Oh my, look at that hat! Wouldn't Robert Hendrickson have had a thing or two to say about that?!?!
Rest in Peace Harold.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Harold True has passed
Oh my, look at that hat! Wouldn't Robert Hendrickson have had a thing or two to say about that?!?!
Rest in Peace Harold.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
Two of my favorite crime related quotes:
"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Sherlock Holmes
"You can't ascribe reason to crazy people." Harold True
orwhut, just hours before Robert Hendrickson passed away he posted this comment:
"BTW: the TRUTH is merely the absence of ALL other possibilities."
That's cool, Matt! I really miss Robert.
Thanks Deb, I see also Ancestry has a photo of him on his High School Football team in 1958 and record of marriage in 1969.
I think that Harold could very well have been right about why those two locations were chosen. Some animus or bad karma at Cielo & Waverly, for some reason, needed to be levelled. Maybe as catharsis as "the Soul" was having a mental breakdown.
I think that it's possible that whatever Rudi Altobelli said to him (or how he said it) when Manson went to Cielo that day looking for Melcher, stuck with him, or peeved him off to some degree. Since that was Rudi's house, and those were his tenants, and Rudi said that he made it clear to Manson that he didn't like him disturbing his tenants.
The response on August 9 at Cielo could be interpreted as a huge "Fuck you! Fuck your house! And Fuck your tenants!", to Altobelli. Tex also harbored some resentment (paraphrasing) towards that property and the types of people who live there, which he later admitted in his book.
Harold True and his roommates not letting Manson move in with them might seem like a minor thing to you or me, but for someone with the need to be the dominant male in the room, like Manson, it could have been a huge affront.
I read an interview a while back with Charlie's prison chaplain, Reverend Earl Smith (quoted below). He hit on some of the same points that FBI profiler John Douglas made about Manson.
RNS: Tell us about your relationship with Charles Manson? What was your assessment of his spiritual state?
ES: After each conversation I had with Charles Manson, I went away in awe of his ability to capture a moment and claim it as his. Charles Manson was exactly what he sought to be. Charles wanted people to see him, hear his name and fear him. The problem is that Charles is a little person who sees his height in terms of emotional and psychological dominance. Psychological warfare was his means of survival. He once told me, “this is my world, and I decide when you do what you do. The trees, the stars, the grass they all belong to me”. Charles was interested in the manipulation of people for the sole purpose of seeing if he could manipulate them.
ziggyosterberg said...
Some animus or bad karma at Cielo & Waverly, for some reason, needed to be levelled. Maybe as catharsis as "the Soul" was having a mental breakdown
When Bugliosi was relaying Manson's movements in the week leading up to Cielo, his only focus was in establishing Charlie's proximity to Southern California, his continued criminal behaviour, the Esalen rejection and him talking about HS and the White album to Stephanie Schram's sister. But he missed so much. He never emphasized the Hinman killing {I don't think Charlie going away so close to that event was coincidental}, Beausoleil's running off, his arrest and arraignment for murder, the closeness to Cielo of the actual arrests and jailing of Brunner and pregnant Good, meaning two of the Hinman party could talk.....
Maybe with the weight of all that was happening his mind did snap.
I've long wondered if it runs through the minds of many criminals, just what it would be like to have someone killed. It certainly runs through the minds of people that don't consider themselves as criminals !
I think that it's possible that whatever Rudi Altobelli said to him (or how he said it) when Manson went to Cielo that day looking for Melcher, stuck with him, or peeved him off to some degree
I think you may well be right.
I've known people who could get rubbed up "the wrong way" over something that most others wouldn't even notice and hold serious grudges for many years {decades even} afterwards. Thing is, to most of us, there's no reason to get all het up to the extent that you'd kill or go out of your way to mess up the person's family. But of course, we're not the ones feeling what the aggrieved one feels. We don't process it and justify it in our heads the way they would.
My mate and I used to work with someone that we used to refer to as "The Infuriation." She'd come into work and we'd be like "oh, hiya, Carol" and she would break into the most torrid abuse and my mate and I would be like "what did I do ? What did I do ?" Her boyfriend was our boss and he and I had been good pals and he'd also been good pals with my mate but there had been a straining in the friendship {which was odd because we'd supported his becoming boss} and I later learned she'd been forbidden to speak to us, which was also weird as I'd been sort of friends and spent much time getting stoned in her flat up on that 13th floor. Her moods would go on for days and just when you'd get used to the tension and become an expert at walking on eggshells, she'd walk in and buy us lunch ! No explanation. No apology. And we'd be all friends and laughter for a week or so and then you'd ask her if she could check if the washing machine cycle had ended as she was going to the kitchen anyway {not even asking her to do anything, just, has the cycle finished} and the abuse would fly and the whole thing would run again.
Gorgin' Ada !
On the other hand, I recall Pat saying in one of her parole hearings that she once laughed at Charlie and he grabbed her by the hair and said "you won't laugh at me again...." It sounds creepy after so many psychological thrillers on telly but I felt that way myself after an old flame laughed at my dancing. People had mocked my attempts at dance for at least 16 years up to that point but for whatever reason, that is the one that got to me. I didn't go all Charlie on her but you could've cooked eggs on my heat at that moment and 23 years on, I still remember it. Given many of the events of Manson's life up to that point, I can easily see Rudi Altobelli's manner riling him. Just the way it's described in HS makes one want to slap him, like, have some manners Rudi !
ziggyosterberg said...
The response on August 9 at Cielo could be interpreted as a huge "Fuck you! Fuck your house! And Fuck your tenants!", to Altobelli
Certainly could. I think both of the nights contained a pot pourri of things that we will never get to the bottom of, even if we have an idea of the overall theme.
I've long felt that HS in all of it's constituent parts reshapes or settles pretty much all of Charlie's scores, with authority, mothers and women in general, Dads, society, liberals and hippies, Blacks, the South, family, religion, government, class, them and us and how things should be, etc.
I've also long felt that HS is an embarrassment to Charles Manson and was so from a very long time ago, well before the trial began, even before {but compounded by} he ran into Lotsapoppa in jail {in a way it's surprising that he recognized him. Crowe doesn't appear to have reciprocated initially}. He was trying to conceptually distance himself from the entirety of HS while trying to minimize it's importance and caught himself out in his trial statement. Unless he has one more twist in the tale for those that still have an interest, I can't see him ever coming clean about anything and why should he ?
Tex also harbored some resentment (paraphrasing) towards that property and the types of people who live there, which he later admitted in his book
This is a good point that hasn't really been given a great deal of attention over the years, partly because of the attention lavished on Charles 1st and the hatred meted out against Charles 2nd. It's also been sideswiped by the attention that Nicholas Shreck's book and some of it's content "brought to the table."
But Tex's resentment towards the well off and successful and material things in general doesn't appear to have begun with Charlie, but rather, with Dean Moorehouse. He wasn't the only person that harboured those kinds of resentments in that period either. In fact, that it was very much in so many people's minds at the time made it so much easier to justify because he'd be able to go many places and get a far more receptive hearing than he could ever dream of in Copeville.
So yeah, people may not kill because of it "but they'd understand." Which was seen in surprising measure in the early months of 1970. A lot of people on the countercultural plane did appear to "understand" or "sympathize" if not exactly agree.
Here lies Harold I. True Jr.
He could pour piss out of a boot with the best of 'em.
ziggyosterberg said...
Harold True and his roommates not letting Manson move in with them might seem like a minor thing to you or me, but for someone with the need to be the dominant male in the room, like Manson, it could have been a huge affront
I remember when I came across the Aaron Stovitz/Harold True 27/1/70 interview on CieloDrive.com, I was flabbergasted. I found it hard to believe that nowhere had I ever seen anyone pick up on it. For absolutely years, people had been saying "why the LaBiancas ?" and this kind of gave rise to all the theories about Suzan LaBerge, Joe Dorgan and Rosemary LaBianca herself as this big time drug dealer. Whereas there had long been theories galore about Cielo, the inhabitants, the connections, whys and wherefores, Waverley was always couched in a mysterious cloud of nothingness. You'd maybe get the odd story peaking out here and there about Leno having to come to Harold's house to tell them to keep the noise down of their wild parties, but this was always shown to be bogus, Harold saying he always thought the house next door was empty, but more significantly, according to the Stovitz interview, he'd left before the LaBiancas moved in.
Charlie unwittingly confirmed the property's status in 2011 when talking to Vanity Fair when he spoke of knowing the house next door as being empty because he'd been in it. One could make the argument that he possibly knew the layout better than the one at Cielo.
Both in 1970 and 20 years later Harold True expressed no surprise at the actual locations of the murders. Certainly in one of the interviews he said Charlie went to where he knew. Knowing that he was familiar with both sites is significant for obvious reasons but True's 1970 revelation that Charlie was turned down as a housemate by True's three former housemates pushes the whole thing into a different realm as far as I'm concerned. Charlie himself {in George's book} says he went up first to see Harold on the night of the LaBianca murder but he'd known for at least 8 months that Harold no longer lived there. True states that in that 1970 interview. That is a bombshell because it begs the question, why did Charlie go up to Harold's former house knowing he no longer lived there ?
This can never be proven and every time I've brought it up, it's never even rated being filed under "irrelevant discussion" {although someone did ask me privately once where Harold's words could be found}, but I suspect that those 3 housemates were on the menu at that point. All the other random attempts hadn't worked out that night, why not go with what you know ? Fortunately for them they were either out or no longer lived there themselves ~ neither of which Charlie would have known.
If it seems ridiculous to want to kill for such trifling reasons, well, people kill just to join a gang. People kill for a lot less than that. In certain London clubs in some areas in the early 80s, you dared not step, even accidentally, on another man's crocodile skin shoes, you'd get stabbed. Besides which, whatever reason a person has for doing something, that reason is good enough for them.
Reverend Earl Smith said...
Charles was interested in the manipulation of people for the sole purpose of seeing if he could manipulate them
The Chaplain states that as though this is some unusual kind of behaviour in a human being. We spend much of a child's life trying to socialize them out of seeing this as the way to conduct themselves. It's interesting that he felt that Charlie's only motivation was to see if he could. I'm somewhat more cynical than that. The story is only at the mid point when you discover whether the person can or can't be manipulated.....
orwhut said...
Two of my favorite crime related quotes:
"...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Sherlock Holmes
"You can't ascribe reason to crazy people." Harold True
They are great quotes. Especially Harold's one. It just rolls off the tongue so eloquently.
But I don't agree with either of them, especially Harold's one. The reason of someone deemed to be crazy/imbalanced may be bleedin' difficult for the rest of us to fathom or grasp but grasp it we must try otherwise I don't see that one has any freedom to comment on that situation. "You can't ascribe reason to crazy people" is almost another way of saying "if I can't see it, it can't make sense."
It maybe said more about Harold at the time he said it than anything else.
Here lies the body of Harold True
Another guy in this case who Charles Manson knew
I am sure it made everyone who knew him feel blue
And although I am not one of them...
I sort of do too
RIP
Dude what's up with you and the poetry? Lol
There was a man named True,
who fell asleep in his canoe,
while dreaming of Squeaky,
he played with his peepee
and woke up covered in goo.
St. and Matt,
You two won't do.
lol :)
The rhymes that inspired me are a cross fro. The tombstones in the Movie Tombstone and outside of the Disney Ride - Haunted Mansion.
Funny stuff lol. I should be so original
Panamint Patty said...
Dude what's up with you and the poetry?
"The St and the pear tree" sounds almost like it could be a poem. The kind they forced us to learn at school which you thought you'd forget as soon as you left and it no longer mattered but 45 years you still recall odd lines....
Matt said...
just hours before Robert Hendrickson passed away he posted this comment:
"BTW: the TRUTH is merely the absence of ALL other possibilities."
I remember that one. I was going to reply to it because I didn't agree with it either.
Life could be so much easier if it were true though.
ziggyosterberg said...
Tex also harbored some resentment
That came up a few times during his recent parole hearing.
Grim - you are a great blogger who I have grown to respect and enjoy very much
But I have never eaten a pear in my life lol
But in spirit of a partiridge I will have my next beer to you. Happy New Year and Cheers Mate
Re:Grim's comment on the chaplains perspective regarding Charlie's penchant for manipulation. Agreed children manipulate. The key word here is children. The desire to manipulate at an adult level be it for sport or selfish gain is the hallmark of a criminal/physcopath. Enter Charlie and his ilk. I think the Chaplains comments were very telling.
Has anyone else read "The Maul and the Pear Tree", about the Ratcliffe Highway murders?
Ha ha ha...Matt I have a new found respect for you..😊.like myself you have the sense of humour of a 7 year old...im still laughing..
penny lane said...
... like myself you have the sense of humour of a 7 year old...im still laughing..
Probably not as hard as I did trying to think of a rhyme for 'Squeaky' :D
The LA Times has an article today about Kreny... seems she has a parole hearing today.
wonder how that will go ? lol
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-manson-parole-hearing-20161229-story.html
This was new to me:
"According to Wattley, Krenwinkel has two key factors working in her favor — both revolving around age.
Because she was 21 at the time of the murders, she is considered a youthful offender under a law that took effect in 2016. Also, commissioners must recognize the elderly have a lower risk of future violence, he said."
I wonder if that helped LULU finally get her votes? Oh well, it wont matter anyway. Kreny isnt going anywhere....
That same issue came up at Beausoleil's latest hearing. The PB brings this issue up, but it doesn't appear to feel it is a positive for the offender. BB is considered both a youthful offender bc his age at the time of the commitment offense and an elderly offender bc of the length of his incarceration.
Quite the trick bag for the Manson crew.
My guess is that if consideration for being youthful wasn't enough for Lulu- who was younger and participated less- it won't help Pat much either..
I think the age of the offender should matter when considering the sentence at the time. Using it later to judge a persons current suitability makes no sense to me at all.
I mean you knew when you sentenced her to death she was 19 or 20 or whatever. So 40 years later she deserves special considerations for being 19 at the time? She was going to be dead for what she did and nobody had a problem with her being a certain age when they gave the sentence to kill her. Now it matters? Is that logical? Maybe I am missing something..
Saint said: "Is that logical? Maybe I am missing something.."
Nope, nothing.
It doesn't make sense in cases like these but remember the odd 'amnesia' that happens in the legal world when the law changes- it's suddenly as if nothing happened before- the past disappears.
So when the death sentences of the various killers were deemed unconstitutional and were commuted to life it is as if the death sentence never happened. PK was just sentenced to life back in 1971.
That might also be precisely why BB/LVH didn't get much traction out of the youth/age factor- in their cases it isn't logical to apply it.
Doesn't it make more sense to consider her age at commitment offense when doling out the punishment in the first place than using it to consider her suitability later?
that would be my first question...
Second one would be:
When you do a crime like the one Kreny did- does it matter what age you are when you do it?? Should that matter ever as far as a consideration??
I don't know the answer to the second question, but my gut tells me that there are somethings inside certain people that you never outgrow. Some people can do what she did and some people can't. I am not sure years change the insides of people.....
Well..im a srceaming leftie and I personally think some of them should be out..and there just seems to be no consistancy in the justice system..i just finished rereading the Sylvia Likens books/ transcripts etc and the crime was horrific and the sentences of the offenders pathetic..why ? 2 years for some !!! It makes no sense ...Dreath...any lawyer insights would be very welcome 😆
Penny,
I don't know much about that case- Indiana, mid-60's, a family tortured the young women if I recall.
I have some recollection several of the participants were juveniles. That may have resulted in a sentence of 'until 18 or 21' or something like it.
I would be guessing but if someone actually received 2 years and was an adult it wasn't a murder conviction but, instead, perhaps 'involuntary' manslaughter. That result could come about if someone claimed and proved our old friend 'diminished capacity'.
In some states until the age of majority changed to 18 children of certain ages were deemed to be incapable of forming certain required 'intent' to commit various crimes. So say a 15 year old might be deemed to have a diminished capacity solely due to his age.
And that, Saint, is sort of the origin of the 'youthful offender' concept with parole.
I buy that in the case of robbery or DUI or almost anything else..
but stabbing pregnant people at any age is ticket to a life in the clink or worse in my book. If you are capable of that at any age- your not safe among us. I don't think those types of behavior capacities can be "outgrown"
But although I have been playing one online recently- I am not any more of a shrink than I am an attorney, so these are just my thoughts.
Perhaps I am wrong- it just seems to me some mistakes an be written off as dumb mistakes made by a stupid kid, and others are a reflection of a deeper personality issue.
Leave a nickle in the cup - Lucy will return with more wisdom lol
Right now at 3:30 EST Charles Manson is the number one trending topic on Yahoo lol
This is from an AP article:
Krenwinkel's attorney, Keith Wattley, successfully petitioned the state to hold the hearing a year early at the California Institution for Women, about 40 miles east of Los Angeles, where Krenwinkel is imprisoned.
"Ms. Krenwinkel is fully aware of the difficulty she faces," Wattley told The Associated Press in an email. "But California law officially recognizes a person's capacity to change and to address the factors that contributed to their previous behavior so that they can safely be paroled."
A couple of years ago I would have known this hearing was coming. I am not really keeping up on this stuff as much nowadays. I would have written a blistering post about why Kreny should never get out. An open letter to the Gov lol maybe I will if she gets the votes, but there is no way that is going to happen.
With the lone exception of Tex, this is the scariest person involved with this whole case. Evil- period. Do not care what the reasons or her motivation was at all. Inhuman, monster who is lucky to be breathing. It is an insult to the memory of Sharon and the other victims that anyone would consider letting this animal out of her cage.
Brutal, vicious, cold-blooded murder. Kreny ran and tried to hide afterwards too. She wasn't as far out of it as she would let you think these days at her hearings.
For a long time Kreny played it cool as if she didn't care if she got out- people bought it. She was - undeservingly- called the one who has shown the most remorse. But when that didn't help her case, and it became apparent that angle wasn't working- she started whining and looking for other relief just like the others.
Lulu played the - Young and stupid card
Susan played the religion card
Pat played the I accept my punishment card ( for awhile)
None of it worked .... all of them have amazing accomplishments and records. All of them served longer than anyone else with similar crimes. All of them have renounced Charlie. All of them have worked hard to redefine their image and to help others...
Now Susan couldn't even lift her head up and she was told no dice.
Lulu did almost no actual harm and actually got votes- no dice.
Who believes that the worst, most murdering bitch of the lot is going to be the one to walk out into the sunshine???
If I could get a line on that- I would retire to Southern California with my dog and a endless supply of Coors-light and Skywalker weed from the commissary :)
But they played it out today anyway- and as soon as Cielo puts up the transcript- I will probably read every word of it.
I am mesermized listening to them talk about this stuff today.
Cielo drive has all the pending parole dates. Very convenient.
Hey St. "Served longer than anyone else with similiar crimes". Ain't no similiar crimes to compare to bro! If you are talking parole that is.
One of the best sites there is!
I also strongly feel 'consistency' should be sustained regarding crime and punishment when comparing apples to apples. While I wouldn't have shed a tear had the executions been carried out back then, thus disrupting some of our fun time on this blog, with the legal changes throughout the years coupled with others having committed equally heinous crimes but served their time and are now out, it seems 'plausible' that some like BB/LVH should be out by now, especially seeing how so many other MF members who were or may have been involved in various murders beat the rap from the get-go and have managed to avoid continuing any murder rampage (as far as we know .... now some of their children ...).
For me Watson and Krenwinkle are a little different, knowing both had butchered in at least two different cases and Watson perhaps three or more. When you have repeaters like that I think it's time to keep them in or let them swing. And for many, no matter how many do-gooder things one does in jail and how many college degrees amassed, life in prison can be a fate worse than death.
But in '69 the MF struck at the upper middle class and Hollywood, seemingly at random to the average peep, which obviously put the fear beyond gawd into them, and the pressure of that sentiment still prevails to this day against whomever is CA governor (my suspicion). But I digress ....
Because this is a Harold True thread I say Harry, ol' bean-head and a generational peer, a belated RIP.
PS --- butchering people alive, whether they are pregnant or not, is still the same in my book. Ultra nasty.
You would be surprised. There are similar crimes as far as brutality and randomness. Just not with people who are news-worthy enough that you and I hear about it.
A very fair and reasonable opinion and a great and thoughtful comment in my opinion
But I agree in principal lol. Throw everything else out the window. This was nuts :)
Gloopine said...
Agreed children manipulate. The key word here is children
The only reason I spoke about how we try to rid children of the trait is because children are little people and that's where it starts.
And while I do believe in the principle of sin, ie, all of us being warped from the start and just passing it on {genetically, socially}, I don't see the initial need to manipulate as being anything beyond straight survival. Baby hungry. Baby can't speak. Baby makes noise. Baby gets fed. Baby soon works out, being a progressive human being, that there are ways to get what it wants. It soon knows that by "making that noise" it'll get what it wants and if it needs to learn a little endurance, it will and it does.
OK, that's a bit simplistic but hopefully you get my drift. We try to socialize that out of kids as their understanding grows but we so often give confusing mixed messages. Why ? Because it's not only children that manipulate. Many children may not be able to articulate it but many soon work that out too.
The desire to manipulate at an adult level be it for sport or selfish gain is the hallmark of a criminal/psychopath
Well, maybe I've found myself among criminals and psychopaths all my life.
While I can't say I've necessarily known people that manipulate others just for sport {they may have done on one or two occasions} almost everyone I've known as an adult has manipulated people at some level or has tried. We can be nice about it, we can be in denial about it or we can be Dark Sith Lord Sidious about it. We can pretend it's for the other person's good or growth or the good of our Nation in the winning of the war or our team in the winning of that trophy or championship or for the smooth running of the church or council but however one dresses it up, it's something that is common to the human experience. Women try to do it in relationships, men try to do it in relationships. Politicians try to do it, those running media outlets try to do it, filmmakers and writers try to do it and so on and so forth.
Criminals and psychopaths just take it to a different place.
St Circumstance said...
I think the age of the offender should matter when considering the sentence at the time. Using it later to judge a persons current suitability makes no sense to me at all
It doesn't seem to make sense. And yet...........
I can sort of understand why it would come up. It's sort of saying that life is a continuum and that people can and do change and that sometimes there is a significance in someone's age when they did something. Someone at sixty whatever, looking back on their life and being able to see with so much more clarity at who and where they were back when they were 21.
It could also work both ways. A panel could say "well, if you were doing this kind of thing at 21....."
I couldn't find anything specif to death row inmates whose sentenced has been changed to life in prison and how many have been paroled. Does anyone know? I did find this article which is a little alarming to me: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2016/mar/31/california-lifers-paroled-record-numbers/
Lynn,
There is some data from 2003.
42 of the 107 death row inmates in what is called the 'class of ’72' had been released on parole by 2003. 12 of those released committed new felonies. That rate was far lower than the 65 percent, three-year recidivism rate for all parolees released from prison at the same time.
By 2003 of the class of '72 24 died in prison.
The LA Times looked at the class of ’76, consisting of 67 people on death row who got life sentences after the state’s second capital punishment law was again ruled unconstitutional in 1976. Six of those formerly condemned inmates were paroled, with only one reoffending.
This link has more current data on 'lifers' (our group of killers would not technically be 'lifers' but the data is interesting).
http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/164096/doc/slspublic/SCJC_report_Parole_Release_for_Lifers.pdf
Hey Saint...whilst kicking back with a monster joint over the new year break..read up on Katherine Knight...It was a Australian crime and its a doozy...kinda makes the manson stuff look tame...kinda..😉
Thanks Dreath..yes some where young , so young in fact that one of them managed a second murder after his 2 years jail..But the adult offender only got 20 years ..!
St Circumstance said...
When you do a crime like the one Kreny did- does it matter what age you are when you do it?? Should that matter ever as far as a consideration??
This is such a hard one, but on balance, I'd have to say yes. We had a case here in England back in 1993, the James Bulger case, where a couple of 10 year olds murdered a child. It's a horrible case to read about, the details of what these kids did are hard to forget once you've read them. I think that each case has to be taken on its own haunches but speaking generally, age sometimes needs to be taken into account.
But not on its own.
And that's the thing, you've got all these factors working in conjunction with each other. That's one of the things that boxed Tex in during his latest hearing. The transcript is fantastic. It's one of the most intense I've come across yet. And the panelists couldn't get their heads around a series of factors that contributed {not caused} towards that moment at which he committed murder. So that really did for him.
Oh, that and the fact that the man lied on a few occasions when demonstrable, factual stuff {much of it from his own mouth or pen, incidentally} was on hand to be used by those opposing his release !
Penny Lane,
Do you know what that adult was convicted of? (1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder) And was the sentence like 15-life and they did 20 or '20 years'. Just curious.
Thanks.
Dreath,
Gertrude Baniszewski was convicted of first-degree murder. She was spared the death penalty and was sentenced to life imprisonment, served 20 years. Paula Baniszewski, (daughter) , was convicted of second-degree murder. She was also sentenced to life imprisonment , but serviced only a few years …It was the daughters conviction I found most disturbing…I Just struggle with the inconsistency.
I do agree with Saint to a degree , Stabby and Krenny should spend their lives in prison , the others however should have been released in my humble opinion… Their crimes where no worse than many that have served much less time , it’s the Manson connection that keeps them locked up , and that’s just not cricket!
Grim,
I have read a lot about the James Bulger case , awful, do you have any idea of what happened to the one that went bad after his release ?
Well, folks, whether the age of the defendant 'should' be a consideration either in sentencing or in connection with parole it 'is' a consideration in both areas. It is a 'mitigating factor'.
Penny Lane,
Thanks! 20 years is about right for parole on life in prison with parole. That's one of LVH's arguments.
Grim,
I generally agree with you but not this: "And the panelists couldn't get their heads around a series of factors that contributed {not caused} towards that moment at which he committed murder."
I read it as the panel had him pegged pretty well and wanted to know why he murdered and never really got a straight answer- yes, Manson controlled and manipulated them, speed and LSD did contribute to the murders but the real answer that- to me, IMO- is inescapable with Watson is: in August, 1969 he wanted to murder them and in August, 1969 he believed the 'pigs' deserved/needed to die. I also believe that for LVH and likely the rest this is the 'honest' answer.
I agree it was very interesting I especially found his efforts to defer to his book for details 'interesting'. It could mean his memory is going. It could also mean he's forgotten what he said in 1978 and the truth, or what is in his memory, differs.
Thank you for the data, Dreath...much appreciated
Will do
penny lane said...
I've read a lot about the James Bulger case, awful, do you have any idea of what happened to the one that went bad after his release ?
Sort of but details are somewhat hazy because of the new identities both boys were given and apart from a few official government statements, much info is sort of cobbled together from the kind of sources that I wouldn't rely on. I'd listen at a distance but not rely.
The one that was unofficially thought of as the ringleader {"Child A," Robert Thompson} appears to have gotten on with his life. There was an interesting Daily Mail article about 7 years back where one of the social workers that had worked with him during his incarceration said that he had seen him working as a steward at a big sporting event up North. He said he was really shocked {to see him}. I kind of thought it wasn't such a bad thing because it meant that he was getting on with life after some pretty heavy years. The social worker in the article gave the impression that Thompson was never a problem once incarcerated.
The other one, {Child "B," Jon Venables} seems to have slowly unraveled. Apparently, he's had to have new identities on more than one occasion because he has confided to someone who he really is. He was recalled to jail at one point and a government official said that it wasn't in the public interest to know why.....newspaper reports said it was because of a sex attack. In 2010 he was done for possessing and distributing child porn. This time around the official channels did allow it to be reported and gave the reason why and basically, he went down. He came out in 2013. There's quite a bit on line about him but you pay your money and take your chance with some of those sources.
Some of what St said about how people are early on would probably apply to him.
Dreath said...
I read it as the panel had him pegged pretty well and wanted to know why he murdered and never really got a straight answer
That was what I was getting at ~ there isn't really a straight answer. There's a series of elements that make up the answer. And they cannot seem to grasp that.
Back in 1970 Aaron Stovitz seemed to be moving along the same lines ~ forget all this esoteric shit, give the jury something solid. We have prints, we have perps, we don't need a motive, that burden isn't on us. But his mate Vince could see, straight as he was in comparison to the Family, that there was more to this than could be easily explained in a throwaway sentence. If his eventual book was simply about something as straightforward as a gang that goes out and commits murder, it would have had a limited interest.
the real answer that- to me, IMO- is inescapable with Watson is: in August, 1969 he wanted to murder them and in August, 1969 he believed the 'pigs' deserved/needed to die. I also believe that for LVH and likely the rest this is the 'honest' answer
I don't dispute the second part of the equation. The former, I do. I was very much struck by Kasabian's statement in the Watson trial that they knew HS would involve killing ~ but not that they'd be the ones doing it.
Funny thing is though, it seems that Tex not wanting to commit murder {prior to the night of the 8th} now has the effect of landing him in the shit because it emphasizes that there are questions that he can't answer that the parole board say they want answers the to.
That's irony
Dreath said...
I especially found his efforts to defer to his book for details 'interesting'
Under the circumstances, it was Hari Kiri. I winced when he was asked about the money he fliched from Lotsapoppa and whom had taken it and he said TJ. As soon as I saw that, I thought, "this was where the game was up." It's one thing to be mistaken. It's another altogether to lie. DDA Lebowitz suckers him in just like Darth Maul does to Qui~Gon Jinn in "The Phantom Menace" and pops him on the head before delivering the fatal blow. But he also said things like he never believed Charlie was Christ or that he had always taken responsibility for the crimes, even though his books and his trial testimony show that neither statement is true.
It could mean his memory is going. It could also mean he's forgotten what he said in 1978
That one is just human. Even with half a century of having to go over the same old ground, there'll be lots one doesn't remember. I've felt this for ages, much of the detail in his books do not stem from his actual memory ~ but that of Vince Bugliosi and various other interviews or books he'd read pertaining to the case.
42 of the 107 death row inmates in what is called the 'class of ’72' had been released on parole by 2003. 12 of those released committed new felonies
One would think that might auger well for some of the Family killers but factors that influence release are the human ones, it would seem.
Thanks for the info Grim..sounds like Venables is the bad seed.. but there are plenty of them around walking free... like the next US president..and most CEO's...but i digress ..
grimtraveller said...
That is a bombshell because it begs the question, why did Charlie go up to Harold's former house knowing he no longer lived there ?
This can never be proven and every time I've brought it up, it's never even rated being filed under "irrelevant discussion" {although someone did ask me privately once where Harold's words could be found}, but I suspect that those 3 housemates were on the menu at that point. All the other random attempts hadn't worked out that night, why not go with what you know ? Fortunately for them they were either out or no longer lived there themselves ~ neither of which Charlie would have known.
That's actually a pretty brilliant theory that I've not read or heard anywhere. The assumption is always made that since Charlie knew that Harold didn't live there anymore, he also knew that the roomates didn't live there anymore. But why would he know that? And if he didn't, it makes sense that they would be the reason why he ended up at Waverly.
Another possibility with the True house is that Manson associated it, in his mind, with Kaufman and Stromberg. True, Kaufman and Stromberg all being intertwined.
I assume that, since True picked Manson up from prison, Kaufman must have arranged it. And Kaufman also put Manson in contact with Stromberg. True also lived with Kaufman for a while after Manson was arrested. And for some reason, Kaufman made that odd claim that Manson was looking for him (and True) at Cielo the night that the Labianca's were killed.
There might be some credence to the theory that Manson was seeking revenge on people in the music business. It's strange that Manson has said that Leno was killed for a black book with the names of the people who control the music business. Not a believable story, but it hints that, in a metaphorical sense, to Charlie, it was music related.
And the ironic footnote to this : Phil Kaufman releases the LIE album.
So maybe part of Manson's plan did work out?
ziggyosterberg said...
The assumption is always made that since Charlie knew that Harold didn't live there anymore, he also knew that the roomates didn't live there anymore. But why would he know that?
Exactly. Harold was the contact with the house, not the three housemates {Ernie Baltzell, Allen Swerdloff [?] and the other one}. It was with the knowledge that True was leaving the house that Charlie asked him if he could move in in his place and it was True that said it wasn't for him to say; ask the three housemates. Some 20 years after the events of '69, True said "Charlie Manson, where did he go to do the killings ? He went to the 2 places he knew in LA, and 2 places only; He went to my house and he went to [David] Melcher's house because we told him he couldn't live in our house and Terry Melcher told him he couldn't make shit with a [voice ?] of a record album....."
Once Harold was gone from the house, why would Charlie have hung around somewhere he wasn't wanted ?
The other thing that tends to be overlooked is something that Linda Kasabian said ~ and maybe that's why it's overlooked. But she said after a long time driving and acting randomly, suddenly Charlie became very specific in where he wanted to go and the directions he gave her.
Hmmm.....
Good stuff Grim. The Kasabian statement has always told me Manson knew exactly where he was going at the end of that night.
If you believe the 'revenge' theory Manson seems to have been sending a lot of messages to those who 'insulted' him. Under this he chose Cielo to send a message to Melcher knowing he wasn't there.
So was he sending a message to True (knowing he wasn't there) by targeting that house and found no one home so he went next door or was he sending a message to the roommates who were the source of the perceived insult and chose the house next door?
Either way, the house next door doesn't appear to have been the initial target. If one takes Charlie's words he says he went up to see Harold which we know isn't true. He had been in the LaBianca house in the days when it was empty {from what he told Vanity Fair in 2011} and saw the light on and a dog. That seems to be what aroused his attention.
If he had been going to slaughter the 3 housemates, he would have done so in the knowledge that the house was isolated enough to not attract attention ~ because he thought the LaBianca house was empty. Given that the former True house was empty but someone was in the house next door, isolation at 2am still applied.....
There is also the matter of having told his accomplices that he was going to show them "how to do it" and thus far, he hadn't...
I agree with you Grim 100%
Dave1971 said...
Wow, Manson grabbed Pats hair after she laughed at him!!! He must be a mass murderer!.....You HS devotees will take every little move Manson ever made and use it as motivation for murder
Be sensible Dave1971. Anyone can see the point I was making as I included a former colleague/sort of friend and feelings I myself have experienced. I'm illustrating that anything can set a person off and that if Manson was guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, there's a whole range of things that could have triggered the sequence.
Post a Comment