implication is that he was obsessed with "getting" Charles Manson, even to the extent that he would frame an innocent man and see him rot in jail for life. Hell no, it wasn't even life in jail at the time, it was death in the gas chamber.
Please offer some proof that this or something similar is the case. Just give us something that casts aside every other piece of evidence that went into the patchwork that eventually made up the case.
It'll need to be substantial though.
because NONE of them said anything about what took place after LaBianca, until Kasabian got her deal. Not even in her Grand Jury testimony did Atkins say anything
Atkins was never pushed on it. That's hardly her doing. She told Richard Caballero that on LaBianca night, there were to be 2 death squads. She mentioned to the Grand Jury that there were to be 2 death squads. Leslie told Marvin Part there were to be 2 death squads. There is some fiddling and fuddling around the issue, all three men clarify that it was to be so but none of them ever push Susan or Leslie on it because the 2nd death squad didn't actually do anything. Bugliosi did say that he had planned to question Susan later so who knows, it may have come up. Atkins herself made that point in "The Myth..." Furthermore, Charlie was never charged with attempted murder for any of the other incidents on LaBianca night. So what's your point ? He wasn't even charged with shooting Lotsapoppa, but we all know it happened.....
The question: what if she was ASKED?
She wasn't asked, she was told. And refused. One either believes it or one doesn't. I believe it. Not because she was some kind of sunshine superwoman, but because others {TJ, Ella Jo, Brooks P, Juan Flynn} did likewise and some of those that she helped condemn to death in the gas chamber backed her up on this, both before her arrest and after.
Dreath said...
ReplyDeleteThat's what makes this incident get a 'don't make no sense' label from me
It made sense to me. Exact chronology and constant detail rarely happens, even in nice things we describe.
Manson Mythos said...
Vincent Bugliosi said the only reason Linda went along on those two nights, is because she was the only one out of the group with a valid driver's license
He never actually said that. He said he surmised it was the reason. In Robert's book, there is some discussion on this that is quite interesting.
But either way, it's a red herring. Why any of them were picked isn't really relevant is it ? We do not know why any of them were picked. Charlie has opened a slight window on why Tex was picked, George on the others. But it's slippery ground to go with either, if you want to keep Charlie out of all this.
Catch 22s abound.
If Linda did in fact have a valid driver's license there is no reason why it would be rejected when she went to see Bobby Beausoleil. The only possible explanation, is that on that particular day she forgot it back on the ranch and only brought her library card
It's not the only possible explanation. Furthermore, Charlie sent her back the next day so he couldn't have been too bothered about it.
Considering over a little more than three months prior to the murders she didn't have a valid one, I WOULD SAY she didn't
Of course you would !
I could be wrong
But you'd never admit it if you were.
That's why she denied any knowledge of the LaBianca murders, but accidentally slipped up and supplied information helpful with Tate
You surely cannot be speaking about the tape recording Leslie did with Marvin Part.
Denied any knowledge of the LaBianca murders ? She admits to stabbing Rosemary in it mate ! Talks about how she had to put real strength into stabbing a human because it wasn't like cutting meat. She gives so much info on that murder, both the before, the during and the after.
You know, had she said those things during her first trial and got death, then the death penalty was overturned as it was, she'd possibly be out now.
Robert Hendrickson posted:
ReplyDeleteAND now look at Donald Trump's legal "draft dodging" exploits and how THEY are going to lead to the EXPOSURE of many notable "closet cowards" amongst our sacred "establishment." Like how about BILL Clinton. At least ONE Black man personally died in the jungles of Vietnam so HE could get a FREE Blow-Job.
How do you know it would have been a black service member? Most likely a white man took his place. The figures show that 86% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasians, 12.5% were black, 1.2% were other races. Blacks and whites died in roughly the same proportion as percentages in the general population. Combat deaths were over represented by those white troops from the southern states.
The short youtube is anecdotal but a number of photos show troops of the 7th Cav in the battle of I-Drang valley. Note all the white faces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE8_N-eBm_4
Bill Clinton in London during 'Nam was a CIA plant who spied on the Anti-war protesters. The Brits threw him out because he was accused of rape. Back then British law was tough. Not so much today.
I haven't been back to this thread in a couple of weeks. But I rereading my post above I do feel regret. We all know that the Saint is a good guy. I just personally have a real bad reaction to what I call "Absolutist Proclamations"....i.e. people who assert their opinions as biblical truths.
ReplyDeleteI am not picking on him, but just by way of example, Saint said....
"The real Losers in this entire sage are the victims and their families".
First of all, no offense but that is a "duh" statement to the point of being a cliche.
Second, it is said that you can't compare pain any more than you can compare love. Reality is that some members of the victim's families (Debra's daughter comes to mind) might have been totally unaffected by 8/9/69. And some members of the killer's families such as Leslie's dad or one of Tex's siblings might have lived for years haunted by what someone they loved was capable of doing.
My original point in the above post was just to say that old cliche of being impossible to judge a person or situation unless you walk a mile in their shoes. Is Linda a good or bad person? That is a silly discussion. YOu can say she is certainly flawed, self-destructive, has terrible judgement and such...but applying terms like good and bad just distorts any understanding of the whole shebang. The TLB story, maybe above all others, is NOT a black/white or good/bad story.
I know people are going to scream at my saying the TLB story is not a 'good/bad' one because it is just to easy to tell the good guys from the bad. The good guys are the victims, the bad guys are the killers. That is just an elementary interpretation that most will have.
ReplyDeleteBut now, nearly fifty years later, allot of folk want to cut the girls a bit of slack - primarily because they all seem(ed) to have repented and become what most would call "nice people".
But you don't find many, if any, willing to cut the two Charles any slack. Manson doesn't want any slack, he's campaigned fairly vigorously to be the Face of Evil. And it is almost impossible - hell, it is impossible - to cut the guy who proclaimed himself the Devil before butchering nine people any slack. Plus Tex's born-again act just comes across as to smarmy and sanctimonious. But none of us can say what Tex's life might have been if he had stayed in Texas instead of going out to trippin Cal and soaked his brain in bella donna. Remember, Al Springer testified that he liked Tex most of all in the Family. That Tex was the nicest guy. But still, nobody is going to argue if you apply terms like bad and evil to Tex. I don't care if he lived another two hundred years of apparent decency - the amount of evil that he generated in that August month was just to extreme to ever cut him any slack. It would be like cutting Hitler slack.
Still, I have seen in my life so so many others that I considered good folk pour a bunch of chemicals in their brains and take paths of destruction and violence.
Maybe some of you can pound beers everyday and do your bowls and never have a bad thought. But not every brain is wired the same - our neurotransmitters are just ridiculously different in everyone.
I guess what I am saying is that people like Linda - and yes, even Tex - may be victims of their own bad wiring, NOT to the point of excusing what they have done...but certainly warranting more thought than just slapping the bad or evil tag on them.
Manson Mythos said...
ReplyDeleteif you believe what is written in the Guinn book, while she didn't say Kasabian engaged in any violent acts, she claims she didn't do any of what she said on the stand. No screaming for it to stop, etc
That would possibly be because at the time Kasabian asked for it to be stopped, Pat was inside struggling with Folger or chasing her through Tate's bedroom out to the pool. How would she have heard anything Linda said, especially when you take into account that Linda's statement was issued to Susan ?
Secondly, how would Pat know how much of a willing participant Linda was ? The woman disappeared and she and Susan had to go looking for her ~ and never found her until they got back to the car and there she was, their lookout ! The getaway driver that Tex laid into for starting the car, whom he didn't let drive.
Linda doesn't sound so willing, really.
Pat, in Guinn's book, presents herself as not wanting the murders to happen, going so far as to say that the following night at Waverley, before anthing happened with Rosemary, she prayed to God, asking him to make the murders stop and since she went ahead and exercised her own free will in participating in carnage and mutilation and God didn't strike her down and stop her, Leslie or Tex, she's not believed in God since that night.
And she has a problem with Linda presenting herself as not being a willing participant.
As a side issue, if Linda hadn't been at the car when they arrived at it after Cielo's action, would they have just driven off and left her ?
I am and was a good friend of Linda's. Went to high school with her in Milford, NH. I am still in contact as recently as 12/16. I am in the class of 1965 picture as a matter of fact. She is a good person, who became involved with the wrong people. Period. That's about all I have to say.
ReplyDeleteLinda Kasahbian supports herself on welfare,for having illegal kids the state has to support---we need less Linda Kasabians!!!we don't need her kids,either!!STAY OUT OF THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST!!!GO HOME!!!
ReplyDeleteITS REALLY TOO BAD!!!--CALIFORNIA got rid of the death penalty!!!
ReplyDelete