We have had a busy year with nearly all the convicted coming up for parole during that time. Krenny is due to have a parole hearing December 29. Bruce and Leslie will have hearings again next year. It's probably starting to feel like the movie Groundhog Day for Bruce.
couldn't have happened to a better guy. From the AP:
Sharon Tate's sister, Debra Tate — the last surviving member of her immediate family — urged the panel of parole commissioners to reject freedom for the man she called "the most active, the most prolific killer in the Manson family."
"He's a sociopath, and sociopaths are incapable having insight or empathy for anything. It's all about him. He didn't have it then, and he doesn't have it now," she said after the hearing. She said Watson still blames the murders on his drug use and lack of a clear goal in life rather than accepting full responsibility.
“The parole commissioners opined that he lacked a depth of insight into the grisly crimes and their effect on the nation.” Sometimes they get it right.
I think they did. I don't think he does actually lack a depth of insight into the grisly crimes. I think he does, on levels that the parole board can't fathom. Apart from his own explanations and sorrow, he's often commented on the way younger people in particular have romanticized that period and what Charlie was supposedly about. But his depth of insight is all the more reason why Charles Watson should understand why this and 16 other parole boards feel that he should continually be incarcerated. Some of us had a spirited debate in St's recent Tex thread about forgiveness and it came up a couple of times that Tex gave the impression that if God had forgiven him, why couldn't the rest of society. Aside from the reality that there is no burden or expectation from God upon 'society' to forgive, as far as God would be concerned, there were and are many, many other things in Tex's life aside from murder that he would require God's forgiveness for. Also, importantly, Christians live under the laws of wherever they happen to be and therefore if they have committed crimes {things that they know are crimes in God's sight} then that person has to face the weight of the law. Even if they are rehabilitated and reformed {two very different things as far as I'm concerned}. In his 2011 hearing according to the LA Times, he said “because I cannot apologize to your loved one, I have chosen to honor their memories by living a clean and sober life.” I don't blame him for attempting to get parole because it's part of his sentence, but in reality, if he is in a relationship with God with a hope and expectation of better things when he leaves this mortal coil, then if he finds himself in prison till he drops, there's much that he can do in and derive from life.
Patrick Sequeira said...
His role within the family was a significant one. He was essentially the main hit man....these weren’t impulsive actions. Murdering seven people on two subsequent nights were not impulsive actions
I believe Tex when he says that even on the way to Cielo, he was having all kinds of ructions within himself about what he was setting out to do. I believe him when he says that on LaBianca night he was thinking thoughts to the effect of "please don't let Charlie find another house..." Which for me makes it all the worse that he went ahead with it. I don't honestly know which is worse, the person that wants to go out and kill or the person that doesn't, but goes ahead and does so anyway, believing it to be wrong. One of the notable differences between Susan and Leslie on one hand and Tex & Pat on the other were their attitudes towards what they had done. The former two spoke fairly freely of their involvement, philosophized death, coming out with all that guff about killing someone was killing yourself {or willing to be killed meant you therefore had the right to take someone else's life} and saw it as something other than murder while the latter two did not. Pat, according to Leslie, when telling her about the Cielo murders, felt they were wrong and was always scared of getting caught. Tex certainly didn't believe he was killing a part of himself when he blew away Steven Parent, Jay Sebring, Wogiciech Frykowski and Sharon Tate. While I think Patrick Sequeira has often left much to be desired, he got that one bang on.
Of course, we'll never know, but I wonder if Tex would be trying to live a clean life if his commuted sentence was life without parole. I suspect he would, if his conversion was real, because he'd have to see beyond this life. I know many think that he "dallies with religion" just to get out of jail but I don't buy that. Not over 40 years and seeing it hasn't worked yet. I think he worked out a long time ago that for him in particular, jail is his long term bet and parole is always a slim, very slender chance that certainly after the mid 80s became more and more long range. I don't think it's lost on him that presenting how God has given him a depth of insight into his past actions actually works against him because from almost every direction {even former associates like Bobby and Babs} he hears the same thing about not accepting responsibility. In a sense he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. The very thing that has given him freedom and helped reformed him {his relationship with and forgiveness from, God} is actually the thing that continues to be a major contributor to his remaining in jail.
Debra Tate said...
He's a sociopath, and sociopaths are incapable of having insight or empathy for anything. It's all about him
If he is stuck between a rock and hard place- I hope it is a sharp rock, which is jabbing him in the balls ....
What choice does he have but the God stuff? Maybe he buys it after all these years, and maybe he doesn't. It was his last and only out.
Actually, Who cares really? It doesn't matter. The major contributor to him staying in jail is that he killed a bunch of people in a vicious manner- one of whom was a 9 month pregnant woman. That is what keeps him in jail friend.
Personally, Tex and his inner search for redemption gives me the blues. So, I will go alter my mood and leave this to others to debate lol :)
Grim said: " I know many think that he "dallies with religion" just to get out of jail but I don't buy that."
I agree with you. I don't buy that either but I have different view regarding the origin of his conversion drawn from my experiences with a close family member.
To me Watson has a psychological need to have someone/something else be responsible for his decisions and actions- run his life. I am not suggesting this applies to 'all Christians" or all those who embrace a religion. That would be nonsense. But I do believe Watson's conversion is substituting one force that he willingly allowed to run his life for another.
I believe that deep within Watson there is insecurity combined with some rather strong sociopathic or at least narcissistic tendencies that causes him to gravitate towards someone who tells him how to think, how to live his life and demands unswerving loyalty and devotion. I believe that for Watson God/religion fills that same void in his being today. I also think that combination is dangerous because it allows him to embrace the philosophy- go 'all in'- while being incapable on understanding what impact that might have on others.
So not a dalliance, I agree, but also not because he found true spirituality and embraced it, either. I think that is why he does expect or at least does not clearly understand why he will never be forgiven by us.
For Watson God says forgive, so you forgive without any hesitation. Forty-seven years ago 'god' said kill and he killed- again, without any hesitation. And frankly, I believe if he were 'free' (and younger perhaps) he could easily embrace a 'god' like that again because he 'lacks insight'.
Even if Tex is really rehabilitated now and safe to release in society, I see the punishment as just if he remained for the duration in prison. They are separate things. So for me it's not a matter of him finding the right words to convince a parole board to release. Ditto for BB, CM & PK. I still see LVH and maybe BD having a chance.
Another mitigating factor to me is they struck at the upper middle and upper economic classes in LA back then. Scared the daylights out of the rich and famous. That caste have elephant memories, aren't about to get all soft and mushy now. That's where Gov. Jerry comes in.
Back then those in power and control wanted them all dead and outta here. That's why, among other things, LVH and SA got death sentences along with the rest. The local powers that be wanted to make a *statement*.
Dreath said: " I believe that deep within Watson there is insecurity combined with some rather strong sociopathic or at least narcissistic tendencies that causes him to gravitate towards someone who tells him how to think, how to live his life and demands unswerving loyalty and devotion. "
And to think that Lt. Calley only had to do a couple of years of house arrest, after being convicted of 22 murders.
I think there is a deep and intimate link between Vietnam and TLB. It is well known that crimes of violence increase during wartime, as the people take their lead from the leaders.
(apologies to CieloDrive I usually love everything you do especially now that I am out of the game in a big way but believing in Tom O'Neill is like being a Scientologist)
If you were like Vince you would be much more upset about your name pronunciation, would be stalking the milkman (is there such a thing anymore) and beating your mistress. Say it ain't so!
I have different view regarding the origin of his conversion drawn from my experiences with a close family member
I thought your post was really insightful. The church worldwide is made up of those who fall into the camp you described, those who hate being told what to do and how to live or let's say have problems with it and those that simply never think about it. I don't know whether Tex thought that coming to Christ would be the move that got him out of jail, personally I don't think so. I do think at one point early on he felt it would be in his favour. Mind you, I think he thought that having a wife and children would be a better route out, especially as at that period, the California authorities seemed to be {in his observation} more weighted towards rehabilitation. I think Vince Bugliosi thought they'd serve a minimum time and then be out {although whether he applied this to Tex is unclear}. And Steve Grogan's release probably gave them all, bar Charlie, a fresh shot of hope.
Robert C said...
Even if Tex is really rehabilitated now and safe to release in society, I see the punishment as just if he remained for the duration in prison. They are separate things
Couldn't agree more. Rehabilitation simply means to prepare someone for re~entry back into society or bring them back into the right condition after an illness or injury. From that viewpoint, I think he was rehabilitated long ago. But the justice aspect of his crime is a separate thing. Parole isn't a given or mandatory, it's a possibility. In a way, it's a rather unclear fudge because some inmates rarely know exactly where they stand. It's understandable that they start to think in terms of having done enough to "deserve" parole.
St Circumstance said...
If he is stuck between a rock and hard place- I hope it is a sharp rock, which is jabbing him in the balls....
Metaphorically, it is.
What choice does he have but the God stuff?
Hard nose the highway, like Charlie and many others.
The major contributor to him staying in jail is that he killed a bunch of people in a vicious manner- one of whom was a 9 month pregnant woman. That is what keeps him in jail friend
What I spoke of was one major contributor, not the major one.
Personally, Tex and his inner search for redemption gives me the blues
Well, you recently brought it up ! That line sounds like a cowboy song.....
Katie! Skynyrd! Saint! (and the rest of y'all) Long time no see. I took a break for a few months while working on my health. I had trouble finding this website due to getting a brand new laptop and losing my bookmarks. Katie, I'm having trouble finding your website. Can you please give me your website address?
Jillian Barberie was allowed to attend with Debra Tate and delivery an impact statement on behalf of Cory LaBianca. Is California "anything goes" now? I'm not on the side of Tex Watson, but minor celebrities with no connection to the case and who aren't next of kin have absolutely no place being there.
Doc it is good to hear from you and I hope you are well :)
you got your signals crossed a bit lol I am here :) I used to post on a few sites, but only really come here anymore to comment. The other two people you mentioned do not comment here. I am not sure if she still runs a site, but they both post on his I am sure. Just google his name and Manson and you will find your way to them :)
Again- it is good to hear from you and to hear your doing better. Love the Avatar lol
Of course, we'll never know, but I wonder if Tex would be trying to live a clean life if his commuted sentence was life without parole. I suspect he would, if his conversion was real, because he'd have to see beyond this life. I know many think that he "dallies with religion" just to get out of jail but I don't buy that. Not over 40 years and seeing it hasn't worked yet. I think he worked out a long time ago that for him in particular, jail is his long term bet and parole is always a slim, very slender chance that certainly after the mid 80s became more and more long range.
St., your insights are always deep and concise. I have a disagreement with you about Tex viewing parole as a slim possibility after the mid-80's. That was the time period where he fathered children, and told the parole board that his reasoning for having children was that he and his wife wanted them. I always thought that the marriage and children were a prop for Tex, you know, to show what an super husband and dad he is.
Also, it was about that time that he somehow got Suzan LaBarge to start campaigning for him at his parole hearing. All of these people--wife,kids, LaBarge, all seem to be puppets that Tex used to further his plan for making parole.
If you were like Vince you would be much more upset about your name pronunciation, would be stalking the milkman (is there such a thing anymore) and beating your mistress.
I have a disagreement with you about Tex viewing parole as a slim possibility after the mid-80's
The actual precise moments aren't an exact science but from his 1990 parole hearing comes this eye opening piece of dialogue between Tex and a member of the parole board:
PB: Why did you have children?
TW: My wife and I desired children
PB: You didn't think about the children not having a father?
TW: Yes we did. When we decided to have children in the 70's things looked different in the 70's. The parole board situation looked different. We were under rehabilitation instead of punishment. When I came to the Board their wouldn't be these TV cameras, the district attorney and the victims would not be here. It looked like dates were being given and everyone was getting a day. Then the tide turned in '79. When I went to the Board in the 80's and the new rules that were put into effect-with the DA, victims and news media. Everything was being decided on the commitment offense rather than the rehabilitation factors. Things looked completely different. We had the same thoughts you had several times and we wondered why we had children at times.
PB: Your children are 8, 6 and 14 months-that was not in the 70's
TW: Our marriage occurred in the 70's
PB: You were married in 1979
TW: We still thought in 80-81 it still looked good because the cameras and people here today didn't start showing up until 1982.
PB: You lost me
TW: I'm sorry Mr. Castro, I guess we are having a communication problem.
PB: Why did you have children?
TW: We decided to have children and I think you are wondering how well they handle the situation and if they are not going to have a dad. You are thinking they will have grand~kids before I even think about getting out. We thought about all this.
PB: Do the 6 and 8 year old know why you are in prison?
TW: Yes they do. They know.
What I was getting at is that after a time, I think Tex came to these hearings more in hope than expectation and I think that's still the case.
he somehow got Suzan LaBarge to start campaigning for him at his parole hearing
You'd be surprised at how God can open one's eyes and what one can see when those eyes are opened. That sounds like an advert for acid !
"PB: Your children are 8, 6 and 14 months-that was not in the 70's
TW: Our marriage occurred in the 70's
PB: You were married in 1979
TW: We still thought in 80-81 it still looked good because the cameras and people here today didn't start showing up until 1982.
PB: You lost me"
Isn't that all you really need to know about Tex Watson? Even when he talks about why he had children....he can't get the timeline to fit his explanation: he lied.
I wonder what the LaBianca family thinks about Alice LaBianca saying she suspected the phone book she handed over to Patchett was connect to, and I quote, "Rosemary and Suzan's drug dealing".
Maybe it's not the eyes of God that made Suzan combat Doris over Tex's parole.
Isn't that all you really need to know about Tex Watson? Even when he talks about why he had children....he can't get the timeline to fit his explanation: he lied
I wouldn't say he was lying. Timelines not exact, yeah, but let's face it, along with identifying when a body was dead {Charlie, TJ, Bobby, Susan, Mary, Tex, Leslie and Bruce}, timelines were hardly their strong point ! It seems to me that what he's saying is that in the 70s when he got married, he and Kristin talked about having kids and decided to have them because they both wanted them and he was confident of getting out of prison in the not too distant future because California was more inclined towards rehabilitation than punishment and having a wife and kids would slant things more in his favour. Then he noticed that in the 80s {which could mean '87, '88 or '89 as well as earlier} things were changing. Cameras were in the hearings, the news media were there, the DA was there, family members were there and there was more emphasis on the actual offence than on whether the murderer had moved on from the state they were in at the time of the murders. The climate didn't change overnight but it did change, to the extent that by 1990, he was wondering why he had had kids. That's what it seems like he saying. I don't see what there is to actually lie about. What I would be interested in seeing is someone taking him to task about whether he was involved in Shorty's murder and glean what he has to say about that. It came up during his trial {his lawyer was not happy that it was even spoken of}, it came up during at least one of Steve Grogan's parole hearings to the extent that Watson was actually named by the parole board {!!} as a crime partner, it came up during at least one of Bruce's, to the extent that the parole board even questioned Bruce about what he thought about Tex and whether he felt he should be paroled, which now, seems unbelievable {it was 1993} and Tex's name was mentioned as a possible almost right from the time in '69 when LE first became aware of talk of such a killing. The only person that I've ever seen not involve him in that crime is Charles Manson, in George's book. I'd also like to know more about the ex~wife. St has written on occasion over the last few years on a few sites about the thinking and mindset of the people that get involved with and end up marrying murderers serving life sentences. They've been interesting write ups.
I wonder what the LaBianca family thinks about Alice LaBianca saying she suspected the phone book she handed over to Patchett was connect to, and I quote, "Rosemary and Suzan's drug dealing"
I'd be inclined to take most things a previous wife/girlfriend/partner said about a current wife/girlfriend/partner {even a dead one} with a huge pinch of salt.
I guess I don't read that exchange the way you do.
Castro wants to know why he had kids when he knew they wouldn't have a dad around. To me he's inquring into either Watson's selfishness in having kids even though they would be fatherless or that he had them to garner sympathy- exposing the same issue with Watson.
Watson is smart enough to see where this is headed and makes the little speech about all when my wife and I decided this in the 70's and it looked more like I was going to get out.
Castro points out that doesn't make any sense since his kids weren't born in the 70's.
So Watson realizing his fable (lie, dishonesty, whatever you want to call it) doesn't make sense then tries to switch the topic to when he and his wife talked about it.
Castro then points out that that doesn't make sense either since they weren't married until 1979.
Watson then switches to 80-81, which is inconsistent with what he said above: "Then the tide turned in '79"
And Castro is now lost because he didn't answer the question so he asks again:
"PB: Why did you have children?
TW: We decided to have children and I think you are wondering how well they handle the situation and if they are not going to have a dad. You are thinking they will have grand~kids before I even think about getting out. We thought about all this."
And he doesn't answer the question.
Why? Because he didn't think about it at all. He thought only about himself and was incapable of ever "feeling" or "empathizing" with his victims: this time his children who got to grow up without a father and telling everyone they meet their dad murdered at least seven innocent people.
To some extent. There are points of divergence but by and large, I'd say we were bringing out different elements within the same exchange.
Castro wants to know why he had kids when he knew they wouldn't have a dad around. To me he's inquiring into either Watson's selfishness in having kids even though they would be fatherless or that he had them to garner sympathy
For instance, I can see where Castro is coming from. I think they ask questions that many of us would ask and for the same reasons.
Castro points out that doesn't make any sense since his kids weren't born in the 70's.....Castro then points out that that doesn't make sense either since they weren't married until 1979
While I can see what Castro is getting at with their questions, I think they unwittingly show too much of their hand and demonstrate that perhaps they have come to this hearing with their mind already made up. I remember Diligaf making the same point about the board members at LVH's hearing when she was given a decision in her favour.
Watson then switches to 80-81, which is inconsistent with what he said above: "Then the tide turned in '79"
True. But the way he throws out "the 70s," "'79," "'80-'81," "1982" and "the 80s" indicates being general about the time rather than absolutely specific. People I know and have done for years do this all the time. We'll talk about "80s production values" or joke "the 80s called ~ they want their clothes back !" or we'll talk about "the 60s" and attach specific happenings or groups to then without going into specific detail whether we mean 1960, 1963 or 1968, which could make a big difference. That way of dealing with specific time periods isn't inconsistent with Watson since at least 1978.
And he doesn't answer the question.
Why? Because he didn't think about it at all. He thought only about himself and was incapable of ever "feeling" or "empathizing" with his victims
Firstly, I would never say that a person will ever be capable of any kind of change because I simply cannot know that. Secondly, if he never thought about it at all, then that would kind of defeat the object of having children. He would, even if one accepts that he was only thinking of himself, by the very nature of the act have to be thinking about how children would figure in all this; particularly if he and his wife wanted them and he was thinking of how good it might make him appear. I used to think that there were really only one or two scopes through which to bring children into the world but my travels through life in the last 35 years have taught me that people of all ages and situations have kids in all sorts of what appear to be bizarre circumstances, for all kinds of different reasons and with many alternative justifications for it.
this time his children who got to grow up without a father and telling everyone they meet their dad murdered at least seven innocent people
I remember "back in the 70s" ☺ there used to be this legal drama called "Justice." I was 8~11 at the time and there was no violence, action or speeding cars in it so I only ever watched it with half a brain but I distinctly remember that the friend or lover of the main character was something of a reformer and in one episode made an appeal for prisoners to be able to make love with their significant others. I didn't really know what sex was then, neither would I have been interested but it's funny that over 40 years later, that's the only thing I remember about the show. That and that the lead character was called Margeret Lockwood. I don't think prisoners should, but that's another debate for another time. Suffice it to say, it's not only Watson that was being selfish in this regard. His ex wife and the authorities that allowed it in the first place need to take a long hard look at themselves. That said, there's an uncomfortably large number of children who have one or both parents in prison......
I remember "back in the 70s" ☺ there used to be this legal drama called "Justice." I was 8~11 at the time and there was no violence, action or speeding cars in it so I only ever watched it with half a brain but I distinctly remember that the friend or lover of the main character was something of a reformer and in one episode made an appeal for prisoners to be able to make love with their significant others. I didn't really know what sex was then, neither would I have been interested but it's funny that over 40 years later, that's the only thing I remember about the show. That and that the lead character was called Margeret Lockwood.
You realize that Mansonblog isn't a psychiatrist's office, right?
38 comments:
“The parole commissioners opined that he lacked a depth of insight into the grisly crimes and their effect on the nation.”
Sometimes they get it right.
That's bananas!
He shoulda peel.
We have had a busy year with nearly all the convicted coming up for parole during that time. Krenny is due to have a parole hearing December 29. Bruce and Leslie will have hearings again next year. It's probably starting to feel like the movie Groundhog Day for Bruce.
couldn't have happened to a better guy. From the AP:
Sharon Tate's sister, Debra Tate — the last surviving member of her immediate family — urged the panel of parole commissioners to reject freedom for the man she called "the most active, the most prolific killer in the Manson family."
"He's a sociopath, and sociopaths are incapable having insight or empathy for anything. It's all about him. He didn't have it then, and he doesn't have it now," she said after the hearing. She said Watson still blames the murders on his drug use and lack of a clear goal in life rather than accepting full responsibility.
"What's happened to me,' he thought. It was no dream."
― Franz Kafka, The Metamorphosis
Dreath said...
“The parole commissioners opined that he lacked a depth of insight into the grisly crimes and their effect on the nation.”
Sometimes they get it right.
I think they did.
I don't think he does actually lack a depth of insight into the grisly crimes. I think he does, on levels that the parole board can't fathom. Apart from his own explanations and sorrow, he's often commented on the way younger people in particular have romanticized that period and what Charlie was supposedly about. But his depth of insight is all the more reason why Charles Watson should understand why this and 16 other parole boards feel that he should continually be incarcerated.
Some of us had a spirited debate in St's recent Tex thread about forgiveness and it came up a couple of times that Tex gave the impression that if God had forgiven him, why couldn't the rest of society. Aside from the reality that there is no burden or expectation from God upon 'society' to forgive, as far as God would be concerned, there were and are many, many other things in Tex's life aside from murder that he would require God's forgiveness for. Also, importantly, Christians live under the laws of wherever they happen to be and therefore if they have committed crimes {things that they know are crimes in God's sight} then that person has to face the weight of the law. Even if they are rehabilitated and reformed {two very different things as far as I'm concerned}.
In his 2011 hearing according to the LA Times, he said “because I cannot apologize to your loved one, I have chosen to honor their memories by living a clean and sober life.” I don't blame him for attempting to get parole because it's part of his sentence, but in reality, if he is in a relationship with God with a hope and expectation of better things when he leaves this mortal coil, then if he finds himself in prison till he drops, there's much that he can do in and derive from life.
Patrick Sequeira said...
His role within the family was a significant one. He was essentially the main hit man....these weren’t impulsive actions. Murdering seven people on two subsequent nights were not impulsive actions
I believe Tex when he says that even on the way to Cielo, he was having all kinds of ructions within himself about what he was setting out to do. I believe him when he says that on LaBianca night he was thinking thoughts to the effect of "please don't let Charlie find another house..." Which for me makes it all the worse that he went ahead with it. I don't honestly know which is worse, the person that wants to go out and kill or the person that doesn't, but goes ahead and does so anyway, believing it to be wrong. One of the notable differences between Susan and Leslie on one hand and Tex & Pat on the other were their attitudes towards what they had done. The former two spoke fairly freely of their involvement, philosophized death, coming out with all that guff about killing someone was killing yourself {or willing to be killed meant you therefore had the right to take someone else's life} and saw it as something other than murder while the latter two did not. Pat, according to Leslie, when telling her about the Cielo murders, felt they were wrong and was always scared of getting caught. Tex certainly didn't believe he was killing a part of himself when he blew away Steven Parent, Jay Sebring, Wogiciech Frykowski and Sharon Tate. While I think Patrick Sequeira has often left much to be desired, he got that one bang on.
St Circumstance said...
couldn't have happened to a better guy
Of course, we'll never know, but I wonder if Tex would be trying to live a clean life if his commuted sentence was life without parole. I suspect he would, if his conversion was real, because he'd have to see beyond this life. I know many think that he "dallies with religion" just to get out of jail but I don't buy that. Not over 40 years and seeing it hasn't worked yet. I think he worked out a long time ago that for him in particular, jail is his long term bet and parole is always a slim, very slender chance that certainly after the mid 80s became more and more long range. I don't think it's lost on him that presenting how God has given him a depth of insight into his past actions actually works against him because from almost every direction {even former associates like Bobby and Babs} he hears the same thing about not accepting responsibility. In a sense he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. The very thing that has given him freedom and helped reformed him {his relationship with and forgiveness from, God} is actually the thing that continues to be a major contributor to his remaining in jail.
Debra Tate said...
He's a sociopath, and sociopaths are incapable of having insight or empathy for anything. It's all about him
It's not only sociopaths !
If he is stuck between a rock and hard place- I hope it is a sharp rock, which is jabbing him in the balls ....
What choice does he have but the God stuff? Maybe he buys it after all these years, and maybe he doesn't. It was his last and only out.
Actually, Who cares really? It doesn't matter. The major contributor to him staying in jail is that he killed a bunch of people in a vicious manner- one of whom was a 9 month pregnant woman. That is what keeps him in jail friend.
Personally, Tex and his inner search for redemption gives me the blues. So, I will go alter my mood and leave this to others to debate lol :)
Grim said: " I know many think that he "dallies with religion" just to get out of jail but I don't buy that."
I agree with you. I don't buy that either but I have different view regarding the origin of his conversion drawn from my experiences with a close family member.
To me Watson has a psychological need to have someone/something else be responsible for his decisions and actions- run his life. I am not suggesting this applies to 'all Christians" or all those who embrace a religion. That would be nonsense. But I do believe Watson's conversion is substituting one force that he willingly allowed to run his life for another.
I believe that deep within Watson there is insecurity combined with some rather strong sociopathic or at least narcissistic tendencies that causes him to gravitate towards someone who tells him how to think, how to live his life and demands unswerving loyalty and devotion. I believe that for Watson God/religion fills that same void in his being today. I also think that combination is dangerous because it allows him to embrace the philosophy- go 'all in'- while being incapable on understanding what impact that might have on others.
So not a dalliance, I agree, but also not because he found true spirituality and embraced it, either. I think that is why he does expect or at least does not clearly understand why he will never be forgiven by us.
For Watson God says forgive, so you forgive without any hesitation. Forty-seven years ago 'god' said kill and he killed- again, without any hesitation. And frankly, I believe if he were 'free' (and younger perhaps) he could easily embrace a 'god' like that again because he 'lacks insight'.
Even if Tex is really rehabilitated now and safe to release in society, I see the punishment as just if he remained for the duration in prison. They are separate things. So for me it's not a matter of him finding the right words to convince a parole board to release. Ditto for BB, CM & PK. I still see LVH and maybe BD having a chance.
Another mitigating factor to me is they struck at the upper middle and upper economic classes in LA back then. Scared the daylights out of the rich and famous. That caste have elephant memories, aren't about to get all soft and mushy now. That's where Gov. Jerry comes in.
Back then those in power and control wanted them all dead and outta here. That's why, among other things, LVH and SA got death sentences along with the rest. The local powers that be wanted to make a *statement*.
Dreath said: " I believe that deep within Watson there is insecurity combined with some rather strong sociopathic or at least narcissistic tendencies that causes him to gravitate towards someone who tells him how to think, how to live his life and demands unswerving loyalty and devotion. "
Are you talking about Trump supporters ? ;-)
ok .... my bad ....
And to think that Lt. Calley only had to do a couple of years of house arrest, after being convicted of 22 murders.
I think there is a deep and intimate link between Vietnam and TLB. It is well known that crimes of violence increase during wartime, as the people take their lead from the leaders.
But but
They never brought up the tapes.
But but they were soooo important to the case.
Butt Butt Hurt O'Neill
(apologies to CieloDrive I usually love everything you do especially now that I am out of the game in a big way but believing in Tom O'Neill is like being a Scientologist)
Col, I'm like Vince. I'm an agnostic and I love latin love songs
If you were like Vince you would be much more upset about your name pronunciation, would be stalking the milkman (is there such a thing anymore) and beating your mistress. Say it ain't so!
Dreath said...
I have different view regarding the origin of his conversion drawn from my experiences with a close family member
I thought your post was really insightful. The church worldwide is made up of those who fall into the camp you described, those who hate being told what to do and how to live or let's say have problems with it and those that simply never think about it.
I don't know whether Tex thought that coming to Christ would be the move that got him out of jail, personally I don't think so. I do think at one point early on he felt it would be in his favour. Mind you, I think he thought that having a wife and children would be a better route out, especially as at that period, the California authorities seemed to be {in his observation} more weighted towards rehabilitation. I think Vince Bugliosi thought they'd serve a minimum time and then be out {although whether he applied this to Tex is unclear}. And Steve Grogan's release probably gave them all, bar Charlie, a fresh shot of hope.
Robert C said...
Even if Tex is really rehabilitated now and safe to release in society, I see the punishment as just if he remained for the duration in prison. They are separate things
Couldn't agree more. Rehabilitation simply means to prepare someone for re~entry back into society or bring them back into the right condition after an illness or injury. From that viewpoint, I think he was rehabilitated long ago. But the justice aspect of his crime is a separate thing. Parole isn't a given or mandatory, it's a possibility. In a way, it's a rather unclear fudge because some inmates rarely know exactly where they stand. It's understandable that they start to think in terms of having done enough to "deserve" parole.
St Circumstance said...
If he is stuck between a rock and hard place- I hope it is a sharp rock, which is jabbing him in the balls....
Metaphorically, it is.
What choice does he have but the God stuff?
Hard nose the highway, like Charlie and many others.
The major contributor to him staying in jail is that he killed a bunch of people in a vicious manner- one of whom was a 9 month pregnant woman. That is what keeps him in jail friend
What I spoke of was one major contributor, not the major one.
Personally, Tex and his inner search for redemption gives me the blues
Well, you recently brought it up ! That line sounds like a cowboy song.....
St Circumstance said... couldn't have happened to a better guy.
I wanted to say that. St Circumatance you beat me to the punch.:-)
Katie! Skynyrd! Saint! (and the rest of y'all)
Long time no see. I took a break for a few months while working on my health.
I had trouble finding this website due to getting a brand new laptop and losing my bookmarks.
Katie, I'm having trouble finding your website. Can you please give me your website address?
Jillian Barberie was allowed to attend with Debra Tate and delivery an impact statement on behalf of Cory LaBianca. Is California "anything goes" now? I'm not on the side of Tex Watson, but minor celebrities with no connection to the case and who aren't next of kin have absolutely no place being there.
Doc it is good to hear from you and I hope you are well :)
you got your signals crossed a bit lol I am here :) I used to post on a few sites, but only really come here anymore to comment. The other two people you mentioned do not comment here. I am not sure if she still runs a site, but they both post on his I am sure. Just google his name and Manson and you will find your way to them :)
Again- it is good to hear from you and to hear your doing better. Love the Avatar lol
Saint said:
Of course, we'll never know, but I wonder if Tex would be trying to live a clean life if his commuted sentence was life without parole. I suspect he would, if his conversion was real, because he'd have to see beyond this life. I know many think that he "dallies with religion" just to get out of jail but I don't buy that. Not over 40 years and seeing it hasn't worked yet. I think he worked out a long time ago that for him in particular, jail is his long term bet and parole is always a slim, very slender chance that certainly after the mid 80s became more and more long range.
St., your insights are always deep and concise. I have a disagreement with you about Tex viewing parole as a slim possibility after the mid-80's. That was the time period where he fathered children, and told the parole board that his reasoning for having children was that he and his wife wanted them. I always thought that the marriage and children were a prop for Tex, you know, to show what an super husband and dad he is.
Also, it was about that time that he somehow got Suzan LaBarge to start campaigning for him at his parole hearing. All of these people--wife,kids, LaBarge, all seem to be puppets that Tex used to further his plan for making parole.
Hey Mama...
Those are not my comments you posted above lol Those come from the blogger Grim.
Thanks for the compliment though :)
ColScott said...
If you were like Vince you would be much more upset about your name pronunciation, would be stalking the milkman (is there such a thing anymore) and beating your mistress.
Bugliosi was clearly batshit.
As far as his music tastes, I have it on good authority (grimtraveller) that this was Bugliosi's favorite song in the recorded annals of music. (Note the girl reading a copy of Vince's "Helter Skelter" at 0:48)
Bugliosi was also (obviously) a big fan of The Dead Milkmen.
His favorite Dead Milkmen song was "Now Everybody's Me".
Some of the lyrics :
Everybody loves Charles Manson
Everybody wants to set him free
Everybody's on the parole board
'Cause now everybody's me
It's my understanding she represented Tony LaMontagne
mamapoohbear16 said...
Saint said:
Of course, we'll never know.....
For the record Mama, I said that.
ziggyosterberg said...
I have it on good authority (grimtraveller)
For the record Mama, I never said that !
mamapoohbear16 said...
I have a disagreement with you about Tex viewing parole as a slim possibility after the mid-80's
The actual precise moments aren't an exact science but from his 1990 parole hearing comes this eye opening piece of dialogue between Tex and a member of the parole board:
PB: Why did you have children?
TW: My wife and I desired children
PB: You didn't think about the children not having a father?
TW: Yes we did. When we decided to have children in the 70's things looked different in the 70's. The parole board situation looked different. We were under rehabilitation instead of punishment. When I came to the Board their wouldn't be these TV cameras, the district attorney and the victims would not be here. It looked like dates
were being given and everyone was getting a day. Then the tide turned in '79. When I went to the Board in the 80's and the new rules that were put into effect-with the DA, victims and news media. Everything was being decided on the commitment offense rather than the rehabilitation factors. Things looked completely different. We had the same thoughts you had several times and we wondered why we had children at times.
PB: Your children are 8, 6 and 14 months-that was not in the 70's
TW: Our marriage occurred in the 70's
PB: You were married in 1979
TW: We still thought in 80-81 it still looked good because the cameras and people here today didn't start showing up until 1982.
PB: You lost me
TW: I'm sorry Mr. Castro, I
guess we are having a communication problem.
PB: Why did you have children?
TW: We decided to have children and I think you are wondering how well they handle the situation and if they are not going to have a dad. You are thinking they will have grand~kids before I even think about getting out. We thought about all this.
PB: Do the 6 and 8 year old know why you are in prison?
TW: Yes they do. They know.
What I was getting at is that after a time, I think Tex came to these hearings more in hope than expectation and I think that's still the case.
he somehow got Suzan LaBarge to start campaigning for him at his parole hearing
You'd be surprised at how God can open one's eyes and what one can see when those eyes are opened.
That sounds like an advert for acid !
Mea Culpa for miscrediting the quote. Next time I will response AFTER a cup of coffee, not before.
Grim quoted:
"PB: Your children are 8, 6 and 14 months-that was not in the 70's
TW: Our marriage occurred in the 70's
PB: You were married in 1979
TW: We still thought in 80-81 it still looked good because the cameras and people here today didn't start showing up until 1982.
PB: You lost me"
Isn't that all you really need to know about Tex Watson? Even when he talks about why he had children....he can't get the timeline to fit his explanation: he lied.
No problem mama lol. You know how many times I wish I commented before 13 beers not after ? Lol. :)
Haha, St., yes I have been there too.
Great posts, grimtraverler
:)
I wonder what the LaBianca family thinks about Alice LaBianca saying she suspected the phone book she handed over to Patchett was connect to, and I quote, "Rosemary and Suzan's drug dealing".
Maybe it's not the eyes of God that made Suzan combat Doris over Tex's parole.
Dreath said...
Isn't that all you really need to know about Tex Watson? Even when he talks about why he had children....he can't get the timeline to fit his explanation: he lied
I wouldn't say he was lying. Timelines not exact, yeah, but let's face it, along with identifying when a body was dead {Charlie, TJ, Bobby, Susan, Mary, Tex, Leslie and Bruce}, timelines were hardly their strong point ! It seems to me that what he's saying is that in the 70s when he got married, he and Kristin talked about having kids and decided to have them because they both wanted them and he was confident of getting out of prison in the not too distant future because California was more inclined towards rehabilitation than punishment and having a wife and kids would slant things more in his favour. Then he noticed that in the 80s {which could mean '87, '88 or '89 as well as earlier} things were changing. Cameras were in the hearings, the news media were there, the DA was there, family members were there and there was more emphasis on the actual offence than on whether the murderer had moved on from the state they were in at the time of the murders. The climate didn't change overnight but it did change, to the extent that by 1990, he was wondering why he had had kids.
That's what it seems like he saying. I don't see what there is to actually lie about. What I would be interested in seeing is someone taking him to task about whether he was involved in Shorty's murder and glean what he has to say about that. It came up during his trial {his lawyer was not happy that it was even spoken of}, it came up during at least one of Steve Grogan's parole hearings to the extent that Watson was actually named by the parole board {!!} as a crime partner, it came up during at least one of Bruce's, to the extent that the parole board even questioned Bruce about what he thought about Tex and whether he felt he should be paroled, which now, seems unbelievable {it was 1993} and Tex's name was mentioned as a possible almost right from the time in '69 when LE first became aware of talk of such a killing. The only person that I've ever seen not involve him in that crime is Charles Manson, in George's book.
I'd also like to know more about the ex~wife. St has written on occasion over the last few years on a few sites about the thinking and mindset of the people that get involved with and end up marrying murderers serving life sentences. They've been interesting write ups.
Manson Mythos said...
I wonder what the LaBianca family thinks about Alice LaBianca saying she suspected the phone book she handed over to Patchett was connect to, and I quote, "Rosemary and Suzan's drug dealing"
I'd be inclined to take most things a previous wife/girlfriend/partner said about a current wife/girlfriend/partner {even a dead one} with a huge pinch of salt.
Grim,
I guess I don't read that exchange the way you do.
Castro wants to know why he had kids when he knew they wouldn't have a dad around. To me he's inquring into either Watson's selfishness in having kids even though they would be fatherless or that he had them to garner sympathy- exposing the same issue with Watson.
Watson is smart enough to see where this is headed and makes the little speech about all when my wife and I decided this in the 70's and it looked more like I was going to get out.
Castro points out that doesn't make any sense since his kids weren't born in the 70's.
So Watson realizing his fable (lie, dishonesty, whatever you want to call it) doesn't make sense then tries to switch the topic to when he and his wife talked about it.
Castro then points out that that doesn't make sense either since they weren't married until 1979.
Watson then switches to 80-81, which is inconsistent with what he said above: "Then the tide turned in '79"
And Castro is now lost because he didn't answer the question so he asks again:
"PB: Why did you have children?
TW: We decided to have children and I think you are wondering how well they handle the situation and if they are not going to have a dad. You are thinking they will have grand~kids before I even think about getting out. We thought about all this."
And he doesn't answer the question.
Why? Because he didn't think about it at all. He thought only about himself and was incapable of ever "feeling" or "empathizing" with his victims: this time his children who got to grow up without a father and telling everyone they meet their dad murdered at least seven innocent people.
Dreath said...
I guess I don't read that exchange the way you do
To some extent. There are points of divergence but by and large, I'd say we were bringing out different elements within the same exchange.
Castro wants to know why he had kids when he knew they wouldn't have a dad around. To me he's inquiring into either Watson's selfishness in having kids even though they would be fatherless or that he had them to garner sympathy
For instance, I can see where Castro is coming from. I think they ask questions that many of us would ask and for the same reasons.
Castro points out that doesn't make any sense since his kids weren't born in the 70's.....Castro then points out that that doesn't make sense either since they weren't married until 1979
While I can see what Castro is getting at with their questions, I think they unwittingly show too much of their hand and demonstrate that perhaps they have come to this hearing with their mind already made up. I remember Diligaf making the same point about the board members at LVH's hearing when she was given a decision in her favour.
Dreath said...
Watson then switches to 80-81, which is inconsistent with what he said above: "Then the tide turned in '79"
True. But the way he throws out "the 70s," "'79," "'80-'81," "1982" and "the 80s" indicates being general about the time rather than absolutely specific. People I know and have done for years do this all the time. We'll talk about "80s production values" or joke "the 80s called ~ they want their clothes back !" or we'll talk about "the 60s" and attach specific happenings or groups to then without going into specific detail whether we mean 1960, 1963 or 1968, which could make a big difference.
That way of dealing with specific time periods isn't inconsistent with Watson since at least 1978.
And he doesn't answer the question.
Why? Because he didn't think about it at all. He thought only about himself and was incapable of ever "feeling" or "empathizing" with his victims
Firstly, I would never say that a person will ever be capable of any kind of change because I simply cannot know that. Secondly, if he never thought about it at all, then that would kind of defeat the object of having children. He would, even if one accepts that he was only thinking of himself, by the very nature of the act have to be thinking about how children would figure in all this; particularly if he and his wife wanted them and he was thinking of how good it might make him appear.
I used to think that there were really only one or two scopes through which to bring children into the world but my travels through life in the last 35 years have taught me that people of all ages and situations have kids in all sorts of what appear to be bizarre circumstances, for all kinds of different reasons and with many alternative justifications for it.
this time his children who got to grow up without a father and telling everyone they meet their dad murdered at least seven innocent people
I remember "back in the 70s" ☺ there used to be this legal drama called "Justice." I was 8~11 at the time and there was no violence, action or speeding cars in it so I only ever watched it with half a brain but I distinctly remember that the friend or lover of the main character was something of a reformer and in one episode made an appeal for prisoners to be able to make love with their significant others. I didn't really know what sex was then, neither would I have been interested but it's funny that over 40 years later, that's the only thing I remember about the show. That and that the lead character was called Margeret Lockwood.
I don't think prisoners should, but that's another debate for another time. Suffice it to say, it's not only Watson that was being selfish in this regard. His ex wife and the authorities that allowed it in the first place need to take a long hard look at themselves. That said, there's an uncomfortably large number of children who have one or both parents in prison......
grimtraveller said...
I remember "back in the 70s" ☺ there used to be this legal drama called "Justice." I was 8~11 at the time and there was no violence, action or speeding cars in it so I only ever watched it with half a brain but I distinctly remember that the friend or lover of the main character was something of a reformer and in one episode made an appeal for prisoners to be able to make love with their significant others. I didn't really know what sex was then, neither would I have been interested but it's funny that over 40 years later, that's the only thing I remember about the show. That and that the lead character was called Margeret Lockwood.
You realize that Mansonblog isn't a psychiatrist's office, right?
It's not ?
Post a Comment