As ziggyosterberg pointed out:
They did one last year that some of the interviews appear to be from. They had the same quote from the vocal fry woman - "These were broodal cryme scenes" - in last years preview. They also had Jakobson in the preview of last years episode, but I don't remember him being in the actual episode that aired last year. If he was in it, it must have been a very brief appearance. I don't think Roger Smith was in last years show at all.
I recall that last years show was thought to be a two-parter, and the second part never aired. I don't know if that has anything to do with this. From the preview it looks like some recycled stuff from last year mixed with unused interview footage from last year, and the "rare, in-depth interview" with Roger Smith, which appears to be new.
Craptastic!
ReplyDeleteI may watch, but only for Dr. Smith.
ReplyDeleteThere was supposed to be a second hour to the show they aired last year. It was gonna largely focus on Hinman. Looks like they are finally airing it
ReplyDeleteDavid Smith is the MD of Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic fame, who wrote the infamous group marriage "research paper" on Mr. Manson et al. Roger Smith (supposedly aka Jubal, in a "Stranger in a Strange Land" reference), the California corrections official, is on this new TV show. Is he some sort of doctor now?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if folks haven't read Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strangle Land," it's a must read for those interested in this blog's topics. Does anyone know when its author Robert Heinlein lived in Laurel Canyon? Was it in the late 1960s?
Patty tried to read it but just couldn't get into it
DeleteHeinlen lived there in the 40s off of Lookout Mountain it looks like
Delete
ReplyDeleteChris Till said...
Roger Smith... Is he some sort of doctor now?
Roger Smith retired in 2003 as director of forensic mental health for the Michigan Department of Mental Health. Some sources address him as 'Dr.,' though they may refer to a PhD.
But for a parole officer he was rather well educated.
Hopefully theyll have alot more with Jakobsen, i always thought he was one of the more interesting characters in the saga, id love to hear more of the story of Manson dancing at a jam packed Whiskey in 1968 and maybe some more about Dennis Wilson but im not holding my breath, from the previews it just looks like more of the same
ReplyDeleteRe: Roger Smith. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteRe: "Stranger in a Strange Land." It's a classic sci-fi novel, but, as with any work of literature, not for all. Some of the pertinent themes are group marriage/group love; water worship; and murder as an act of love and mercy.
Heinlen was an interesting guy, didnt he graduate from Annapolis?
DeleteWell same old shit so far lol, it never ceases to amaze me how Tex never gets mentioned or talked about during these pieces of rehashed tabloid shit
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIt was less painful to watch than the Mets game tonight.
I was surprised at what they went with for the reason for the Tate/LaBianca murders. (trying not to spoil for West coasters)
BTW, did you guys see Nikolas Schreck in that Spectrum commercial?
Lol i saw that commercial months ago and i swear thats the first thing i thought
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCompletely OT
ReplyDeleteI see that a show called, "This Is Us", has had it's Emmy nomination revoked. I think I've heard that title in a movie somewhere. :-)
They left the flag there? I understand that was an Aquarius trailer but anyone check..... never mind
ReplyDeleteI made the mistake of watching this show with my girlfriend and out loud pointed out every mistake they made lol
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTex must have incriminating pictures of people in power because as the mastermind of the Tex Watson murders hes been able to keep his name out of most of these "specials"
ReplyDeleteSusan, the only reason why no one knows who Tex is, is because he fought extradition long enough to miss the initial trial. Tex's trial was given little media attention because by that time it was old news. His trial was just a rehash in far less dramatic fashion. He didn't chum the waters for the media like Charlie and the girls did
DeleteNah i dont buy that, theres more reason to it than that, im not alledging any collusion on anyones part to have his role minimized but for some reason the number one major participant in TLB seems to get mentioned only as an after thought in these TV specials
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSusan, you are vastly overthinking these tv specials
ReplyDeleteHow so?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI remember reading years ago that the flag was always at Cielo, not left by the killers. I remember Sharon being worried that her father would be upset because someone (Voytek?) always arranged it upside-down.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone notice that Susan Atkins was mentioned as of of the girls who went into the LaBianca house? Someone didn't fact check very well
ReplyDeleteNO MENTION of bobby b. and bad mescaline sold to bikers.???/ they made it sound like if gary hinmen didnt join the family he was gonna be killed....WHAT BOUT THE BAD DRUGS AND THE BIKERS...IS THAT NOT TRUE.????
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThey always portray Gary that way, in no way am i saying him or any of the victime deserved but like Nikolas Schreck said these people have been elevated to sainthood status
DeleteDeserved what happened to them, sorry for the typo, i really wish whoever runs,this blog would get an easy quoting method and an edit posts feature
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSusan, as mentioned before, you are having an ID 10 t error. Get a clue. Don't hit the back button duh.
ReplyDeleteCarolMR said: "I remember reading years ago that the flag was always at Cielo, not left by the killers."
ReplyDeleteWinifred Chapman said:
Q: Was it [the flag] there on Friday when you left?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: Had it been there for a day or two before?
A: It had been there for several weeks.
*****
Q: On Friday, August 8, when you left the home where was that American Flag?
A: On the back of the couch.
I felt the recent TV presentation was a smooth highlight toucher, sure to agitate all serious investigators for similar or different reasons like not supporting more strongly their opinions regarding motives and detail. However I really didn't learn anything new other than one brief contemporary film clip of S. Good saying something with a few others around. No question Guinn strongly believes Manson visited Cielo after the butchery.
ReplyDeleteGuinn who never met Manson, nor interviewed him, plagerizes all other written and verbal exchanges, makes them his own. So he can believe whatever he wants. Another"expert"
DeleteA Boy named Sue with an STD said...
ReplyDeleteNah i dont buy that, theres more reason to it than that, im not alledging any collusion on anyones part to have his role minimized but for some reason the number one major participant in TLB seems to get mentioned only as an after thought in these TV specials
The more one emphasizes Charles Manson's innocence and the fact that, as far as TLB goes, he didn't physically kill anyone, the more you actually roll Charles Watson to the sidelines. As David pointed out in a recent post, the fact that Charlie didn't physically kill, yet is identified as the one that had a vested interest in people being killed is partly what makes this case so memorable, so scary, and guaranteed to stick in the mind for those that don't follow it with the nuances that we, that have a deeper knowledge, do.
Yes, Tex was a wild animal in a specific period of time but evinced none of that subsequently. He's not interesting, has few insights of depth, doesn't fit into the straitjacket that makes for good TV that Charlie does, doesn't run off his mouth about how tough he is or tell everyone how he likes to wank or speak in unfathomable mysteries that make people think "what the heck is he on about ?", admits his guilt, has for the longest while moved away from the image of the crazed hippy killer strung out of sanity on "drugs" {a catch all term that really doesn't help} etc, etc etc. There aren't websites dedicated to his freedom from jail and he's a hard guy to get passionate about because for the most part, he's played by the rules.
Not much to write about there, move along.
i really wish whoever runs,this blog would get an easy quoting method and an edit posts feature
Over the last month or so, about 4 people have given you advice on how to present your posts with quotes from others etc. No one is to blame for your typos.
You come up with some interesting questions and some very interesting points but sometimes, you wreck them by not paying attention to how you present them. I work on the basis that if my stuff is going to be deemed as crap, at least let it be presentable crap that everyone is clear about so they can determine it's crap ! 😀
Nah Grim no matter how you write its still garbage
Deletegrimtraveller fan club!!!
ReplyDeleteAt 10pm on the American Heroes Channel (formerly Discovery Wings Channel)there will be a show on called Manson: The Prison Tapes. From the website description of the show-
ReplyDelete"Relive the horrific Tate/LaBianca murders, and the media circus surrounding the trials of cult leader Charles Manson and his "Family" of misfit killers. Archival news reports, photos and interviews paint a searing portrait of 1960's LA"
https://www.ahctv.com/schedule
I thought it was interesting to have the interview with Hinman's friend, but so much to shake your head at besides that.
ReplyDeleteAt least Guinn had some good original research on Manson's early life, which makes his book worth reading, but relies on second hand sources most of the way.
I know there was a posting a few years back about where Shorty was killed and how Hoyt couldn't have heard him scream, but I still don't completely discount her claim.
Re: Tex.
ReplyDeleteHe generally flies under the radar for his considerable involvement because he's a dull person in a fantastical, extraordinary tale. If Charlie hadn't had the chat with him over by the corral after dinner on August 8, Tex would have ended up a fleabag motel manager in Trona or Independence.
Nah, his role was bigger than Charlies, his srug rip offs were at the center of all these crimes
DeleteDrug not srug
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA Boy named Sue with an STD said...
ReplyDeletehis role was bigger than Charlies, his srug rip offs were at the center of all these crimes
His drug rip off certainly played a part in matters, but not in the way that you want, Suzy boy. And absolutely nothing that you say is ever going to change that.
Zelda F. said:
ReplyDelete"Re: Tex.
He generally flies under the radar for his considerable involvement because he's a dull person in a fantastical, extraordinary tale. If Charlie hadn't had the chat with him over by the corral after dinner on August 8, Tex would have ended up a fleabag motel manager in Trona or Independence."
Let's see, a motel manager in a sleepy desert motel with mother issues...nothing could go wrong there!!
Without Charlie Tex would have been dead within a year from ripping someone off, thats just who he was, Tex had a sense of entitlement, if you read anything on Ted Bundys case youll see the same thing, aside from the murders the guy was a chronic thief and shoplifter, the guy would find a place to live and literally steal everything he needed to furnish it, no sense of guilt, empathy, shame, etc
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThey got some information wrong. Lester Holt said that Susan Atkins was part of the LaBianco murders. She was not. Susan went to the LaBianco house, as well as Steve Grogran, but neither she nor Steve actually went into the LaBianco house and participated in the murderers.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the fact that CM went back to the Tate house has always been suspected but never proven. Lester Holt stated it as a proven fact.
ReplyDeleteAs long as someone in a mainstream media tabloid show says it with enough ominous music in the backround snd says it in a convincing enough tone most Americans will accept it hook, line and sinker, thats the ADD culture were living in
DeleteABoyNamedSue said that Tex is dull and has played by the rules since incarceration, and has admitted his guilt. I disagree with much of that statement. Tex started his "ministry" in prison, using the prison's paper to copy and distribute his newsletter. His then-wife tended the website. He also became THE minister of the prison, and used his power to play the other prisoners like pawns. Obviously, he learned at the foot of the master. According to inmate Steven Trouse, Watson and Bruce David ran the ministry with an iron fist.
ReplyDelete"He (Watson) is proficient at motivation and directing human behavior in this setting. He has learned to manipulate people with Christ, and intends to capitalize on this all the way to freedom. Make no mistake, that is his only goal. He has more privileges than you could ever imagine, extra conjugal visits, holiday dinners in the chapel, and no work assigned. Watson used his sermon as personal attacks on inmates his criticize his control of the chapel, often taking Scripture out of context to support his messsage. I stood up during a service and in a polite manner told him I thought he was mistaken in his thoughts. He told me to shut up or he will have me removed, which he did...on Watson's recommendation, I had a disciplinary paper signed against me for the incident. This is against the law. No prisoner has legal authority over another inmate...I wrote an appeal, and was put in solitary confinement to shut me up." Letter to Doris Tate. When Mrs. Tate investigated, she found that Watson was on Chapel literature as Ministry, and Bruce Davis was associate pastor. ALso, all the funds that came to Watson through his "ministry" were used for creature comforts for Watson..a popcorn machine, a video player, special holiday dinners.Bobby Beausoleil also worked in the prison ministry. Watson privately told inmates that it was he, not Manson, who was the brains of the family. After Mrs. Tate raised a stink, Watson was disallowed to ever preach in the chapel again, and was assigned janitorial duties. in 1971, he told his prison psychiatrist that he (Watson) could kill him at that moment if he wanted to. Then Watson refused to attend court ordered group therapy. While he may have admitted his guilt, he never apologized to any family member of his victims. Frankly, if I had to choose between being in a dark alley with either Manson or Watson, I would choose Manson. Manson might bore me to death, with his schizoid ramblings, but Watson, no doubt, would kill me just for kicks.
Not sticking up for Tex because hes a POS but the "i could kill you at anytime" statement he made at Atascadero was taken out of context, the psychiatrist was asking Tex about his state of mind at the time of the muders and he basically said at the time that life meant nothing to him and that he could kill anyone at anytime and not feel a thing about it, he didnt just blurt out "i could kill you at any time"
DeleteMamaPoohBear said...
ReplyDeleteABoyNamedSue said that Tex is dull and has played by the rules since incarceration, and has admitted his guilt
Mama, it wasn't Susan that said that, it was me.
in 1971, he told his prison psychiatrist that he (Watson) could kill him at that moment if he wanted to
Yeah, in 1971.
Look at the context of that statement, it was before his trial during his 'faking madness' period.
Then Watson refused to attend court ordered group therapy
Can the court order an inmate to attend group therapy once they're convicted ?
While he may have admitted his guilt
Fairly regularly.
he never apologized to any family member of his victims
Have you ever heard of Suzan LaBerge, the daughter of Rosemary LaBianca ?
She used to get major grief for forgiving him and part of their resolution was him apologizing. Last year at his parole hearing, this exchange took place:
INMATE WATSON: Okay. I want to begin my apologizing to the families for these murders, for the enormous pain that I've caused.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: Mr. Watson?
INMATE WATSON: Yes?
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: I'm sorry, you're not allowed to look at the victims.
INMATE WATSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: You can address them but
INMATE WATSON: Okay.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: you need to keep your eyes on the Panel looking.
INMATE WATSON: Okay. Sorry about that, ma'am.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NEWMAN: That's all right.
INMATE WATSON: For the enormous pain that I've caused for taking the lives of their loved ones, Steve Parent, Wojciech Frykowski, Jay Sebring also known as Thomas Kummer, Abigail Folger, Sharon Tate and her unborn child Paul Richard, and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. I took their most precious possession and that was life itself and no family should have to go through or suffer a loss like that and then hear rumors in town that the press was blaming them in some way for what had happened and it was their fault. I also apologize for causing tremendous anguish and distress and suffering. I took their dreams, I took their visions for life and their careers. For instance, just one person, the first person that I killed (Steven Parent). He was on his way to college, 18 years old on his way to college and I'm sure he would have graduated. He would have had I'm sure a marriage and kids and even grandkids by now at 65 years old. And he was into electronics. I'm sure he would have just loved the electronic age and technology age and just sharing all that with his kids. I mean you know I took everything, you know from his life that ~ and pleasures that I've had with my children and he hasn't. I took a lifetime of experiences and memories from not only them but from their families and the hugs, the kisses, the childhoods, the school and graduations, the marriages and children, vacations, family reunions. And what I did I replaced all these with funerals and great loss and unbearable grief. What I've done I haven't hid from what I've done
That's not the first time he's said that kind of thing.
Grim i think with Laberge the problem wasnt as much that she "forgave" Tex and went to his hearings it was that people close to the case wondered if she possibly knew Tex at the time of the murders, im pretty sure Bill Nelson did his usual snooping/stalking to find out what was going on and came up with the points about her living close to him on Dracena at one time, Lenos family owning property somewhere in Glendale very close to where Tex lived, the whole possible Joe Dorgan/ Satans Slaves thing, Suzans kids "coincidentally" living in the same town and going to the same school as Patti Tates kids, etc, then theres that recording of that annoying Judy Hanson woman calling Harold True and bugging him about the whole thing, i think she was working with Nelson if im not mistaken
DeleteWhen I said he had played by the rules, you'll notice that I'm making direct comparisons to Charles Manson. The original point by susan was that Tex is never brought in as front and centre even though he committed the actual murders while Manson gets the flak. So to explain this, one has to compare the two men and how each impacted the media from 1969. And there's no comparison. Tex is dull by comparison. By comparison, he kept fairly low key and played by the rules. Manson makes the news, writers comment on how many disciplinaries he's received, whereas comparatively, Watson has gone the other way. That's not to say he is perfect, but in reality, if you had the choice between making a programme or writing a book on a guy that somehow managed to get a group of youngsters to kill for him and one on a guy who killed 8 people then became a Christian and took advantage of what the law at the time offered, what would you choose ?
ReplyDeleteTex is dull in comparison. And moves with the rules which Charlie has made a career of not doing.
MamaPoohBear said...
Frankly, if I had to choose between being in a dark alley with either Manson or Watson, I would choose Manson. Manson might bore me to death, with his schizoid ramblings, but Watson, no doubt, would kill me just for kicks
I wouldn't choose to be in a dark alley with either of them but I wouldn't be scared of either now. One is in his 70s now, the other his 80s !
Grim its not like Tex has been a model inmate either, remember his Medical insurance fraud with his wife that Bill Nelson uncovered? To me that was worse than any disciplinary problems Charlie has had, not sticking up for Charlie because going by alot of those old interviews he was pretty abusive and rude to corrections officers and you reap what you sow especially behind bars
Delete50 years of the same old crap!! I can't wait to do my book!
ReplyDeleteGrimtraveller, I think you made some good points, and maybe this is splitting hairs, but Tex never personally apologized to Doris Tate, or any of the other victims family, in a personal way. Watson did write a letter to Mrs. Tate, which described as a "five pages of drivel, but Watson hadn't apologized. Like everything he did, the letter was a ruse. "
ReplyDeleteFrom the 1971 Watson trial:
"Tex, one last question, " Bugliosi said, "You were interviewed by Dr. Alfred Owre...?"
"That is correct," responded Watson.
"Do you recall telling Dr. Owre..."I couuld kill you right now?"
"Uh, I told him...see, that's what he said I said, but uh, I did say, uh..it was relating to him what kind of mind I had at the time of the killings...that I could have killed anyone at that time.That is what I said."
"When talking to Dr. Owre, weren't you talking about the present? Did you not tell him, "I could kill you right now, very easily?"
"Well, yes, I could have said that, yes."
------
In another instance, Suzan LaBarge invited one of Patti Tate's children to a "playdate" with one of her own children. While Patti's daughter was with LaBarge, LaBarge called Kristen Watson, who then called Tex, who received an illegal call in the chapel. Another inmate described the conversation.
"What was that all about?" Bruce Davis asked Tex.
"Bruce, my friend, I just might have two victims in my corner for my next hearing," Watson boasted.
"How do you figure?" Davis asked.
"Suzan LaBarge....is my ace in the hole. Buddy, she's gonna testify at my next hearing...in my defense. And if the Good Lord Jesus is shining down on me, so will Patricia Tate. The Tate kid is playing in Suzan's front yard as we speak."
There has always been a lot of speculation that LaBarge knew Tex prior to the murder of her parents.
MamaPoohBear said...
ReplyDeleteTex never personally apologized to Doris Tate
Doris made it clear that she was not in the slightest bit interested in anything Tex had to say to her.
Whether we like it or not, Tex and the others are always in a catch 22 ~ if they don't apologize, we're told that "they haven't even apologized, that shows how much remorse they have !" and if they do apologize, like you we'll be told "it's a ruse, you can't believe they're genuine ~ they just want to get out." So in reality you've condemned them to the loop of infinity ~ forever to bounce between the same conclusion.
In another instance, Suzan LaBarge invited one of Patti Tate's children to a "playdate" with one of her own children
There's no verification to that story in its entirety and frankly I don't believe it. Things don't need to be made up in order to demonstrate why Tex should remain in prison.
The only person that could have made that statement is Bruce Davis. Did he ? This "other inmate" just happened to be around Bruce Davis and Charles Watson discussing aspects of conning the system re:TLB ? I believe Goldilocks and the 3 bears before that !
There has always been a lot of speculation that LaBarge knew Tex prior to the murder of her parents
Does that make it so ? There's all kinds of speculation about all kinds of things because many people can't accept what has been presented. The fact that there are so many alternatives alone should tell you something, particularly when the source of many of them are people that have had Charlie's ear for years....
grimtraveller, maybe we can agree to disagree. Doris Tate DID receive a letter from Tex in which she stated was "five pages of drivel" and the letter did NOT include an apology. It was mostly about how he has found the Lord. You have a choice of believing Mrs. Tate or not believing Mrs. tate.
ReplyDeleteThere is a chapter in Restless Souls where Patti Tate recalls the time that Suzanne LaBarge invited one of Patti's daughters to her house to play with her kids. It was only after she agreed,and her child was at the LaBarge house, did she remember who Suzanne was. Patti flew to her house, got her child, and had an awkward conversation with Suzanne about forgiveness. If you choose not to believe Patti Tate, that is your perogative.
Bruce David did have the conversation with Tex after the illegal phone call from his wife. The person who was also in the chapel and heard the conversation was an inmate named Steve Trouse, who was the first person to confront the illegal activities Tex was doing behind bars. He wrote Mrs. Tate, who fought the prison system to have Tex removed as a minister and put an end to Tex's ministry.
Speculation does not make truth. Maybe Suzanne next Tex prior to the murders, maybe she didn't. That is why I used the word "speculation" instead of "truth" .