Sometimes a person makes a giant mistake and kills another person. They do their time and live with themselves and their consequences. When they die, maybe they meet their maker.
But not every killer stabs a pregnant woman in her hands while she covers her unborn baby. Or carves WAR into a fellow the following evening. That stuff falls into another category. I don't have a name for the category but something like sickos-who-get-off-on-terrorizing-and-murdering works just fine.
Thanks as always to almighty Cielo for providing me with new ways to embarrass myself each week. Tex Watson went up for parole again just over ninety days ago. If you search "Inmate Watson" inside of the pdf things go faster. Tex conducts business like an executive on a Zoom meeting and says "uh" every third word.
Tex's excuses:
Insecurity.
Charlie turned my brains into noodles but at first I thought it was a game.
Meth.
Demonic Oppression.
Possession.
DUN DUN DUN!
Lightning flashes and just like that, Old Mr. Scratch is back in town. Tex could not sound crazier if he tried. I know he doesn't expect the board to nod like sages and surprise him at the gate with a free Uber but come on.
A white Prius pulls up. Tex dashes past Debra Tate and an angry mob. "Where we goin, pal?"
"The knife store and I ain't got all day."
------------
Linda update. I was unsure if I'd seen this before.
"Yeah, so like the craziest thing happened, Commissioner Gordon. Dennis Wilson was hitchhiking around Los Angeles one day. I stopped and he took me to meet Charlie Manson. What's crazy is Dennis met Charlie after picking up hitchhikers from Charlie's group! I mean what are the odds in a city that big? Oh, and also I was feeling less insecure because the Beach Boys were my friends."
Remorse? Manipulation? I promise I have feeling(s) now? Please never let him out.
Ever become possessed but then find yourself unpossessed and remember you are out murdering people because a smaller dude said hey go kill for me? Me neither but life is slow here.
Tex also attempts to dry snitch and throw shade on Charlie and TJ for going back to Cielo but no one on the board cares. I lost the slide when Blogger crashed and took my draft with it.
ReplyDeleteDoes Tex actually SAY that Charlie went back to CD later that night/early morning? And if he does, does he give any more details? This has always interested me, because of the messed up blood trails.
ReplyDeleteNo. They're asking about the rope and the ceiling beams...
ReplyDeleteTex: I don't recall this to a big extent, at one time I even thought Manson and TJ went back over to the house and did this, but at some point, I actually believed that I--I tied up a rope around, uh--uh, Jay Sebring's neck and threw it over a beam and tied it to Sharon. Uh, I don't know exactly what point I did this because I get kinda confused in that after I shot Jay Sebring, um, then everything went into such motion that I wouldn't have had, I didn't have time to tie him, them up at that point.
That’s a great post Green. Some new information from the last parole hearing which I wasn’t aware of having not read the transcript. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I was laughing my socks off at some of your humour too - taking the Uber to the nearest knife store and not having all day to do it was the pick of the bunch for me! No over indulgence by you this time just quick fire humour ;-) !! On a serious level, what do you make of the “new” info from Watson that Kasabian dropped them offf by the gates and then drove the car back down the hill? I commented some time ago on another post during a back and forth with Grim about how flimsy and concocted her story (aka evidence) was about what she supposedly witnessed. She drove the car back down the hill yet she walked back up in time to see Parent shot? She then was supposed to be ‘listening” for anyone coming by the gate as the killing started in the house but hadn’t she also claimed to have run back to the car in fear? The whole thing is just full of holes on so many levels. It’s just a shame that the parole board members don’t pick up on these kind of revelations where there is such a deviation from the original trial narrative. As always I guess you have to take what Watson says with a massive dose of salt and wonder why his story changes. Or at least why he doesn’t add an explanation for the bits that he changes! It’s interesting that he claims not to have any recollection of tying the rope over the beam etc. If the Watson tapes are ever released it would be interesting to see what he says about the rope etc in those early conversations. The cynic in me says he knows that different and conflicting stories have been told along the years by him and the others about who tied who and where and it’s convenient for him to say I don’t remember. The crime scene that was discovered on the morning of 9th was certainly different from that which the killers claimed it looked like when they left.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a great post Green. Some new information from the last parole hearing which I wasn’t aware of having not read the transcript. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I was laughing my socks off at some of your humour too - taking the Uber to the nearest knife store and not having all day to do it was the pick of the bunch for me! No over indulgence by you this time just quick fire humour ;-) !! On a serious level, what do you make of the “new” info from Watson that Kasabian dropped them offf by the gates and then drove the car back down the hill? I commented some time ago on another post during a back and forth with Grim about how flimsy and concocted her story (aka evidence) was about what she supposedly witnessed. She drove the car back down the hill yet she walked back up in time to see Parent shot? She then was supposed to be ‘listening” for anyone coming by the gate as the killing started in the house but hadn’t she also claimed to have run back to the car in fear? The whole thing is just full of holes on so many levels. It’s just a shame that the parole board members don’t pick up on these kind of revelations where there is such a deviation from the original trial narrative. As always I guess you have to take what Watson says with a massive dose of salt and wonder why his story changes. Or at least why he doesn’t add an explanation for the bits that he changes! It’s interesting that he claims not to have any recollection of tying the rope over the beam etc. If the Watson tapes are ever released it would be interesting to see what he says about the rope etc in those early conversations. The cynic in me says he knows that different and conflicting stories have been told along the years by him and the others about who tied who and where and it’s convenient for him to say I don’t remember. The crime scene that was discovered on the morning of 9th was certainly different from that which the killers claimed it looked like when they left.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a great post Green. Some new information from the last parole hearing which I wasn’t aware of having not read the transcript. Thanks for taking the time to do this. I was laughing my socks off at some of your humour too - taking the Uber to the nearest knife store and not having all day to do it was the pick of the bunch for me! No over indulgence by you this time just quick fire humour ;-) !! On a serious level, what do you make of the “new” info from Watson that Kasabian dropped them offf by the gates and then drove the car back down the hill? I commented some time ago on another post during a back and forth with Grim about how flimsy and concocted her story (aka evidence) was about what she supposedly witnessed. She drove the car back down the hill yet she walked back up in time to see Parent shot? She then was supposed to be ‘listening” for anyone coming by the gate as the killing started in the house but hadn’t she also claimed to have run back to the car in fear? The whole thing is just full of holes on so many levels. It’s just a shame that the parole board members don’t pick up on these kind of revelations where there is such a deviation from the original trial narrative. As always I guess you have to take what Watson says with a massive dose of salt and wonder why his story changes. Or at least why he doesn’t add an explanation for the bits that he changes! It’s interesting that he claims not to have any recollection of tying the rope over the beam etc. If the Watson tapes are ever released it would be interesting to see what he says about the rope etc in those early conversations. The cynic in me says he knows that different and conflicting stories have been told along the years by him and the others about who tied who and where and it’s convenient for him to say I don’t remember. The crime scene that was discovered on the morning of 9th was certainly different from that which the killers claimed it looked like when they left.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Speculator. I knew I didn't have a ton of room for an Uber joke before the boom was lowered but I was laughing thinking about a crazy killer saying that to a driver and went for it.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine having to tell that stupid typewriters story for six decades? Why do you think you did it? Well, sir. I was insecure...
I call bs on forgetting the rope and beams. Sirhan says he doesn't remember what happened, too. I don't know why they think it's endearing. Like oh okay you don't remember? Head on out there and forget again.
Tex says in this parole hearing they were arguing in the car 8/8 about doing the deed. Not everyone was on board. Gotta be Linda, right? He also says she was hysterical screaming during the madness.
His arrogance does him in. A room full of people are looking at him like he's crazy and dude brings up demons and possession. Simile or not. Dumb.
If I've said it once, I said it a thousand times, Linda spent most of that night hiding in the back seat of the car. Bugliosi needed a witness who would put a knife in everybody's hands and she obliged.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think that you’re far wrong there Peter if this version from Watson is to be believed. But who knows as they each seem to tell different stories at different times. It’s interesting about the rope and Watson appearing to say that he’d thought about it a lot as to if/how he was the one who used it. It’s a shame that the parole board ask such poor questions. Despite dwelling on the rope for so long they failed to ask Watson the key question as to why he took it with him in the first place. He was ducking the questions with the I don’t know/can’t remember responses but if you take a length of rope like that it’s clearly not simply intended to tie hands behind backs and subdue the vicitims. It was clearly to be used for the grim theatre that they already had in mind to leave behind them in that living room. There are clearly bits of the story that he likes to conveniently forget I guess.
ReplyDeleteGreen - I’ve now read the full transcript and along with the frequency in which Watson goes “uh” all the time can I also add the frequency of “inaudibles” from the parole board guy when he’s responding to some of the nonsense that Watson is serving up! I had a chuckle thinking that the inaudibles would be the guy saying under his breath “bullshit”, “gonna kill you lying mother f**ker!” and other such profanities directed at the imbecilic Watson!! Maybe not!
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Grounds had Tex on the ropes when he was asking why was Sharon slashed and backed off I thought. That was his 17th trip to see the board, right? The cat bats the mouse for fun.
ReplyDelete"Well, we can see you're making positive steps. Here's what we'll do. Even though we can tell you to kick rocks for ten more years when you're eighty-six, we won't. Instead, we're do this again every year or two at our leisure. And then also here's a summons card you can use whenever you want. We'll send you back to your room then too."
To answer your question from yesterday, I don't know if the new reveals meant much to me. I did like reading where Tex said not everyone in the car was down for the murders on the drive over there. A little sliver of humanity during a dark ride maybe. Also kinda goes against Tex's nonsense about only hearing Charlie in his head and etc.
It is a wonder any of them remember anything especially Watson, he was totally out of his mind on belladonna. He could probably get on disability if released. White Rabbit did, he told the judge he was disabled because he was a member of the Manson Family and they gave it to him. Yep good old Texas tax payers are supporting White Rabbit>
ReplyDelete"Does Tex actually SAY that Charlie went back to CD later that night/early morning? And if he does, does he give any more details? This has always interested me, because of the messed up blood trails."
ReplyDeleteTex hurrrumphed his way through the Manson-going-back bit. He just tossed it out there, saying that there was talk that this had happened or may have happened and that was that.
It sounded like he didn't have first-hand knowledge of the event, but then again Watson sounds like he doesn't have much first-hand memory left at all regarding these murders. Green represents this wonderfully in this piece. Watson's stance has long been "I wrote (actually dictated) a book about this stuff years ago and now I don't think about those things at all anymore."
If you read the full text of this hearing, it's pretty sad. It's Watson saying "yeah, so I um . . . um . . . um . . . well, we parked the car and then the kid was killed and then we were in the house . . . "
Commissioner: You slit the window screen and crawled in . . .
Watson: Oh yeah, right - I went in through the window and then there was this guy on the couch . . .
It reads like the parole people had more knowledge of these crimes than the actual murderer does!
Back to the Mason returning thing, people make much, much more of the blood evidence on the porch than it really merits. If one goes back to read the reports and the testimony on this point, there is not much confusion at all on this point. The vast majority of blood on that porch belonged to Voytek. The Tate blood out there amounts to a mere couple of drops - drops that were likely either deposited from Watson's hand/knife after having stabbed her, or off of the towel Atkins used to write PIG.
It is true that the blood sampling was a bit botched in this case, but the evidence that exists aligns with what I describe above. No evidence that bodies were moved around after the fact.
"If the Watson tapes are ever released it would be interesting to see what he says about the rope etc in those early conversations."
ReplyDeleteWatson covers everything in some great detail in that first "as told to" book he put out. There, he describes that he took the rope with the beams in that living room in mind - not sure if Manson might have directed this or if it were something Tex thought up on his own. He says that he climbed the ladder to check the loft for people. This likely occurred as the girl(s) were sent back to check the other rooms, though it could have happened before he woke Frykowski.
As for Linda's story, there is no real confusion there at all. Each one of the participants (including Watson, numerous times) describe what Linda did: the car was backed down the hill (yes, Watson actually guided the car down that narrow slope BACKWARD!), parked, and then everyone walked back up the hill to do the deeds.
Watson told Linda to go out to watch for incoming people - he was concerned that the Parent shots might have aroused attention in the neighborhood. She states that she went back to the area near the car (which wasn't pushed all that far from the gate to begin with) and that is where she was stationed for most of the events.
It takes a bit of doing, but when you stack it all up: Atkins' grand jury testimony, Watkins first book, and the various accounts the girls have offered over the years, they all tell pretty much the same story.
P.S. Atkins also clears up the Bill Garretson memory lapse in her interviews with Bug and her grand jury testimony.
She describes the scene where the victims were all more-or-less bound and Krenwinkel was ordered to kill the interior light, which she did. This means that it was dark in the house as these murders took place, but according to Atkins, enough light was shining in from outside to see what was happening. And then there is this moment where nothing has happened just yet. This would likely have been just before Sebring was shot.
Atkins remembers that they were all just kind of standing there for a moment, wondering what was next. She looked out the large front window and saw a big dog. Then, she says, when she looked out again, the dog was gone. Garretson said that he did let the dogs out but that it wasn't until a few hours after Parent had left - three or four in the morning.
The "big dog" Atkins saw would have been Christopher, who was large and could be mouthy. Christopher had a way of getting out of the little enclosed part of the yard behind the guest house, and this is likely what happened. He (and possibly the other dogs) were let out shortly after Parent left, Christopher did his escape routine, was spotted by Atkins, then returned to the guest house. Unless Atkins was lying over the random fact that she saw a dog out front, this points out a memory lapse on Garretson's part and helps confirm the post-midnight timeline the prosecution put together.
Tobias - you’re probably right about where the car was who drove it up and down again etc. Although Watson does make it sound more like in this latest version that Kasabian drove it back down the hill alone which would put her out of the picture for a while if she then walked back up whilst the others proceeded. I guess Watson has either forgotten or just doesn’t care to remember the finer details anymore. That’s a bit how it comes across in the transcript. Although if you’ve ever had dramatic events in your life from my experience you do remember them in most of the detail. Who knows. There’s a risk that you end up convincing yourself that there is something new/different in an account more because you want it to be there than the reality of it actually being there.
ReplyDeleteTobias: thanks for your comments on the blood distribution, much appreciated. A question of Occam's razor, methinks; we tend to analyse too much.
ReplyDeleteJay only SAID i know karate and got shot. I always thought he TRIED some karate
ReplyDeleteIf I am remembering Watson's book description correctly, he said that Sebring had said this while beginning to advance on him & making such moves.
ReplyDeleteThe sofa was between the two men. Watson says he was making wild, monkey-like moves behind the couch for some reason ("monkey" is my term, but that seems to be what he was describing - I can only imagine) and Sebring responded as described above.
tobiasragg said...
ReplyDelete"The vast majority of blood on that porch belonged to Voytek. The Tate blood out there amounts to a mere couple of drops..."
This simply isn't accurate. Reference the blood map.
One question that pops into my mind when reading about Linda freaking out and driving/not driving, is why was she there if murder was the sole reason for the trip? She'd been on the scene five-ish weeks. Did she all of a sudden care about Melcher and his broken promise? Brothers? Everyone always says Linda and Tex were an item but Tex has said more than once he was pretty exclusive with Mary.
ReplyDeleteAnd if they're arguing in the car on the way over, who's arguing? One of the blobs wasn't down for the crime.
It's quite accurate, there were not "pools of blood" associated with Tate or Sebring in evidence.
ReplyDeleteRather, most of the Tate/Sebring blood discovered can be assumptively tied to the killers' collective narratives: Sebring blood dripping from Watson's hand/knife as he pursued Frykowski out to the lawn, and drips/ribbons/splatters of Tate blood in the area surrounding the front door, where Atkins had squatted with a blood-soaked towel to write PIG.
Of course, there seem to have been many possible errors associated with the processing of this crime scene, so it is likely impossible to really resolve the matter conclusively.
https://www.mansonblog.com/2017/08/a-look-at-evidence-6-granados-big.html
I've always thought that the whole thing with Kasabian was a series of contradictions which would no doubt have been used against her by Bugliosi to convict her if Atkins had been his star witness instead of her. One thing that really brought that home to me was that tv programme they did together a few years ago when he was very careful to try to control what she said and stopped her from straying off the official narrative too much. The look on his face when she started on about going through Parent's pockets after he'd been shot! I guess it's whether you believe what Watson's saying at this hearing over previous accounts that he and the others have given. There have been various different versions on some of the finer details. And even if you accept the account from Watson's book about the rope, as cited by Tobias, where is the explanation for the towel covering Sebring's face and wrapped around his head and neatly tucked under the rope that was around his neck. I don't think any account has ever explained that one other than I think Atkins once saying that it wasn't there when she left the scene. That's one of the strong points that's used by those who argue that the scene was revisited and tampered with after the event, along with the blood smears all over ST suggesting that her body had been moved.
ReplyDeleteTobias - I've always thought that Watson's claim that Sebring said "I know karate" etc is BS. I think he just read somewhere that Sebring had karate lessons and he used it to add just a bit more drama (as if it needed it!) to the story in his book. I don't think Atkins or Krenwinkel ever mentioned it in any accounts. I seem to remember that it was Atkins who said in one of her versions that Watson was making the weird monkey noises/jumping around behind the sofa and she shouted a warning to him when she saw Sebring try to make a move towards him. And doesn't Watson/Atkins state in other accounts that he told Sebring to shut up or he's dead and when he didn't he shot him.
ReplyDeleteTobias and everyone, it should also be pointed out that Tex Watson said he cut his hand at Cielo. He admitted this to the minister who basically wrote Tex's book during an intetview recorded and posted to YouTube. Apparently this cut left a scar on Tex. It should be asked, then, at this point: was Tex's blood ever tested, typed and subtyped? The same may be asked of Susan and Patricia.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it would be good at this point to revisit David's work on the blood evidence at Cielo. There is detailed discussion there on the blood map.
Thanks Torque. Yes, I linked the lengthy piece from 2017 or thereabouts that concerned the blood stuff. Very detailed and extremely well done.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I kind of believe it all. What people call the "official narrative" has held strong for decades now, having been told and re-told by so many of the individuals involved over the years. There are variations and jumbled memories, but overall they all tell the same story and there seems little reason to doubt the bigger picture and sequence-of-events they all describe.
The Kasabian Steven Parent pockets thing is a head-scratcher. That TV special was the first and the last time I think we've ever heard that one. I could be wrong on that point, though. I will say that one of the crime scene photos of Parent shows his entire body from a side-of-car POV. That is to say, the driver door is open and the photographer has knelt down to take the shot. It DOES look like there is a wallet outline in his left-side back pocket, but of course it is impossible to tell if that was really his wallet via this one photograph. Coulda been his cel phone:D I also poked around some of the case files to see if Parent's wallet was itemized anywhere, but I didn't find anything useful. I didn't look all that hard, though.
I should say that I also do believe in the whole Manson/Cielo visit scenario. He later dismissed the book in which this tale is told, but the account is detailed enough - and the outside mentions of this event are frequent enough - that I think there is probably some "there" there.
Tobias, there is a property report from Cielo, and it lists the contents of Steve Parent's car. This can be seen in the original at LSB3.com, from a post dated Oct. 28, 2012. Namely, police found Steve's wallet, brown plastic, with a miscellaneous ID of S.E. Parent. This wallet contained one $5 bill and four $1 bills.
ReplyDeleteAlso found was a black plastic notebook and a checkbook in the name of Steve Earl Parent from Bank of America. Of course also recorded were Steve's wristwatch and Sony AM/FM radio.
Thanks for that, Torque. I figured this info must be posted somewhere, but as I said I didn't dig too deeply to find it.
ReplyDeleteKinda makes one wonder what motivated Kasabian to say what she did about having gone through Parent's wallet. Ah well, it's far from the strangest thing associated with this case.
Torque said...
ReplyDeleteTobias, there is a property report from Cielo, and it lists the contents of Steve Parent's car. This can be seen in the original at LSB3.com, from a post dated Oct. 28, 2012. Namely, police found Steve's wallet, brown plastic, with a miscellaneous ID of S.E. Parent. This wallet contained one $5 bill and four $1 bills.
Also found was a black plastic notebook and a checkbook in the name of Steve Earl Parent from Bank of America. Of course also recorded were Steve's wristwatch and Sony AM/FM radio.
Vera squawks: 'Course that then raises the question of why the hell did it take twelve hours for the coppers to ID Parent???
Vera - I was just thinking the same. As the old saying goes - the plot thickens! Nothing much in this case is ever straight forward. Maybe it was yet more incompetence by the Police. If you believe some of the alternative theories, maybe Kasabian was trying to identify who they'd just killed as they didn't recognise him as someone they thought was going to be there?! Just saying!!
ReplyDeleteOn Cielodrive.com there is a newspaper story, dated Monday 8/11/69, and it speaks directly to the question of notifying the Parent family of Steve's death. It is titled, "Estate a Continent Away".
ReplyDeleteLt. Robert Madlock is quoted in the story as saying, [a]t the time we first found the Parent car at the scene, we were going 14 different directions at once. So many things had to be done, I guess we just did not have time to follow up on the car registration."
Mr Parent was not notified of Steve's death until late Sunday morning, according to the story. The property report on Steve's belongings records the date and time these items were taken into police custody as 8-9-69 at 2200 hrs (10:00 PM).
Reporters gathered around the gate at Cielo could easily see the front of Steve's car, so they naturally saw the license plate. Police were perhaps more interested with the "jet set" people outside the view of the reporters.
No doubt Bill Garretson would have provided all but immediate information to police when he was arrested. However, Bill no doubt did not know much about Steve, including his last name. Still, it is obvious that police were appraised of Steve's visit to Cielo by Bill, but police may also have been aware early that Steve was not necessarily personally associated with the other victims.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteThe Kasabian Steven Parent pockets thing is a head-scratcher
It is.....and it isn't.
Understandably, when it first came out, a number of people on a few of the blogs at the time and in the years afterwards went into overdrive; this was the smoking gun that many had suspected for years, confirmed that Linda Kasabian, had played a more significant role in the murders and maybe had actually stashed Steven. After all, the impression held {whether accurate or not} was that she was the goody two shoes of the party, the one that risked life and limb to help snag these evil murderous bastards ~ and many people had serious doubts as to the veracity of the image.
But as Shakespeare would have said, it was much ado about nothing.
She handled Rosemary LaBianca's wallet the next night, and hid it. She disguised weapons. She got rid of weapons. She got rid of bloodstained clothes. She drove cars both nights. All under orders. She engaged in a number of criminal acts, all of which were infinitely more serious than looking at a shot teen's wallet. Incidentally, she was ordered to get Steve's wallet by Watson and interestingly, she did not comply. She left the money in the wallet and left the wallet. It is mentioned, with its contents, in the property report. It obviously wasn't important to Watson, who evidently had other things on his mind.
Vera Dreiser said:
that then raises the question of why the hell did it take twelve hours for the coppers to ID Parent???
Some things never change. When Charlie died, the news here in England mentioned Steven in the earlier broadcasts. By the 10pm news, he wasn't mentioned. Many of the earlier reports would mention the regular 4 that were associated with Sharon Tate, but Steve Parent was cast as an afterthought. And that hasn't changed much in 50+ years.
In a way, some of the details of the police investigation really shine a light on how many within the police force thought at the time. There was {and often remains, in forces throughout the world} a certain hierarchical strand in thinking. And in 1969, Black people, domestic abuse victims and rape victims of a certain class, Hispanics, gay people, Hippies and young people, the homeless, immigrants, prostitutes, junkies etc, simply weren't thought of highly enough to warrant much serious effort, should they be involved as victims in something that required proper and robust investigation.
To be fair though, it wasn't that long before Steven was identified. I think William Garretson not being able to identify him or recognizing his car {which he'd been in} was also kind of interesting.
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteI've always thought that the whole thing with Kasabian was a series of contradictions which would no doubt have been used against her by Bugliosi to convict her if Atkins had been his star witness instead of her
In order for any contradictions to be taken advantage of, there has to be corroborating evidence that Kasabian was at the scene.
There is and was none.
Bugliosi recognized that legally, she was guilty of conspiracy. He said so, to Joan Huntingdon, in Robert Hendrickson's book, "Death to pigs." But he also knew that any case against Linda wouldn't stand up. There was corroborating evidence at some point over the two nights against Manson {leather thong, among others}, Watson and Krenwinkle {prints}, Atkins {her big mouth ie, what she told Howard and Graham} and Van Houten {her knowledge of postmortem stab wounds}. There was none against Linda. So the words of an accomplice would die the Aranda death.
Had Atkins gone into detail about Ocean Front Walk, there may have been a route to clobber Linda, but it would have necessitated locating the two cops that stopped Charlie and Linda by the beach, and the guy that partially opened the door to Linda at the flat she deliberately misled Susan & Clem to ~ and in both instances, they're not details that Susan noticed or brought up. They were Linda's bag.
Though Bugliosi said he would have gone for a 2nd degree charge against Linda, that was very much retrospective, with Joan Huntingdon's questions in mind, because at the time, her actions were those of an accomplice and could easily be hardened to be taken that way. His more accurate summation of the case against Linda was that it was 'anaemic' and he felt she'd've been better off taking her chances in a trial and getting acquitted. That really tells you what he had against her ~ sweet FA.
One thing that really brought that home to me was that tv programme they did together a few years ago when he was very careful to try to control what she said and stopped her from straying off the official narrative too much
On that interview, Linda was a drug-sodden wreck.
The look on his face when she started on about going through Parent's pockets after he'd been shot!
Maybe it came as something of a shock to him, as it had done to pretty much everyone else hearing that for the first time.
If you really think about it, it wouldn't have harmed his case if that had come out back in 1970. But by it coming out in 2009, well, look how you've just taken it. I think I'd be mortified if I didn't know it back then and it came out like it did, and if he did know it back then, it is simply illogical to have suppressed it.
I guess it's whether you believe what Watson's saying at this hearing over previous accounts that he and the others have given
I don't. Not because it's Linda K, but because ever since I started taking note of things Watson says, over the years, I've noticed that he comes across as someone that has no true memory recall of many details. And people that have done truly cruel things often don't. Not because they've blocked out the horror of their actions, but because the cruelty encompasses whatever they happened to do and once done, they might not give much thought to the specifics of what they'd just done.
Hi Grim , you are as ever the voice of reason.
ReplyDeleteI'm always impressed with your encyclopedic knowledge.
Did you train as a lawyer/solicitor.
On another note, have you heard anything from Cats recently.
Grim - I'd say Kasabian would have definitely stood trial with the others had she not been the star witness. With all due respect, I'd suggest that it's naive not to think that. Whether the jury would've convicted her is another matter altogether. If Atkins had been Bugliosi's witness instead of Kasabian I'm sure that the whole dynamics of the case would have been different as would the statements/evidence that they all gave at the trial. And don't forget that the Prosecution doesn't necessarily rely on the truth to get a conviction! As for whether Bugliosi's case would've been harmed if Kasabian had mentioned the wallet back in the trials - maybe she did mention it in private interviews with him before the trial and maybe he told her to not mention it again in her evidence. He wouldn't want anything to blacken her character afterall. Then again, maybe she was off her head on drugs during that tv interview and just made it up. Who knows. Very intriguing those when these little snippets and anomalies come out.
ReplyDeleteI have the feeling that if LK had gone through SP's wallet she would have taken the $7. Just human nature, ¿no? Especially with the Spahn dumpster credit card robbing lifestyle. Maybe in her drug-sodden state she was just confusing it with some other incident?
ReplyDeleteI've fallen into a pedantic-ish habit of calling things "Dickensian" once a day, although I have been digging through quite a few gutters and their dwellers. Linda's grubby little hands rifling through a dead man's pockets is 100% Dickensian.
ReplyDeleteI'm enjoying learning from all of you in this comments thread. Thank you.
Spec: "As for whether Bugliosi's case would've been harmed if Kasabian had mentioned the wallet back in the trials - maybe she did mention it in private interviews with him before the trial and maybe he told her to not mention it again in her evidence. He wouldn't want anything to blacken her character afterall."
ReplyDeleteBeautiful: It would've been a lie by omission and impeached Kasabian if it came out via another channel. She had to recount every second of her time at Cielo under oath. What she witnessed, where she was, what she did. If she truthfully penetrated the Parent crime scene and withheld that fact and it came out she wouda been as toasted as Vera's vayjay.
Speculator said...
ReplyDeleteI'd say Kasabian would have definitely stood trial with the others had she not been the star witness
I agree. After all, she was indicted. It was more than a month into the trial before the judge was petitioned for immunity.
With all due respect, I'd suggest that it's naive not to think that
I didn't say she wouldn't have stood trial. I said the prosecution had no case against her.
You tell me; what are you aware of, that in any way connects Linda to Cielo or even less so, Waverley, outside of the words of the perps ? Every one of the others can be placed at their respective venues in one way or another. Linda can't. Maybe in these days of DNA evidence sometimes being used, it could be a different story. But not then.
Whether the jury would've convicted her is another matter altogether
The jury struggled both to convict Leslie and sentence her to death. And by Dianne Lake's evidence and that of the medical examiner, it was established that she had stabbed Rosemary LaBianca. So if they had a hard time with someone who obviously was along willingly, with the paucity of evidence against Linda, one can see why Bugliosi felt that she would have been better off, from her point of view, to risk a trial and acquittal.
Clem was as much a part of the actual conspiracy as Leslie. One could even argue that he was in things at an earlier stage than her. But there was absolutely no evidence, independent of the words of any of the perps, that he'd even been along. Hence, he wasn't even indicted.
It really is worth reading the Aranda case, on which all of these complications are based. It's kind of minor, but it caused judicial earthquakes.
If Atkins had been Bugliosi's witness instead of Kasabian I'm sure that the whole dynamics of the case would have been different as would the statements/evidence that they all gave at the trial
I know it's being almost too wise after the event, but in essence, all Linda had to do was put the onus on the prosecution to prove she'd been at either venue. The best way to do that was to say nothing and leave it to her lawyer. Gary Fleischman was no mug. He was scheming from the very start and had a lot more cunning than any of the defence lawyers demonstrated.
But you're right, the dynamics of the case would have been different. But we don't know how. What we do know, is that Susan was dodgy and even after the Grand Jury, the prosecution were not entirely happy with her testimony, something that came back to slam her during the penalty phase.
And don't forget that the Prosecution doesn't necessarily rely on the truth to get a conviction!
No, but...
This was a trial that the world was watching. And Curt Gentry !
"She had to recount every second of her time at Cielo under oath. What she witnessed, where she was, what she did."
ReplyDeleteWell no, that is not how testimony works in this country. Witnesses are instructed to answer only the questions asked, without embellishment.
For instance, if asked "about what time did this happen?" the answer would be "in the afternoon, maybe 3 or 4 o'clock" . . . not "in the afternoon, right after Charlie had come back from grocery shopping." In the latter answer, the "right after ... " would have been objected to and the jury instructed to disregard that portion of the answer.
I am actually in the middle of reading Kasabian's transcript from the main trial right now, and there are multiple times the court cautions her on this point. In essence, "don't over-answer."
The interesting thing about Kasabian was that she was still technically a defendant when she testified, meaning that the prosecutors did not have to share the results of their interviews with her as discovery. The defense howled for HOURS over this fact, but the court denied their motions. If Bug & Stovitz DID know this factoid, it would have been quite easy to simply not question around the event, and the defense wouldn't know to do so, either. It really wouldn't have made much difference anyway, as the wallet & cash were still there, at the crime scene. If anything, this would have bolstered her credibility as a reluctant and repentant participant in these events.
Cooltide said:
ReplyDeleteDid you train as a lawyer/solicitor
No. I like the law at a distance ! My sister is a judge though and my Mum's brother was a lawyer. In his town, he was rarely referred to by his name. People just used to call him 'Magistrate.'
By the way, I always enjoyed your contribution to Cats' site.
have you heard anything from Cats recently
No. I wish she'd have her old site up, even as an archive. The Wayback Machine does have some pages but most of them, if up, are incomplete. And anything after July 2015 isn't up.
Considering I was only on that site for 7 or so months, and it came off the airways close to 6 years ago, I have such strong memories of it.
Speculator said:
As for whether Bugliosi's case would've been harmed if Kasabian had mentioned the wallet back in the trials - maybe she did mention it in private interviews with him before the trial and maybe he told her to not mention it again in her evidence
It's interesting how our respective cynicism works. You tend to see Bugliosi as, what I have sometimes referred to, the Dark Lord of Due Process, lying and deceiving his way to a conviction ~ almost as though the perps hadn't done what they were accused of. I, on the other hand, see him as a guy who was prepared to work with dirty implements in order to get rid of a dirtier palette.
But not in a way that was going to harm his case.
And so, given the stuff that came out about Linda, much of which he instigated, I ask myself how it could have harmed the case any more than stuff she actually did. If one steps for a moment, out of the setting, and asks, what did she actually do in looking at Steve's wallet and leaving it, that was wrong, then it doesn't seem to warrant the attention it got. I suspect it got the attention it did, because we hadn't previously known about it, not because it furthered the crimes in any way.
He wouldn't want anything to blacken her character afterall
As far as murder went, true. But remember, the basis of the alliance between Linda and the prosecution was that she was a lawless person involved in petty crime, doing the right thing, who, as a major calling card, had not killed anyone, in this most dastardly of episodes. The cops and prosecution knew that even before the Grand Jury.
For nearly 7 years, I've brought quotes from Bugliosi regarding Linda Kasabian in a pretty negative light. He even does so in his closing trial argument. Yet still, it comes up time and again, how he presented her as an angel. Even though he actually, specifically said she is not an angel. Her character was as negative as it could be. Her saying that she took out Steve's wallet, looked in it and left it in the car hardly makes her look so evil that it was necessary for her to hide the fact for 39 years.
Grim - you're right I do reserve a lot of cynicism for Bugliosi and his actions - but not in any way to relieve the perps of any burden of guilt. Much the opposite. I guess I tend to play devil's advocate sometimes - particularly where alternative motives are concerned. And what Bugliosi did and didn't do with regards to Kasabian and her evidence could easily play into whether he was leaning things towards his HS theory and away from other motives. For example, had there been disclosure pre-trial that Kasabian had gone through the pockets and/or gone through the wallet, but the wallet and money/cards weren't taken, an obvious question for the defence might be why did she do that if it wasn't to steal the wallet? Was she trying to ID Parent for instance? Did that then mean they were looking for someone in particular at Cielo? I'm not for a minute saying that was the case as it's a flight of fantasy! But you'll get the point I hope.
ReplyDeleteTobias, then you ain't reading the transcripts closely. Look at the cross examination when the defense attorneys riddled Linda with questions about what she did immediately after Parent's shooting -- and what the others did -- NOTHING about the wallet. Nothing about Tex telling her to get in the car.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're all hypnotized! Linda never discussed the wallet on Larry King. And when she discussed going into the car on Tex's instructions in the documentary she never said SHE LEFT IT THERE. In fact, it's implied that she took it by the filmmaker because in the reenactment she's shown exiting the car with the wallet in her hand in silhouette.
If this happened and she told Bugliosi prior to getting immunity he would've had to turn that over to defense after she got immunity. My bet is there's some truth to it and like so much else, Bugs destroyed all traces of it before discovery.
Imagine if the defense had it -- especially when she returned to testify at the end of the trial. They'd all be freed. Like Vera's vayjay.
And remember, cocksters, Linda and Bugger are responsible for the OTHER even more fantastical wallet story (Rosie's). Vera is certain the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
ReplyDeleteVera - if you believe what O'Neill claims in his book about Bugliosi scratching from the interview record information like how often and when Melcher visited Spahn, he certainly appears to have had form for that sort of thing!
ReplyDeleteVera Dreiser said:
ReplyDeleteIt would've been a lie by omission and impeached Kasabian if it came out via another channel
On the face of it, that seems to make a lot of sense.
But when one unpacks it, it's not as strong as it initially appears. For starters, how could it come out ? Manson claimed to have nothing to do with the murders so how could he know ? The 3 women all pleaded 'not guilty'.
Lies of omission are an interesting concept. They are about deliberate deception by not relating the full facts. In other words, they substantially change the outcome of a given scenario. Susan Atkins lied "by omission" in not mentioning what happened after her, Charlie, Clem and Linda left Waverly, because to say what happened would clearly show her to be complicit in an attempted murder ~ with Charlie and Clem too. Thing is, she was clearly asked what took place both after they left the LaBianca's road and after Linda had planted the wallet and to the first she said "Well, we drove around and Charlie said we were going in the opposite direction than we came from. We drove about in a predominantly colored area, I don't know the area but this is what I gathered." Then when the wallet has been planted she was asked "what happened next ?" to which she replied "Then we drove around for a long time and went back to sleep.
It wasn't like I was asleep, it was like I was drugged. I felt very heavily drugged. I was not on drugs at the time, I just felt like that I had been shot with morphine, or something, or fell asleep and I woke up back at the ranch." Clearly untrue and interestingly, she mentions the incident that actually happened in both of her autobiographical {that's really stretching the use of that word !} accounts.
Ultimately, it probably would have counted in Linda's favour if she'd testified to handling the wallet. Her looking at the wallet and putting it back does not change a thing. It doesn't make her look worse.
Peter said:
If I've said it once, I said it a thousand times, Linda spent most of that night hiding in the back seat of the car. Bugliosi needed a witness who would put a knife in everybody's hands and she obliged
And each time you say it, the weakness of your argument {or the weakness of what you are implying} is glaring like floodlights.
You are in effect saying she lied and that she didn't see Watson or Krenwinkle with knives, stabbing Frykowski or chasing Abigail. And she never said she saw Van Houten with knives. And she never said she saw Charlie do anything inside the LaBianca house.
Further to that, she clearly stated that she saw Clem with a gun ~ but nothing happened to him on TLB.
And even further to that, even if she spent most of the night cowering in the back of the car, that does not in any way, shape or form, militate against her saying she saw what she saw.
But the main counterweight to your point is that Atkins had already put knives in everyone's hands ~ including hers !
Could Bugliosi have risked a witness that outright lied on the stand for him ? Yeah, he could have. Would he have been so stupid, knowing the stakes ? You evidently feel he was. I don't have to be his no.1 fan to think that would have been judicial suicide. And I don't believe it.
If nothing else, it is quite interesting that every one of the perps, bar Charlie, has spent most of their lives corroborating Linda ~ and it's not just in the hopes of parole. Atkins had given up on that by 2005 as had Watson {in his "Right-hand man speaks out" tome.
Vera - the truth lies somewhere in the middle - just like your vayjay I guess?!!!! ;-)
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteif you believe what O'Neill claims in his book about Bugliosi scratching from the interview record information like how often and when Melcher visited Spahn, he certainly appears to have had form for that sort of thing!
If you get the opportunity, read any of Paul Watkins' testimonies from various trials. After the murders, there is no time that he and Charlie are at Spahn together. So how could have seen Terry Melcher on his knees on acid begging for forgiveness from Charlie is one for the angels !! {Deliberate Twilight Zone reference}.
Vera Dreiser said:
when she discussed going into the car on Tex's instructions in the documentary she never said SHE LEFT IT THERE
Equally, at no point does she say she took it. And we absolutely know she didn't. Because the police found it, logged it and its contents and there was money in it.
In fact, it's implied that she took it by the filmmaker because in the reenactment she's shown exiting the car with the wallet in her hand in silhouette
I thought I was supposed to be the naive sucker on all things TLB.
"In the re-enactment" ?
"Implied by the filmmaker" ?
"Exiting from the car with the wallet in her hand in silhouette" ?
There again, I know people that base all their expertise on the royal family of the UK on having watched "The Crown" or on Muhammad Ali having watched that Will Smith biopic.
Grim says "If nothing else, it is quite interesting that every one of the perps, bar Charlie, has spent most of their lives corroborating Linda ~ and it's not just in the hopes of parole. Atkins had given up on that by 2005 as had Watson {in his "Right-hand man speaks out" tome".
ReplyDeleteBut then the perps would all say that wouldn't they. Particularly post conviction and hoping for parole. Why rock the boat or show any cracks in the official narrative. It's open to question as to what Kasabian did or didn't witness. And if you turn the thing on its head you could argue that it was Kasabian who was actually repeating what the others had told her about what went down inside Cielo, either on the drive back in the car or the day after at Spahn. It was more than a little convenient for Bugliosi that Kasabian apparently popped up at the key moments in between all of the driving up and down or running back and forth to the car. Just saying.
Vera Dreiser said:
ReplyDeleteImagine if the defense had it -- especially when she returned to testify at the end of the trial. They'd all be freed.
The defence had more powerful stuff than that about Linda. And did jack with it.
When all is said and done, that event changes nothing at all. To say they'd all be freed with that being made public, is being, what we call in the trade, evangelastic,,,,
Jokes aside for a moment, let's just speculate as to what would have happened if she'd admitted it on the stand. Remember, she was cast, not as the sweetness and light, but the "repulsively truthful" {Bugliosi's own words, according to juror, William Zamora}, wayward druggy air head.
What's actually damaging to Linda is not what it would have done during the trial {nothing substantially damaging either way}, but that it came out 39 years later and caught everyone on the hop. I, for one, am curious as to why she didn't say anything at the time, same way I'm curious as to why Susan didn't relate the Saladin Nader / Ocean Front Walk story. After all, she was already going to be convicted, no actual attempt was made {nothing happened} ~ and she actually had immunity.
Grim - they didn't say these things primarily because they're all inherent liars. IMHO that's why additional snippets come out over the years. They seem to forget which bits of the story they did and didn't tell in the past! I guess it's a lot easier to recollect the truth than the lies.
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteWhy rock the boat or show any cracks in the official narrative
As I've pointed out dozens of times, every single one of the perps has gone against their official narratives. Every one. Bobby, Clem, Bruce, Tex, Susan, Leslie, Pat, every one. And the parole boards have, over the last few years been taking on board their cracks in the official narrative, as you put it. And they, along with the DA's office, have been using these against the perps ! It's one of the greatest catch 22s in legal history, methinks. But the very fact they do so, tells you they at least, in part, believe the perps. I doubt anyone on a parole board genuinely believes Pat carved "WAR" on Leno.
But it was part of the record.
It's open to question as to what Kasabian did or didn't witness
Not when the evidence on 45 separate occasions corroborates her.
And if you turn the thing on its head you could argue that it was Kasabian who was actually repeating what the others had told her about what went down inside Cielo, either on the drive back in the car or the day after at Spahn. It was more than a little convenient for Bugliosi that Kasabian apparently popped up at the key moments in between all of the driving up and down or running back and forth to the car. Just saying
And I'm just saying that that is cynicism that is going too far. I don't doubt there were descriptions in the car driving away from Cielo. It would be odd if there wasn't any talk of such a momentous event that's just gone down. However, would there be descriptions of everywhere on the body a person was stabbed ? Or which bush someone fell in or on what side ? Or all of the other things Linda testified to that were, kind of minor details, but which played the part of establishing her story ?
I think not.
Sometimes, doubt over the stories of people like Linda or Dianne Lake has the net effect of actually making certain folk appear to be utter geniuses, like Leslie saying she stabbed a dead body and it turns out Rosemary had a load of postmortem wounds. When the reality is that they weren't criminal masterminds, and what was seen falls squarely into place....because it was true. When one goes through that trial and puts everything together, there would have to be too many coincidences for there to be the kind of fakery that gets mooted.
Hey, but what do I know ?
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteThey seem to forget which bits of the story they did and didn't tell in the past!
I am absolutely with you on that one.
I guess it's a lot easier to recollect the truth than the lies
That depends on a variety of things.
Grim
ReplyDeleteGrimy Grim: If you get the opportunity, read any of Paul Watkins' testimonies from various trials. After the murders, there is no time that he and Charlie are at Spahn together. So how could have seen Terry Melcher on his knees on acid begging for forgiveness from Charlie is one for the angels !! {Deliberate Twilight Zone reference}.
Vera trusts Watkins a little less than she trusts Bug or puts stock in Grim's analysis of, well, anything. Regardless, we know that Watkins was at Spahn after Sept. 2 when he got his physical, and Manson, Clem and Pitman picked up Schram from her parents in Anaheim on/or around Sept. 5, brought her back to Spahn, stayed there, then drove to desert. Putting Watkins and Manson at Spahn Ranch during first week of Sept. before all of them returned to Barker. Wonder why Watkins got all those raving book blurbs from Vinny AND traveled with him in his book tour?!
Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you people? If you take any testimony of Paul Watkins seriously, you are an imbecile. This clown said Crowe was shot for fucking little white girls. He also said Shea was killed because he lived at Fountain of the World and knew Charlie was plotting to "take it over" and bring kidnapped children there. He, needless to say, wasn't Charlie's "right hand man" and never recruited a single girl, as he claimed to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe same thing with Kasabian. She said what Bugliosi needed her to say. That's what deals with prosecutors are all about.
It's interesting that no book ever goes into detail about Kasabian and her attorneys early conduct. I say attorneys, because she had a defense team all her own. They at first were repeating exactly what Atkins attorneys were saying. That she was under a hypnotic spell and even cited Charlie's hypnotic abilities as reason for her to not be in the same court room as him. Maybe that is where the rumor of Bugliosi saying that in regards to Charlie and the jury came from. They wanted to bring in the same expert on hypnosis that was in the Sirhan Sirhan case. She also plead not guilty at first. But Bugliosi will have you think she felt guilt.
It's funny how later, after her sweet deal, she suddenly because the only one not under the spell of Charlie.
Vera Dreiser said:
ReplyDeleteWonder why Watkins got all those raving book blurbs from Vinny AND traveled with him in his book tour?!
That ain't saying much. Vincent T did major blurbs for Virginia Graham's book. Have you read that piece of bin liner ? 🤢
D. said:
Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you people?
I'll tell you D. We don't worship at the altar of Charles Manson.
If you take any testimony of Paul Watkins seriously, you are an imbecile
You're chiding the wrong person, mate. Don't tell me that, tell the esteemed Ms Dreiser up there. They're the one that makes heavy weather of Watkins seeing Terry Melcher at Spahn on acid after the murders.
you are an imbecile
You say that like it's a bad thing ! 🤒
You also say it like a LaCalandra.....🕵️♂️
It wasn't Watkins who claimed to see Melcher at Spahn. It was Danny DeCarlo who saw Melcher at Barker Ranch according to Bugliosi's handwritten notes.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't Watkins who claimed to see Melcher at Spahn. It was Danny DeCarlo who saw Melcher at Barker Ranch according to Bugliosi's handwritten notes.
ReplyDeleteAnd the two are mutually incompatible ... ?
grimtraveller said...
ReplyDeleteyou are an imbecile
You say that like it's a bad thing ! 🤒
You also say it like a LaCalandra.....🕵️♂️
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!
And I'm guessing Tex is still deaf n dumb in regard to his part in the Shea murder.
ReplyDeleteDidn't Brunner get immunity despite being part of the team that kept a guy hostage for a weekend and she took turns in smothering him after he had been fatally stabbed? Way more than stealing a wallet.
ReplyDeleteWasn't LVH initially offered an immunity deal? She did more than steal a wallet?
Micro details. The state offers immunity as it sees fit isn't it?
Kasabian was found guilty in the civil suit.
The path of least resistance to get the convictions I guess Chris. Along with a nice commercial book deal at the end of it all!!
ReplyDeleteThe path of least resistance to get the convictions I guess Chris. Along with a nice commercial book deal at the end of it all!!
ReplyDeleteThe path of least resistance to get the convictions I guess Chris. Along with a nice commercial book deal at the end of it all!!
ReplyDeleteShe didn't take no wallet and put it back with money intact. And watkins procured I'm sure
ReplyDeleteNot a chance, Dan.
ReplyDeleteD. said:
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't Watkins who claimed to see Melcher at Spahn. It was Danny DeCarlo who saw Melcher at Barker Ranch according to Bugliosi's handwritten notes
If you have the paperback edition of Tom's book, look at page 127. He describes coming across an interview with Paul Watkins by an unnamed LASO interviewer in which he is supposed to have said that Melcher was on his knees to Charlie at Spahn in the first week of September, high on acid and begging for forgiveness.
Around page 409, there's a very interesting segment on Bugliosi's reaction to this; but then, you'd know that, wouldn't you ?
This clown said Crowe was shot for fucking little white girls
That seems to conflate a story Juan Flynn related in the book "Five to die." Except that in that one, it was Charlie's intention to shoot the Black man for "fucking little white girls."
Sometimes, I get the same feeling from Paul Watkins' acid weighted mind statements that I got from John Lennon ~ that he conflated stories, thinking they were one and the same.
There's also the distinct possibility that Charlie told him that was what the shooting of Lotsapoppa was about. After all, Rosina was white. And as Bobby Beausoleil noted, Charlie told different things about the same incident to different people, often things that weren't true. Let's face it, he told lots of people {Watkins included} that Shorty's head had been cut off and that he was in 9 pieces......
Chris B said:
Didn't Brunner get immunity despite being part of the team that kept a guy hostage for a weekend and she took turns in smothering him after he had been fatally stabbed? Way more than stealing a wallet.
Wasn't LVH initially offered an immunity deal? She did more than steal a wallet?
Absolutely.
But Kasabian never stole the wallet. That's why the smoking gun of 2009 smoked nothing.
Yana was the getaway driver for a gang of murderers. And she hid evidence of the murders for "them" (quotes because she IS "them"!).
DeleteI remember bugs calling her a little flower child over and over. Regardless, she was there, aiding her conspirators. I think it would be easy to convict her . complete immunity was stupid. Should've been a reduced charge and gotten 10 years. When did they receiver rosemarys wallet? Were her . prints on it? You'd need some evidence she was there other than co-conspirator's testimony.
Dan S said:
ReplyDeleteYana was the getaway driver for a gang of murderers
The irony of which, is that she didn't actually drive away from either murder site.
And she hid evidence of the murders for "them"
If you'd seen Tex blow away Steve and stab Wojciech, you'd probably do what he told you, whether you wanted to or not.
I remember bugs calling her a little flower child over and over
Again, with a certain amount of irony, she was a flower child. This idea that flower children were, by implication, the purest of the pure, is historically dodgy and simply not true. 1967 may have housed the summer of love, but in the Hippy Heaven of '67, Haight-Ashbury had degenerated into a squalid crimefest, and the "death of Hippy" march took place towards the end of that year. This was followed by 1968, a year in which peace and love seemed to be replaced by violence and pitched battles. TLB and Altamont were actually pretty logical, given the previous 2 years.
I think it would be easy to convict her
Well, do tell. Because, the people whose job it was couldn't see it.
complete immunity was stupid
It's been said before, I'll say it again: human life is dirty at many points and one has to wade through a lot of shit to get certain desired results. The prosecution had a starkly simple choice. Attempt to convict 6 people, some of which are likely to walk, or utilize the testimony of one of the perps, whom you know beforehand is the only one that didn't actually kill anyone ?
In actuality, Susan Atkins forced the prosecution's hand by recanting. She had made it clear that Linda hadn't killed anyone, so when she blew out, Linda {or rather, Gary Fleischman} was able to step in and say "ta very much !", which is why, in "The Myth of HS", her complaining about how Linda was coddled by the prosecution, showed the sad working of Susan's mind. I'm still fascinated that she couldn't see that it was because of her own actions that things turned out the way they did for Linda.
Dan, it was either a very high risk of Krenwinkle, Manson, Watson and Kasabian walking, or Linda being given immunity because, as Peter has often pointed out, without one of the perps, the prosecution barely had a case. They could lean on Susan because, with Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard, she was caught by the short and curlies. They could be confident of convicting Leslie because of Dianne Lake. The rest had fightable cases.
When did they receiver rosemarys wallet? Were her prints on it?
No.
You'd need some evidence she was there other than co-conspirator's testimony
And there is absolutely none. Which is why your previous statement of an easy conviction for Linda is rooted in your feelings towards her, rather than fact and reality.
The Surf Bat said:
I'm guessing Tex is still deaf n dumb in regard to his part in the Shea murder
It is interesting how willing people are to believe that he was part of that murder, yet, castigate the people that say he was there as inherent liars, when it comes to things they say that don't suit others of their particular points [that's a general observation, not aimed at SB].
Personally, I do believe he was involved, but the simple fact is that there is no evidence that he was, outside of his co~conspirators. When LA county say they didn't prosecute because he was already sentenced to death 7 times, I call BS. After all, they went after Manson. They went after Atkins for Hinman. They could have waived both. After all, they didn't go after Charlie for Crowe. No, they didn't prosecute because they couldn't. There's no evidence. And Bruce and Clem's subsequent revelations are so contradictory, even aside from the fact they were co-conspirators.
Be honest, would you be au fait with being convicted with 2 key witnesses telling such radically different stories, one denying the other even being there ?
"It is interesting how willing people are to believe that he was part of that murder, yet, castigate the people that say he was there as inherent liars"
ReplyDeleteGrim, you are always a fantastic and credible read - as multiple others have observed here, before me.
The hostility toward Linda Kasabian has always confounded me a bit. Overall, she seems/seemed a once-hopeful and yearning, yet sad, young "flower child". Yes, a bit of that impression likely comes from Bug's characterization in the HS book and elsewhere, but these qualities are quite evident in her testimony, too. She comes across as a well-grounded, not particularly bright, young gal who is reacting as a normal person would to such horror.
I do think people forget that Kasabian was only with the group for a month before these events. It was rather ridiculous for Manson to have sent her off with the group in the first place, but by the summer of '69 Charlie wasn't exactly making rational decisions anyway.
Back to your original point, yes - I have noticed this same phenomena myself. It can be spotted in George Stimson's recent "Goodbye Helter Skelter" Episode #6, where he is trying to explain the LaBianca events in a way that relieves Manson of outright guilt in the matter. Stimson spends ten minutes dismissing the various accounts coming from Watson, Atkins, Kasabian, Krenwinkel and Van Houten - each of these people were either lying to improve their chances of parole, or they were simply not able to remember these events because they were variously stoned, asleep, confused . . .
And then Stimson gets to Manson's actual involvement, what might have happened after Manson entered the LaBianca home. We do know that Manson crept in through the kitchen door after having used a credit card to slip the lock, woke and collected the victims, bound them with his leather thongs, reassured them that they were in no danger, plucked Rosemary's wallet from her purse, offers a hearty good night and slips back out into the night.
Stimson is going with Manson's version of the story: that he was only in there for a few moments, said howdy and had a fine little chat, then he split. The others chose to do what they did, Manson says without his being involved at all.
What is Stimson basing this on? The quote from Linda Kasabian that Charlie had been gone for about the length of time it took her to smoke 3/4ths of a Pall Mall cigarette.
The same Linda Kasabian Stimson had just spent ten minutes accusing of lying for her own benefit. But in this ONE statement, he says, she is telling the truth.
Sorry, ya can't have it both ways.
Vera squawks:
ReplyDelete'Course that then raises the question of why the hell did it take twelve hours for the coppers to ID Parent???
Things don't change much. When Charlie died, the news here in England mentioned Steve in the early bulletins but by the 10pm news, he wasn't mentioned, but the other 4 were.
It tells one much about the way some of the police minds were working in '69 {and indeed, in general sometimes}.
But to be fair, William Garretson, who did know Steve and had been in that car, didn't ID him either.
But have a quick look at the current post on the house being sold on the Cielo site of the murders. Look at the article GreenWhite has linked to from the New York Post. 4 of the victims are mentioned. Steve is not. Literally from day one, he was cast so far back in the shadows that he assumed the role of "afterthought" in too many minds.
D. said:
Kasabian. She said what Bugliosi needed her to say
That's like saying there was a Saturday, last week.
Of course she said what he needed her to say ! You don't give someone immunity if they're not giving you what you require.
Same way, Susan gave him what he needed for the indictments.
But in both cases, it wasn't predictable science. With Linda, he didn't know what she would say when Fitzgerald, Kanarek, Hughes and Shinn questioned her. The point is, Bugliosi didn't have her there for a cosy fireside chat. He had her there to tell the jury what she had already told him. Unless she was outright lying or he was instructing her to outright lie, I can't see what problem some people have with her and what she was there for ~ or the cost of it. All of the dodgy witnesses in the various trials {eg, Lake, DeCarlo, Springer, Ella Jo, Lotsapoppa}, had stuff to trade in exchange for what they knew. Result: murderers got banged up, for life {in most cases}.
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteI commented some time ago on another post during a back and forth with Grim about how flimsy and concocted her story (aka evidence) was about what she supposedly witnessed
I find what she claims to have seen to be pretty credible. But there are some things that she said or didn't notice that I find really puzzling.
I do find it interesting that she claims she saw Watson point his gun at Steve and shoot, but didn't see a knife or a stabbing motion. Now, it is plausible, but intriguing nonetheless. Of course, one could argue that if she was lying for Bugliosi, she'd've said she saw the stabbing.
I also find it fascinating, that from the car park area, she says she heard screaming coming from the house. It would have been more believable if she'd been in the garden outside the window.
Of course, one could argue that the open window that Tex climbed through would have possibly been a conduit for the sounds of screams to pass through. But, that being the case, brings me to my 3rd area of puzzlement ~ why she didn't hear the 2 shots that part~felled Frykowski. There again, both Pat & Susan were in the house at the time and neither of them recall the shooting. And though she heard the screams, she didn't hear the Sebring shot either. And that was, according to Atkins, before any screaming.
But, given all that was going on {bearing in mind that Linda's mind may well have been on the wallet !}, it's all plausible. Just food for thought.
The source of the issues with Kasabian's testimony is not Kasabian. The problem is the way Bugliosi prepares a witness and the impact that has to have had on what she "remembered".
ReplyDeleteYou are seeing a related memory issue with these parole hearings. It is likely Watson can't differentiate what he actually did/saw from what he has heard, read, seen in print, etc. after fifty plus years.
Notice he references Dungeons and Dragons- first published in 1974. Maybe it was available in prison.
Oh, and the leading questions by the Board don't help if you are looking for accuracy. Every time you hear one you might as well cue Charlie Brown's teacher as the response.
One comment on the blood. I suggest those who say cast off look at the image in the recent (ok couple years ago) document release- Box 8/Page 158. It is a trial exhibit and the marks (except the arrow) are from Granado while he testified showing you were he collected the "Tate blood". Cast off from from that location is not likely. Other sources, maybe, but what?
Oh and there is some humorous banter between Bugliosi and Kanarek about the sinister arrow on there drawn by Bugliosi (without court permission).
David said:
ReplyDeleteIt is likely Watson can't differentiate what he actually did/saw from what he has heard, read, seen in print, etc. after fifty plus years
There's even evidence of him doing this during his trial in '71. It's been a continual thing with him for 50+ years. And recently, it's been catching him out, big time.
Be careful what you sign....
Speculator said:
O'Neill claims in his book about Bugliosi scratching from the interview record information like how often and when Melcher visited Spahn
Again, it's interesting that there has been such an effort to link Terry Melcher to Charles Manson beyond the times that Melcher claimed he was at Spahn {Jeff Guinn's book even starts off with them at some club together where Charlie does some way out dance}. But so little has been revealed about the Family connection that we do know about ~ that with Watson. I mean, Watson and Dean Moorehouse were borrowing Terry's car and credit card to hightail it up to Ukiah, I think it was. How did that even come about ?
"I also find it fascinating, that from the car park area, she says she heard screaming coming from the house"
ReplyDeleteThis isn't surprising at all. Remember, the front door was standing wide open during all of this. The girls never bothered to close it after entering the house. Heck, Carlos Gill, the kid who lived across the canyon on Benedict Glen, reported hearing not only screams but the arguing that led up to them - and he was sitting in his bedroom at the time.
As for Kasabian being a well-coached and obedient star witness, I don't find this to be true on the whole. As I shared above in these comments, I am in the midst of (re)reading her trial testimony from the original trial right now, and there are lots and lots of times where her answer to Bug's questioning is "I don't know . . . I don't remember" or she outright frustrates him when he is trying to lay the foundation for something. He will ask her a semi-leading or suggestive question, obviously gearing up to explore something or other they had discussed in an interview perhaps, and she will just flat-out contradict him, saying "I don't remember that" or "that's not the way it happened".
In the end, of course, it doesn't really matter what we think of Kasabian's credibility. It was enough to convince a jury and what's done is done. It seems pretty clear that justice was served in this matter, though I *will* say that Kasabian walking away scot-free in the legal sense while Bruce Davis continues to rot AND Grogan has been breathing free air for decades now is all rather curious. But hey - no one ever said that life is fair.
David said:
ReplyDeleteThe problem is the way Bugliosi prepares a witness and the impact that has to have had on what she "remembered"
That sort of implies, though, that she didn't really remember the things she claimed to remember. I love Irving's take on it ¬> "I am certainly not accepting anything this witness said !"
I know it's only a feeling and it doesn't really count for much, but when a person speaks or we read their account written down, one gets a feel for a certain flow. When I listen to or read old interviews with the Rolling Stones or politicians or actors or footballers or other sports people or whatever, I seem to pick up on when someone is embellishing or speaking from direct memory. Linda often flows in her testimony and even in those interviews from 2009 there was a certain flow, if somewhat drug induced. Watson rarely sounds like anything comes from direct memory. He almost always sounds like he's reading from a book with impaired eyesight.....
As an aside, I find it interesting that in the Atkins Grand Jury, Aaron Stovitz asks Susan "You understand the difference between what you actually saw yourself, what you actually heard yourself and what somebody told you happened?"
tobiasragg said:
Remember, the front door was standing wide open during all of this. The girls never bothered to close it after entering the house
You're right. It's funny what one can miss, even after 40+ years. Susan says the door was open when Frykowski got to it. Maybe it's because I never leave a front door open, but I've just always assumed they shut the door. It seems bizarre to me that you'd knowingly go into a house to commit murder and leave the front door open, even in the dead of night, out in the sticks and with someone as watch.
Heck, Carlos Gill, the kid who lived across the canyon on Benedict Glen, reported hearing not only screams but the arguing that led up to them - and he was sitting in his bedroom at the time
But Gill heard the sounds at nearly 4 in the morning, long after the murders had been committed. He didn't hear screams, just a minute of arguing. Frankly though, that could have come from anywhere other than 10050 ~ and probably did.
I *will* say that Kasabian walking away scot-free in the legal sense while Bruce Davis continues to rot AND Grogan has been breathing free air for decades now is all rather curious
I feel that whatever one thinks of Linda, whether one likes her or not, or sees her as a deceptive and duplicitous witch, there just doesn't seem to have been any willingness on her part to kill someone or have them killed. That cannot be said for any of the others. So her explanations as to her involvement in these crimes seems to me to be on a wholly different level to the others, and yes, I give her a certain amount of slack because of it. She doesn't appear to have had a spectacular life though, does she ?
I know Susan was a tale-changing attention seeker, whose every word should be treated with more than caution, but I found it notable that she says she felt Bobby would kill. The way he bapped Gary with the gun kind of demonstrated that he wasn't exactly averse to violence. He can't even claim self defence.
And even Bruce, he has elucidated his involvement in murder in dribs and drabs down the years and as a result, is partly to blame for his current state of affairs, as this causes others to suspect that he's not been entirely forthcoming. And frankly, how Clem got paroled after only 14 years, now there's a head scratcher.
"how Clem got paroled after only 14 years, now there's a head scratcher."
ReplyDeleteYeah, Clem really lucked out in that sense, didn't he? I put it down to the public/political attitudes toward criminal justice and penology in the 70s vs. the very changed attitude that Reagan initiated in the early 80s. Attitudes were a bit softer back then and, of course, Clem had an ace in his hand to proffer. I sometimes wonder what kind of person he is today. So many of the former Mansonites are just so incredibly loopy still, even those that have seemingly gotten their lives in order, like Gypsy. Clem was a mighty strange young fellow back in the day, though some of that may well have been put on or the result of heavy drug use. What might he be like today, as an elderly man? Clem is one of a few I'd love to see crawl out of the woodwork for an interview or something, as unlikely as that prospect seems.
Kasabian, yes. She made bad choices back then and it seems that this trend has continued in the decades since. Hers seems to have been a difficult life - but it has been a free one, which is no small thing.
As for Carlos Gill - an argument so fraught and angry that he was motivated to close his window on a hot August night and return to bed? That *had* to be the Tate thing and he just misjudged the time. That's just my opinion though.
As for where we are now, I think we are where we will be forevermore. The Manson people will continue to age and to expire, no one now imprisoned will ever again breath free air, and people like us will continue to discuss and rehash things ad nauseam.
Grimtraveller: ......"You understand the difference between what you actually saw yourself, what you actually heard yourself and what somebody told you happened?"
ReplyDelete______
That is the essential point.
She didn't remember, my friend and may very easily have confused those three things given how Bugliosi does his thing.
For example, maybe the most gut wrenching thing she testified she saw that horrible night she only remembered after being interviewed at least twice by VB (the number is unclear) following his instructions to write down anything she remembered between interviews.
PS: Notice who didn't ask that question, ever.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteThe girls never bothered to close it after entering the house
Thinking about it again, they may well have shut the door on first going in. The way Susan brought up the door being open as Frykowski runs out, unprompted, gives the impression she was rather surprised at it being open. But Pat didn't shut it when she returned from going to get a knife from Linda. What, with leaving a print at Cielo and what she wrote on the fridge at Waverly, she really wasn't on the ball either night. Pat just wasn't cut out to be a revolutionary, or a murderer.
Proteus said:
Does Tex actually SAY that Charlie went back to CD later that night/early morning? And if he does, does he give any more details?
In his book "Right hand man speaks out" he says he believes Manson and someone else went back. He also says Manson was at Cielo the night before, and got poorly treated by the people in the house. A bit like Bobby, he has "heard" a lot of stuff and it has come to assume a place of fact in his retellings. Even in his trial this was apparent ~ saying, for example, that he saw Charlie sleeping on the morning of the 8th when the whole world and its brother knows he was in or on the way back from, San Diego with Stephanie Schram. Susan does the same thing in "Myth of HS" when she claims Charlie sends Mary & Sandy to the store that morning with instructions to buy stuff {including rope ~ even though they had loads of it !} for an attempt to break Bobby out of jail.
Speculator said:
The crime scene that was discovered on the morning of 9th was certainly different from that which the killers claimed it looked like when they left
I have long wondered how anyone could possibly know this. It's not like they all had photographic memories, or had thoroughly clocked the place before or took pictures and then later compared them with the police photos. Not only that, it was dark when they arrived, dark when they left and it seems like they couldn't get out of there quick enough, hence leaving behind a knife, prints on the gate button, having been pretty careful on the way up or Susan saying she didn't want to go back in the house when told to go and write something.
what do you make of the “new” info from Watson that Kasabian dropped them off by the gates and then drove the car back down the hill?
Grand Jury:
Q:All right, what did Tex do after he cut the lines?
SA:He climbed back down, told all of us to get into the car put the bolt cutters back in the car, and drove back down the hill and parked on a side street.
Trial:
Q:What is the next thing that happened?
LK:He got back in the car and we drove down the hill and parked the car on the right side of the road.
Q:All right, so after the wires were cut you say Tex drove to the bottom of the hill?
LK:Yes.
Q:And parked the car?
LK:Yes.
I think it is not new nor true. 'Nuff said.
Grim - your point about Watson’s apparent close association with Melcher being overlooked/unexplored is a good one. And it surely feeds into the “there’s a lot more to this case than meets the eye” and the question as to whether HS was the true motivation for the crimes. You have to ask yourself why Melcher’s connection with Manson/Watson et al wasn’t fully explored and why things were apparently concealed by Bugliosi. Well, maybe you don’t as we’ve had these arguments before :-) !!
ReplyDeleteDavid said:
ReplyDeleteShe didn't remember, my friend and may very easily have confused those three things given how Bugliosi does his thing
Yes, she may well have confused those 3 things given the Bugliosi way...but it may also be true that she did remember. Just because someone doesn’t mention something straight away is no proof that they didn’t actually recall it. Personally, I’m always remembering things I haven’t thought about in years or even given particular thought to. My kids do it all the time. And when they do, I take your particular line ! 😹
I don’t know if you’ve followed the Ghislaine Maxwell case recently, but one night recently, I was watching the news and the newsreader mentioned a witness memory expert called Elizabeth Loftus being called as a witness for the defence and I remember you quoting from a Jean Loftus a few years back. I thought of you at the time because I thought it was the same person. How are you doing ?
GreenWhite said:
Commissioner Grounds had Tex on the ropes when he was asking why was Sharon slashed
Watson says he slashed her face on about 5 occasions.
But she wasn't slashed on the face. Both the photos and the autopsy show that.
Abigail's face was slashed. Conflation ?
Grounds didn't even have to back off. He has the record there in front of him and he just allows Watson to tie himself in knots. He brings out some statements that when put in or taken out of context, look seriously chilling, like when Grounds tries to give him a rationale for why he's slashed her:
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER GROUNDS: Be quiet. Be quiet or be disfigured?
INMATE WATSON: No, not be disfigured, I didn’t want to disfigure her, but I...I wanted to...I wanted to kill her because that’s what I was there for.....
David is right when he says, "Oh, and the leading questions by the Board don't help if you are looking for accuracy", but by the same token, they play the part of enticing Watson into something of a pfutz, which he enters completely on his own. He references TJ possibly going to Cielo when it is common knowledge that TJ had fled right after the shooting of Lotsapoppa, a month previously.
tobiasragg said:
As for where we are now, I think we are where we will be forevermore.....and people like us will continue to discuss and rehash things ad nauseam
And then some whistleblower at LAPD will leak the Tex tapes.....😂 🤣
Grim - regarding the crime scene the morning after, no need for photographic memories on anyone’s part. None of them owned up to Sebring’s head/face being covered by the towel. Atkins said she threw the towel back into the house after daubing the front door but when Sebring was discovered in the morning the towel was completely covering his face and had been bound under the rope around his neck, it didn’t just land there. The crime photos clearly show that. Nuff said on that one too?! ;-)
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteYou have to ask yourself why Melcher’s connection with Manson/Watson et al wasn’t fully explored
I guess, because it wasn't really important at the end of the day. What was important was proving murder and conspiracy and getting the right people in jail. As messy as the 50+ year aftermath has been, it has to be said, that it was mission accomplished.
D. said:
If you take any testimony of Paul Watkins seriously, you are an imbecile
Even the bit where he spells Watkins, W-a-t-k-i-n-s ? 🤥
It's interesting that no book ever goes into detail about Kasabian and her attorneys early conduct. I say attorneys, because she had a defense team all her own. They at first were repeating exactly what Atkins attorneys were saying. That she was under a hypnotic spell and even cited Charlie's hypnotic abilities as reason for her to not be in the same court room as him
Can you link to somewhere that shows this ? You're right, very little is known about where she and her lawyers were at when she first got indicted. That would make for interesting reading.
Grim - whether the door was open, closed or slightly ajar at whatever stage is a bit of an irrelevance surely. I don’t think any of the perps went into that level of micro detail as it wasn’t required. I tend to think that the door was closed at whatever point Atkins saw the dog at the window, otherwise it would’ve surely run into the house. But as I say, irrelevant when we get down to that level of detail. In any case, it’s unlikely to have made much difference to the travel of sound given the distance and angle of the gate area to the front door of the house. I know they did sound tests with gun fire but can’t remember how that played out. I’d have thought that noise from inside the house would dissipate out into the canyon from the front door. Kasabian would more likely have heard the victims screaming once they were outside but I guess that wouldn’t have fit into her evidence would it (no aspersions being cast there!)
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said...
ReplyDeletebut when Sebring was discovered in the morning the towel was completely covering his face and had been bound under the rope around his neck
Is that for sure ? The second part, I mean.
That is of course if Kasabian was indeed at the gates and not down at the bottom of the hill (in which case it was even more unlikely that she heard anything). I can’t recall, do any of the others say exactly where they came across her again after they left the scene?
ReplyDeleteGrim - if you look at the photos if they’re still online anywhere the towel is tucked under the rope around his neckNand secured there. It certainly hasn’t just landed on his face by chance. I’m sure it’s been commented on in one or another of the books too. Also regarding the comment about Sharon’s face. I’m pretty sure that it was slashed?
ReplyDeleteGrim - your observation about the “new” info regarding Kasabian driving the car is incorrect. In his latest statement Watson deviates from what you have shown from the trial testimony. From what he now says it could be assumed that Kasabian (not Watson) drives the car back down, possibly alone, while the rest proceed to climb over the fence. Which then begs the question as to was Kasabian even there when they came across Parent. I know Watson could’ve just got mixed up in his latest statement but you’d think that by now he’d at least have that bit right!
ReplyDeleteGrim - I understand your point that you instinctively believing that Kasabian is telling the truth from how she delivers her evidence etc. My instinct though is more the opposite. I just find her whole back story as it’s been presented as well as her evidence To be suspect. I mean she’d hardly been on the scene with Manson for two minutes yet she was sent as part of the killing squad both nights. She supposedly went to Cielo only because she had the driving licence??!! I mean can you imagine the conversation before they left Spahn - “look gang we’re off to commit multiple murders but let’s make sure we don’t break any minor traffic laws along the way - Linda get the keys!”. I mean really?!! On top of that, Manson and presumably Watson too was acutely aware that everyone should get their hands dirty so there was joint participation, joint guilt and presumably less chance of snitching or talking out of turn to anyone. Yet Kasabian manages to witness all of the key action without even getting a drop of blood on her?!!! Very clever on her part me thinks. You have to ask yourself why wily old Manson didn’t ensure that she did some killing on the second night so that she was tied to the crimes just like Van Houten was. And as for her demeanour giving evidence, it was noted how she had shed the tearful innocent girl at Watson’s trial and was a lot more cold and dismissive in how she addressed the court. Already having obtained her freedom by that stage of course!
ReplyDeleteMy gosh, where to start . . .?
ReplyDelete"why Melcher’s connection with Manson/Watson et al wasn’t fully explored"
There WAS no connection between these people. Melcher had, what - a couple of encounters with Manson? Possibly more, if some stories of Manson attending a party in that house were true. But there was virtually no connection between Melcher & Watson. Melcher knew who he was, barely, but that's about it. Melcher's only true connection with any of this was that others were pushing the Manson music/persona on Melcher, and Watson had almost nothing to do with that. According to Tex's statements over all of these years, he'd only been in the front room of Cielo once and no further. It does not seem that there was much of anything to be "explored" here - unless, of course, we think that everyone and their brother are lying. If that's the case, anything in the world is possible and you can have fun with it.
"I know they did sound tests with gun fire but can’t remember how that played out."
The gunfire could be heard quite easily from the front yard, the parking area (and beyond, which correlates with the neighbor's observation) and down in the canyon. Nothing at all back at the guesthouse or down the hill where they parked the car. If Garretson didn't have music playing and his windows were open, perhaps he *might* have heard something, but that wasn't the case.
"the towel was completely covering his face and had been bound under the rope around his neck"
This is completely untrue. The towel was laying atop Sebring's face and not tucked under his head or the rope. One of the crime scene photos (with the camera facing nearly top of Sebring's head) makes it seem as if this might be true, but the more commonly-viewed photo, which features both Tate & Sebring in the shot, reveals the truth. In that photo, one can easily see Sebring's neck and the bottom of his chin under the edge of the towel - the rope was much further down on his neck.
"But she [Tate] wasn't slashed on the face. Both the photos and the autopsy show that"
This, too, is completely untrue. Tate suffered a very deep gash across her left cheek, much in the manner that Folger did. This is discernable on at least one of the autopsy pics, you'd have to check the report to see if this is noted. Paul Tate's quote about the heavily made-up scar disfiguring her face opens the family's tribute book to Sharon, in fact. There he recounts visiting the coffin early on the funeral day, marveling over the makeup job the morticians had done, and running his fingers over her cheek and feeling the large wound there.
"It's interesting that no book ever goes into detail about Kasabian and her attorneys early conduct."
This is true, but there's not much there. The circumstantial evidence, and that which has been offered by those involved, paint a very realistic picture of how things went down. Unlike Watkins & Krenwinkel, Kasabian turned herself in once she saw that she was "wanted." Her attorneys took the appropriate actions for their client, given that she stood to be accused of these crimes at the time. There was no real interaction between prosecution & Kasabian attorneys early on, because there was no need for that. Until Atkins fell back into the fold and the state was in need of an eye-witness, Kasabian was just one of a few perps in this matter.
"That is of course if Kasabian was indeed at the gates and not down at the bottom of the hill"
ReplyDeleteShe was in neither place when these events began. At least according to the statements we have available to us. When Tex sent Linda back to serve as lookout, she states that she went back to Parent's car. She spent some time contemplating him laying there, apparently, from what she has shared. As the murderous activity began, Linda must have moved closer to the house (this is my assumption) - Atkins lost her knife early in the struggle with Frykowski - after having stabbed him in the leg but before tumbling onto the floor with him - and she (not Krenwinkel, as one of you suggest) ran out to borrow Linda's knife. Presumably at this point, Linda was somewhere between the car Parent car and the front door. This would have placed her appropriately on the front lawn, somewhere to the right of the front door, as Frykowski exited the house shortly thereafter. According to Kasabian, she and Frykowski looked at each other momentarily and she said (or thought, she wasn't sure at one point) "I'm sorry - make it stop - I'm so sorry!" Folger and Krenwinkel then appear from around the house, into the front lawn, and it was at THIS point Linda runs to the gate area, pushes the button, and takes off down the hill.
"In his latest statement Watson deviates from what you have shown from the trial testimony."
Watson's latest recollection differs from EVERY account of that night we have ever heard from anyone & everyone - including Watson himself. It seems abundantly clear that old Tex (emphasis on "old") is just going through the motions when it comes to recalling these events. "It's all in the book" is his standard excuse. To place any value into the faltering old-age memory of a mind that was never particularly bright to begin with would be a mistake.
"You have to ask yourself why wily old Manson didn’t ensure that she did some killing on the second night so that she was tied to the crimes"
Manson did attempt to do this. Are we forgetting the actor/beach/apartment building matter? Even after Kasabian told him that she could kill no one, he proceeded to instruct her how to do it and then sent her, Clem & Sadie on their way.
Overall, I do feel that the "speculator" screen name fits well here. I suppose it is entertaining to just make random shit up and then argue that it might be true or something, but damn - at this point it seems like your memory is as tottering as ole Tex's is.
BTW this is just me being online snarky, nothing personal. You're still full of shit though:)
Tobias aka Snarky - thanks for the opine piece but I’m happy to keep an open mind if it’s all the same. Hope the shit doesn’t put you off too much though ;-) !! You’re wrong about the towel too.
ReplyDeleteOh and half of the posts you’ve commented on weren’t even mine! And doesn’t that just show how the facts of something can get misconstrued:-) !!
ReplyDeleteOh and half of the posts you’ve commented on weren’t even mine! And doesn’t that just show how the facts of something can get misconstrued:-) !!
ReplyDeleteYes, I was aware that I was responding to comments from both Grim and yourself in my post. I chose to comment directly to you at the end, for whatever reason.
ReplyDeleteMy mind is quite open, but bullshit is bullshit. Might-have-beens/might-have-happeneds are fine, but if they are based on no evidence and only the product of one's imagination, they aren't particularly interesting.
Care to offer some kind of substantiation on your towel/hood insistence?
Tobias - read the trial evidence given by the bloods guy. I’m sure that he refers to the towel being pulled tight over Sebring’s face by the rope. Or that was his assumption from seeing the crime scene and the body in situ.
ReplyDeleteGrim - I hope you remember this - I took one for you there!! ;-)
ReplyDelete… said:
ReplyDelete“Towel on head?”
This (not so clear) archived photo shows a towel and rope on head (and an illusion that the hands were tied (but were not)). Search for Jay Sebring on the page. The picture on the left.
web.archive.org/web/20150315045746/http://www.crimeshots.com/Carnage69.html
Tab: yes, indeed. That photo is one taken after Sebring had been rolled over on his back and yes, it clearly shows the towel and the rope.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if you scroll down further on the page you have linked, consider the color photo labeled "Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring Tied Together By a Rope Looped Over A Beam In The Livingroom Of The Polanski Residence".
This photo depicts the bodies as they were discovered on 9 August. It helps to search up a different source for the pic, where it can be enlarged and/or zoomed in on, but the towel in this photo seems to simply be laying loosely atop Sebring's head and not tied or secured by the rope. One can even spy the underside of Sebring's chin from this POV.
Personally, I do buy the Manson story of having returned to the scene & placed the towel himself, but that is just a personal opinion and nothing that is likely to ever be confirmed to the public. The view in the larger photo I cite above does seem at odds with the testimony that the towel had been wrapped around & tucked under Sebring's head and/or secured in place by the rope.
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteI can’t recall, do any of the others say exactly where they came across her again after they left the scene?
To her lawyer, Susan said “And we picked up our clothes which we had stashed by the gate, we all knelt and picked up our second change of clothes, walking down the road not too conspicuous, and Linda was in the car. She had started to start the car and Tex told her to get over, excuse the expression, what the fuck did she think she was doing?”, and to the Grand Jury she said “we proceeded to walk down the hill to the car. When we got to the car we saw Linda Kasabian in the car.” In his first book, Watson commented, “Then we were running down the driveway. Linda was gone, so I jammed my finger down on the automatic gate button, leaving a bloody fingerprint that would have been useful evidence if a policeman hadn't obliterated it the next day.
We found Linda at the car, with the engine already started”
Grim - your observation about the “new” info regarding Kasabian driving the car is incorrect
You’ve totally lost me there. You asked what we thought of the new Watson revelation. I noted what the two people that had spoken under oath about it had said, then commented that I didn’t think Watson’s new version was true. I think it’s bullshit. I’m at a loss as to how what I said could be ‘incorrect’. As Tobias pointed out, this version is a deviation from everything we’ve ever heard from any of the perps since 1969 ~ except of course, Watson at his trial ~ a performance that he openly admits was all lies, done in “self-preservation.”
In his latest statement Watson deviates from what you have shown from the trial testimony
Er, yes.
Maybe I was just being too arty~farty and should have just said “It’s shit. I don’t believe it.”
I mean, in the man’s damned book, he actually says “After the wires had fallen, I backed the car down the driveway to the street below and parked. We gathered up our clothes and weapons and quietly slipped back up the driveway.”
If his thing is to say “refer to my book for answers”, then his current blurb is putting the noose around his own neck, somewhat !
From what he now says it could be assumed that Kasabian (not Watson) drives the car back down, possibly alone, while the rest proceed to climb over the fence. Which then begs the question as to was Kasabian even there when they came across Parent
You see, doubting something as basic as this, 53 years on, just makes no sense to me. There are quite a few things that have been accepted as having happened, that could easily be looked upon as legit targets of doubt. But this is kind of daft. The question it actually begs is “how far off the beaten track does one want to go in order to try and breathe some life into this topic ?”
I know Watson could’ve just got mixed up in his latest statement but you’d think that by now he’d at least have that bit right!
Not with his history of having no real memory and relying on what he’s heard or read.
I understand your point that you instinctively believing that Kasabian is telling the truth from how she delivers her evidence etc
I do not instinctively believe her testimony.
I mean she’d hardly been on the scene with Manson for two minutes yet she was sent as part of the killing squad both nights
Well so what ? She’d actually nicked $5000 for the Family from her bud ! and done pretty much everything she’d been told to do. She’d creepy crawled, had sex with anyone she was told to have sex with, even Leslie and Snake, she’d more or less given her own daughter away; she seemed like a good bet to go all the way.
Bear in mind though, that Watson was in charge on the night. He directed operations. He never took Linda into any of the situations that called for murder. She had a knife up until Pat came and relieved her of it ~ and he knew this.
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteShe supposedly went to Cielo only because she had the driving licence??!!
The only person that ever mooted this was Vincent Bugliosi. It is not and never has been given as an actual reason. Linda didn’t know why she’d been chosen. Manson doesn’t admit to even sending anyone out to murder. George Stimson gives the reason of “owing Charlie” as the reason. We all have speculations, a number of them perfectly valid and plausible. But no one knows for sure.
I mean can you imagine the conversation before they left Spahn - “look gang we’re off to commit multiple murders but let’s make sure we don’t break any minor traffic laws along the way...I mean really?!!
As has been said many times before, the previous day, Charlie had been ticketed for not having a valid driving licence. He was a paranoid man in this period. He was sending a group out to murder. I suspect he didn’t want any risk of them being picked up or hassled for something minor.
Now, maybe that’s just stupid. But I don’t dismiss it. I might do if he hadn’t been ticketed the day before, but with that in the mix, I take it into consideration.
On top of that, Manson and presumably Watson too was acutely aware that everyone should get their hands dirty so there was joint participation, joint guilt and presumably less chance of snitching or talking out of turn to anyone. Yet Kasabian manages to witness all of the key action without even getting a drop of blood on her?!!! Very clever on her part me thinks
Well, whose fault was that ? I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here.
You have to ask yourself why wily old Manson didn’t ensure that she did some killing on the second night so that she was tied to the crimes just like Van Houten was
It wasn’t for want of effort ! He tells her she’s gonna kill. She says no. He makes her go to the flat of the intended victim. He makes her point out the apartment. He orders her to kill the guy with able support from Clem and Susan. He did everything he could short of being there himself to make sure ~ and we all know Charlie thought that if he wasn’t present at the scene, he couldn’t have broken the law.
ColScott has often asked a priceless question around these parts ¬> namely, how did Charlie know anyone would kill ? Well, he didn’t, but after Bobby killed, he had a damned good idea that his troupe would. But even Leslie and Susan faltered at that hurdle. On Cielo night, Linda and Susan were wobbly.
And by the way, Manson wasn’t that wily. In fact, his ‘kill-dar’ was pretty shitty when one thinks of Juan, TJ, Paul Watkins, Linda, Ella Jo, Sunshine Pearce and Brooks Poston.
And as for her demeanour giving evidence, it was noted how she had shed the tearful innocent girl at Watson’s trial and was a lot more cold and dismissive in how she addressed the court. Already having obtained her freedom by that stage of course!
I sometimes think that in one’s zeal to pile scorn and shit on certain characters, one has to be careful not to suspend reality and common sense.
The Watson case was not the traumatic event the first TLB trial was. There wasn’t the same press focus, there wasn’t Family members hawking around the court, threatening murder and mayhem and shouting in her face, Tex wasn’t making throat cut motions at her, there wasn’t Irving Kanarek, Charlie & co had been convicted and sentenced to death. She had been reunited with her husband and her children. To a large extent, the pressure was off. And most importantly, she had been vindicated, in the eyes of the law. She had experience of how to play the game in court. And by this stage, why should she be tearful and crying ? Those people that cried when one of their parents died, do they cry every time they think about them in the years to come ? People change, alter and develop. Some people put traumatic events behind them or into perspective.
Your anti~Kasabian bias is worn on your sleeve without the hardware to back it up. Doubts down to dislike are easy.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteBut there was virtually no connection between Melcher & Watson
I don’t know, Watson says he went to Cielo a couple of times, once to borrow Terry’s car and credit card for a trip of a few days, the other time to ask for money to bail out “another record producer” from jail, not exactly something you’d do with someone you don’t know. This is more or less before Watson was part of the Family.
This, too, is completely untrue. Tate suffered a very deep gash across her left cheek, much in the manner that Folger did. This is discernable on at least one of the autopsy pics, you'd have to check the report to see if this is noted
Not so. Sharon had 16 stab wounds {4 to the chest, 1 to the abdomen, 8 to the back, 1 on each upper arm and 1 on her thigh} plus two, what were called, incised wounds, cuts to her left forearm. Have a look at the autopsy report and look at the diagrams. The abrasions on her face, which many understandably mistake for a gash from a slash, are said to be associated with ecchymosis, related to bruising, but not actually bruising. It doesn’t come from a cut. There is also the description of the zygomatic bone in relation to the abrasions and skin scraping. The zygomatic bone is essentially the cheekbone. No mention in the report is made of a knife wound of any kind.
When Coroner Noguchi was giving evidence, he was asked about those marks on the side of her face. The famous opinion of his is that it indicated she’d been hung and those marks were caused by rope. But I don’t want to focus on what he thought had caused them. I want to emphasize that it didn’t even enter his imagination that it was a knife.
Whereas, he doesn’t hesitate to tell us that 5 of Abigail’s 28 stab wounds were to her face. He doesn’t describe them with any equivocation. Those wounds were caused by a knife. A cursory glance at any of the head shots of Abigail in the morgue will demonstrate what a knife wound to the face looks like. Even Wojciech had knife wounds to the face, clearly distinguishable.
A few years back, I linked to this colour picture of her on the autopsy table. It was large, it was clear and I felt awful doing it. But it showed very clearly that there was no knife slash. The site it was from has since taken it down but I do remember one of the female contributors in the post we were on commenting about how macabre Sharon’s seeming smile was in the picture, so I know at least one person had a look at it.
The mark on Sharon’s face looks like blood that was running that has dried as it spread.
So back to Watson, when he talks to the board about slashing her face, your guess is as good as mine as to why he’s saying this, because, rather like Linda driving the car down Cielo Drive prior to the murders, it didn’t happen.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteAtkins lost her knife early in the struggle with Frykowski - after having stabbed him in the leg but before tumbling onto the floor with him - and she (not Krenwinkel, as one of you suggest) ran out to borrow Linda's knife
You’re currently going through Linda’s testimony; you should have reached this point by now or you soon will.
Q. While you were down by the car, do you know where Tex, Sadie, and Katie were?
A. No, I didn't see them.
Q. Did either of those three come down to the car?
A. Yes. Katie came down at one point.
Q. Was this before the screaming or after the screaming?
A. It was before.
Q. Okay. Did she say anything to you?
A. Yes. She asked for my knife, and I gave it to her. And she told me to stay there and listen for sounds, and I did, and she left.
Q. This is Katie?
A. Yes.
Q. Patricia Krenwinkel?
A. Yes.
Q. When she left, did she walk in the direction of the residence?
A. Yes.
It is slightly confusing ¬> it appears that both of the killing women wanted to borrow a knife from Linda at some point. But while Susan was checking who was in the house, that’s when Pat went out to Linda {according to Watson}, so it makes sense that Susan wouldn’t have known this ~ if she really did ask Linda later for her knife.
Might-have-beens/might-have-happeneds are fine, but if they are based on no evidence and only the product of one's imagination, they aren't particularly interesting
I completely agree. Truth be told, one can continually launch objections about any one of the characters in this saga that one doesn’t like. I try to show from available evidence why I think what I think.
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteYou have to ask yourself why Melcher’s connection with Manson/Watson et al wasn’t fully explored
On the other hand, one has to ask why the defence didn't make the slightest noise in either trial about Terry Melcher's testimony if it was known by the Family to be untrue. Vera's adamant that Charlie and Paul Watkins met up at Spahn in that first week of September when Paul was down for his army thingy. No one, as far as I'm aware, has ever attested to this. Watkins certainly didn't. His meetings in this period with Charlie were at Barker.
But let's assume for a moment that Melcher really was tight with Charlie and upset him knowingly, and came out to Spahn, seeking forgiveness, and agreed to an acid trip or was tripping. And Paul Watkins and Danny DeCarlo, two of the prosecution's heavyweight witnesses, had seen him. And Charlie knew this. And he's on trial for his very life. He has an almost Heaven-sent opportunity to derail the prosecution case by showing 3 of its witnesses to be liars or serious withholders. Having Terry Melcher cast as an outright, blatant liar, has the result of killing off two of the motives that the prosecution were bringing. And casting doubt on the third. It matters not that they didn't need to prove motive. Because, as Bugliosi reminded us, a jury wants to know why and therefore having a motive that explains the perps you're prosecuting, can be bloody powerful. Derail the motive[s] the prosecution presents, and you seriously cause ructions.
But he said nothing. Kanarek said nothing. They heard Terry say he was at Spahn only twice. Within a week of each other. While anything is possible, to believe that Manson wouldn't take some advantage of that is straining credulity, if he knew it was a lie. The onus was not on Bugliosi or the DA's office to explore the relationship between Melcher & Manson. That was the defence's baby. They didn't explore it because there was nothing to explore. Back in November '69, Mike McGann asked Leslie about Terry, whom she called Terry Marshmallow. She said she'd seen him at Spahn around 3 times and it was all music connected. And she and Cathy Gillies, I think it was, went to his beach house, but he wasn't in.
I'm curious about Watson's connection to Melcher, but not because I think there's anything dodgy there or some smoking gun.
Speculator said...
ReplyDeleteGrim - I hope you remember this - I took one for you there!!
I'm doing a Charlie 😇Manson👹; I broke no law, you did what you wanted to do, it had nothing to do with me...... 😁
"The studio artist who had done her makeup and hair created the illusion of sleeping life. I caressed her cheek, tracing a half-inch scar she had acquired as a six-year-old . . . Below the scar, I felt a rough edge. When I smudged away the makeup, I uncovered a slash wound that shattered the illusion of her sleeping."
ReplyDeleteThis is Paul Tate, describing his first moments with his daughter's body on her funeral day. From the family book that was released in 2012, I believe.
"Charlie's tape whirred, “Kill her!” inside my head and I looked at Sadie. But she just sat there holding Sharon, so I reached out and made the first cut across her cheek . . . It was my hand that struck out, over and over . . . "
Tex Watson in "Will You Die For Me?" He has repeated this point, that he slashed (or cut, if one prefers) Tate's left cheek, in a couple of his parole hearings.
I don't doubt Noguchi's notes and testimony and I certainly don't take Watson's statements as gospel. But this *is* one thing that Watson has been consistent on and, when taken with Paul Tate's comment on the wound, I do believe that there was an injury there. Probably no where near as deep as the one on Folger's face, but it does seem that there is something to this.
Melcher was the ONLY witness Kanarek didn’t cross examine.
ReplyDeleteOn Charlie’s orders.
Your crush oniell posits it was on melchers hisselfs orderz. That melcher was paying kanerek. Oniells gay btw, but o well a girl can dream!
DeleteGrim, Tobias, concerning any slashing wounds to Sharon, with possible exception of the incised wounds to her left forearm, the only apparent slashing type wounds that I can see in the autopsy photos is the wound to her left upper arm. The autopsy report calls out a corresponding wound to the right upper arm, but I don't see it in the available photos.
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge, Dr Nogouchi does not describe the exact nature of the two upper arm wounds. That said, however, I should point out that I do not have a copy of the complete autopsy report on Sharon. I don't know if it is available. I have several sheets, and these contain toxicological studies, etc. What is interesting, though, is that the upper arm wounds are called out only in the autopsy report, but not indicated in the autopsy drawings. It would be useful to find the additional descriptions of these wounds by Nogouchi.
I have always thought these were the only true slash wounds to Sharon, and have also considered them as a possible cause of her blood to arguably be present on the front porch, just outside of the front door.
"You’re currently going through Linda’s testimony; you should have reached this point by now or you soon will."
ReplyDeleteYou make good points, thank you. I guess my memory was faulty on this one, but it is still a bit confusing to me...
Atkins makes it clear in her Grand Jury testimony that "I had a knife. Linda had a knife. Katie had a knife, and to my best knowledge I believe Tex had a knife."
We know that Atkins & Frykowski fell back into the armchair during their struggles, with her stabbing his leg multiple times, and then their exertions take them to the floor. Later, as they are driving away from the scene, Atkins tells us:
"All we did was drive along and all of the weapons except for one weapon, I believe it was my knife, was handed to Linda who was sitting up in the front seat . . . We stopped two or three times. Linda threw away all the bloody clothes over the side of the hill along with the weapons at different intervals."
Upon further questioning, Atkins adds that Kasabian discards "All of the weapons except for one knife."
Q: The gun and the knives?
A: Yes, I knew on the way down the hill that I had lost a knife."
It stands to reason that the knife discovered in the chair had been Atkins' knife, lost in her struggles with Frykowski. Interestingly, I don't believe that blood was discovered on this knife - which makes little sense if Sadie had, in fact, stabbed the man's leg.
Moving on to Krenwinkel, we've been led to assume that she entered the home armed with a knife just like the others. They do their encounter with Frykowski and Tex sends Sadie to check the bedrooms and then back again to fetch the people from them, adding "She [Atkins] brought back Abigail Folger first, a dark-haired woman in a long white nightgown. Katie held a knife on her while Sadie went back for the other two."
Krenwinkel has, at times, admitted to helping Sadie round up the victims but at other times she has omitted this detail, which in 2011 motivated the Parole Commissioner to observe "in looking at Ms. Krenwinkel's description of the crime, she seems to leave out a few important facts. Number one is that when she went into the residence, not only was she armed with a knife, but she also assisted in bringing Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring and Abigail Folger into the living room at knife point."
So . . . a bit of confusion on this point, hardly surprising. But it does appear that Krenwinkel remained armed with a knife as the violence began. Krenwinkel's first major action is to struggle with Folger, who eventually manages to free herself of the rope, fend off Krenwinkel, and make a dash for freedom through the bedroom. Kasabian describes observing Folger running into the front yard with Krenwinkel following, knife raised in the air. This was *after* someone (Sadie or Katie) had run out to ask for a replacement knife.
In the 2020 "Manson" doc, Kasabian does indicate that it was Sadie who ran from the home, after the screams had begun, to borrow a knife. She says the same thing on the Larry King appearance with Bugs, stating that she was standing by Parent's car when screaming began within the house. Kasabian was motivated to run into the yard, toward the house, when Sadie came running out to borrow a knife. Linda begs her to "make it stop" and Sadie indicates that "it's too late."
The logical assumption here (at least to me) is that Krenwinkel retained her weapon throughout these events and Kasabian simply answered inaccurately in the testimony exchange that you called out here.
I incorrectly spelled the coroner's last name in my most recent comment. The correct spelling of the doctor's name is Noguchi, per the autopsy report
ReplyDeleteTobias, yes I'd agree that it stands to reason that Susan's knife was the one discovered in the chair. It had always perplexed me how it was free of blood (and any form of an identifiable fingerprint) if it was used to stab Voytek--or anybody. By contrast, Susan claims to have certainly left a palm print on the living room desk, as she was looking for Voytek's wallet.
Of course there is also the trail of blood drops on the ceramic tile in one of the Cielo bathrooms. I have not seen this described or typed on the police blood map, but a photo of this is in the Photo Archives at Cielodrive.com. Perhaps an attempt was made to wash off Susan's knife in the sink, and in the process a trail of blood drops sprayed on the tile? Still, that knife would have to move from the bathroom to the chair in the living room. Curious.
Grim - you comment that it wasn’t for the want of effort that Manson couldn’t or didn’t manage to get LK hands dirty. So if that’s the case, why didn’t he send her into the LaBiancas with the already proven killers and get Watson to do the persuasion on her like he did with Van Houten. They all surely knew by then that she was the weakest link and Manson was acutely aware of the need to get all of the girls incriminated when he told Watson to make sure they all joined in. Maybe he thought that she was already culpable in the eyes of the law just by having been at Cielo the night before. And moreover, on the first night why was she chosen by Watson to go do sentry duty at the gate before they even entered the house and without her even being tested as to her commitment (or not) to the killing that was about to begin? She seems to have been deliberately sidelined from the violence - do you think Watson made a snap decision based on her state of mind at that moment? The arguments in the car on the way up that he referred to? I’ve always thought it odd too that Manson asks her to choose a victim on the second night. What made her so special that he gave her that choice and why didn’t he ask any of the other crew? Was she the only one that knew “pigs”? Or was that all part of his ploy to get her to kill?
ReplyDeleteThe whole “listen for noises” business is weird too. What like listen to the crickets chirping away, the leaves rustling in the trees on Cielo, or the terrified screams of people being murdered maybe?!! Surely if you sent someone to keep watch while a crime was being committed you’d say keep a look out for anyone coming. But “listen for noises” wtf???! And then Krenwinkel (or Atkins whichever) apparently repeats the exact same weird phrase when she comes to ask for the knife. You’d be forgiven for wondering if some of the testimony was a bit manufactured and rehearsed. Maybe it was easier for LK to memorize “listen for noises” when she was learning her script! ;-) !!
ReplyDeleteSpeculator, speaking of "manufactured," I've always found it odd when anyone used the words, "upraised knife" when Patricia ran after Abigail as well.
ReplyDelete"Of course there is also the trail of blood drops on the ceramic tile in one of the Cielo bathrooms."
ReplyDeleteThis may have come from Tex, perhaps some blood dripping from a hand or his knife.
Somewhere along the line - in one of his books or interviews or parole hearings - Watson describes a moment at the Tate house when he looks at himself in a mirror. I cannot for the life of me recall where I watched or read this, but he describes this moment where he is looking at his own face and briefly contemplating - something. Perhaps one of those "who have I become?" moments - which is something that would make some sense to offer in a parole hearing setting.
Anyway, I'm not sure that there were any mirrors in the front room of that house (?) so perhaps he did step into a bathroom at some point.
Torque - yes, the old “upraised knife” phrase - common language across all of the English speaking world is it not!! ;-) . Now maybe I’m out of step here but if it was me I’d be saying I saw her run out with a knife in her hand. And maybe I’d add that she had it raised above her head. But upraised knife?!!! I wonder if any of the knives were down raised at any stage too :-) !!! Oh and the other phrase was actually “listen for sounds”, which I’m sorry but is even more fkin weird than listen for noises!!! Bugliosi-speak is certainly different I guess!! I’ll have to thumb back and see if LK says she saw Watson climb the upraised telephone pole too!!
ReplyDeleteGeez...we never have 100 comment posts anymore 🤔😆
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteDoug said:
we never have 100 comment posts anymore
There were a couple in November. And there’s been some 69 ~ 80 ones too, in that period. Either way, I guess it demonstrates what people are actually interested in debating and discussing in detail.
Vera Dreiser said:
Melcher was the ONLY witness Kanarek didn’t cross examine. On Charlie’s orders
Hmmm….
Charlie’s orders were generally followed by Fitzgerald, Shinn and Hughes ~ and of course, they weren’t even his lawyers. But Kanarek ploughed his own furrow. Numerous times, Charlie complains to Judge Older that Kanarek wasn’t doing what he wanted. He even thumped Kanarek for not following his orders. In open court ! He had Kanarek on his death list, the rationale apparently being that it was only fair since Irving was killing him in court.
Charles Manson was a seriously funny guy. His sense of humour was one of the reasons he became such a media darling {for want of a better term}.
But any notion of Kanarek following orders is, in itself, suspect to me. Until he died, Charlie was still grizzling about Irving. And if there was a chance to unseat Melcher’s testimony, with Charlie’s life at stake, Kanarek would have taken it, I think. Because, till his dying day, Irving remained a bad loser. He did not like losing and refused to acknowledge he’d been well and soundly beaten.
But Vera, you are in good company with the point you made. Bugliosi thought almost exactly what you think there. 😜
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteHe has repeated this point, that he slashed (or cut, if one prefers) Tate's left cheek, in a couple of his parole hearings
He’s stated a number of suspect things in more than one parole hearing. And we have the documents where he gets caught out. Donna Lebowitz pretty much had his number ! She read what he had said in the past and waited to pounce, like a hungry panther.
Interestingly, Abigail was slashed horrifically...on her left cheek. He says his hand struck over and over...Abigail had 5 stab wounds to the face and more to the neck.
I don't doubt Noguchi's notes and testimony and I certainly don't take Watson's statements as gospel. But this *is* one thing that Watson has been consistent on and, when taken with Paul Tate's comment on the wound, I do believe that there was an injury there
No one is saying there wasn’t an injury on her face. There most certainly was.
Having worked with rope for many years, I can say that rope burns can make really rough scars. Noguchi claimed to have done 4000 autopsies and supervised 4000 more. If he felt the cheek wounds were consistent with rope friction, I’m inclined to believe him. Not a single word about any kind of facial knife wound.
David did a series of tremendous posts on looking at the evidence a few years ago, that are required reading, in my opinion. He made a telling point when he said that where evidence flatly contradicts testimony, then the testimony needs to be disregarded. I agree. Or if someone says something, you look for evidence to support it. There may not be direct evidence to support it. But that’s hugely different from there being evidence that flatly contradicts it. For example, there’s no evidence that Watson shot Frykowski, outside of his admitting it. But nothing contradicts it, either, and no one there remembers hearing any shot or seeing him do it. So I’m content to believe him on that one. But everything he says about slashing Sharon’s face is contradicted by the evidence and given his history of not having clear memories and given that virtually all he says about the face slashing applies far more to Abigail, I’d say he’s conflated the two here. I think he was conflating back in ‘69. Remember, he has stated that the descriptions of the murders come either from “Helter Skelter” or the Tex tapes.
It stands to reason that the knife discovered in the chair had been Atkins' knife, lost in her struggles with Frykowski
Yeah, that seems logical to me. I tell you what though, for a case with so many unusual anomalies to it, what are the chances of a knife genuinely flying through the air and landing between the cushion of the sofa and the back of it, blade raised up {upraised ! 🙄} and with no blood on it, even though its owner admitted stabbing someone with it ? Why, it’s almost as weird as a towel being thrown into a room and landing on one of the victim’s heads, in such a way as to keep the fires of debate raging as to how it got there, 53 years on...
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteMoving on to Krenwinkel, we've been led to assume that she entered the home armed with a knife just like the others
Like the possibility of the door being left open, I’m not so sure we’ve been led to assume it, as opposed to us having just assumed it !
For a long time now, I haven’t assumed it. I don’t think she entered the house with a knife.
But it does appear that Krenwinkel remained armed with a knife as the violence began
I certainly believe that though.
This was *after* someone (Sadie or Katie) had run out to ask for a replacement knife…..In the 2020 "Manson" doc, Kasabian does indicate that it was Sadie who ran from the home, after the screams had begun, to borrow a knife. She says the same thing on the Larry King appearance with Bugs
Yep, this has always been her line. There’s a really good post called something like “Sadie’s stroll” or “Miss Scarlet and the knife” {or maybe I’m conflating, here !} that looks at this. I know David didn’t believe it happened and posed some pretty searching questions and reasons in support of why he felt that. More required reading.
The logical assumption here (at least to me) is that Krenwinkel retained her weapon throughout these events and Kasabian simply answered inaccurately in the testimony exchange that you called out here
There is another logical path, although it does call for a bit of convoluted thinking ~ and there’s no evidence for it.
Tex has a gun, the women each have a knife. When Steve’s car appears, Tex takes the knife from Pat and goes at him with it and his gun. He keeps the knife in the pressure of that moment {he’s wondering if anyone has been alerted by the shots}, forgetting to return it. It is this knife that he slits the window screen with. What with the kerfuffle of climbing the fence, Susan falling, Steve appearing and the murder, an exchange of knives could easily not have been seen or noted. There's unanimity that he cut the screen, but not one of the perps recalls him acquiring a knife. So once they are inside the house, he instructs Susan to see who is in the house. Now, she’s never been there before, so it takes her a moment to check on who is where. While she’s doing that, Pat goes to get a knife from Linda because by this point, she knows there’s gonna be some rucking. She comes back {she’s gone for less than a minute}, and at that point, helps Susan bring out Abigail. {She apparently later told one of the Family members she dragged Abigail by the hair}. From this point on, what we have been told, in general, follows what we are familiar with. Then Susan loses her knife and goes to Linda outside, following Watson and Frykowski. Without a knife, she comes back inside and puts Sharon in a headlock.
I’m not saying this is what happened. After all, Tex could easily have had a knife on him that the women didn’t know about, just like they have never had a recollection of him shooting Wojciech. But it is logical. Logical, of course, doesn't always mean correct.
Torque said:
ReplyDeleteIt had always perplexed me how it was free of blood (and any form of an identifiable fingerprint) if it was used to stab Voytek - or anybody. By contrast, Susan claims to have certainly left a palm print on the living room desk, as she was looking for Voytek's wallet
I’ve never known how she could be so sure she left a good readable palm print. It seems to me to be yet another of those things that members of the Family assumed . I mean, they assumed many of the victims were dead when they weren’t. They assumed people would think Black people had committed the murders with their blood daubings and they didn’t. Fact is, readable prints at crime scenes are not that common, particularly palm prints.
speaking of "manufactured," I've always found it odd when anyone used the words, "upraised knife" when Patricia ran after Abigail as well
That’s one of the phrases I remember from when I first read the book when I was 15. There’s something mildly irritating about it. But as funny as it sounds to us, it was an upraised knife she saw in Pat’s hand.
Even if the phrase did come from Bugliosi, so what ? Look how some of us borrow one another’s phrases and styles of communicating, even on these pages. Bugliosi noted in his & Gentry’s book, how, the cops interviewing Danny DeCarlo, picked up his style of speech when interviewing him. Look at how the Family all picked up speech from Charlie and each other. It is simply not unusual. She reported what she saw, he may have mentioned “an upraised knife ?” and perhaps she liked the phrase or could see the sense of drama that it evoked.
I think there’s a clear difference between something that’s manufactured, as in utilizing someone else’s phrase, and something that’s manufactured that you’ve been told to say, that doesn’t form any basis in what you’ve seen, said or reported.
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteyou comment that it wasn’t for the want of effort that Manson couldn’t or didn’t manage to get LK hands dirty. So if that’s the case, why didn’t he send her into the LaBiancas with the already proven killers and get Watson to do the persuasion on her like he did with Van Houten
How the heck do I know ? I’m not Charles Manson !
It is worth pointing out though, that as far as she was concerned {and probably some of the others too}, Linda’s hands were dirty by the second night. She wasn’t going to turn herself in to the cops on August 11th or 12th or when she fled Spahn. Why ? She knew how she’d be viewed.
moreover, on the first night why was she chosen by Watson to go do sentry duty at the gate before they even entered the house and without her even being tested as to her commitment
You’ll have to ask Charles Watson that. He directed ground operations. Maybe he felt that someone needed to be on watch, and he’d simply known the other 2 longer and better.
I’ve always thought it odd too that Manson asks her to choose a victim on the second night. What made her so special that he gave her that choice and why didn’t he ask any of the other crew?
You ought to have a read of the case transcript, mate. It’ll take a long time and there’s a heck of a lot to take in. But if you did, you’d be aware of this:
“I took over driving, still, we just pulled out of the parking spot, drove down the hill, got back the same way we had come in, and Charlie asked us if we knew any people on the beach. We all said no. Then he looked at me and he said ‘What about that man you and Sandy met ?’ He said ‘isn’t he a piggy ?’”
The question gets asked more than once and the answer is given more than once. She did not choose the victim. Charlie chose the victim and Charlie ordered her to kill him. Like I said, it wasn’t for want of effort that he “wasn’t able to get her to kill” for him.
You’d be forgiven for wondering if some of the testimony was a bit manufactured and rehearsed
That would depend on who is doing the forgiving ! 🤸🏾
But in a real sense, much testimony is, to some extent, rehearsed. Few prosecution witnesses will get up on the stand with absolutely no idea of what they are going to be asked or what they will say. And I’d imagine it’s a similar story for the defence witnesses too. That both parties can lie, is neither here nor there.
the other phrase was actually “listen for sounds”, which I’m sorry but is even more fkin weird than listen for noises!!! Bugliosi-speak is certainly different I guess!!
I would have thought ‘listen for sounds’ made abundant sense. If you’re keeping watch in such an area as the house was in, you’d need to be aware of people coming and probably, you’d hear them before you saw them. Had they been listening for sounds in the first place, they may have heard Steve and hidden, letting him go by.
Hey Grim - thanks for the note about the convo Manson had with LK regarding “choosing” Saladin. I must admit I’d forgotten about that. Maybe I’m too distracted down rabbit holes ;-) !!! Here’s one back at ya though. Your inference about the towel randomly landing on Sebring’s face - read the testimony from the bloods guy where he describes it having been pulled tight over the face by the rope. His description is of it being deliberately fixed there not randomly landing there. Don’t you agree?
ReplyDeleteAnd Grim - you say you’re ok with LK testimony having been rehearsed and it happens a lot. And that she may have just borrowed phrases/words from Bugliosi. Fine you say. So what. But remember the instruction that Atkins was given before her testimony (mentioned somewhere further up these comments) - describe what YOU saw, not what someone else says you saw or someone else told you that they saw (words to that effect). There’s a thin line between just borrowing words and feeding the whole script I’d say. And the former happening might just indicate that the latter did too to some extent.
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing Grim - listen for sounds?!!! Really???! I mean c’mon! Was that really the hip talk back in 69! Maybe LK should’ve replied if you lot could keep the noise down a bit inside that house I might be able to hear more “sounds”!! Bad joke I know!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"thanks for the note about the convo Manson had with LK regarding “choosing” Saladin"
ReplyDeleteHe not only chose her victim, he gave her a lesson on how to orchestrate and carry out the murder right there, in front of the apartment building.
Remember, the entire plan that night was to follow up the shock & horror of Tate with hitting TWO houses on the next night. Linda foiled that plan, of course.
Here's where a lot of the paranoia (or speculation, if one prefers) over these ancient factoids falls flat with me. If we are not believing Kasabian and the others who testified in those trials - what exactly is the alternative? To insist that something is incorrect or corrupt naturally begs the question - okay, what IS the true story here?
Are we actually suggesting that Manson & Co. did not commit these crimes?
Yes, Bugs was a square. He was about as square and boring as a man could get, I'd say. But he had a job to do and he did it successfully. Hell, even Manson admitted that he'd gotten a fair trial as far as Bugs was concerned, though of course he had other beefs.
And yes, Kasabian was a relatively dodgy person in some respects. She obviously made poor decisions throughout her life and a few of those decisions led her to be standing on the front lawn of a house on Cielo. But again - what alternative are you suggesting? Are we stating that Kasabian was a devious witch and Krenwinkel was a comparative angel? That Manson was far too busy mastering his chess game during this during the summer of '69 to bother with offing people?
Both Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian testified on their actions and experiences during this time. When push comes to shove, who are you laying your money on?
It dawns on me that some folks still participating here spend all of their time tossing off random denials and speculations and none of their time offering up alternative information that is based on any kind of reality.
At the end of the day, that's a lot like shooting a porn scene and editing out the money shot.
Don't overestimate the criminal sophostication of watson, manson et al. There's no planning and NO IMPORTANCE in Charlies mind about the 1st night death squad. Sending his most disliked losers to do something ridiculous fits right in with his self destructive sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteLK is there because her and watson were close at the moment, not because Charlie gave a fuck about her.
And someone said tex was exclusive with mary a couple comments ago....wtf? Is that comment taking the piss? Ive never heard that one
Speculator said:
ReplyDeleteYour inference about the towel randomly landing on Sebring’s face
Well, I didn’t infer that really. I was just making the point that there are some strange things afoot. It is strange that someone says they stabbed someone 3 or 4 times in the legs and when their knife is found, there’s no blood on it or in the area it is found. It’s equally strange that where the knife is found, and the position it is found in, indicates that it was placed there. Yet none of us seriously thinks that it was, or that it wasn’t the Atkins knife. So why is there no doubt and conspiracy in this instance, but there is over the towel on Sebring’s face ?
All I’m pointing out is that sometimes, strange, inexplicable things happen, even in TLB.
read the testimony from the bloods guy where he describes it having been pulled tight over the face by the rope. His description is of it being deliberately fixed there not randomly landing there. Don’t you agree?
Do you mean Joe Granado ? Your description is perhaps putting a little more in there than he actually puts. He doesn’t really emphasize the towel ~ his point of emphasis is the way the rope is knotted at Jay’s throat and the way it’s tightly looped, but not tied around Sharon’s, so that she would have to be hung/lifted, in order for Jay to be lifted by the rope. The towel is mentioned in passing by him.
You know, for all we know, if the events took as quick as the perps have indicated, and given the blood on the porch that was of the group that Sharon and Jay were in, Jay might not actually have been dead at this point and was trying to loosen the knot so he could breathe and that could account for how parts of the towel got under part of the rope.
That said, I think Watson was responsible for all of the rope work.
you say you’re ok with LK testimony having been rehearsed and it happens a lot
I didn’t say I was OK with it, I said that it is normal. In almost any situation in which a person has to go over something, they’ll think about it in their minds and rehearse it, whether it be for a performance, questioning, a visit to their doctor, preaching a sermon, reporting for the TV or radio news, doing a presentation, witness testimony, etc. You're trying to draw nefarious doggy 🐩 🦮 🐕🦺 deeds from what is a natural human activity.
And that she may have just borrowed phrases/words from Bugliosi. Fine you say. So what. But remember the instruction that Atkins was given before her testimony (mentioned somewhere further up these comments) - describe what YOU saw, not what someone else says you saw or someone else told you that they saw (words to that effect)
There’s no conflict between describing what you saw and utilizing someone’s phrases to describe what you saw. It doesn’t for a moment mean that you are then describing something that you didn’t see. If I saw someone chasing you with an upraised knife, I might say, initially, that they were chasing you with a knife up in the air or over your head. But if someone put it as “an upraised knife”, me taking that phrase and using it instead of my own clumsy phrasing doesn’t change one iota, what I’m describing I’ve seen.
There’s a thin line between just borrowing words and feeding the whole script I’d say
Well, there could be. On the other hand, that could be just too obvious. A stronger point is the one about impacting witness memory, that was made earlier.
And the former happening might just indicate that the latter did too to some extent
I think that is because that is what you are looking for to happen.
And another thing Grim - listen for sounds?!!! Really???! I mean c’mon! Was that really the hip talk back in 69!
I don’t see what that’s got to do with anything. If we’re talking about what was hip back in ‘69, the entire Family structure of females being totally subservient to males wasn’t, was it ? And given that none of us hung around with the Family in ‘69, can any of us with any certainty say what was part of their shared communication and what wasn’t ?
Grim, yes, agreed about the "upraised knife" business. My original comment here was a reaction to my first impression upon seeing the words in writing. It simply appeared manufactured, and rather awkward. Ultimately I don't know. I suppose it is entirely possible that Linda heard Bugliosi use the words, and simply began to repeat them in her testimony.
ReplyDeleteOne other possible example of this, I suppose, is when Susan heard Bugliosi call for a question he was asking to be stricken, when he said, "strike that". I recall later on in her testimony on the stand that she also said "strike that," after she had made a response that apparently she wanted to change. I would say at least on this second instance the words were truly borrowed.
Torque said:
ReplyDeleteOne other possible example of this, I suppose, is when Susan heard Bugliosi call for a question he was asking to be stricken, when he said, "strike that". I recall later on in her testimony on the stand that she also said "strike that," after she had made a response that apparently she wanted to change
It’s funny that you should mention this; I was looking at it either yesterday or the day before. I’ve noticed it before and again, there’s something kind of irritating about it when it isn’t coming from a lawyer in some sort of context. It stands out like a 3-year-old with a recorder.
Vera Dreiser said:
Melcher was the ONLY witness Kanarek didn’t cross examine.
On Charlie’s orders
What’s your prognosis on this, Dr Dreiser ? Is it the same as what Dan is saying ? Over the years, when I’ve commented on these pages or other forums about some of the deep and keen minds that have been displayed here, yours was one of those that I had in mind. So I’m curious as to your internal logic, as regards this statement. Because if the “Melcher was at Spahn in early September” statement is true, it not coming out can’t benefit Charles at all. If he ordered the non cross-examination of Melcher, one is in effect saying he helped Bugliosi sink him. Deliberately. Knowingly. And used Bugliosi's knowledge of a lie to do so.
Charles Manson wasn't that weird !
Speculator said:
whether the door was open, closed or slightly ajar at whatever stage is a bit of an irrelevance surely
I agree. It doesn’t change anything, it doesn’t cast any doubt on anyone’s story, doesn’t enhance any evidence. I just thought it was odd that Linda didn’t hear certain things, while hearing others. Not every statement with stuff to back it up is packed with depth 🤔 nor in search of an argument.😤
Dan S said:
Sending his most disliked losers to do something ridiculous fits right in with his self destructive sense of humor
I’ve heard this a few times before and it never makes any sense to me. If you’re going to be out in the desert with Dune buggies, Watson’s mechanical abilities would be priceless. It would make him one of the most important members. And it makes even less sense when one tries to put Pat in that category. If anything, Pat’s loyalty and love for Charlie is what got her selected.
LK is there because her and watson were close at the moment
You know, had LK not become the star witness for the prosecution, no one would mention her and Watson in the same breath.
And I’ve noticed, no one that ever tries to take the Tex/Linda love route ever even begins to attempt to grapple with the parallel lurve development that the Family introduced at exactly the same time ~ namely, the steaming great pile of luuuurrrrvvvve she was supposed to hold for Bobby. On occasion, Family members tried to pass Bobby off as the Dad of Linda’s second child, for example, Squeaky does so in her book. They tried on one hand to parade Linda as the murder mastermind because of Bobby.
Of course, it’s obvious why no one goes into it; aside from the fact that it’s not true {and Bobby couldn’t, biologically be the Dad}, the obvious question to have to answer would be “well, make up your mind, which is it ? Bobby or Tex ?” At which point, forget rabbit holes one has to jump down, think a warren.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteAre we actually suggesting that Manson & Co. did not commit these crimes?
Not so much the Co. but Manson, definitely. It's what keeps George going in blogsville, it appears to be what riles Dennis/D./Manson Mythos into bad-mouthing anyone that disagrees, and responsibility for the crimes is taken out of the hands of Charlie by authors like Tom O'Neill, Clara Livsey and Michael White; even Starviego, though believing he did it, thinks he did so only at the behest of the Black Muslims; even Col Scott has many times pointed out that Charlie didn't kill anyone and has inspired much argument down the years, with the requisite insults aimed at some that think he was talking tosh; Irving Kanarek believed he didn't commit the crimes till he died....
When one stops and thinks about it, there's actually quite a crowd out there, some of whom firmly nail their colours to the mast, some of whom are a little more oblique about it.
Then there are those that basically just want to sock it to Linda Kasabian and Vincent Bugliosi and make a point about LE in general and its corruption at various times.
These, along with many other aspects, ensure passionate debate, still, from time to time.
Does anyone doubt mansons at least being complicit on the second night? He has admitted going in to Waverly and the death drive seems to be accepted as real so that shows clear intent. You can quibble if he really meant tex to open pandoras box but he jumped right in after for sure. And where do we fall on shorty? That's the most methodical, personal murder, done for specific personal reasons
DeleteDan S said:
ReplyDeleteAnd someone said tex was exclusive with mary a couple comments ago....Ive never heard that one ?
He has been consistent on this for more than 40 years.
From the latest parole hearing (linked in the article above)
https://www.cielodrive.com/charles-tex-watson-parole-hearing-2021.php
INMATE WATSON: No, no, no, not me, I was inhibited. I -– I -– I had one girlfriend there, uh -– uh, Mary Brunner, uh, I -– I was too inhibited for any kind of, uh, that was really overplayed a lot, …
From “Will You Die For Me”
https://www.aboundinglove.org/images/bookPDFs/Will_You_Die_For_Mesmall.pdf
‘Charlie let me … After he directed one of the girls, Mary Brunner, to be my special “love,” I began to feel a little less like an outsider…’
‘During the months that Mary and I were more or less together…’
Ok but then he went to new heights with lvh and took over the new girl LK right? He was coming into his own as a member and that encouraged him to want to impress Charlie even more, no?
DeleteGrim - my angle is in no way Intended to try to deflect guilt from Manson or any of them for that matter. Manson fully deserved all he got and more besides. I just think that there is a lot more to the story, the relationships between those involved and others around the scene back then, and ultimately the motive(s). Identifying anomalies in the evidence and gaps in the testimonies provide a potential route into some of those black holes. But yes, it may well all amount to very little and we’re not likely to find out much more at this stage of the game unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteAs for a "selection", and the"usefulness" of stabby tex, that's way too much overthinking and sophistication for mr. "Don't think."
ReplyDeleteDoing drug burns that get charlie in trouble and being an awkward hung up dude who wouldnt even slap a bitch (prob wouldn't even go all lil paul on Charlie's D either) would not endear him to Charlie.
Dan S said:
ReplyDeleteAs for a "selection", and the"usefulness" of stabby tex, that's way too much overthinking and sophistication for mr. "Don't think."
No it isn't. "We need Dune buggies out in the desert. We need a truck. We need petrol to run them. We need someone to be able to keep them going."
What's to overthink ?
Doing drug burns that get charlie in trouble
Charlie turned up to meet Lotsapoppa with a gun and a plan to pop the poppa.
Charlie was given the money Watson blagged. Neither man was going to spend $2700 in the dead of night. So Charlie could have cut his losses and given that money back. He chose not to.
Three days later, there was a repeat performance when Linda, through Watson, brought $5000 that was not the Family's to acquire. The owner of the money and Linda's husband came to get their money back. Charlie, once again, chose not to give it back and was ready for action with Charles Melton and Bob Kasabian, no doubt the confidence of having {as he thought then} killed Lotsapoppa, infusing him with a feeling of no one being able to touch him ~ unless they were Panthers ! One could argue that it was the ease with which Crowe, Melton and Kasabian were able to find Spahn {in both instances, neither party was looking specifically for him}, that fuelled his paranoia about the Panthers.
No, Dan, Charlie wasn't gotten in trouble by Tex. He got into trouble all by himself.
David said:
given how Bugliosi does his thing
In many ways, Bugliosi was the ideal lawyer to prosecute Charles Manson. Both of them were on the maverick side of their respective wings of life. They didn't do things by 'the book'.
It would have been interesting to see what happened if Aaron Stovitz had been the main prosecutor, actually making the running. If the interview he did in March 1970 with the Davids Felton & Dalton is anything to go by, he may not have been as effective as his junior partner.
There again.....
Tex was a beta in the group. How a guy like that got himself into that position in acid sex band camp is a big part of the origin story for TLB.
DeleteOniell has me thinking on how the family at spahn was like a david smith experiment, with a possible motive being to discredit the peace hippy movement, with convenient Fountain of the World apocalyptic rhetoric. TO never mentions FOTW but it's obviously where the idea of HS is from
Ah, yes. The evil David Smith who helped sick people for free. O'Neill is definitely one of the stages of Manson.
ReplyDeleteNot david smith but his work is in tandem unwittingly with your buddy jolly
DeleteAnyone but me notice that everyone who gave Mr. O'Neill a zinger is dead so 'peer review' is impossible.
ReplyDeleteJolly West's Elephant would be a phenomenal blogger handle.
ReplyDeleteDavid - I'm right there with ya. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Research and publishing in this study are often the complete opposite of what's taught in the civilian world.
ReplyDeleteThere IS extraordinary evidence! Follow the money and the coincidences and parallels are beyond epic too. I'm not saying there were direct orders from cia or a direct handler of a witting charlie, but an agency taking advantage of a situation, using an unwitting charlie and getting results.
ReplyDeleteGreenWhite said:
ReplyDeleteJolly West's Elephant would be a phenomenal blogger handle
It would be up there on a par with Rudy Weber's hose.
David said:
Anyone but me notice that everyone who gave Mr. O'Neill a zinger is dead so 'peer review' is impossible
And the elephant was the first to go ! His zingers 💥 were phenomenal !! 🐘
That was pretty good. *Tips cap.
ReplyDeleteDavid: Roger and David Smith aren’t dead. Nor are most of the Family, Gregg Jakobson and many more. But yeah, I guess history books shouldn’t be written a hundred (or fifty) years after an event. You moron.
ReplyDeleteI seriously want to watch Pride and Prejudice every time you comment.
ReplyDeleteNo spooks gave him any zingers. For those he got paperwork of uncanny coincidences but in all the interviews they gave him nothing.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest zingers would be from guenther about a missing tape of jail bobby calling the ranch and i forget. He got stone walled on tenerelli and the barker bodies
Roger Smith does not support what O'Neill wrote about him.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing, we're all next door neighbors now with the Internet. Many of the people involved in the Manson past are still out there. Hop into his sources and start contacting people on Messenger. Be respectful. You'll hear back every now and then. Then tell me what you think.
If you listen to ONeill on podcasts he BEGS people, especially journalists to do that: follow up on his reporting, ask his subjects to respond to his charges. And no one does. And what the diddlyfuck does "Roger Smith does not support what O'Neill wrote about him" even mean, GreenMile? Not support??? Like how? Refute, provide counter info, show ONeill lied? Wow, Vera's vayjay just got a few more cracks.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFOTW
DeleteGreenmile! HA! Ours is an anecdotal field, sweet Vera. In the words of the poet, I was given this world. I didn't make it.
ReplyDeleteTO (not terrel owens btw) never makes conclusions. He just puts evidence of paths crossing
ReplyDeleteHalfway thru my 4th (6th) Mint Milano, I realized I'm arguing about Tom O'Neill. Pretty sure I hopped in to crack wise. Terrel Owens made me lol for real btw.
ReplyDeleteI will likely continue to pay O'Neill for overpriced kindles. If Fromme or Good or Brenda Bygod McCann come out and say yeah, ole Tom was spot on, I will publicly apologize.
starviego said...
ReplyDeletegrimtraveller said...
"...even Starviego, though believing he did it, thinks he did so only at the behest of the Black Muslims"
Charlie didn't have thought in his head that wasn't put there by someone else. Who told him he had to kick off the race war by the spring of '69?
And FYI, GreenMile, David Smith sure provided a, um, persuasive rebuttal to CHAOS as reported by this chickie:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.instagram.com/p/CULbwAOp6FO/
Girl: I just read a book you're in. Don't tell me about it because you're old.
ReplyDeleteSmith: I went to college until I was almost thirty and provided free medical care to hippie children and other indigents who might otherwise die. What size brassiere do you wear, young lady?
Smith's lines can be workshopped. Not married to anything. We can switch out the bra stuff with something like, "And a writer said something about the CIA," if you like.
Rock n roll dont pay the bills, Dr Smith (no, green, not the cowardly comic relief character from lost in space).
ReplyDeleteHow you gonna do lsd mind experiments on mice before you get your grants, share an office with Charlie's handler and jolly smith and those grants are from CIA fronts?
Those are the crossing paths; sad we get no smoking gun.
Vera Dreiser said:
ReplyDeleteRoger and David Smith aren’t dead. Nor are most of the Family, Gregg Jakobson and many more
True, but those 3 and the living Family didn't give Uncle Tom 💼 any zingers.💥
Wow, Vera's vayjay just got a few more cracks🤢
Well, don't tell us uneducated plebs, go make an urgent appointment with a registered OB GYN.
starviego said:
Charlie didn't have thought in his head that wasn't put there by someone else
"Put" ?
LSD conflation is a fascinating topic. Almost as fascinating, actually, as acid suggestibility.
GreenWhite said:
If Fromme or Good or Brenda Bygod McCann come out and say yeah, ole Tom was spot on, I will publicly apologize
I would tread with caution before placing any faith in the veracity of anything any of those 3 said, in relation to denying Charlie's responsibility in murder.
Dan S said:
Those are the crossing paths
Crossing paths don't mean a great deal. I'm sure many CIA agents 🕵️♂️ used a shop or two that Charlie had been in, while he was in the Haight !
You know, once, I crossed paths twice on the same Thursday, with the Queen. 👸
And a few years earlier, also on a Thursday {albeit, a much colder one}, the car she was in overtook me, driving down the wrong side of Shaftesbury Avenue.
not the cowardly comic relief character from lost in space
He may have started off that way, but he and Billy Mumy soon took over the whole show ! Who cared about the Robinsons in space ? The show got cancelled before they ever made it home.
TO never makes conclusions. He just puts evidence of paths crossing
Yeah, in the hope that his readers will come to 2 overarching conclusions, 1]Bugliosi and LE in general lied and did a stitch-up job and 2]the CIA were behind the whoe deal.
That is known as asking questions that contain their own reply.
the family at spahn was like a david smith experiment, with a possible motive being to discredit the peace hippy movement
Can you explain why David Smith would want to discredit the peace movement ?
TO never mentions FOTW but it's obviously where the idea of HS is from
I'd say HS is a lot more nuanced than just coming from one particular place, person or time.
Tex was a beta in the group. How a guy like that got himself into that position in acid sex band camp is a big part of the origin story for TLB
He is actually conspicuous in his absence when the origins of that story were being put into place. Remember, he'd gone for 3 months, while HS was being formulated.
Billy Mumy
Deletehttps://youtu.be/cn73Wtem0No
D Smith wouldn't but the guys who pay him would.
ReplyDeleteHS is exactly FOTW rhetoric.
I don't really get your point about tex being gone. There may have been no direct orders from above Charlie but he probably got the mind control techniques from the smiths.
If you crossed paths with the queen and your entire life was already mapped out with mice by her then we'd have a more analogous situation
Vera Dreiser said:
ReplyDeletewe know that Watkins was at Spahn after Sept. 2 when he got his physical
Well, it's true he was at Spahn in early September. He mentions this in both testimony and his book.
You obviously have no problem with what Watkins says about this.
Yet neither in his testimony or his book does he mention Charlie being at Spahn when he went for his fiz'cal. In fact, in his book, he specifically mentions Brenda reporting to him that Charlie, back at Meyers/Barker, was hurt by him leaving the Family.
and Manson, Clem and Pitman picked up Schram from her parents in Anaheim on/or around Sept. 5, brought her back to Spahn, stayed there, then drove to desert. Putting Watkins and Manson at Spahn Ranch during first week of Sept before all of them returned to Barker
Now this is interesting. Initially, back in 1969, Stephanie said Clem, Charlie and Squeaky picked her up from her parent's house and they were at Spahn for a few hours and then went straight out to the desert. In a 2011 interview with Brian Davis and Cats, however, she said "And I snuck out my bedroom window and I believe it was Clem and Squeaky and maybe someone else that actually came and got me and took me back to the ranch." She doesn't mention Charlie, which you'd think she would do, given the interview is primarily about him. But she does go on to say:
Brian:Okay. So you get back to the ranch, was Charlie acting a little bit tense at this point?
Stephanie:Here’s the thing, when I got back out to the ranch, he was already out in the desert.
B:Okay, so did you go out to the desert then to be with him?
S: Yeah we went out, but I didn’t go out there with him. I went out there with, like I said I think it was Clem and Squeaky.
B:I assume that was Barkers Ranch?
S:Yes.
As an aside, Watkins says he had his physical on a Monday morning. I know for a fact that the 5th of September that year was a Friday. It's one of those dates that has been stuck in my head since that day because my family moved from Birmingham to London that day and it was a Friday. I was so excited to be moving into a block of flats that had a lift. So he either did the army thing on the 1st or the 8th.
Of course, none of all this proves anything; that Stephanie interview could be a fake, or, if genuine, her memory could be well off. Watkins could be a perjurer and a liar, having already shown a propensity to profiteer from his time with Charlie, before he was even indicted with murder.
On the other hand, it is notable that two people that could have circumstantially put Manson and Watkins at Spahn together in September are both on the record as scotching the possibility. Which then shines a light on any veracity on any tale of Watkins telling an unnamed LASO interviewer that he saw Terry Melcher on his knees before Charlie.....
I wouldn't at all be surprised if this interviewer has got it wrong, and that it's Mike Deasy that is being described. He was a Melcher associate {so Melcher's name would have come up in relation to Deasy and recording and music ~ it's because of Melcher that he was there}, at Spahn to record Charlie and the Family with his mobile studio, a rather novel feature in 1969. It is well documented that either, he took acid or was spiked, but he says he took so much acid that day, that he felt he was losing his sanity. With Charlie doing his 'Jesus' bit, Deasy may well have been on his knees begging for forgiveness, Deasy, the associate of Terry Melcher.
He actually became a Christian not long after this.
I’ll take what she told Guenther and whitely in 1969 far over what she told anyone in 2099
ReplyDeleteOr 2011 or whatever the fuckity fuck fuck, grim gum unda my twat
ReplyDeleteGrim - I suppose we’re all a little guilty of this to a certain extent, but I note that at various points you dismiss the statements of witnesses who potentially conflict with your narrative by saying that they likely forgot/mixed up what really happened. Ie Deasy/Melcher. But regarding other points you’re happy to accept that proven liars were/are bang on the button with their recall.
ReplyDeleteGrim - I suppose we’re all a little guilty of this to a certain extent, but I note that at various points you dismiss the statements of witnesses who potentially conflict with your narrative by saying that they likely forgot/mixed up what really happened. Ie Deasy/Melcher. But regarding other points you’re happy to accept that proven liars were/are bang on the button with their recall.
ReplyDeleteGrim - I suppose we’re all a little guilty of this to a certain extent, but I note that at various points you dismiss the statements of witnesses who potentially conflict with your narrative by saying that they likely forgot/mixed up what really happened. Ie Deasy/Melcher. But regarding other points you’re happy to accept that proven liars were/are bang on the button with their recall.
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteI note that at various points you dismiss the statements of witnesses who potentially conflict with your narrative by saying that they likely forgot/mixed up what really happened. Ie Deasy/Melcher
I thought someone might conclude that, which is precisely why I began that part with "I wouldn't at all be surprised if." I don't state that I believe it. I don't state that this is fact what happened. And with Watkins and Schram, I posit the possibility that Watkins was lying later on after having told what Uncle Tom claims he was telling the truth about, as well as holding that the Stephanie interview of 2011 could be a fake. In other words, none of us know the truth of that particular matter, but there are things that could be said about it either way. Vera demonstrates taking it one way, I demonstrate taking it the other. If trying to be balanced is being dismissive, then "What ho !"
When I'm being dismissive, I don't hide it. I'm dismissive of Watson's statement about Linda driving down the hill to park the car and any subsequent case built on it, for example. I'm utterly dismissive of the idea that Charlie always told the truth and never lied. And I show exactly why I think that. And back it up with cold, hard, fact, straight from his mouth.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why, if the story of Melcher at Spahn after the murders is true and he stood on the stand and said the direct opposite, the man whose life was in danger of being snuffed out did not bring it up to defend himself. He made it clear he did not want to die.
And let's face it, LE in their various guises got certain things wrong early on, for a variety of reasons {like thinking the 'Charles' that shot Steve was Manson}. There was a certain amount of mixing up, not necessarily always their fault, but there nonetheless.
By the way, your posts often appear in triplicate !
But regarding other points you’re happy to accept that proven liars were/are bang on the button with their recall
Well, I'm actually glad you've noticed that. Because right from when I first started getting involved in these debates in 2015, I was very clear that there are some things I definitely believed from the mouths of the perps. In fact, if I remember correctly, in the first post I ever contributed to, Matt even brought that out from me. I learned very quickly from a variety of people here, at Cats' site and Lynyrd's site that it wasn't the done thing to trust anything any of the perps have said, particularly those like Susan that kept flip~flopping. But that never stopped me and it doesn't stop me now, because the simple reality is that even the worst liar tells the truth at times. It may be corrupted or spun in such a way one has to do some mental gymnastics, but....
So yeah, I consider disregarding the words of the perps as a reflex action, as naive. I will take on board what was said, whether it was in '69, '70, '71, '85, '99, 2005 or yesterday. And I will balance that with tons of other things, both from them and from others. And yes, sometimes, it supports my points {why wouldn't it ?} while at other times the waters are a little more murky. And at other times, I call foul.
SAG used to hate it when I would get into the minds of the characters in this saga. He would accuse me of being some kind of amateur detective or psychologist. And I'd say, "yeah, but my rates are cheap !"
Vera Dreiser said:
I’ll take what she told Guenther and whitely in 1969 far over what she told anyone in 2099
I was quoting from her '69 interview with Gleason and Palmer of LASO. The one where she tells them Danny DeCarlo didn't go to the desert....
Grim - yes I don’t get why the triplicate post thing. I have a steady hand when I press publish! Mind you, I guess it gets the stats up!!
ReplyDeleteSpeculator said:
ReplyDeleteI don’t get why the triplicate post thing.
I have had that happen a couple of times. While I can’t say for sure, this is why I believe it happened for me.
I believe (or speculate) there is a bug in blogger that occurs when a special non-visible character sequence is entered by either fat-fingering or using the back-arrow to return to the previous screen.
My only device is an IPhone and I use the Safari browser. After entering ‘publish’ I would enter the back arrow so that I’d get back to the main screen. Some of the time I would notice 3 identical posts. So I now always choose a bookmark to another site and then return back to the blog. All I know is blogger doesn’t like certain sequences after hitting publish and 3 posts show up when this event occurs (or Safari sends the previous ‘Publish’ sequence twice).
I can't comment from my iPhone at all or I get immediate duplicates. I use chrome on my phone. I think Blogger is just glitchy. Trying to fit the screen caps into my posts is an adventure every time. Blogger might not count the dupes toward the stat total either. Just a lose/lose all around.
ReplyDeleteTabor - are you calling my fingers fat??!!! ;-)!! I do use Iphone/Safari so will do the book mark thing rather than back arrow. I'm also putting the fingers on a diet!!
ReplyDeleteVera Dreiser said:
ReplyDeleteI’ll take what she told Guenther and whitely in 1969 far over what she told anyone in 2099
In general, so would I.
But with caveats.
There are things to take into consideration, like the state of mind the person was in, back in '69. Or the kind of flip-flopping that occurred amongst what were very young women, if you could call them that. We saw some very interesting things from the 4 that escaped from Barker in the desert, over the next few years. There was Sherry Cooper, ending up with Danny DeCarlo, who was on the run. There was Babs Hoyt, giving the police info, being extremely reluctant to testify then running off to Hawaii and then giving dubious evidence, re: Shorty's screams. There was Kitty, who fled the Family and caused the finger of suspicion to point their way in the first place {not to mention her indirectly getting Shorty killed}, rejecting the Family, clearly disliking Charlie, then heading back to them and shaving her head. And Stephanie openly admits she was besotted with Charlie, even though on at least two occasions, he'd hit her {once with a rifle butt} and threatened her with a knife if she left. In addition, Dianne Lake wasn't exactly the model of honesty initially, even before the Grand Jury.
So not everything everyone said, even in '69, is necessarily to be taken at face value. Even for those that were in the process of making the break from Charlie, the police weren't now their wonderfully trusted aides or allies. They were still the police, on the side that these kids were rebelling against.