Sorry to tell you all but Watson has rereleased "Will You Die For Me?" as "Cease To Exist." Looks like Tex and his publishers are trying to cash in on the 50th anniversary. Supposedly the Son of Sam law does not apply in California and many others states. Watson is one of biggest scumbags on the planet.
Tex didn't play or sing right? He had D wilson first and then charlie marginalized him (tex). Tex was on the bottom of the family hiearchy. He and the new girl LK get something going so he's feeling powerful finally. You know he's selling speed, being the natural born dealer he is and he's got a giant jar of it. Or... his boring book is true and he's a zombie. Lol the jock rejected by the band geeks turns trench coat mafia. Well if it wasn' t real life murder it'd be funny
The L.A. Times had several good pieces the last week or so before the anniversary. I read the paper every day online, and it was nice to come across them. Go to latimes.com and search for Manson, or if there is desire, I’ll make a list of links.
"You know he's selling speed, being the natural born dealer he is and he's got a giant jar of it. Or... his boring book is true and he's a zombie. Lol the jock rejected by the band geeks turns trench coat mafia. Well if it wasn' t real life murder it'd be funny"
I recently read "Will You Die for Me". My impression is that either/or doesn't really apply. There are several pieces: corrupted, weak-willed frat-boy, drugged out follower (as opposed to initiator or leader), hyper-aggressive and animalistic opportunist.
He is a very complex mix, in my opinion. I'm in no way mitigating his part, but pointing out that his motivations were not simple, nor was Manson's exploitation of his tendencies. If you closely analyze the events at Cielo, and consider what had to have happened there to account for the wounds, etc., the absolute savagery of the attack that Watson actually admits involvement in is almost shocking. It's easy to view him like a dog that has killed some chickens, and likes it. Kills for the enjoyment of it.
This would be very useful to Manson. Keep Watson around solely for that.
So far as his "giant jar" of speed, what I'm seeing is this:
But when a young guy from one of the neighboring ranches began sneaking it over, Susan-Sadie, Bruce Davis and I started carrying it around in the bottom of a cigarette package. Later we hid it in a Gerbers' baby-food jar under the porch of one of the buildings.
Totally off-topic. I was wondering what the source was for the claim that Sharon and friends ate at El-Coyote Aug. 8 so looked at an old post from 2013 when the Blog tour ate there (Matt, Col., Patty) and it was said you guys actually went to the former residence of Rudy Weber and drank out of the hose (???) That seems like really crossing the line.
It's all relative, if it's sugar or flour then obviously a gerbers baby food jar is a tiny amount, pure speed, coke or meth and it's a pretty significant amount or what I'd call "giant" for sure
You're saying Watson can actually personally profit from the book? I thought I remember reading how Atkins had to surrender the proceeds of COSCOD to the families of the victims
Mr. Humphrat, the hose incident is just one of the reasons why Eviliz is no longer with the blog. The woman had no filters.
I think it was either Bugliosi or Sanders that said Sharon and friends ate at El Coyote the evening of the night they were murdered. Abigail's autopsy report somewhat confirms she ate Mexican food that night. On the last page of the report it states "The stomach contains a very large recently ingested meal in which apparently beans and corn with other unidentifiable material is identified."
"It's all relative, if it's sugar or flour then obviously a gerbers baby food jar is a tiny amount, pure speed, coke or meth and it's a pretty significant amount or what I'd call "giant" for sure
Sounds like a confirmation that Watson's reference to speed in a baby food jar is the source of the "giant jar" characterization.
Beauders where did you read this? Ive looked all over and haven't seen word one of this, even his own website makes no mention of it, will there be any updated content in it? If so I'd definitely buy it even if it's different stories from his years of incarceration
One can get the pdf version of "Will You Die For Me" at Abounding Love and it's free.
But, yes, it does look like the book has been re-released under the name "Cease To Exist" and it's for sale at Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Cease-Exist-firsthand-account-indoctrination-ebook/dp/B07VLSFS1G
There might be a loophole regarding the profits on the book. Someone should look into this situation!
Abounding Love Ministries is a nonprofit religious charity registered with the State of California. You can lookup nonprofits here- http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y
Registrant Details Entity type: Corporate Class as registered with the Secretary of State or based on founding & registration documents. Organization Name: ABOUNDING LOVE MINISTRIES, INC. OF BISHOP, CALIFORNIA IRS FEIN: Entity Type: Religious SOS/FTB Corporate/Organization Number: 2262048 Registry Status: Exempt - Religious Renewal Due/Exp. Date: RCT Registration Number: EX599236 Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Record Type: Charity Registration Effective Date: 12/31/1990 Date This Status: Date of Last Renewal: Mailing Address Street: 621 W LINE ST #105A Street Line 2: City, State Zip: BISHOP CA 93514 Filings & Correspondence No Related Documents Annual Renewal Data No Annual Renewal Data Related Registrations & Event Reports The related records shown below depend on the record type being viewed:
Charity Registrations relate to Professional Fundraising Events which relate to Professional Fundraiser Registrations. Raffle Registrations relate to Raffle Reports. Click on the RCT Registration No to navigate to the related record. No Related Records
"Yes,that amount of pure product stepped on and divided into portions for resale would net many thousands of dollars"
So then we might expect a news report of someone who is arrested for transporting a Gerber's baby food jar of pure methamphetmine as being in possession of "a giant jar of meth"?
I wonder how they'd describe a large skippy peanut butter jar of meth?
The only people carrying around Skippy jars of LEGIT product,not shit put together in a trailer park bathtub but LEGIT product are major dealers, that's a HUGE amount of pure product, cops jump for joy when they find the smallest ziploc bag with the bottom fifteenth of the bag full
I really enjoyed seeing this video. To see all these people related to the case or that era. And that picture of Manson, the one with the green background, never seen that.
Mon Durphy said... Do you know if there's any new info in the updated version or just the name change, Deb?
Not entirely sure but I doubt it. The length of the original is 223 pages including the photos and index. "Cease To Exist" is 204 pages according to Amazon, they don't say anything about photos which might make the difference. Either that or they took something out of it.
If you insist on using my formal name, it's Deborah. I'm kind of snotty about the spelling!
Oh ok, I thought I used your username but I just noticed I forgot the S, sorry about that, so in your opinion what do you think the reason was for the name change on the book? I know you're not in his brain but just your opinion
I don't know the reason for the name change but I question whether or not it was done with Tex's permission. The publisher is 2433 Publishing and I cannot find anything on that publisher. It was released July 30 2019, just a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if someone took advantage of "Will You Die For Me?" being offered for free on the Abounding Love website by changing the name of the book and printing up a bunch of copies. The PDF doesn't have the photos the hard copy has in it.
Why would Tex or Abounding Love suddenly start charging for a book that's still available for free on the website? I'm not terribly troubled by Tex getting ripped off, if that's the case, but I would be troubled by someone doing something this sleazy to make a buck or two around the time of the 50th anniversary. At least come up with something original!
He also may have failed to renew the copyright which I believe must be done after 27 years. Also by making it free he may have placed it in the public domain. You snooze you lose.
I don't know the reason for the name change but I question whether or not it was done with Tex's permission. The publisher is 2433 Publishing and I cannot find anything on that publisher. It was released July 30 2019, just a couple of weeks ago.
Looks like someone is trying to make/fund a "Tex Watson Story" movie, probably to cash in on the 50th anniversary of the murders. Here is the low budget website : Cease To Exist. They even copied the type font from the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" album cover. This blurb from the website may answer your question :
"This is not a project attempting to excuse the murderers, nor to deprecate the level of horror committed. We simply want audiences (in addition to being riveted) to gain a new understanding of the story and the era.
Running a prison ministry for many years, Charles “Tex” Watson does not receive any financial benefit from this production, nor does he have any ability to control how his story is told in it. The producers’ promise to him in exchange for facilitating the transfer of rights for his book was that the story be told so that future young people do not make mistakes similar to his own.
The producers own all rights to the book and plan to republish it in connection with the production.
It'll be interesting to see if this project ever gets off the ground.....
Hi Mom, Did Jacobson say things in this video that brought you to that opinion or is there more to it than that ? What is the two faceed and scum bag part of this . Thanks. Bob
He's just been on record saying good things about Charlie in places where millions of people aren't going to see it but every time one of these cookie cutter Manson the Boogeyman specials comes up it's Charlie had thise girls brainwashed, Charlie was a talentless loser, Melcher laughed at Charlie behind his back, etc, even in this little clip he basically brags about how he moved all of Dennis stuff out of his house in kess than a day while Charlie and the girls weren't there instead of just telling them to leave like a man, the more you hear and read about the "Golden Penetrators" or whatever their stupid name was the more you can understand why Manson couldn't stand their phony asses
I found that less than believable, why is it every time there's a new special like this one or two more of these people show up, the way I see it is it could be anyone on that tape
I wonder if it was less to start a race war and more tex trying to prove himself then labianca being a case off Charlie proving hinself (show them how it's done)
What a great video! Love how Jakobson throws out the HS narrative and the ringleader part and then the conspiracy theory is offered up by others about Bugs inventing HS. People looking for a solution to a non problem.
I finally watched he video. There were aspects of it that I think are very important in understanding the Manson phenomenon.
I'm sorry to bore you once again by pointing out that I was 21 going on 22 at the time, and was returning to San Diego St. for my 4th year of college. From this perspective, the TLB murders were barely a slight smudge on the horizon, and very transient. There were other things more important to think about--like how to keep from being sent to Vietnam.
So the two things that really resonated with me in the video; the background descriptions in Chapter 1; and the "Elf tape".
The descriptions was where the various old farts talk about the idea that *we*--meaning people like me--my generation--really and truly and DEEPLY believed that we were going to change the world for the better. It would happen very soon, and very quickly. This is sorta what the Age of Aquarius ethos was all about. What's your sign, man?...
It was all very vague and very optimistic, and for many it was as one of the people in Chapter 1 said: drugs would show the way.
One more thing on that part. There were all these evocations of universal peace and love, etc. Beatles' "All You Need is Love", The Youngbloods' "Get Together", etc. We honestly thought, for a very brief while, that if everyone unilaterally stopped hating and started unconditionally loving every one and every thing, we'd be in a sort of earthly paradise.
What is difficult to convey is that if we were asked to think about it and frame our thoughts in words, it was as if not only our parents' generation, but every previous generation of western civilization had simply never thought of this simple expedient--it had obviously not occurred to them. *WE* were going to correct that oversight, and everything would be fine, forever.
The other strong connection I found in the video was listening to the tape in the trailer, where they were talking about Elf, and how he actually led and informed them. That pathetically naive observation of half-truths (yes, in a sense they do own and train you, but no, they really have nothing of lasting wisdom to give you--they fulfill the expression of the maternal instinct) was often taken as the absolute gospel, and to buy into it and express support for it was a sign of how hip you were.
I think this phase lasted about 2 years or so.
But yeah, it *was* like that for people of my age/background, and I wasn't even a big druggie.
Regarding Pamela...no Matthew and all8. She was not "with" Cupid and did not do the casts. Yes she is a super groupie and is proud of it. Read her book like Matt said. In fact, read all five of you want to see what it was really like in 1969. She is a gifted writer. But take it easy with insults and innuendos. You never know who might be reading.
Monica said: But take it easy with insults and innuendos.
There were no intentional insults or innuendos in my question. I simply got the two mixed up. Cynthia and Pamela both met a lot of people through Frank Zappa. There were other similarities in their stories. The world is always so quick anymore to jump down people. I did read one of her books and don't need to read a book to know what 69 was like. I just got two first names mixed up and asked a simple question.
Was just looking at a movie still from Once Upon a Time and noticed the girls wearing long, dangly, hippie-type earnings. But I can't find any other pictures where real members of the Family are wearing any. I can imagine it would have been hard to keep a pair of earings together living in those circumstances. Or maybe they just didn't wear them.
You won't notice it in the film, the girls are pretty much true to life, dirty nasty bare feet outdide, hairy armpits, hairy smelly snatches and assholes, greasy hair, Tarantino at least got the nastiness of the girls down pat
Recalling the times, as is mentioned at the first part the video, the *idea* of separatist utopian communes was talked about a great deal among college kids, though without any actual commitment. It was a sort of "What if...?" exercise. At most you might get new roommates for the next semester.
To a degree, I now think the communes were an attempt to seek safety in numbers for those who wished to live in non-traditional--and sometimes unlawful--ways. I suspect that this fits Watson's rationale for being a part of the group.
I mean, when it got right down to it, it's as Mon says: the closer you got to the actual bohemian counterculture, the rattier and dirtier it was. And I liked my girl friends to be more cosmetically conscious.
It was odd, too. Unlike homeless grunge, they seemed to lauder their clothes and belongings, but religiously avoided bathing regularly. There was a sort of ill-formed idea that it was "natural", and hence good. Actually, the word used was "righteous".
Also, there were significant and high profile recruitment efforts by various religious groups, on campus, in the Student Union, along with the political booths like SNCC. I can recall a big push in maybe the spring of 68 or 69 by the Church of Scientology. Also, the group popularly called Hare Krishnas had similar recruitment drives. Public concern with cult-type brainwashing and "de-programming" countermeasures were still in the future.
The underground comic artist, R. Crumb, satirizes all this with his Mr. Natural character. So in a sense, Manson was a more malevolent Mr. Natural.
Here's a link to an existing commune from the era:
Well said about the baby, shoe gazer. My 2 year old is adorable and bossy but zero wisdom. Tex was a mega stoner so i think that was a big part of his being in the commune
Dunno if mean streak is the right word for it. Sucker, nieve, weak minded, lazy, psychopathic, at that time YD&FoC....
Even if it was a drug burn on a deal with yana as his partner, I'm sure it was the family ethos that allowed him to spill blood like it was nothing more than stealing typewriters. People always said he was nice. Quiet and nice. I don't think there are stories of a temper or particular cruelty... Correct me if I'm wrong...
No, you're right. I just said "mean streak" because it sounded sorta funny.
I've known people like that. No doubt you have, too. Very, very close to acting on whatever whim comes to them, depending on the situation. In a sense, Manson acted as both the brake and catalyst for his behavior.
You can read thru the material concerning the family members, and really, quite a few of them are familiar types; e.g., Van Houten reminds me of girls I dated. Manson, himself, was quite different in that no one I've met was as amoral, or as generous in excusing himself of straying from his own values, however transient they seemed to be.
When you look at who he assembled to do the crimes, it's interesting to speculate on what, specifically, he saw in them that he thought would make them good soldiers.
Or the Family members he chose to leave out of the crimes. For all his hatred for the "piggies," he was always kissing up to those in power and seemed to favor Family members like Lynette, Nancy Pitman, and Sandy Good who were all the children of a wealthy establishment.
When you look at who he assembled to do the crimes, it's interesting to speculate on what, specifically, he saw in them that he thought would make them good soldiers. -----------------------
I've said this before and I still believe it to be true.
I don't think Charlie was some sort of savant when it came to choosing those who he sent out. I think he choose the people he did because they were expendable, he didn't like them much and they were becoming a liability. I bet that Charlie was just as surprised as anyone when they came back from the Tate house and told him what they had done. Not that he didn't sow the seed for the murders, he likely did, but he may not have believed they actually go through with killing anyone when he sent them out.
Tex messed him up with Lotsapoppa and he was dealing drugs and doing drugs on the side. Kasabian was new to the Family and he had gotten all the money out of her that he thought he could get. Plus, she was enamored with Tex, not him.
Susan was a pain in the ass, she talked to anyone who would listen, she brought law enforcement around because she didn't check in with her probation officers, both from Oregon and Mendocino County. She was a walking STD and infected anyone she came near.
Krenwinkel, poor Krenny, no one wanted to boink her, not even the bikers, because of her hormonal imbalance and the massive amount of hair. She was no good to Charlie's stable of willing girls.
If they had gotten caught in the act and arrested, it was no big loss to him.
"I've said this before and I still believe it to be true.
I don't think Charlie was some sort of savant when it came to choosing those who he sent out."
Agreed. He seems to me to have been an instinctive, gut-feel personality.
"I think he chose the people he did because they were expendable, he didn't like them much and they were becoming a liability."
Maybe.
I think that Watson was a liability but had useful potential as essentially a triggerman, a thug; an undisciplined Luca Brasi. Manson perhaps saw the great potential for expressed violence in him, and I'm thinking he maybe put up with Watson's shortcomings in judgement in return for the opportunity to use him, when possible.
I don't see Watson as particularly loyal to Manson, as a person. Watson was the very definition of a physically gifted, but weak-willed, person. He drifted toward sensual gratification at the cost of freedom and personal integrity. Manson could see this, I think.
Atkins is trouble to *anyone*; Krenwinkel certainly would try to do what Manson wanted. Kassabian makes little sense to me and probably you're right; Manson just needed bodies for the ride up to Cielo, and she was one. She probably would do what Watson wanted, too.
BTW, I've read often that Manson chose Kasabian because she was one of the few Family members who had a valid CA DL. What kind of sense does this make when you are preparing to send out 4 people to murder everyone at a given residence? You have no qualms about sending people out to murder strangers, but sending someone out who *might* get a "driving without a valid license" violation is something you don't want on your conscience?
"I bet that Charlie was just as surprised as anyone when they came back from the Tate house and told him what they had done. Not that he didn't sow the seed for the murders, he likely did, but he may not have believed they actually go through with killing anyone when he sent them out."
I think you've got a point.
Definitely I think he wanted it done, and he thought that Watson would jump at the chance to look good in front of the women (and in Manson's eyes) and had it in him to do great violence. But I think he was kinda surprised that it came to pass as smoothly as it did.
He was kinda like Bin Lauden, on seeing that both towers went down--it exceeded his expectations significantly.
"Tex messed him up with Lotsapoppa and he was dealing drugs and doing drugs on the side. Kasabian was new to the Family and he had gotten all the money out of her that he thought he could get. Plus, she was enamored with Tex, not him."
WRT to getting family members out of trouble, I suspect that Manson liked this, in an odd way--it fulfilled him and demonstrated to the group that he was, indeed, The Man.
For that, they owed him...
I think that the Hinman incident was another case of Manson stepping in to decisively solve a family problem.
"Susan was a pain in the ass, she talked to anyone who would listen, she brought law enforcement around because she didn't check in with her probation officers, both from Oregon and Mendocino County. She was a walking STD and infected anyone she came near.
Krenwinkel, poor Krenny, no one wanted to boink her, not even the bikers, because of her hormonal imbalance and the massive amount of hair. She was no good to Charlie's stable of willing girls.
If they had gotten caught in the act and arrested, it was no big loss to him."
I agree, but still he wanted, and expected, that it would happen.
When one examines the autopsy reports and analyzes what it would have taken to inflict the wounds, the first term that came to my mind was "frenzied". Watson basically went thru 5 people like a buzzsaw. I think Manson suspected that this was in him, and he (Watson) would be the catalyst for the rest of them.
My opinion, only; where we differ, certainly it is no better than yours, Deb.
Interesting discussion but I think it is in isolation. Deb, if Sadie was a loose cannon- why send her as it turned out she threw everyone under the bus.
Here is my opinion.
We know from comments in court hearings over the 'Tex Tapes' that they are (allegedly) filled with references to a race war and magic kingdoms under the desert.
Watson: 'all in'.
Katie: with Brunner temporarily goner she is on the short list next in line who are 'all in' for Manson and an original six. She is also a'all in' on HS per Van Houten.
Sadie we are told by Van Houten always wanted to be 'in' on the violence.
The wild card is Kasabian. Bugluosi says driver's license. But we also know from Sanders (?) sorry can't remember where that she spouted quite a bit about pigs. That shows up in what's his name's Harvard Crimson piece, too. And in Sanders' book Manson wanted Hughs to ask her how she spoke when she was with the Family. Of course he has no citations. If she was, shall we just say going 'Weatherman/SLA' then she is a perfect fit and it explains VB's desire to find her another reason, a likely suspended driver's license.
Then being all in and expendable is perfect for Charlie to suggest they stab people. He thinks he'd be immune and it's ridiculous to him that the fools would do it
Gotta hoist the BS flag. I get people want CM to be innocent. He’s not. He sent them to kill and led them the next night to kill. What be didn’t ‘see’ was Holy Shit! You mean you can be convicted of murder and not kill anyone! And that folks is because he isn’t very intelligent.
He’s not. He sent them to kill and led them the next night to kill. What be didn’t ‘see’ was Holy Shit! You mean you can be convicted of murder and not kill anyone! And that folks is because he isn’t very intelligent.
I'm not sure that it's simply lack of intelligence, but the problem is his ego: he *really and truly* believed that a) he knew the law, and how life worked, and b) he was smarter than anyone else.
Everything that you read that he said it always gets back to that: he *thinks* he knows--he's *sure* of it. Because he could not be wrong, the fact that he was convicted proves that the trial was a sham. He followed the law, as he understood it, which is the RIGHT way, so how could he possibly be guilty UNLESS it was a sham?
Manson says repeatedly in court (multiple trials) and after "how can you convict someone of murder who didn't kill anyone" [paraphrased] and it comes up here, again and again and again.
He was uneducated. He didn't understand the law. He believed he could send people to kill and skate. He never understood how he was convicted when he didn't kill anyone (of course he actually did when he killed Shorty) but he said it in every trial and after. He never understood how 'your children come at you with knives' could lead to guilty.
Also note in that speech he throws the 'girls' under the bus. He never defends them or says I'm with them.
Last ditch of a charismatic millennial leader.
The 'motive' is far more simple then drug burn/rip off/crap, HS crap/ CIA/FBI crap, copycat crap. The 'motive' was a millennial movement that collapsed, like they all do, due to outside pressure and a crisis of the charismatic leader.
The leader then seeks to reassert control and orders the group to commit suicide, whether it is kool aid or Boxers charging machine guns.
What is not known is not how it happens but whether it turns outward or inward- catch a ride on a comet or Manson.
IMO that likely turns on the leader. It really is that simple.
They were 'all in' like so many more (millions throughout history) listen to them and some still are.
If you can say that about Sharon Tate's unborn child you are truly a fucked up individual and that leads to murder when Jesus says 'kill'.
I'm not saying he's innocent. The second night he explicitly took them out to"show them how it's done". But the first night was probably a big joke to him and he had to show them he's better than tex after tex actually did it. His lack of intelligence is what got them in the mess for sure
I'm not a Charlie apologist. I just don't think he planned the first night seriously and the second night he had to "show them how it's done" to reestablish his dominance or superiority over tex. Also Isn't the"death drive" before Waverly pathetic?
Jakobson calls him intelligent in this video. He always dug Charlie's rap. D Wilson called him the wizard (that's so cute). I think his grasp of the law was pretty bad though. So many felonies beyond conspiracy too
Sure he did, in detail. Squeaky just needs to tell us all to what detail before she dies, because she knows.
Rejected by a group of women at Esalen, told his music sucked. Members were defecting. HS was not coming down. His right hand man jumps off ship. He shoots a black man. They murder Hinman for nothing- two shitty cars and a pocket full of change. The original gangster jumps off ship. An original six jumps too. Cops in helicopters. Firemen 'passing by'. They threaten the children. LASO is rounding up evidence, every day. Retz wants him gone. On and on.....
Musical career gone- that, by the way, was the message, read the FREEP articles. Message, gone. His music was all that mattered to mini-me-Christ. Gone.
He is homeless. This wasn't a commune. This was a bunch of squatter, homeless runaways eating garbage.How long can that hold anyone? When do you decide a bed with no bugs, a warm shower and three squares is not a bad thing even if they all consist of granola.
But you are dead on about this: "reestablish his dominance or superiority". But leave off the "Tex".
Of course he does because he doesn't want to look stupid because he fell for the rap just like Wilson and possibly Melcher for a time.
Jakobson wanted to film CM. Thought his live shit while stoned on acid or whatever was amazing...just like the Family. Enter Melcher, sober: "This sucks".
I was in a band in my youth. we got lit and recorded ourselves. Thought we were amazing, spent hours on it. Next day sober- we sucked. Heartbreaker by Grand Funk Railroad was a tune I remember.
David. I am with you on this. It was all about maintaining control of the Family. Race wars and Helter Skelter were just tools to keep the Family isolated and dependent on Charlie.
To echo Peter and David, I couldn’t agree more. Helter Skelter was the glue that united the family. Each one of the people that went out to kill had their own individual motivations. But make no mistake, it was all for Charlie and he orchestrated it all.
I tend to agree with Deb in that I do think Charlie was surprised after night 1. Doesn’t make him less culpable, but think he wasn’t expecting to “get five pigs”.
I’d also like to point out that in Charlie’s shooting and ‘killing’ Lotsapoppa, Lotsapoppa wasn’t some ‘establishment pig’ and neither was Gary Hinman. Hinman was killed for greed (and ultimately to keep him from going to the fuzz) and Lotsapoppa was killed for ‘self defense’. At some point, there is a transition and the family goes on the offense. Helter Skelter is the Tool Charlie used to go offensive.
I just watched “Manson, The Women” yesterday and even the girls confirm this to some degree- with “we just wanted to get out of the cities and all the chaos” - What cities? What chaos? You live on a shitty ranch in the middle of nowhere. You’re going to move to Death Valley to grow crops and self sustain? No, they made the move in support of the Helter Skelter narrative Charlie preached.
Last thing I’d like to point out- LaBianca didn’t go so smoothly either. Rosemary freaked when she heard Leno being killed. The only difference is that Charlie made them feel calm until the point of killing them. Why not just cut their throats quietly? Why all the shocking rage and over the top violence and mutilation? Even in how they killed supports the overall “official narrative”.
From what I can tell from my disordered readings of Manson testimony, parole hearings, and interviews, he hints and even strongly implies that he sent the people out to Cielo, ostensibly to commit crimes.
Because of his very rudimentary understanding of the law, he feels that a) because he, himself, did not kill the victims; b) he was not even at the scene; and c) no one forced the intruders to do any of the unlawful acts there, whether he told them to, or not, therefore he cannot legally be held accountable. So therefore the adjudication was unlawful: he's the victim.
And he was hardheaded enough to stick to this all the way.
I find it hard to believe that someone who spent as much time in prison as Manson was unaware of conspiracy laws. Particularly where his so called mentor Alvin Karpis was in prison for pleading guilty on a Kidnapping conspiracy.
I'm not a Charlie apologist. I just don't think he planned the first night seriously and the second night he had to "show them how it's done" to reestablish his dominance or superiority over tex.
Very interesting thought, Dan.
I'm not sure at this point that Manson had any viable contenders for leadership of the group, but if there were any, I don't see Watson in that role. An anchorless person in my judgement.
But the "show you how it's done" has always hit a strong an off key, just like the need to have a valid DL to chauffeur a group of killers.
I think that Cielo, in its execution, was everything Manson had hoped for, and more. But he *had* to find something wrong with it to demonstrate why he was The Man. Hearing about the panic that ensued after Watson said "Kill him" Manson intuitively felt that he could show expertise by showing how to handle victims with the minimal resistance and trouble.
In this regard his technique was closely related to how the Nazis handled Jews when they shipped them to the extermination camps. Lie to them; given them hope.
Also Isn't the"death drive" before Waverly pathetic?
Hah! Good point!
Sounds both indecisive and also sounds like he was working his nerve up. Maybe showing off a bit, too.
I find it hard to believe that someone who spent as much time in prison as Manson was unaware of conspiracy laws. Particularly where his so called mentor Alvin Karpis was in prison for pleading guilty on a Kidnapping conspiracy.
I think you're giving far too much credence to the idea that convicts sit around discussing the finer points of the law. The fact that many are repeat offenders could demonstrate that, in fact, they still misunderstand how it works.
I saw the Manson episode of Mindhunter (Season 2, Episode 5) and thought the actor (same as Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, but looking like Charlie later in prison) was the best Charlie yet, in mannerisms and attitude and look. The show made the point that Charlie was never involved in the murders, and never mentioned his violent involvement in Lottsapoppa, Hinman or Shea. They also showed photos of Bobby B. and Mary Brunner and said they were arrested together in the killing of a music producer.
WRT to evaluating Manson as a potential music talent, it is important to try to distance one's self from the knowledge of his negative personal traits. Try to hear it as if you did not know who was singing/playing.
So here's my opinion...
Vocal talent - Manson has exploitable vocal talent. He has a clear, pleasant voice that has a good degree of flexibility. The voice would be easy to recognize (a plus for marketing), and his enunciation is very clear.
Guitar talent - Seems average for a small club or bar singer.
Compositional talent, musical - To me, it's murky, muddy. Standard folk chords and progressions, arranged pleasantly. No memorable melodies, no hooks.
Compositional talent, lyrics - Very vague and murky without either narrative or focus. Pretty standard robust coffeehouse folk of the era. Would be difficult to say what the message of the songs are, or even if there is a message intended.
My opinion is that Manson could effectively have been marketed as a frontman--a vocalist. He is an effective and recognizable vocal stylist. Under optimal conditions he might write some marketable material, but his musical talent might be more of an arranger. And even that is uncertain.
The 'motive' is far more simple then drug burn/rip off/crap, HS crap/ CIA/FBI crap, copycat crap. The 'motive' was a millennial movement that collapsed, like they all do, due to outside pressure and a crisis of the charismatic leader.
I currently think that Manson never really believed in the actuality of the Helter Skelter myth. I think it was one of his "campfire tales", part of the Head Man's mythology that he used to entertain/mesmerize the group of drugged-up dependent flower children. Sort like Donovan telling about Atlantis. A rather more pessimistic Aquarian Age.
Even regular people, like me, at least wistfully entertained this silly shit at the time. California dropping off into the ocean, my ass...but young people sorta bought it--not necessarily wholeheartedly, but more like "Well, the way the world is now, we more than have it coming...". "Wishful, Sinful", the Doors song, aimed at this I think.
But the followers were credulous and unsophisticated and *they* bought it as a possibility, and Manson could sense this. So when things started falling apart, as you aptly noted, he pulled this myth out of the hat to unify the group and retain control.
Like you may have implied earlier, like James Jones' White Night.
How do you kill anyone who is fighting and swinging heavy things at you other than gruesomely in order to actually kill them? I think both Rosemary and Leno put up a good fight and were not going easy hence the knife in Lenos throat and overall number of stab wounds
The drive to Waverly wasn't meant to look smart or planned, it was just killing time until Leno and Rosemary got home, it's not like they can just go to the Dodger game and then burgers afterward until 12:30 and then Waverly at 1, that would look fairly obvious
Kenos hands were tied. They wrote in blood on the walls and the fridge. They carved war in his chest and stuck a fork in his stomach and a knife through his neck. A steak knife, which means she went and got it. That’s pretty gruesome.
Laughable! I’d hate to see your definition of an actual killer.
Visits a Black Panther about a drug deal gone awry. Pulls a pistol and shoots him in the chest. Believes he killed the man.
Orders brainwashed kids to torture and extort a musician for money- when it’s all said and done, has musician killed so as to not go back to prison. X 1
Orders brainwashed kids to kill everyone in a house wherein the last known occupant robbed him of his illustrious music career. X 5
Enters a house at 2am and ties up the occupants- orders brainwashed kids into the house to kill the occupants. X 2
Grabs ranch hand with brainwashed kids and stuffs into a car- beaten and killed. X 1
In the end, he died in prison because he was convicted of the above crimes (minus Lotsapoppa). Believe what you will, but your version isn’t reality.
shoegazer said I currently think that Manson never really believed in the actuality of the Helter Skelter myth. I think it was one of his "campfire tales", part of the Head Man's mythology that he used to entertain/mesmerize the group of drugged-up dependent flower children. Sort like Donovan telling about Atlantis. A rather more pessimistic Aquarian Age.
This is truly what I believe. Manson was a low life con artist and pimp. There were people in the family that believed this line of bullshit and he used that to his advantage. If he didn't think a certain member wasn't buying it, he deployed another bullshit con on them. I do believe that Pat really did believe that HS was coming down. I think Leslie and Linda wanted to be included for acceptance. Tex believed it as long as he was drugged up. Susan wanted something to talk about. I don't think Manson believed any of it. He felt burned by Melcher and his Napoleon complex was damaged and he could get these fucked up minions to get vengeance for him. Once they actually went through with it, to his amazement, he needed to go back out the second night and regain his lead..
There were people in the family that believed this line of bullshit and he used that to his advantage. If he didn't think a certain member wasn't buying it, he deployed another bullshit con on them.
Right. For example, I think he saw in DeCarlo a guy who, like Beausoleil, could be hooked into at least sticking around long enough to be bullshitted/charmed by using the very young females who were dependent on him. Indeed, Manson was first-and-foremost a pimp of the first water. He had the right kind and at the right age. This was the basis of his power.
I'm thinking that Dennis Wilson and Melcher were also manipulated in this way, to a greater or lesser degree. If he (Manson) didn't have anything you wanted, and hence could not be manipulated, like Shea, you became a potential threat--a loose end. He could not let this type of personality stay around.
I do believe that Pat really did believe that HS was coming down. I think Leslie and Linda wanted to be included for acceptance. Tex believed it as long as he was drugged up. Susan wanted something to talk about.
That's a very funny image: Atkins wanted to be invited to all the best parties. I suspect that you're right about that.
I don't think Manson believed any of it. He felt burned by Melcher and his Napoleon complex was damaged and he could get these fucked up minions to get vengeance for him.
This is very significant.
According to Melcher's own testimony, he went out to Spahn TWICE to hear Manson's music. What I've heard nothing about was, after Melcher left each time if Manson was elated--thought that his ship had finally come in, and worse: boasted to some of the important family members about it. He could well have put his ego way the hell out there, vulnerable, and when nothing came of it, he was made to look bad in front of his following.
Exploring this scenario further, you could view Melcher's rejections as the impetus, and the Helter Skelter myth as the overt rationale for the Cielo murders.
Once they actually went through with it, to his amazement, he needed to go back out the second night and regain his lead.
Yep. Then he had to show that, yes, you did it at Cielo, but I could have done it better. I'll show you...
The process was reactive, and getting out of hand.
Yes Melcher was so UNIMPRESSED with his music that he talked to Mike Deasy about filming a documentary about the group until Charlie lost it and chased him around with a pitchfork
Mon Durphy said: "You lose again, none of those things equal MURDER, thanks for playing, better luck next time"
Well, you really ought to go over there to the right and read the law. All of that, in fact, equals murder nine times.
I know you really want Manson to be innocent but to get there you have to come up with some evidence that supports the idea. I suggest you start with the hardest ones (1.) you have to have him not get in the car the second night and (2.) you certainly have to have him not break into the LaBianca house and tie them up. Actually it's the breaking in that natters.
In fact, you really have to have him not present at all night #2.
If you conspire to commit a murder, and then your co-conspirators commit the murder, you are guilty of murder. We get it, Manson may not have struck the mortal blow to any of his victims, but that doesn't mean he is not guilty of murder. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand.
David, why does he have to break in? If the agreement is to murder, they could have invited him in and offered him a drink and it wouldn't make a difference.
Au contraire Rudy Weber’s Little Hose- Manson DIED in prison having been convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Try try again little man.
He doesn't but the apologists like Mon Durphy claim he never conspired. They seem to ignore the fact that by breaking in or driving the car he is guilty of felony murder. That law in California was just changed, although the change is unlikely to have helped Manson even today but in 1969 he is guilty of that too.
In the case of conspiracy to commit murder, it’s not necessary that you were present at the scene, used a weapon, or took direct action that contributed to the victim’s death. You could be arrested for conspiracy if you had any role or act in furtherance of the crime. Conspiracy charges may be applied where you are part of a group of two or more people who intended, planned, solicited, or attempted to murder someone else. In other words, it’s your association that constitutes the crime.
He still wouldn't have to break in because the underlying crime isn't necessarily burglary. It can just be robbery of the wallet and the eight dollars and change from Mrs. La Bianaca's box? That was how it played out in Van Houten's third trial.
Matt. That covers the conspiracy conviction. But they actually did commit murder. So all the members of the conspiracy are also guilty of first degree murder.
Where are the Manson apologists when it come to Bruce Davis and his conviction for murdering Gary Hinman? Bruce did nothing to facilitate the murder of Gary, he didn't slice Gary's face with a sword and he didn't send Beausoleil over to Gary's house.
Bruce was convicted of 1st degree murder because he was at Gary's house at the time Gary was being harassed and then sliced by Manson's sword and he drove one of Gary's cars away from the scene. Gary was alive at that time. I imagine that Bruce had a good idea what was going happen eventually. What got Bruce convicted was that he didn't inform law enforcement about what was going on at Gary's. That non-action made him part of the conspiracy.
You don't hear him, or any of his supporters, whining about being unjustly convicted.
Yes Melcher was so UNIMPRESSED with his music that he talked to Mike Deasy about filming a documentary about the group until Charlie lost it and chased him around with a pitchfork
If I remember right, Deasy was the one running around, fried on LSD, chasing Manson with the pitchfork till Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan subdued him. Melcher was a high profile music producer with the Byrds, Paul Revere & the Raiders, Glen Campbell, etc. He only originally listened to Manson as a favor to Dennis Wilson. I'm guessing, with his trained music producer ear, he knew Charlie's amateur hour strumming minstrel lounge lizard crap had zero potential, and he was really hanging around for the jailbait, namely Ruth Ann Moorehouse. He pawned Manson off on his buddy Deasy and his mobile recording studio, but when Deasy came to record them, they gave him LSD and he had a life-altering bum trip and never returned.
One of the funniest descriptions of your hero came from Dick Duryea (son of actor Dan Duryea), the Beach Boys road manager in the late 60s and early 70s : "He was really dirty and stinky....this awful person in the lobby hanging out and playing his songs. His music sucked too". (from Steven Gaines Beach Boys biography "Heroes And Villains")
With all respect, Gorodish, I get very resistant to "piling on". Manson was a clear sociopath who was unfit to live in a structured society such as we have in the US. There was A LOT that was wrong.
He would NEVER be welcome at my house, that's for sure...
But I've listened to his music, and when people say it stank, I can't agree that it was *that* simple. It was unmarketable in the contemporaneous market and as a professional, Melcher could no doubt see that. In a sense, it may have found a niche in the World Music category, as a sort of primitive US nativist music: if the Shakers had made music, it would be in the same category. The musicianship and composition were pretty unsophisticated--it was essentially elevator music for heads.
But he did have vocal talent in my opinion. He was A LOT better than many who had contracts. No doubt he thought so, too, and others probably told him this, as well. He expected it to take him places, but in this regard he was just like the character in the song in "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?".
For him, it was his last, best hope of conventional success, I think.
I hate to just take a basically very "bad" character and then on the basis of this, deny him/her recognition of any legitimate positive characteristics they may be fortunate enough to possess. Basically, it can undercut the credibility of the person piling on. We live in an age of reflexive virtual signaling. I'm not saying that this is a case, but it flirts with that perception.
But this is just my opinion and can be safely ignored... :^)
David, there are a lot of reasons why Melcher would want to distance himself from Manson; after the story broke, NO ONE wanted to admit to any contact with him.
Melcher's testimony kinda reeks of noblesse oblige. But he does appear, to me at least, to have had some level of repeated connection with Manson. My guess is the girls. Probably the same for Wilson.
I assume you listened to Manson. The problem is the material and guitar accompanyment, not the vocal talent.
Not sure what triggered this response I was trying humor. Melcher's song is interesting in that he seems to admit he thought they were his friends but he also seems to be saying he didn't think it was anything more than an audition like any other. To me that addresses two points (1.) that he was closer than we are subsequently lead to believe and (2.) he was surprised by the whole 'to put the fear in Melcher because he broke promises' bit.
But 'yes' I have listened to Manson.
A lot of people in rock and roll can't/couldn't sing but 'made it'. That occurred because something about the band/sound/music/lyrics was unique and/or reached an audience- Jerry Garcia/The Dead.
There is nothing that stands out about Manson- singing, songwriting, guitar. That is what I believe Melcher also heard. Remember who he produced and the 'sound' he favored. Some might call it 'pop'.
After the arrests, of course everyone ran away from Manson, anyone with half a brain should have fled as quickly as possible.
But as you said: "But this is just my opinion and can be safely ignored."
David, I have left a comment on your "Examining the Evidence" #7, going into a quick analysis of the wounds. If you are interested, and/or have time, I would certainly value your input.
Have a good weekend! Am now planning a trip to Brookings, OR, maybe Chetco River, in mid/late Sept! Neat summer up here (PNW), so far.
I can’t believe people believe the completely illogical Helter Skelter theory for the TLB murders. It makes me question their willingness to think for themselves.
DO said: "I can’t believe people believe the completely illogical Helter Skelter theory for the TLB murders."
I don't think that is what the comments were about. I think the comments were to the effect Manson used HS to control/manipulate/direct his puppets.
I can't speak for others but as for me it was Manson's rationale for the murders, not the motive. Perhaps a better description would be his motivating factor to create murderers. Bugliosi saw that but not the nuances associated with the HS talking point.
All the offered motives are crap, in my opinion. None of them lead anywhere. Each requires a leap of logic, a suspension of reason that is usually covered by throwing in drug use; an unsubstantiated 'fix' to explain both nights or an acceptance of conspiracy theories that by their definition have little supporting evidence and rely on coincidence and conjecture.
Manson is no different than Jim Jones (and hundreds of others throughout history). What set him apart and made him famous was the brutality of the murders, the invasion of a home in a seemingly random manner and a single victim: Sharon Tate.
The 'motive' for Jones' mass suicide/murder, or any other millennial leader that promises a 'paradise' to his followers, is that he feels the impact of being unable to deliver, being questioned or being exposed as a fraud. His psyche can't accept the failure and he (or she) reacts.
Unlike Jones, Manson's anti-social personality and negative narcissism turned his rage outward, instead of inward. This was, in part, because he was already predisposed to believe 'they' were preventing him from being great/famous/ recognized. 'They' had already messed up his life. He was a product of 'their' system, 'their' prisons. The sixties gave them a name no different from 'Jap', 'Gook' or 'Kraut', 'They' were pigs. A moment in time happened where a segment of society agreed with him and the establishment supported and reinforced that paranoia.
It was also, in part, because Manson was a coward and, in part because he got off on the fact they were willing to die for him.
Read their words in the FREEP. Listen to their words on the corner. Listen to what the true believers said years, decades after the fact They were at war for him and that is what blew his skirt up. The motive is that simple: the satisfaction he got from the fact they killed for him. Will you die for me/ If you are willing to die you are willing to kill. Control. Ultimate control. JimJones could ask the same question and obtained the same result.
David, the more I speak, the more you’ll see how anti-Bugliosi I am. He was a corrupt, lying, self-centered, hypocritical,scheming opportunist. I mean, the man was a MARK FUHRMAN apologist.
Speaking of the OJ trial, I think the man treated the Manson trial no differently than Johnnie Cochran treated the OJ trial. The only difference was Bugliosi was a prosecutor whereas Cochran was a defense attorney. I also think if you compare Bugliosi and Cochran’s theories of their respective trials, the HS theory makes the “LAPD framing OJ theory” look completely logical and plausible.
There was nothing about race in the TLB murders—only a racial element that Bugliosi manufactured. I can’t find any evidence that Manson wished to start a race war. Saying “death to pigs” is not an indicator that his “family” was trying to pin any murders (TLB or Gary Hinman’s) on the Black Panthers, because the Black Panthers weren’t the only ones in the ‘60s to use the word pig. It was common among recalcitrant youths to use that word to describe people they despised.
Blacks hardly—if ever—frequented the Tate/Polanski residence/neighborhood, so why would Manson think that people would suspect that the Black Panthers murdered Sharon Tate and co.? It makes no sense. Or shall I say “it makes less sense than thinking the incompetent LAPD could somehow perfectly frame OJ Simpson!”
One thing to remember here is the seamless connection of the various Topanga residents and, area musicians at that time. Bobby was one of the hoarder of people on backing "vocals" on The Mothers "Return of the Son of Monster Magnet" although, Zappa deleted his name after Bobby went stabby. Vito and Carl and their group of "Freaks" included The GTO's who were Zappa's proteges. Love had early rehearsals at Vito's space. Bobby sometimes played in early version of Love - known as Grass Roots. Pretty much everyone in Topanga scene was in Mondo Hollywood. The various GTO women babysat and, cleaned houses as well as being notoriously shameless groupies. A few were bigtime druggies (who probably scored from the same dealers...including Tex).
I could go on and on...but, won't.
The GTOs were - at their core - just huge music fans who loved to dance and, who were young and carefree and, connected. Miss Pamela is a really sweet and smart woman.
Read the appellate briefs. There is about 30 pages devoted to testimony by witnesses to Charlie blabbing about race wars and Helter Skelter. Bugliosi didn't make that shit up. Charlie did. I doubt either of them believed it themselves. Bugliosi used Charlie's own con to convict him.
For me, I have a hard time accepting theories from people who think Bugs “manufactured” some element of what the prosecution presented. It shows ignorance in facts- facts that presented themselves LONG before Bugs was involved with the case. Facts that came from many many sources. And to overlook these facts in order to present another theory is inept thinking and requires too many leaps in reasoning.
In addition to the facts, the “official narrative” was supported by the actions of the family members in court, on the street corner, on film, and in interviews as recently as 2019.
Ultimately, and like I’ve stated many times before, it doesn’t really matter because a jury convicted them and they will all die in jail.
By saying that I’m unable to “think for myself” you’re asking me to disregard too many facts (these are things that actually happened and have been substantiated and corroborated by many credible sources), accept that the prosecutor made up stories (before he was even involved in the case), overlook all of the family members behavior/statements in and out of the courtroom, dismiss the decision by 12 independent jurors, and dismiss the court’s handling of the case and sentencing by a judge. Not to mention, the 18 days Linda spent on the stand and not a single inconsistency in her story- most of you hate Linda for this reason, and to be honest, I don’t think she had the brainpower to stick with a fabrication of any kind. I think any fabrication would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
I think you “able to think for yourselves” people should collaborate and submit a post with all of the facts that support your in depth thinking.
How was Bugliosi any different than Johnnie Cochran during the OJ trial? Helter Skelter makes less sense than Cochran’s theory that the LAPD framed OJ.
The fact that 12 jurors convicted Charlie does not mean they believed the ILLOGICAL Helter Skelter theory. To disagree is to claim that the 12 jurors in the OJ case believed that he couldn’t have murdered his ex-wife and her breakdancing friend (since the LAPD framed him).
So to copy the murder of some lonely loser living in a shack where they ransacked the house looking for money and stole his crappy cars, they selected a mansion full of movie stars on the other side of town not even opening a drawer and leaving behind money and watches and jewelry? And then just to make it exactly like Gary, who was stabbed like 3 times, they stab everyone in the house a million times?
Um, yeah... pretty much everyone that was questioned about the case/Manson prior to Bugs being assigned the case. We’ve discussed in depth and there are many posts about it.
Also, and not being a dick at all, the burden of proof doesn’t fall on me. My side won.
I've been steady all along saying Manson should have went to prison for 10 years for his assault on Hinman
Mon, I'll try to be objective and fair and not to lecture at you.
The laws that govern any political entity are purely a human construct that were encoded at a specific time, and are binding and valid *within that entity* until repeal, amended, etc.
They do not have to make any sense, and they may, but are not required to, be in concert with earlier laws/customs/traditions.
So I can certainly see the point that you make, and Manson, too, that it does not *seem* like one can be accused and convicted of murder if you were never at the scene, never saw or met the victims, and had no direct physical connection with the act of their killing. This is a sort of traditionalist approach and it could be, and is, valid in some societies.
The problem is that in CA, at that time, and probably still, the codified law included many more instances of culpable involvement than those listed above. This next part is important...
IF YOU RUN AFOUL OF THOSE NUANCES, YOU ARE, UNDER BINDING LAW, CULPABLE AND CAN BE CHARGED.
Now, it may make no sense to people on a gut level--the requirement to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle seems that way to me--but it is STILL the law. If you do not follow the law, you can be charged, tried, and punished. It does not matter that you don't agree with it; under the general concept of the social contract, you're bound to follow it, anyway.
The problem for Manson was that he had a sort of traditionalist view of the law--a lot like the ten commandments or some other traditional, but non-legal, code of conduct, maybe--but the ten commandments, just like Manson's understanding of the law, are not in themselves legally binding. HE thought he was in the clear, according to his understanding of the law, but was not. It didn't matter: he was still bound by the laws of CA.
So yeah, it may not make sense in a tribal justice sort of society, but CA is far from that.
I'm no saying it's either right or wrong--it just *is*....
The idea of Helter Skelter was to Manson what the idea of the German right to lebensraum was to the leadership of the Nazi party. It was a sort of cultural unifying myth. The leaders may/may not have believed it, but it was effective at justifying a certain public course of action.
Me, I doubt that Manson believed in Helter Skelter. He used it as a sort of bedtime story for the ragtag band of feral children who followed him, and he could see that many believed it, and hence he could use it to his ends. This was intoxicating: remember that this was the very first time in the life of a long-term loser that he was actually empowered. People said that they'd die for him, and so this meant, to him, that they'd do basically *anything* for him, including kill, steal, turn tricks, etc.
To this end, Helter Skelter was his stated reason for the killings. The actual reason(s) could have been different, and in my opinion, they were. So if your main beef about the trial was that Bugliosi was lying about Helter Skelter being Manson's motive for calling for violence, yep, that's right, but it doesn't change that fact that Manson inspired/instigated the violence for other reasons.
Somebody really needs to knock the dust off this blog. You people are about....10 years behind in a little bubble. Not even the MSM is buying into the HS theory anymore or even the nonsense of CM being a "rockstar wannabe" Terry Melcher had no interest in. Even before recent revelations, it was discovered Melcher had more interest in Manson than Manson had being a recording artist. He got a taste of LA/Hollywood and preferred the desert. Watson let that world get to him and TLB is the result.
I'm about fifty page's in to a book Manson Exposed by Ivor Davis He also wrote Five to Die back in 69 I believe it was one of the first book's written on the subject he lists our blog as well as Cielo drive.com as reference points
I'm about fifty page's in to a book Manson Exposed by Ivor Davis He also wrote Five to Die back in 69 I believe it was one of the first book's written on the subject he lists our blog as well as Cielo drive.com as reference points
Rather a Manson fanboy than a Bugliosi one. Face it, the guy was scum who'd step on any neck he could and he rode Sharon Tate's corpse right to the bank for his own ambition. If you dislike Manson, then why like Bugliosi? He made the super villain out of him who upstaged Tate and all for his own ambitions and to protect the reputations of Hollywood low life. Thankfully with the 50th Anniversary, Bugliosi's legacy is in the toilet. You honestly think he gave a shit about justice for the victims? He saw them as stepping stones.
August 24, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bobscamararumbump said:
Rather a Manson fanboy than a Bugliosi one.
But that's not a choice anyone has to make. There's no cosmic balance that needs to be established by having one good and one bad. They could both be good, or both be bad.
Not does their character actually affect the physical evidence of the crime. That's entirely separate.
So if we're looking for factual resolution there's no need to choose sides.
But if it's drama you're after, or a morality play, then by all means, proceed.
Isn't the race war a fountain of the world inspiration? On our way to 200 comments....!best part was the old photos and jakobson .
as for Tlb just being stabby lost in Hollywood and Charlie not a part of it (because he rejects Hollywood): maybe if therewas just a T, but LB puts the lie to that premise. I think we all agree Charlie "show[ed] em how it's done." He showed the criminal sophistication of BTK and Berryessa Zodiac (and so many more ultimate scumbags): keep the victims calm with lies about one's intentions until they're subdued and tied.
"There seems to be a plethora of Manson fanboys and anti-Bug/HS'ers like yourself. Maybe you could take your Tom O'Neill bible and start your own blog."
You know who was anti-Bugliosi? Jeff Guinn. Or so I read.
What causes you to believe that he might have been a good arranger?
My mistake. I believed I had heard at least one song where Manson sang the lead and there were female voices behind him and the arrangement was interesting.
I tried to find it again today, to answer completely, and could not find it; therefore, I was probably confusing another song for what I thought I heard. I did, however, listen to most of the other songs he sang again, and want to modify my first statements.
There was no form of arrangement or even interesting variation, in his own accompanyments. The lyrics were worse than I had recalled. His voice is good, but not remarkably so. His lyrics are too centered on his own worldview. E.g., Cease to Exist (his best song, in my opinion) and Look at Your Game, Girl both have the singer's POV advising a hypothetical girl on what she should be doing. It's advice from one with a superior understanding of life. And perhaps within the construct of he family it was accurate.
The idea of drawing parallels between lebensraum and HS is ridiculous, lebensraum meant "living space" which the land the Nazis were after was which was Western and Southern Russia and pretty much all of Europe as opposed to Death Valley which is pretty much uninhabitable, Mansons goal or end game for his stupid shit talk HS was to HIDE in the desert and re inhabit the cities and towns without the presence of chocolate faces
Mon, I'm trying hard to be generous with you, but...
Both were what amounted to public myths, promulgated by the leadership, and believed by a substantial portion of the rank-and-file. To that end, they were used as the rationale for policy action. For Nazi Germany, it was for the reunification of the German-speaking isolates in Poland, Czechoslavakia, and maybe even Romania, and ultimately to justify the invasion of Russia. For Manson, it was to act out on his revenge fantasies and the manifestation of his power trip.
In both cases they were the fig leaf for aggression.
Helter Skelter served the same purpose among the Family. No one here, except you, apparently--the SAME guy who could "tell" by one of my responses that I never personally knew anyone with an opioid issue, when all the while I had had one, myself, for almost 4 years--thinks that Helter Skelter and lebensraum were both about settling in eastern Europe. The comparison was in what purpose they served in unifying a group toward a common goal.
Mon Durphy/Don Murphy, you are too dumb to continue to dialogue with--too fuckin' dumb. Every time you post, you embarrass yourself publicly, but *really* dumb guys would never recognize that. They keep right on making shit sandwiches and eating them with apparent relish.
I mentioned that documentary to prove that Bugliosi was a MARK FUHRMAN apologist! Besides, his Helter Skelter theory is less logical than Johnnie Cochran’s theory that the LAPD framed OJ!
Why do people cry like fucking babies when Bugliosi is criticized and shown for the narcissistic opportunist he WAS? Y'all are acting like he was Jesus Christ or something!
We all come to this blog to learn and discuss this case, to comment, to share, etc.. Nobody comes here to be insulted by anyone, especially when they share something personal. Shoegazer earns my respect for having the balls to admit he’s overcome an issue such as opioid addiction.
Shoegazer- disregard Mon ‘the super-douche’ Durphy. He gets banned every few months, creates a new moniker and shows back up then engages in comments that clearly show he’s overcompensating for all of the shortcomings in his life... and he demonstrates he’s somewhere between moron and imbecile on the IQ scale.
I’m not crying about it. He won the case and your side lost. I only pointed out to you that you side with a pedophile con man sodomizing reform school boys murderer. Interesting how you side with that yet demonize Bugs for being an “opportunist”.
I’ve never seen any proof (you’ve yet to provide anything either) of any immoral or unethical practices by Bugs. Was he a saint? I highly doubt that nor do I claim that he was.
I like Bugs because he did his job and put the people responsible in jail, where they will die.
That book must be in the fantasy section.. somewhere between “The Hobbit: The True Story of the CIA and Gandolf” and the Dungeons and Dragons stuff....
296 comments:
1 – 200 of 296 Newer› Newest»Nice to see my friends Jeff and Steve (Redd Kross) getting airtime here...and, a few new and/or less frequently utilized sources.
This was in my local newspaper yesterday also...nothing new for us though...
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20190814/282329681577897
Pointless just the same shit we've all seen & heard a hundred times
Look at 24:30. What the hell happened to Schreck's ear?
He claims someone cut it off around the time of his 8/8/88 concert and points to it as part of the "evil aura" surrounding the case
Maybe it's his tribute to Gary Hinman ??
Sorry to tell you all but Watson has rereleased "Will You Die For Me?" as "Cease To Exist." Looks like Tex and his publishers are trying to cash in on the 50th anniversary. Supposedly the Son of Sam law does not apply in California and many others states. Watson is one of biggest scumbags on the planet.
Yes
Tex didn't play or sing right? He had D wilson first and then charlie marginalized him (tex). Tex was on the bottom of the family hiearchy. He and the new girl LK get something going so he's feeling powerful finally. You know he's selling speed, being the natural born dealer he is and he's got a giant jar of it. Or... his boring book is true and he's a zombie.
Lol the jock rejected by the band geeks turns trench coat mafia. Well if it wasn' t real life murder it'd be funny
The L.A. Times had several good pieces the last week or so before the anniversary. I read the paper every day online, and it was nice to come across them. Go to latimes.com and search for Manson, or if there is desire, I’ll make a list of links.
On 16 Aug 2019, Dan S said:
"You know he's selling speed, being the natural born dealer he is and he's got a giant jar of it. Or... his boring book is true and he's a zombie. Lol the jock rejected by the band geeks turns trench coat mafia. Well if it wasn' t real life murder it'd be funny"
I recently read "Will You Die for Me". My impression is that either/or doesn't really apply. There are several pieces: corrupted, weak-willed frat-boy, drugged out follower (as opposed to initiator or leader), hyper-aggressive and animalistic opportunist.
He is a very complex mix, in my opinion. I'm in no way mitigating his part, but pointing out that his motivations were not simple, nor was Manson's exploitation of his tendencies. If you closely analyze the events at Cielo, and consider what had to have happened there to account for the wounds, etc., the absolute savagery of the attack that Watson actually admits involvement in is almost shocking. It's easy to view him like a dog that has killed some chickens, and likes it. Kills for the enjoyment of it.
This would be very useful to Manson. Keep Watson around solely for that.
So far as his "giant jar" of speed, what I'm seeing is this:
But when a young guy from one of the neighboring ranches began sneaking it over, Susan-Sadie, Bruce Davis and I started carrying it around in the bottom of a cigarette package. Later we hid it in a Gerbers' baby-food jar under the porch of one of the buildings.
What's your source for the giant jar?
Totally off-topic. I was wondering what the source was for the claim that Sharon and friends ate at El-Coyote Aug. 8 so looked at an old post from 2013 when the Blog tour ate there (Matt, Col., Patty) and it was said you guys actually went to the former residence of Rudy Weber and drank out of the hose (???) That seems like really crossing the line.
It's all relative, if it's sugar or flour then obviously a gerbers baby food jar is a tiny amount, pure speed, coke or meth and it's a pretty significant amount or what I'd call "giant" for sure
You're saying Watson can actually personally profit from the book? I thought I remember reading how Atkins had to surrender the proceeds of COSCOD to the families of the victims
Mr. Humphrat, the hose incident is just one of the reasons why Eviliz is no longer with the blog. The woman had no filters.
I think it was either Bugliosi or Sanders that said Sharon and friends ate at El Coyote the evening of the night they were murdered. Abigail's autopsy report somewhat confirms she ate Mexican food that night. On the last page of the report it states "The stomach contains a very large recently ingested meal in which apparently beans and corn with other unidentifiable material is identified."
https://www.scribd.com/document/35650486/Autopsy-Report-Abigail-Folger
On 16 Aug 2019, Mon Durphy said:
"It's all relative, if it's sugar or flour then obviously a gerbers baby food jar is a tiny amount, pure speed, coke or meth and it's a pretty significant amount or what I'd call "giant" for sure
Sounds like a confirmation that Watson's reference to speed in a baby food jar is the source of the "giant jar" characterization.
Yes,that amount of pure product stepped on and divided into portions for resale would net many thousands of dollars
Beauders where did you read this? Ive looked all over and haven't seen word one of this, even his own website makes no mention of it, will there be any updated content in it? If so I'd definitely buy it even if it's different stories from his years of incarceration
One can get the pdf version of "Will You Die For Me" at Abounding Love and it's free.
But, yes, it does look like the book has been re-released under the name "Cease To Exist" and it's for sale at Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Cease-Exist-firsthand-account-indoctrination-ebook/dp/B07VLSFS1G
There might be a loophole regarding the profits on the book. Someone should look into this situation!
Abounding Love Ministries is a nonprofit religious charity registered with the State of California. You can lookup nonprofits here-
http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y
Registrant Details
Entity type: Corporate Class as registered with the Secretary of State or based on founding & registration documents.
Organization Name: ABOUNDING LOVE MINISTRIES, INC. OF BISHOP, CALIFORNIA IRS FEIN:
Entity Type: Religious SOS/FTB Corporate/Organization Number: 2262048
Registry Status: Exempt - Religious Renewal Due/Exp. Date:
RCT Registration Number: EX599236 Issue Date: 12/31/1990
Record Type: Charity Registration Effective Date: 12/31/1990
Date This Status: Date of Last Renewal:
Mailing Address
Street: 621 W LINE ST #105A
Street Line 2:
City, State Zip: BISHOP CA 93514
Filings & Correspondence
No Related Documents
Annual Renewal Data
No Annual Renewal Data
Related Registrations & Event Reports
The related records shown below depend on the record type being viewed:
Charity Registrations relate to Professional Fundraising Events which relate to Professional Fundraiser Registrations.
Raffle Registrations relate to Raffle Reports.
Click on the RCT Registration No to navigate to the related record.
No Related Records
Do you know if there's any new info in the updated version or just the name change, Deb?
I'm sure Debra will be all over his ass like white on rice
On 16 Aug 2019 Mon Durphy said:
"Yes,that amount of pure product stepped on and divided into portions for resale would net many thousands of dollars"
So then we might expect a news report of someone who is arrested for transporting a Gerber's baby food jar of pure methamphetmine as being in possession of "a giant jar of meth"?
I wonder how they'd describe a large skippy peanut butter jar of meth?
The only people carrying around Skippy jars of LEGIT product,not shit put together in a trailer park bathtub but LEGIT product are major dealers, that's a HUGE amount of pure product, cops jump for joy when they find the smallest ziploc bag with the bottom fifteenth of the bag full
I think California's Son of Sam law was struck down as unconstitutional but was rewritten to allow victims to sue for the proceeds.
I really enjoyed seeing this video. To see all these people related to the case or that era. And that picture of Manson, the one with the green background, never seen that.
Mon Durphy said...
Do you know if there's any new info in the updated version or just the name change, Deb?
Not entirely sure but I doubt it. The length of the original is 223 pages including the photos and index. "Cease To Exist" is 204 pages according to Amazon, they don't say anything about photos which might make the difference. Either that or they took something out of it.
If you insist on using my formal name, it's Deborah. I'm kind of snotty about the spelling!
Oh ok, I thought I used your username but I just noticed I forgot the S, sorry about that, so in your opinion what do you think the reason was for the name change on the book? I know you're not in his brain but just your opinion
I don't know the reason for the name change but I question whether or not it was done with Tex's permission. The publisher is 2433 Publishing and I cannot find anything on that publisher. It was released July 30 2019, just a couple of weeks ago. I wonder if someone took advantage of "Will You Die For Me?" being offered for free on the Abounding Love website by changing the name of the book and printing up a bunch of copies. The PDF doesn't have the photos the hard copy has in it.
Why would Tex or Abounding Love suddenly start charging for a book that's still available for free on the website? I'm not terribly troubled by Tex getting ripped off, if that's the case, but I would be troubled by someone doing something this sleazy to make a buck or two around the time of the 50th anniversary. At least come up with something original!
Watching that clip the more I see of Jakobsen the more I realize what a two faced scumbag he is
Typewriters, stabbing, whatever it takes he's gonna get in with the cool kids
He also may have failed to renew the copyright which I believe must be done after 27 years. Also by making it free he may have placed it in the public domain. You snooze you lose.
DebS typed :
I don't know the reason for the name change but I question whether or not it was done with Tex's permission. The publisher is 2433 Publishing and I cannot find anything on that publisher. It was released July 30 2019, just a couple of weeks ago.
Looks like someone is trying to make/fund a "Tex Watson Story" movie, probably to cash in on the 50th anniversary of the murders. Here is the low budget website : Cease To Exist. They even copied the type font from the Beach Boys "Pet Sounds" album cover. This blurb from the website may answer your question :
"This is not a project attempting to excuse the murderers, nor to deprecate the level of horror committed. We simply want audiences (in addition to being riveted) to gain a new understanding of the story and the era.
Running a prison ministry for many years, Charles “Tex” Watson does not receive any financial benefit from this production, nor does he have any ability to control how his story is told in it. The producers’ promise to him in exchange for facilitating the transfer of rights for his book was that the story be told so that future young people do not make mistakes similar to his own.
The producers own all rights to the book and plan to republish it in connection with the production.
It'll be interesting to see if this project ever gets off the ground.....
Hi Mom, Did Jacobson say things in this video that brought you to that opinion or is there more to it than that ? What is the two faceed and scum bag part of this . Thanks.
Bob
Mon, sorry, didn't mean to type mom
Thank you Gorodish! I wonder if Tex was paid for the copyright to his book and if so where the money went.
That was interesting about the reporter in the trailer with the women on Spahn Ranch and having a tape recording of them in there.
He's just been on record saying good things about Charlie in places where millions of people aren't going to see it but every time one of these cookie cutter Manson the Boogeyman specials comes up it's Charlie had thise girls brainwashed, Charlie was a talentless loser, Melcher laughed at Charlie behind his back, etc, even in this little clip he basically brags about how he moved all of Dennis stuff out of his house in kess than a day while Charlie and the girls weren't there instead of just telling them to leave like a man, the more you hear and read about the "Golden Penetrators" or whatever their stupid name was the more you can understand why Manson couldn't stand their phony asses
I found that less than believable, why is it every time there's a new special like this one or two more of these people show up, the way I see it is it could be anyone on that tape
Is there any musician, Pamela Des Barres didn't want to be with? Her and Cupid...go figure.
I wonder if it was less to start a race war and more tex trying to prove himself then labianca being a case off Charlie proving hinself (show them how it's done)
Episode 5 season 2 of mind hun tweet. Haven't seen it yet but they do really good casting....
Mindhunter
What a great video! Love how Jakobson throws out the HS narrative and the ringleader part and then the conspiracy theory is offered up by others about Bugs inventing HS. People looking for a solution to a non problem.
I finally watched he video. There were aspects of it that I think are very important in understanding the Manson phenomenon.
I'm sorry to bore you once again by pointing out that I was 21 going on 22 at the time, and was returning to San Diego St. for my 4th year of college. From this perspective, the TLB murders were barely a slight smudge on the horizon, and very transient. There were other things more important to think about--like how to keep from being sent to Vietnam.
So the two things that really resonated with me in the video; the background descriptions in Chapter 1; and the "Elf tape".
The descriptions was where the various old farts talk about the idea that *we*--meaning people like me--my generation--really and truly and DEEPLY believed that we were going to change the world for the better. It would happen very soon, and very quickly. This is sorta what the Age of Aquarius ethos was all about. What's your sign, man?...
It was all very vague and very optimistic, and for many it was as one of the people in Chapter 1 said: drugs would show the way.
One more thing on that part. There were all these evocations of universal peace and love, etc. Beatles' "All You Need is Love", The Youngbloods' "Get Together", etc. We honestly thought, for a very brief while, that if everyone unilaterally stopped hating and started unconditionally loving every one and every thing, we'd be in a sort of earthly paradise.
What is difficult to convey is that if we were asked to think about it and frame our thoughts in words, it was as if not only our parents' generation, but every previous generation of western civilization had simply never thought of this simple expedient--it had obviously not occurred to them. *WE* were going to correct that oversight, and everything would be fine, forever.
The other strong connection I found in the video was listening to the tape in the trailer, where they were talking about Elf, and how he actually led and informed them. That pathetically naive observation of half-truths (yes, in a sense they do own and train you, but no, they really have nothing of lasting wisdom to give you--they fulfill the expression of the maternal instinct) was often taken as the absolute gospel, and to buy into it and express support for it was a sign of how hip you were.
I think this phase lasted about 2 years or so.
But yeah, it *was* like that for people of my age/background, and I wasn't even a big druggie.
Was it Pamela that did plaster casts of rocker dicks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_Plaster_Caster
Matthew Record said...
Was it Pamela that did plaster casts of rocker dicks?
You should read her book...
Regarding Pamela...no Matthew and all8. She was not "with" Cupid and did not do the casts. Yes she is a super groupie and is proud of it. Read her book like Matt said. In fact, read all five of you want to see what it was really like in 1969. She is a gifted writer. But take it easy with insults and innuendos. You never know who might be reading.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nme.com/blogs/the-movies-blog/once-upon-time-hollywood-further-reading-watching-listening-2534021/amp
Monica said: But take it easy with insults and innuendos.
There were no intentional insults or innuendos in my question. I simply got the two mixed up. Cynthia and Pamela both met a lot of people through Frank Zappa. There were other similarities in their stories. The world is always so quick anymore to jump down people. I did read one of her books and don't need to read a book to know what 69 was like. I just got two first names mixed up and asked a simple question.
Was just looking at a movie still from Once Upon a Time and noticed the girls wearing long, dangly, hippie-type earnings. But I can't find any other pictures where real members of the Family are wearing any. I can imagine it would have been hard to keep a pair of earings together living in those circumstances. Or maybe they just didn't wear them.
You won't notice it in the film, the girls are pretty much true to life, dirty nasty bare feet outdide, hairy armpits, hairy smelly snatches and assholes, greasy hair, Tarantino at least got the nastiness of the girls down pat
MON, I already knew Lena Dunham was in the movie.
Recalling the times, as is mentioned at the first part the video, the *idea* of separatist utopian communes was talked about a great deal among college kids, though without any actual commitment. It was a sort of "What if...?" exercise. At most you might get new roommates for the next semester.
To a degree, I now think the communes were an attempt to seek safety in numbers for those who wished to live in non-traditional--and sometimes unlawful--ways. I suspect that this fits Watson's rationale for being a part of the group.
I mean, when it got right down to it, it's as Mon says: the closer you got to the actual bohemian counterculture, the rattier and dirtier it was. And I liked my girl friends to be more cosmetically conscious.
It was odd, too. Unlike homeless grunge, they seemed to lauder their clothes and belongings, but religiously avoided bathing regularly. There was a sort of ill-formed idea that it was "natural", and hence good. Actually, the word used was "righteous".
Also, there were significant and high profile recruitment efforts by various religious groups, on campus, in the Student Union, along with the political booths like SNCC. I can recall a big push in maybe the spring of 68 or 69 by the Church of Scientology. Also, the group popularly called Hare Krishnas had similar recruitment drives. Public concern with cult-type brainwashing and "de-programming" countermeasures were still in the future.
The underground comic artist, R. Crumb, satirizes all this with his Mr. Natural character. So in a sense, Manson was a more malevolent Mr. Natural.
Here's a link to an existing commune from the era:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Bear_Ranch
Well said about the baby, shoe gazer. My 2 year old is adorable and bossy but zero wisdom. Tex was a mega stoner so i think that was a big part of his being in the commune
On 20 Aug 2019 Dan S said:
"Tex was a mega stoner so i think that was a big part of his being in the commune"
Hah! Yep, like one of the Fabulous Furry Freak Bros, with a very mean streak...
https://www.comicartfactory.com/gilbert-shelton-the-fabulous-furry-freak-brothers-fat-freddie-cat-zap-comix-2/
Dunno if mean streak is the right word for it. Sucker, nieve, weak minded, lazy, psychopathic, at that time YD&FoC....
Even if it was a drug burn on a deal with yana as his partner, I'm sure it was the family ethos that allowed him to spill blood like it was nothing more than stealing typewriters.
People always said he was nice. Quiet and nice. I don't think there are stories of a temper or particular cruelty... Correct me if I'm wrong...
Dan S...
No, you're right. I just said "mean streak" because it sounded sorta funny.
I've known people like that. No doubt you have, too. Very, very close to acting on whatever whim comes to them, depending on the situation. In a sense, Manson acted as both the brake and catalyst for his behavior.
You can read thru the material concerning the family members, and really, quite a few of them are familiar types; e.g., Van Houten reminds me of girls I dated. Manson, himself, was quite different in that no one I've met was as amoral, or as generous in excusing himself of straying from his own values, however transient they seemed to be.
When you look at who he assembled to do the crimes, it's interesting to speculate on what, specifically, he saw in them that he thought would make them good soldiers.
There was a weeding (pun!)out process. Who didn't fit in was ostracized. Won't go to Hawaii on foot to get coconuts? No food for you!
Dan S...
;^)
Or the Family members he chose to leave out of the crimes. For all his hatred for the "piggies," he was always kissing up to those in power and seemed to favor Family members like Lynette, Nancy Pitman, and Sandy Good who were all the children of a wealthy establishment.
shoegazer said...
When you look at who he assembled to do the crimes, it's interesting to speculate on what, specifically, he saw in them that he thought would make them good soldiers.
-----------------------
I've said this before and I still believe it to be true.
I don't think Charlie was some sort of savant when it came to choosing those who he sent out. I think he choose the people he did because they were expendable, he didn't like them much and they were becoming a liability. I bet that Charlie was just as surprised as anyone when they came back from the Tate house and told him what they had done. Not that he didn't sow the seed for the murders, he likely did, but he may not have believed they actually go through with killing anyone when he sent them out.
Tex messed him up with Lotsapoppa and he was dealing drugs and doing drugs on the side. Kasabian was new to the Family and he had gotten all the money out of her that he thought he could get. Plus, she was enamored with Tex, not him.
Susan was a pain in the ass, she talked to anyone who would listen, she brought law enforcement around because she didn't check in with her probation officers, both from Oregon and Mendocino County. She was a walking STD and infected anyone she came near.
Krenwinkel, poor Krenny, no one wanted to boink her, not even the bikers, because of her hormonal imbalance and the massive amount of hair. She was no good to Charlie's stable of willing girls.
If they had gotten caught in the act and arrested, it was no big loss to him.
On 21 Aug, Deb S said:
PART 1:
"I've said this before and I still believe it to be true.
I don't think Charlie was some sort of savant when it came to choosing those who he sent out."
Agreed. He seems to me to have been an instinctive, gut-feel personality.
"I think he chose the people he did because they were expendable, he didn't like them much and they were becoming a liability."
Maybe.
I think that Watson was a liability but had useful potential as essentially a triggerman, a thug; an undisciplined Luca Brasi. Manson perhaps saw the great potential for expressed violence in him, and I'm thinking he maybe put up with Watson's shortcomings in judgement in return for the opportunity to use him, when possible.
I don't see Watson as particularly loyal to Manson, as a person. Watson was the very definition of a physically gifted, but weak-willed, person. He drifted toward sensual gratification at the cost of freedom and personal integrity. Manson could see this, I think.
Atkins is trouble to *anyone*; Krenwinkel certainly would try to do what Manson wanted. Kassabian makes little sense to me and probably you're right; Manson just needed bodies for the ride up to Cielo, and she was one. She probably would do what Watson wanted, too.
BTW, I've read often that Manson chose Kasabian because she was one of the few Family members who had a valid CA DL. What kind of sense does this make when you are preparing to send out 4 people to murder everyone at a given residence? You have no qualms about sending people out to murder strangers, but sending someone out who *might* get a "driving without a valid license" violation is something you don't want on your conscience?
Besides, Watson drove back, by all accounts.
END PART 1
on 21 Aug 2019 Deb S said:
PART 2
"I bet that Charlie was just as surprised as anyone when they came back from the Tate house and told him what they had done. Not that he didn't sow the seed for the murders, he likely did, but he may not have believed they actually go through with killing anyone when he sent them out."
I think you've got a point.
Definitely I think he wanted it done, and he thought that Watson would jump at the chance to look good in front of the women (and in Manson's eyes) and had it in him to do great violence. But I think he was kinda surprised that it came to pass as smoothly as it did.
He was kinda like Bin Lauden, on seeing that both towers went down--it exceeded his expectations significantly.
"Tex messed him up with Lotsapoppa and he was dealing drugs and doing drugs on the side. Kasabian was new to the Family and he had gotten all the money out of her that he thought he could get. Plus, she was enamored with Tex, not him."
WRT to getting family members out of trouble, I suspect that Manson liked this, in an odd way--it fulfilled him and demonstrated to the group that he was, indeed, The Man.
For that, they owed him...
I think that the Hinman incident was another case of Manson stepping in to decisively solve a family problem.
"Susan was a pain in the ass, she talked to anyone who would listen, she brought law enforcement around because she didn't check in with her probation officers, both from Oregon and Mendocino County. She was a walking STD and infected anyone she came near.
Krenwinkel, poor Krenny, no one wanted to boink her, not even the bikers, because of her hormonal imbalance and the massive amount of hair. She was no good to Charlie's stable of willing girls.
If they had gotten caught in the act and arrested, it was no big loss to him."
I agree, but still he wanted, and expected, that it would happen.
When one examines the autopsy reports and analyzes what it would have taken to inflict the wounds, the first term that came to my mind was "frenzied". Watson basically went thru 5 people like a buzzsaw. I think Manson suspected that this was in him, and he (Watson) would be the catalyst for the rest of them.
My opinion, only; where we differ, certainly it is no better than yours, Deb.
Good exchange. Thanks!
Good Manson on mind hunter. Just saw it. Had to turn it off before they get to stabby tex tho.... I agree with debs on this one btw
Interesting discussion but I think it is in isolation. Deb, if Sadie was a loose cannon- why send her as it turned out she threw everyone under the bus.
Here is my opinion.
We know from comments in court hearings over the 'Tex Tapes' that they are (allegedly) filled with references to a race war and magic kingdoms under the desert.
Watson: 'all in'.
Katie: with Brunner temporarily goner she is on the short list next in line who are 'all in' for Manson and an original six. She is also a'all in' on HS per Van Houten.
Sadie we are told by Van Houten always wanted to be 'in' on the violence.
The wild card is Kasabian. Bugluosi says driver's license. But we also know from Sanders (?) sorry can't remember where that she spouted quite a bit about pigs. That shows up in what's his name's Harvard Crimson piece, too. And in Sanders' book Manson wanted Hughs to ask her how she spoke when she was with the Family. Of course he has no citations. If she was, shall we just say going 'Weatherman/SLA' then she is a perfect fit and it explains VB's desire to find her another reason, a likely suspended driver's license.
My 2 cents.
Then being all in and expendable is perfect for Charlie to suggest they stab people. He thinks he'd be immune and it's ridiculous to him that the fools would do it
Dan,
Gotta hoist the BS flag. I get people want CM to be innocent. He’s not. He sent them to kill and led them the next night to kill. What be didn’t ‘see’ was Holy Shit! You mean you can be convicted of murder and not kill anyone! And that folks is because he isn’t very intelligent.
Kasabian was in because of the 5 grand in my opinion, she wanted to feel important and what better way
On 21 Aug 2019 David said"
He’s not. He sent them to kill and led them the next night to kill. What be didn’t ‘see’ was Holy Shit! You mean you can be convicted of murder and not kill anyone! And that folks is because he isn’t very intelligent.
I'm not sure that it's simply lack of intelligence, but the problem is his ego: he *really and truly* believed that a) he knew the law, and how life worked, and b) he was smarter than anyone else.
Everything that you read that he said it always gets back to that: he *thinks* he knows--he's *sure* of it. Because he could not be wrong, the fact that he was convicted proves that the trial was a sham. He followed the law, as he understood it, which is the RIGHT way, so how could he possibly be guilty UNLESS it was a sham?
Shoegazer,
Manson says repeatedly in court (multiple trials) and after "how can you convict someone of murder who didn't kill anyone" [paraphrased] and it comes up here, again and again and again.
He was uneducated. He didn't understand the law. He believed he could send people to kill and skate. He never understood how he was convicted when he didn't kill anyone (of course he actually did when he killed Shorty) but he said it in every trial and after. He never understood how 'your children come at you with knives' could lead to guilty.
Also note in that speech he throws the 'girls' under the bus. He never defends them or says I'm with them.
Last ditch of a charismatic millennial leader.
The 'motive' is far more simple then drug burn/rip off/crap, HS crap/ CIA/FBI crap, copycat crap. The 'motive' was a millennial movement that collapsed, like they all do, due to outside pressure and a crisis of the charismatic leader.
The leader then seeks to reassert control and orders the group to commit suicide, whether it is kool aid or Boxers charging machine guns.
What is not known is not how it happens but whether it turns outward or inward- catch a ride on a comet or Manson.
IMO that likely turns on the leader. It really is that simple.
They were 'all in' like so many more (millions throughout history) listen to them and some still are.
If you can say that about Sharon Tate's unborn child you are truly a fucked up individual and that leads to murder when Jesus says 'kill'.
I'm not saying he's innocent. The second night he explicitly took them out to"show them how it's done". But the first night was probably a big joke to him and he had to show them he's better than tex after tex actually did it. His lack of intelligence is what got them in the mess for sure
I'm not a Charlie apologist. I just don't think he planned the first night seriously and the second night he had to "show them how it's done" to reestablish his dominance or superiority over tex. Also Isn't the"death drive" before Waverly pathetic?
Jakobson calls him intelligent in this video. He always dug Charlie's rap. D Wilson called him the wizard (that's so cute). I think his grasp of the law was pretty bad though. So many felonies beyond conspiracy too
Dan,
Didn't plan it?
"Now is the time for HS?"
Sure he did, in detail. Squeaky just needs to tell us all to what detail before she dies, because she knows.
Rejected by a group of women at Esalen, told his music sucked.
Members were defecting.
HS was not coming down.
His right hand man jumps off ship.
He shoots a black man.
They murder Hinman for nothing- two shitty cars and a pocket full of change.
The original gangster jumps off ship.
An original six jumps too.
Cops in helicopters.
Firemen 'passing by'.
They threaten the children.
LASO is rounding up evidence, every day.
Retz wants him gone.
On and on.....
Musical career gone- that, by the way, was the message, read the FREEP articles. Message, gone. His music was all that mattered to mini-me-Christ. Gone.
He is homeless. This wasn't a commune. This was a bunch of squatter, homeless runaways eating garbage.How long can that hold anyone? When do you decide a bed with no bugs, a warm shower and three squares is not a bad thing even if they all consist of granola.
But you are dead on about this: "reestablish his dominance or superiority". But leave off the "Tex".
Sorry, its
Gregg Jakobson
Of course he does because he doesn't want to look stupid because he fell for the rap just like Wilson and possibly Melcher for a time.
Jakobson wanted to film CM. Thought his live shit while stoned on acid or whatever was amazing...just like the Family. Enter Melcher, sober: "This sucks".
I was in a band in my youth. we got lit and recorded ourselves. Thought we were amazing, spent hours on it. Next day sober- we sucked. Heartbreaker by Grand Funk Railroad was a tune I remember.
I was great, of course.
David. I am with you on this. It was all about maintaining control of the Family. Race wars and Helter Skelter were just tools to keep the Family isolated and dependent on Charlie.
To echo Peter and David, I couldn’t agree more. Helter Skelter was the glue that united the family. Each one of the people that went out to kill had their own individual motivations. But make no mistake, it was all for Charlie and he orchestrated it all.
I tend to agree with Deb in that I do think Charlie was surprised after night 1. Doesn’t make him less culpable, but think he wasn’t expecting to “get five pigs”.
I’d also like to point out that in Charlie’s shooting and ‘killing’ Lotsapoppa, Lotsapoppa wasn’t some ‘establishment pig’ and neither was Gary Hinman. Hinman was killed for greed (and ultimately to keep him from going to the fuzz) and Lotsapoppa was killed for ‘self defense’. At some point, there is a transition and the family goes on the offense. Helter Skelter is the Tool Charlie used to go offensive.
I just watched “Manson, The Women” yesterday and even the girls confirm this to some degree- with “we just wanted to get out of the cities and all the chaos” - What cities? What chaos? You live on a shitty ranch in the middle of nowhere. You’re going to move to Death Valley to grow crops and self sustain? No, they made the move in support of the Helter Skelter narrative Charlie preached.
Last thing I’d like to point out- LaBianca didn’t go so smoothly either. Rosemary freaked when she heard Leno being killed. The only difference is that Charlie made them feel calm until the point of killing them. Why not just cut their throats quietly? Why all the shocking rage and over the top violence and mutilation? Even in how they killed supports the overall “official narrative”.
From what I can tell from my disordered readings of Manson testimony, parole hearings, and interviews, he hints and even strongly implies that he sent the people out to Cielo, ostensibly to commit crimes.
Because of his very rudimentary understanding of the law, he feels that a) because he, himself, did not kill the victims; b) he was not even at the scene; and c) no one forced the intruders to do any of the unlawful acts there, whether he told them to, or not, therefore he cannot legally be held accountable. So therefore the adjudication was unlawful: he's the victim.
And he was hardheaded enough to stick to this all the way.
I find it hard to believe that someone who spent as much time in prison as Manson was unaware of conspiracy laws. Particularly where his so called mentor Alvin Karpis was in prison for pleading guilty on a Kidnapping conspiracy.
On August 22, 2019 at 1:32 AM, Dan S said:
I'm not a Charlie apologist. I just don't think he planned the first night seriously and the second night he had to "show them how it's done" to reestablish his dominance or superiority over tex.
Very interesting thought, Dan.
I'm not sure at this point that Manson had any viable contenders for leadership of the group, but if there were any, I don't see Watson in that role. An anchorless person in my judgement.
But the "show you how it's done" has always hit a strong an off key, just like the need to have a valid DL to chauffeur a group of killers.
I think that Cielo, in its execution, was everything Manson had hoped for, and more. But he *had* to find something wrong with it to demonstrate why he was The Man. Hearing about the panic that ensued after Watson said "Kill him" Manson intuitively felt that he could show expertise by showing how to handle victims with the minimal resistance and trouble.
In this regard his technique was closely related to how the Nazis handled Jews when they shipped them to the extermination camps. Lie to them; given them hope.
Also Isn't the"death drive" before Waverly pathetic?
Hah! Good point!
Sounds both indecisive and also sounds like he was working his nerve up. Maybe showing off a bit, too.
August 22, 2019 at 10:06 AM Peter said:
I find it hard to believe that someone who spent as much time in prison as Manson was unaware of conspiracy laws. Particularly where his so called mentor Alvin Karpis was in prison for pleading guilty on a Kidnapping conspiracy.
I think you're giving far too much credence to the idea that convicts sit around discussing the finer points of the law. The fact that many are repeat offenders could demonstrate that, in fact, they still misunderstand how it works.
WRT Manson's music, yesterday I heard what is purported to be Manson singing a couple of songs, accompanied by a female chorus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_gZ2a3l2ck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpx4ODP35VQ
There are some others.
Are these actually Manson, so far as you know?
shoegazer Look At Your Game Girl is a well-known Manson song. My World I"m not familiar with, but they both sound just like him, singing and playing.
I saw the Manson episode of Mindhunter (Season 2, Episode 5) and thought the actor (same as Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, but looking like Charlie later in prison) was the best Charlie yet, in mannerisms and attitude and look.
The show made the point that Charlie was never involved in the murders, and never mentioned his violent involvement in Lottsapoppa, Hinman or Shea. They also showed photos of Bobby B. and Mary Brunner and said they were arrested together in the killing of a music producer.
WRT to evaluating Manson as a potential music talent, it is important to try to distance one's self from the knowledge of his negative personal traits. Try to hear it as if you did not know who was singing/playing.
So here's my opinion...
Vocal talent - Manson has exploitable vocal talent. He has a clear, pleasant voice that has a good degree of flexibility. The voice would be easy to recognize (a plus for marketing), and his enunciation is very clear.
Guitar talent - Seems average for a small club or bar singer.
Compositional talent, musical - To me, it's murky, muddy. Standard folk chords and progressions, arranged pleasantly. No memorable melodies, no hooks.
Compositional talent, lyrics - Very vague and murky without either narrative or focus. Pretty standard robust coffeehouse folk of the era. Would be difficult to say what the message of the songs are, or even if there is a message intended.
My opinion is that Manson could effectively have been marketed as a frontman--a vocalist. He is an effective and recognizable vocal stylist. Under optimal conditions he might write some marketable material, but his musical talent might be more of an arranger. And even that is uncertain.
Other opinions are welcomed.
Comp
August 22, 2019 at 1:01 AM David said:
The 'motive' is far more simple then drug burn/rip off/crap, HS crap/ CIA/FBI crap, copycat crap. The 'motive' was a millennial movement that collapsed, like they all do, due to outside pressure and a crisis of the charismatic leader.
I currently think that Manson never really believed in the actuality of the Helter Skelter myth. I think it was one of his "campfire tales", part of the Head Man's mythology that he used to entertain/mesmerize the group of drugged-up dependent flower children. Sort like Donovan telling about Atlantis. A rather more pessimistic Aquarian Age.
Even regular people, like me, at least wistfully entertained this silly shit at the time. California dropping off into the ocean, my ass...but young people sorta bought it--not necessarily wholeheartedly, but more like "Well, the way the world is now, we more than have it coming...". "Wishful, Sinful", the Doors song, aimed at this I think.
But the followers were credulous and unsophisticated and *they* bought it as a possibility, and Manson could sense this. So when things started falling apart, as you aptly noted, he pulled this myth out of the hat to unify the group and retain control.
Like you may have implied earlier, like James Jones' White Night.
How do you kill anyone who is fighting and swinging heavy things at you other than gruesomely in order to actually kill them? I think both Rosemary and Leno put up a good fight and were not going easy hence the knife in Lenos throat and overall number of stab wounds
The drive to Waverly wasn't meant to look smart or planned, it was just killing time until Leno and Rosemary got home, it's not like they can just go to the Dodger game and then burgers afterward until 12:30 and then Waverly at 1, that would look fairly obvious
Mon Durphy,
Kenos hands were tied. They wrote in blood on the walls and the fridge. They carved war in his chest and stuck a fork in his stomach and a knife through his neck. A steak knife, which means she went and got it. That’s pretty gruesome.
Leno that is
Yes Mon Durphy. The LaBiancas fought back so hard with their hands and feet bound together....
Tom Snyder - Charlie, did you go in first and tie up the LaBiancas?
Manson - (awkward silence)
Mr. Durphy is so busy worshipping Manson and his misogynistic white power trip that little things like facts are inconvenient.
Prefeteria said: "Mr. Durphy is so busy worshipping Manson and his misogynistic white power trip....."
Which, if true, is peculiarly, disingenuous. I hope not, frankly.
Manson was a scumbag loser and a piece of shit petty criminal but........not a killer or a murder conspiritor
Rosemary was found with her hands and feet unbound
He was both a killer and a conspirator.
Laughable! I’d hate to see your definition of an actual killer.
Visits a Black Panther about a drug deal gone awry. Pulls a pistol and shoots him in the chest. Believes he killed the man.
Orders brainwashed kids to torture and extort a musician for money- when it’s all said and done, has musician killed so as to not go back to prison. X 1
Orders brainwashed kids to kill everyone in a house wherein the last known occupant robbed him of his illustrious music career. X 5
Enters a house at 2am and ties up the occupants- orders brainwashed kids into the house to kill the occupants. X 2
Grabs ranch hand with brainwashed kids and stuffs into a car- beaten and killed. X 1
In the end, he died in prison because he was convicted of the above crimes (minus Lotsapoppa). Believe what you will, but your version isn’t reality.
shoegazer said
I currently think that Manson never really believed in the actuality of the Helter Skelter myth. I think it was one of his "campfire tales", part of the Head Man's mythology that he used to entertain/mesmerize the group of drugged-up dependent flower children. Sort like Donovan telling about Atlantis. A rather more pessimistic Aquarian Age.
This is truly what I believe. Manson was a low life con artist and pimp. There were people in the family that believed this line of bullshit and he used that to his advantage. If he didn't think a certain member wasn't buying it, he deployed another bullshit con on them. I do believe that Pat really did believe that HS was coming down. I think Leslie and Linda wanted to be included for acceptance. Tex believed it as long as he was drugged up. Susan wanted something to talk about. I don't think Manson believed any of it. He felt burned by Melcher and his Napoleon complex was damaged and he could get these fucked up minions to get vengeance for him. Once they actually went through with it, to his amazement, he needed to go back out the second night and regain his lead..
August 23, 2019 at 10:21 AM Matthew Record said:
There were people in the family that believed this line of bullshit and he used that to his advantage. If he didn't think a certain member wasn't buying it, he deployed another bullshit con on them.
Right. For example, I think he saw in DeCarlo a guy who, like Beausoleil, could be hooked into at least sticking around long enough to be bullshitted/charmed by using the very young females who were dependent on him. Indeed, Manson was first-and-foremost a pimp of the first water. He had the right kind and at the right age. This was the basis of his power.
I'm thinking that Dennis Wilson and Melcher were also manipulated in this way, to a greater or lesser degree. If he (Manson) didn't have anything you wanted, and hence could not be manipulated, like Shea, you became a potential threat--a loose end. He could not let this type of personality stay around.
I do believe that Pat really did believe that HS was coming down. I think Leslie and Linda wanted to be included for acceptance. Tex believed it as long as he was drugged up. Susan wanted something to talk about.
That's a very funny image: Atkins wanted to be invited to all the best parties. I suspect that you're right about that.
I don't think Manson believed any of it. He felt burned by Melcher and his Napoleon complex was damaged and he could get these fucked up minions to get vengeance for him.
This is very significant.
According to Melcher's own testimony, he went out to Spahn TWICE to hear Manson's music. What I've heard nothing about was, after Melcher left each time if Manson was elated--thought that his ship had finally come in, and worse: boasted to some of the important family members about it. He could well have put his ego way the hell out there, vulnerable, and when nothing came of it, he was made to look bad in front of his following.
Exploring this scenario further, you could view Melcher's rejections as the impetus, and the Helter Skelter myth as the overt rationale for the Cielo murders.
Once they actually went through with it, to his amazement, he needed to go back out the second night and regain his lead.
Yep. Then he had to show that, yes, you did it at Cielo, but I could have done it better. I'll show you...
The process was reactive, and getting out of hand.
You lose again, none of those things equal MURDER, thanks for playing, better luck next time
You're simply wrong
Yes Melcher was so UNIMPRESSED with his music that he talked to Mike Deasy about filming a documentary about the group until Charlie lost it and chased him around with a pitchfork
Mon Durphy said: "You lose again, none of those things equal MURDER, thanks for playing, better luck next time"
Well, you really ought to go over there to the right and read the law. All of that, in fact, equals murder nine times.
I know you really want Manson to be innocent but to get there you have to come up with some evidence that supports the idea. I suggest you start with the hardest ones (1.) you have to have him not get in the car the second night and (2.) you certainly have to have him not break into the LaBianca house and tie them up. Actually it's the breaking in that natters.
In fact, you really have to have him not present at all night #2.
If you conspire to commit a murder, and then your co-conspirators commit the murder, you are guilty of murder. We get it, Manson may not have struck the mortal blow to any of his victims, but that doesn't mean he is not guilty of murder. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand.
David, why does he have to break in? If the agreement is to murder, they could have invited him in and offered him a drink and it wouldn't make a difference.
Au contraire Rudy Weber’s Little Hose- Manson DIED in prison having been convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Try try again little man.
Peter,
He doesn't but the apologists like Mon Durphy claim he never conspired. They seem to ignore the fact that by breaking in or driving the car he is guilty of felony murder. That law in California was just changed, although the change is unlikely to have helped Manson even today but in 1969 he is guilty of that too.
In the case of conspiracy to commit murder, it’s not necessary that you were present at the scene, used a weapon, or took direct action that contributed to the victim’s death. You could be arrested for conspiracy if you had any role or act in furtherance of the crime. Conspiracy charges may be applied where you are part of a group of two or more people who intended, planned, solicited, or attempted to murder someone else. In other words, it’s your association that constitutes the crime.
Taken from Wikipedia.
He still wouldn't have to break in because the underlying crime isn't necessarily burglary. It can just be robbery of the wallet and the eight dollars and change from Mrs. La Bianaca's box? That was how it played out in Van Houten's third trial.
Matt. That covers the conspiracy conviction. But they actually did commit murder. So all the members of the conspiracy are also guilty of first degree murder.
Peter,
You are right. You have to get rid of both. That's why what they really need to do is not have him in that car.
Matthew,
Below the photos over on the right on the web version there is a post called The Law. It is all right there.
August 23, 2019 at 2:32 PM Mon Durphy said:
You lose again, none of those things equal MURDER, thanks for playing, better luck next time
That has been pretty much Manson's line of reasoning, too.
You and he must have gone to the same law school.
Where are the Manson apologists when it come to Bruce Davis and his conviction for murdering Gary Hinman? Bruce did nothing to facilitate the murder of Gary, he didn't slice Gary's face with a sword and he didn't send Beausoleil over to Gary's house.
Bruce was convicted of 1st degree murder because he was at Gary's house at the time Gary was being harassed and then sliced by Manson's sword and he drove one of Gary's cars away from the scene. Gary was alive at that time. I imagine that Bruce had a good idea what was going happen eventually. What got Bruce convicted was that he didn't inform law enforcement about what was going on at Gary's. That non-action made him part of the conspiracy.
You don't hear him, or any of his supporters, whining about being unjustly convicted.
dave1971 AKA susanatkinsgonorrhea AKA rudywebershose AKA Lou Gehrig AKA Mon Durphy typed:
Yes Melcher was so UNIMPRESSED with his music that he talked to Mike Deasy about filming a documentary about the group until Charlie lost it and chased him around with a pitchfork
If I remember right, Deasy was the one running around, fried on LSD, chasing Manson with the pitchfork till Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan subdued him. Melcher was a high profile music producer with the Byrds, Paul Revere & the Raiders, Glen Campbell, etc. He only originally listened to Manson as a favor to Dennis Wilson. I'm guessing, with his trained music producer ear, he knew Charlie's amateur hour strumming minstrel lounge lizard crap had zero potential, and he was really hanging around for the jailbait, namely Ruth Ann Moorehouse. He pawned Manson off on his buddy Deasy and his mobile recording studio, but when Deasy came to record them, they gave him LSD and he had a life-altering bum trip and never returned.
One of the funniest descriptions of your hero came from Dick Duryea (son of actor Dan Duryea), the Beach Boys road manager in the late 60s and early 70s : "He was really dirty and stinky....this awful person in the lobby hanging out and playing his songs. His music sucked too". (from Steven Gaines Beach Boys biography "Heroes And Villains")
August 23 2019 at 5:15 M Gorodish said:
With all respect, Gorodish, I get very resistant to "piling on". Manson was a clear sociopath who was unfit to live in a structured society such as we have in the US. There was A LOT that was wrong.
He would NEVER be welcome at my house, that's for sure...
But I've listened to his music, and when people say it stank, I can't agree that it was *that* simple. It was unmarketable in the contemporaneous market and as a professional, Melcher could no doubt see that. In a sense, it may have found a niche in the World Music category, as a sort of primitive US nativist music: if the Shakers had made music, it would be in the same category. The musicianship and composition were pretty unsophisticated--it was essentially elevator music for heads.
But he did have vocal talent in my opinion. He was A LOT better than many who had contracts. No doubt he thought so, too, and others probably told him this, as well. He expected it to take him places, but in this regard he was just like the character in the song in "Do You Know the Way to San Jose?".
For him, it was his last, best hope of conventional success, I think.
I hate to just take a basically very "bad" character and then on the basis of this, deny him/her recognition of any legitimate positive characteristics they may be fortunate enough to possess. Basically, it can undercut the credibility of the person piling on. We live in an age of reflexive virtual signaling. I'm not saying that this is a case, but it flirts with that perception.
But this is just my opinion and can be safely ignored... :^)
Melcher wrote a song about his experience called "Halls of Justice". It is on his 1974 album.
If you give it a listen you will quickly note that Melcher couldn't sing which may be why he recognized Manson's short comings.
David, there are a lot of reasons why Melcher would want to distance himself from Manson; after the story broke, NO ONE wanted to admit to any contact with him.
Melcher's testimony kinda reeks of noblesse oblige. But he does appear, to me at least, to have had some level of repeated connection with Manson. My guess is the girls. Probably the same for Wilson.
I assume you listened to Manson. The problem is the material and guitar accompanyment, not the vocal talent.
My opinion.
I don't need Melcher to tell me that Charlie sucked. I have ears. Even when the Beach Boys covered his music, it still sucked.
Shoegazer,
Not sure what triggered this response I was trying humor. Melcher's song is interesting in that he seems to admit he thought they were his friends but he also seems to be saying he didn't think it was anything more than an audition like any other. To me that addresses two points (1.) that he was closer than we are subsequently lead to believe and (2.) he was surprised by the whole 'to put the fear in Melcher because he broke promises' bit.
But 'yes' I have listened to Manson.
A lot of people in rock and roll can't/couldn't sing but 'made it'. That occurred because something about the band/sound/music/lyrics was unique and/or reached an audience- Jerry Garcia/The Dead.
There is nothing that stands out about Manson- singing, songwriting, guitar. That is what I believe Melcher also heard. Remember who he produced and the 'sound' he favored. Some might call it 'pop'.
After the arrests, of course everyone ran away from Manson, anyone with half a brain should have fled as quickly as possible.
But as you said: "But this is just my opinion and can be safely ignored."
Great line.
August 23, 2019 at 6:31 PM Peter said:
iI have ears. Even when the Beach Boys covered his music, it still sucked.
There you go, Peter. I agree: compositions were mediocre, at best.
If you'll recall, I identified vocal talent as a possible strength, not composition or musicianship.
Can you dig it?
I knew that you could.
August 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM David said:
But as you said: "But this is just my opinion and can be safely ignored."
Great line.
I mean it sincerely. Is Manson a hill you'd die on? Not me...
August 23, 2019 at 6:58 PM Peter said:
I knew that you could.
Could what?
https://youtu.be/Mv_ibdtqAFY
Nope, Pete. It's this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUrWYv2vtU&t=3s
David, I have left a comment on your "Examining the Evidence" #7, going into a quick analysis of the wounds. If you are interested, and/or have time, I would certainly value your input.
Have a good weekend! Am now planning a trip to Brookings, OR, maybe Chetco River, in mid/late Sept! Neat summer up here (PNW), so far.
Was he dirty and stinky? I thought until the death valley days he made everyone stay clean and neat a la the slippies ethos
Those guys go both ways: men AND boys
Wasn't us, the black Panthers did it. They shot cyrus
I can’t believe people believe the completely illogical Helter Skelter theory for the TLB murders. It makes me question their willingness to think for themselves.
DO said: "I can’t believe people believe the completely illogical Helter Skelter theory for the TLB murders."
I don't think that is what the comments were about. I think the comments were to the effect Manson used HS to control/manipulate/direct his puppets.
I can't speak for others but as for me it was Manson's rationale for the murders, not the motive. Perhaps a better description would be his motivating factor to create murderers. Bugliosi saw that but not the nuances associated with the HS talking point.
All the offered motives are crap, in my opinion. None of them lead anywhere. Each requires a leap of logic, a suspension of reason that is usually covered by throwing in drug use; an unsubstantiated 'fix' to explain both nights or an acceptance of conspiracy theories that by their definition have little supporting evidence and rely on coincidence and conjecture.
Manson is no different than Jim Jones (and hundreds of others throughout history). What set him apart and made him famous was the brutality of the murders, the invasion of a home in a seemingly random manner and a single victim: Sharon Tate.
The 'motive' for Jones' mass suicide/murder, or any other millennial leader that promises a 'paradise' to his followers, is that he feels the impact of being unable to deliver, being questioned or being exposed as a fraud. His psyche can't accept the failure and he (or she) reacts.
Unlike Jones, Manson's anti-social personality and negative narcissism turned his rage outward, instead of inward. This was, in part, because he was already predisposed to believe 'they' were preventing him from being great/famous/ recognized. 'They' had already messed up his life. He was a product of 'their' system, 'their' prisons. The sixties gave them a name no different from 'Jap', 'Gook' or 'Kraut', 'They' were pigs. A moment in time happened where a segment of society agreed with him and the establishment supported and reinforced that paranoia.
It was also, in part, because Manson was a coward and, in part because he got off on the fact they were willing to die for him.
Read their words in the FREEP. Listen to their words on the corner. Listen to what the true believers said years, decades after the fact They were at war for him and that is what blew his skirt up. The motive is that simple: the satisfaction he got from the fact they killed for him. Will you die for me/ If you are willing to die you are willing to kill. Control. Ultimate control. JimJones could ask the same question and obtained the same result.
But that is my opinion and yours can differ.
David, the more I speak, the more you’ll see how anti-Bugliosi I am. He was a corrupt, lying, self-centered, hypocritical,scheming opportunist. I mean, the man was a MARK FUHRMAN apologist.
Speaking of the OJ trial, I think the man treated the Manson trial no differently than Johnnie Cochran treated the OJ trial. The only difference was Bugliosi was a prosecutor whereas Cochran was a defense attorney. I also think if you compare Bugliosi and Cochran’s theories of their respective trials, the HS theory makes the “LAPD framing OJ theory” look completely logical and plausible.
There was nothing about race in the TLB murders—only a racial element that Bugliosi manufactured. I can’t find any evidence that Manson wished to start a race war. Saying “death to pigs” is not an indicator that his “family” was trying to pin any murders (TLB or Gary Hinman’s) on the Black Panthers, because the Black Panthers weren’t the only ones in the ‘60s to use the word pig. It was common among recalcitrant youths to use that word to describe people they despised.
Blacks hardly—if ever—frequented the Tate/Polanski residence/neighborhood, so why would Manson think that people would suspect that the Black Panthers murdered Sharon Tate and co.? It makes no sense. Or shall I say “it makes less sense than thinking the incompetent LAPD could somehow perfectly frame OJ Simpson!”
I’m a believer of the copycat theory and don’t think the murders would have continued had Bobby Beausoleil not been incarcerated.
I agree
One thing to remember here is the seamless connection of the various Topanga residents and, area musicians at that time. Bobby was one of the hoarder of people on backing "vocals" on The Mothers "Return of the Son of Monster Magnet" although, Zappa deleted his name after Bobby went stabby. Vito and Carl and their group of "Freaks" included The GTO's who were Zappa's proteges. Love had early rehearsals at Vito's space. Bobby sometimes played in early version of Love - known as Grass Roots. Pretty much everyone in Topanga scene was in Mondo Hollywood. The various GTO women babysat and, cleaned houses as well as being notoriously shameless groupies. A few were bigtime druggies (who probably scored from the same dealers...including Tex).
I could go on and on...but, won't.
The GTOs were - at their core - just huge music fans who loved to dance and, who were young and carefree and, connected. Miss Pamela is a really sweet and smart woman.
Hoards
Not hoarder
I've been steady all along saying Manson should have went to prison for 10 years for his assault on Hinman
Wasn't there a college-aged woman who wrote about a similar experience with the MF (including acquiring a copy of the LIE LP) blogged somewhere too?
She described the trailer scene with the MF girls and, the baby pretty much 100% as the woman in this video does.
Are they the same person? I recall the reporter answering questions from blog participants in real time too.
I'll try to locate the link...if anyone recalls offhand, drop the link.
Durphy proves my point again. Just look at this thread alone for the misogyny and racist imagery.
Not to mention his apparent expertise in drug dealing!
What’s next?
Read the appellate briefs. There is about 30 pages devoted to testimony by witnesses to Charlie blabbing about race wars and Helter Skelter. Bugliosi didn't make that shit up. Charlie did. I doubt either of them believed it themselves. Bugliosi used Charlie's own con to convict him.
I wouldn’t trust these witnesses during the appellate briefs. I think Bugliosi coached them and convinced them to say those things.
For me, I have a hard time accepting theories from people who think Bugs “manufactured” some element of what the prosecution presented. It shows ignorance in facts- facts that presented themselves LONG before Bugs was involved with the case. Facts that came from many many sources. And to overlook these facts in order to present another theory is inept thinking and requires too many leaps in reasoning.
In addition to the facts, the “official narrative” was supported by the actions of the family members in court, on the street corner, on film, and in interviews as recently as 2019.
Ultimately, and like I’ve stated many times before, it doesn’t really matter because a jury convicted them and they will all die in jail.
By saying that I’m unable to “think for myself” you’re asking me to disregard too many facts (these are things that actually happened and have been substantiated and corroborated by many credible sources), accept that the prosecutor made up stories (before he was even involved in the case), overlook all of the family members behavior/statements in and out of the courtroom, dismiss the decision by 12 independent jurors, and dismiss the court’s handling of the case and sentencing by a judge. Not to mention, the 18 days Linda spent on the stand and not a single inconsistency in her story- most of you hate Linda for this reason, and to be honest, I don’t think she had the brainpower to stick with a fabrication of any kind. I think any fabrication would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
I think you “able to think for yourselves” people should collaborate and submit a post with all of the facts that support your in depth thinking.
How was Bugliosi any different than Johnnie Cochran during the OJ trial? Helter Skelter makes less sense than Cochran’s theory that the LAPD framed OJ.
Astrocreep, I can give you five sources that disprove Bugliosi’s ILLOGICAL Helter Skelter theory.
If you can give me proof that Bugliosi DIDN’T manufacture the HS theory, it’d satisfy me. Because I can’t find it.
12 jurors also acquitted OJ Simpson.
The fact that 12 jurors convicted Charlie does not mean they believed the ILLOGICAL Helter Skelter theory. To disagree is to claim that the 12 jurors in the OJ case believed that he couldn’t have murdered his ex-wife and her breakdancing friend (since the LAPD framed him).
Vincent Bugliosi was a corrupt, lying, self-centered, hypocritical, scheming opportunist. Not to mention a MARK FUHRMAN apologist.
The paw print at Hinmans.
So to copy the murder of some lonely loser living in a shack where they ransacked the house looking for money and stole his crappy cars, they selected a mansion full of movie stars on the other side of town not even opening a drawer and leaving behind money and watches and jewelry? And then just to make it exactly like Gary, who was stabbed like 3 times, they stab everyone in the house a million times?
https://youtu.be/i2nuPVTU4Z4
Drugs were the reason Tex Watkins and co. couldn’t make the murders appear like Gary’s.
And I’ll say again, what kind of person thinks that the BLACK PANTHERS of all people would go to the Tate residence and kill all of those people?
Manson could’ve done so many other, easier things to start or even spark a race war.
No but they could shower up and eat some watermelon and drink some chocolate milk afterwards...
Um, yeah... pretty much everyone that was questioned about the case/Manson prior to Bugs being assigned the case. We’ve discussed in depth and there are many posts about it.
Also, and not being a dick at all, the burden of proof doesn’t fall on me. My side won.
August 23, 2019 at 10:31 PM Dan S said:
Wasn't us, the black Panthers did it. They shot cyrus
There you go, my man!
THERE YOU GO!!
;^)
August 24, 2019 at 1:05 AM Doug said:
One thing to remember here is the seamless connection of the various Topanga residents and, area musicians at that time.
WRT GTOs, this wringing a bell, sorta.
There were the Plaster Casters, and there was this group of girls who called themselves GTOs or the GTOs. This stood for "girls together only".
Are we talking about the same people?
August 24, 2019 at 1:06 AM Mon Durphy said:
I've been steady all along saying Manson should have went to prison for 10 years for his assault on Hinman
Mon, I'll try to be objective and fair and not to lecture at you.
The laws that govern any political entity are purely a human construct that were encoded at a specific time, and are binding and valid *within that entity* until repeal, amended, etc.
They do not have to make any sense, and they may, but are not required to, be in concert with earlier laws/customs/traditions.
So I can certainly see the point that you make, and Manson, too, that it does not *seem* like one can be accused and convicted of murder if you were never at the scene, never saw or met the victims, and had no direct physical connection with the act of their killing. This is a sort of traditionalist approach and it could be, and is, valid in some societies.
The problem is that in CA, at that time, and probably still, the codified law included many more instances of culpable involvement than those listed above. This next part is important...
IF YOU RUN AFOUL OF THOSE NUANCES, YOU ARE, UNDER BINDING LAW, CULPABLE AND CAN BE CHARGED.
Now, it may make no sense to people on a gut level--the requirement to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle seems that way to me--but it is STILL the law. If you do not follow the law, you can be charged, tried, and punished. It does not matter that you don't agree with it; under the general concept of the social contract, you're bound to follow it, anyway.
The problem for Manson was that he had a sort of traditionalist view of the law--a lot like the ten commandments or some other traditional, but non-legal, code of conduct, maybe--but the ten commandments, just like Manson's understanding of the law, are not in themselves legally binding. HE thought he was in the clear, according to his understanding of the law, but was not. It didn't matter: he was still bound by the laws of CA.
So yeah, it may not make sense in a tribal justice sort of society, but CA is far from that.
I'm no saying it's either right or wrong--it just *is*....
People are bound to misunderstand this, but...
The idea of Helter Skelter was to Manson what the idea of the German right to lebensraum was to the leadership of the Nazi party. It was a sort of cultural unifying myth. The leaders may/may not have believed it, but it was effective at justifying a certain public course of action.
Me, I doubt that Manson believed in Helter Skelter. He used it as a sort of bedtime story for the ragtag band of feral children who followed him, and he could see that many believed it, and hence he could use it to his ends. This was intoxicating: remember that this was the very first time in the life of a long-term loser that he was actually empowered. People said that they'd die for him, and so this meant, to him, that they'd do basically *anything* for him, including kill, steal, turn tricks, etc.
To this end, Helter Skelter was his stated reason for the killings. The actual reason(s) could have been different, and in my opinion, they were. So if your main beef about the trial was that Bugliosi was lying about Helter Skelter being Manson's motive for calling for violence, yep, that's right, but it doesn't change that fact that Manson inspired/instigated the violence for other reasons.
My opinions, only.
Somebody really needs to knock the dust off this blog. You people are about....10 years behind in a little bubble. Not even the MSM is buying into the HS theory anymore or even the nonsense of CM being a "rockstar wannabe" Terry Melcher had no interest in. Even before recent revelations, it was discovered Melcher had more interest in Manson than Manson had being a recording artist. He got a taste of LA/Hollywood and preferred the desert. Watson let that world get to him and TLB is the result.
shoegazer typed :
This stood for "girls together only".
Girls Together Outrageously
August 24, 2019 at 12:42 PM Bobscamararunbunp said:
Somebody really needs to knock the dust off this blog. You people are about....10 years behind in a little bubble.
OK, I'm willing. Can you provide some sources for the new thinking in TLB?
Gorodish...
Thanks!
Bobscamarumbump typed:
Somebody really needs to knock the dust off this blog. You people are about....10 years behind in a little bubble.
There seems to be a plethora of Manson fanboys and anti-Bug/HS'ers like yourself. Maybe you could take your Tom O'Neill bible and start your own blog.
Destroyer Of Helter Skelter typed:
Drugs were the reason Tex Watkins and co. couldn’t make the murders appear like Gary’s.
Tex "Watkins", right? This makes me question your willingness to think for yourself.
I'm about fifty page's in to a book Manson Exposed by Ivor Davis
He also wrote Five to Die back in 69 I believe it was one of the first book's written on the subject he lists our blog as well as Cielo drive.com as reference points
I'm about fifty page's in to a book Manson Exposed by Ivor Davis
He also wrote Five to Die back in 69 I believe it was one of the first book's written on the subject he lists our blog as well as Cielo drive.com as reference points
Rather a Manson fanboy than a Bugliosi one. Face it, the guy was scum who'd step on any neck he could and he rode Sharon Tate's corpse right to the bank for his own ambition. If you dislike Manson, then why like Bugliosi? He made the super villain out of him who upstaged Tate and all for his own ambitions and to protect the reputations of Hollywood low life. Thankfully with the 50th Anniversary, Bugliosi's legacy is in the toilet. You honestly think he gave a shit about justice for the victims? He saw them as stepping stones.
August 24, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bobscamararumbump said:
Rather a Manson fanboy than a Bugliosi one.
But that's not a choice anyone has to make. There's no cosmic balance that needs to be established by having one good and one bad. They could both be good, or both be bad.
Not does their character actually affect the physical evidence of the crime. That's entirely separate.
So if we're looking for factual resolution there's no need to choose sides.
But if it's drama you're after, or a morality play, then by all means, proceed.
GTOs based in Topanga
Cynthia Plaster Caster in Chicago
Zappa brought her to LA
She hung out with the GTOs
Bobscamarumbump said:
“Rather a Manson fanboy than a Bugliosi one”
Ok, so you side with a murderous lunatic cult leader who liked banging 14 year old girls.
Got it!
I thought this was very well done. Beautiful resolution on some of the photos of the area.
Isn't the race war a fountain of the world inspiration? On our way to 200 comments....!best part was the old photos and jakobson .
as for Tlb just being stabby lost in Hollywood and Charlie not a part of it (because he rejects Hollywood): maybe if therewas just a T, but LB puts the lie to that premise. I think we all agree Charlie "show[ed] em how it's done." He showed the criminal sophistication of BTK and Berryessa Zodiac (and so many more ultimate scumbags): keep the victims calm with lies about one's intentions until they're subdued and tied.
Destroyer of Opinions wrote:
“I think Bugliosi coached them and convinced them to say those things.”
What is your evidence that supports this opinion.
Destroyer of Opinions wrote:
“I mean, the man was a MARK FUHRMAN apologist.”
How so?
Have you seen his documentary “OJ is 100% Guilty”? Am I allowed to post youtube links here?
Meant to say Tex Watson. I mean, there WAS a Watkins who was essential the Manson case (Paul).
Destroyer of Opinions typed:
Have you seen his documentary “OJ is 100% Guilty”? Am I allowed to post youtube links here?
Mario George Nitrini III will be answering you shortly......guaranteed!
What is wrong with Tom O’Neill?
To know if Bugliosi was a Mark Fuhrman apologist, watch this video before it gets removed—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UkXP6Ovp6E&app=desktop
Shoegazer wrote:
“but his musical talent might be more of an arranger.”
What causes you to believe that he might have been a good arranger?
Gorodish wrote:
"There seems to be a plethora of Manson fanboys and anti-Bug/HS'ers like yourself. Maybe you could take your Tom O'Neill bible and start your own blog."
You know who was anti-Bugliosi? Jeff Guinn. Or so I read.
August 25, 2019 at 5:17 AM Jenn said:
What causes you to believe that he might have been a good arranger?
My mistake. I believed I had heard at least one song where Manson sang the lead and there were female voices behind him and the arrangement was interesting.
I tried to find it again today, to answer completely, and could not find it; therefore, I was probably confusing another song for what I thought I heard. I did, however, listen to most of the other songs he sang again, and want to modify my first statements.
There was no form of arrangement or even interesting variation, in his own accompanyments. The lyrics were worse than I had recalled. His voice is good, but not remarkably so. His lyrics are too centered on his own worldview. E.g., Cease to Exist (his best song, in my opinion) and Look at Your Game, Girl both have the singer's POV advising a hypothetical girl on what she should be doing. It's advice from one with a superior understanding of life. And perhaps within the construct of he family it was accurate.
This could get preachy and wear thin very soon.
Destroyer of Opinions/Bugliosi/Helter Skelter typed :
Have you seen his documentary “OJ is 100% Guilty”?
Yeah, and Bugliosi was right - OJ was 100% guilty.....so what's your point ?
Nice ripoff of Brad Davis in court in Midnight Express in an attempt to sound profound, go cut and paste some more, it's entertaining
The idea of drawing parallels between lebensraum and HS is ridiculous, lebensraum meant "living space" which the land the Nazis were after was which was Western and Southern Russia and pretty much all of Europe as opposed to Death Valley which is pretty much uninhabitable, Mansons goal or end game for his stupid shit talk HS was to HIDE in the desert and re inhabit the cities and towns without the presence of chocolate faces
Mon, I'm trying hard to be generous with you, but...
Both were what amounted to public myths, promulgated by the leadership, and believed by a substantial portion of the rank-and-file. To that end, they were used as the rationale for policy action. For Nazi Germany, it was for the reunification of the German-speaking isolates in Poland, Czechoslavakia, and maybe even Romania, and ultimately to justify the invasion of Russia. For Manson, it was to act out on his revenge fantasies and the manifestation of his power trip.
In both cases they were the fig leaf for aggression.
Helter Skelter served the same purpose among the Family. No one here, except you, apparently--the SAME guy who could "tell" by one of my responses that I never personally knew anyone with an opioid issue, when all the while I had had one, myself, for almost 4 years--thinks that Helter Skelter and lebensraum were both about settling in eastern Europe. The comparison was in what purpose they served in unifying a group toward a common goal.
Mon Durphy/Don Murphy, you are too dumb to continue to dialogue with--too fuckin' dumb. Every time you post, you embarrass yourself publicly, but *really* dumb guys would never recognize that. They keep right on making shit sandwiches and eating them with apparent relish.
I mentioned that documentary to prove that Bugliosi was a MARK FUHRMAN apologist! Besides, his Helter Skelter theory is less logical than Johnnie Cochran’s theory that the LAPD framed OJ!
And what is wrong with Tom O’Neill?
Why do people cry like fucking babies when Bugliosi is criticized and shown for the narcissistic opportunist he WAS? Y'all are acting like he was Jesus Christ or something!
We all come to this blog to learn and discuss this case, to comment, to share, etc.. Nobody comes here to be insulted by anyone, especially when they share something personal. Shoegazer earns my respect for having the balls to admit he’s overcome an issue such as opioid addiction.
Shoegazer- disregard Mon ‘the super-douche’ Durphy. He gets banned every few months, creates a new moniker and shows back up then engages in comments that clearly show he’s overcompensating for all of the shortcomings in his life... and he demonstrates he’s somewhere between moron and imbecile on the IQ scale.
I’m not crying about it. He won the case and your side lost. I only pointed out to you that you side with a pedophile con man sodomizing reform school boys murderer. Interesting how you side with that yet demonize Bugs for being an “opportunist”.
I’ve never seen any proof (you’ve yet to provide anything either) of any immoral or unethical practices by Bugs. Was he a saint? I highly doubt that nor do I claim that he was.
I like Bugs because he did his job and put the people responsible in jail, where they will die.
I'm nowhere near that high on the IQ scale
So Astrocreep, anybody that disagrees with you has got a low IQ? No wonder you like Bugliosi!
That book must be in the fantasy section.. somewhere between “The Hobbit: The True Story of the CIA and Gandolf” and the Dungeons and Dragons stuff....
Post a Comment