 |
| Hippie Reeve via Chaos |
Part One Introduction
Part Two Backstory
Houston, we have a problem.
Our friend inside the government, these days known online as Montana Sun, ran an earnings report on Reeve Whitson. They found:
- No government earnings were ever posted for Whitson
- No government pension existed for Whitson
- No government retirement insurance existed from that nonexistent pension
- No record of Whitson paying taxes after 1962
-------------
People who work for Uncle Sam have insurance. Former service members have VA records. Everyone pays taxes.
As Montana Sun pointed out, even Lee Harvey Oswald left a paper trail, and he helped kill a President of the United States.
Is it possible Whitson was nothing more than a well-connected PI? His life is straight out of James Bond. We'll wrap this up in Part Four. +ggw
------------
Edit: You can catch me on The Paulcast tonight at 10 pm EST talking all things Whitson!
Edit #2: Whitson's gal Joan Weldon.
272 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 272 of 272"In regards to Pat, which side of the argument do you think she was on if there was one?"
Regarding Pat overall, I do think she has been about the most changed incarcerated Manson person over time, with the possible exception of Davis. While it is always dodgy to claim true knowledge of someone's nature who you have never met, to compare early-life Pat with say the Pat featured in "My Life with Manson" is pretty startling in some ways.
Regarding the car disagreement, my take is that Tex was obviously pro "go forth with murder" (for lack of a better term) because that is what Charlie said to do, while it is easy to imagine Kasabian expressing the opposite point of view. This is what likely prompted Tex to reduce her to "lookout" status and it is almost certainly what motivated Manson's "make sure they all do something" directive the next night.
As for Pat, I am going to guess that she was about as gung-ho as was Tex in that moment. I base that guess on a couple of different factors. First, Manson hand-picked her to participate on both nights. Pat was one of his earliest followers and she enjoyed a bit of a special status within the "family" group, Manson knew he could count on her to come through for him. According to Van Houten, Manson even pre-qualified Pat for the role by asking them both "are you willing to kill for this thing?" and both Van Houten & Krenwinkel replied "well no, we don't want to, but we know it has to happen - so yes" and Krenwinkel was pulled from the trailer to prepare.
The second reason I believe Pat to have been on the pro-murder side of the discussion comes from one of Tex's retells, the one I've always felt seemed closest to the truth. Then he tells us that he went into the LaBianca home with Manson initially and stayed behind as Manson headed back out to the car. I am not wedded to those details as being the absolute truth, but that makes abundant sense to me, as Manson had little idea what he would encounter within the home - so two dudes + a gun + a bayonet makes sense. Anyway, according to Tex, Krenwinkel and Van Houten entered through the kitchen door to join Watson, who asked "did he say kill them?" The girls answered in the affirmative. As an aside, the LaBiancas overheard this exchange and Mr. LaBianca at least was sent into a verbal panic. Anyway, upon responding to Tex, Krenwinkel began rummaging through the kitchen drawers in search of knives, while Van Houten stood there and seemed quite uncertain about things.
Manson's trust + Krenwinkel's reported actions lead me to believe she was probably feeling fine being compliant with Charlie's orders that Cielo night.
Thanks, Tobias. Krenwinkel is sleeping with the kids in the trailer that Friday night, right? Charlie wakes her and says go with Tex and do what he says. She's truly at the crossroads during that ride over there. Or maybe the crossroads were passed long before. I don't know why I tell myself she was one of the people arguing against the victims' deaths but I do. Maybe because if that's the case, night two becomes a no-brainer. In for a penny...
First place, what do we think they argued about, if they argued at all?
Did they get lost because they were arguing, or were they arguing because they had gotten lost?
2016:
And then I think as we were thinking about what we were going to be doing we all started arguing about it and we got lost and we drove around about an hour, drove all the way into Santa Monica and then up the other side of Benedict Canyon.
2021:
we got lost, we could've, I could've got there probably in 30 minutes but it took me an hour to get there, I was driving all the way around through Santa Monica. And it was like I was stalling, whether I could do this or not do this.
If he can be taken at face value, I think he's saying that they were reluctant to do it, and in the 2021 version, that this may have been the source of the argument.
But do you think they argued on whether to do it or not? Or simply over small details of how long it was taking to do it--peripheral things like that?
It's damned hard to imagine any of them openly arguing against what Manson wanted.
BTW, using any likely, or even unlikely route from the ranch to Santa Monica, this is very hard to do unless you drive past the mouth of Benedict Canyon on Santa Monica Blvd (or another E/W street, like Sunset). You could also have gotten onto Mulholland, but there's just no way this makes any sense.
Very hard to do, though. If this happened, it hints at irresolution, for sure.
Separate item from Watson parole hearing, and I wonder what you make of it?
2016:
So anyway, I went up to the -- I cut the screen actually in the window and went through the screen. Okay? And the girls just walked right in the door. The door was open.
2021:
I actually went through the -– through the window, I cut the window and I went in through the window. And, um, I, um, then the girls though walked straight in to the door, so I went through the window, they walked right into the door, the door was open and we met right there.
Small detail: he's saying that the front door was open, unlocked, the way I read it.
Didn't need to cut the screen and crawl in, then let them in, as is contained in many of the narratives.
...and you know, think about it, and there are two easy reasons (more, no doubt).
1) Since Frykowski was not yet ready for bed, apparently, and Sebring was still there, too--and one would suppose that he'd not spend the night--they had not made their nightly rounds of locking up.
2) They may have been extremely lax about locking up, too, having lived behind the self-locking gate so long that in the back of their collective head, they were safe.
Odd little things about this are interesting; they're relatively unimportant, but interesting, anyway.
I don't know that they were sleeping, though they might have been. My dominant memory is of both Krenwinkel & Van Houten being in the trailer "taking care of the children" when Manson entered.
I do find Van Houten to be the most consistent and believable of the murderers, and more than once she has related the "are you willing to kill for this" trailer dialogue I described above. This does not mean that the detail is absolutely true, but her consistency and general approach to these recountings leads me to place more faith in what she shares than what has come from the others. If true, this tells us that Krenwinkel at least had some idea of what might have been up as they left the ranch that night.
The differing actions in the LaBianca kitchen is also telling, I think. That Tex revelation is what led to the most-recent attempt to have the original Watson tapes released - Leslie was hoping to use Tex's tale of her inaction at that murder scene as evidence of her reluctance to participate. Obviously, she lost that challenge but she soon found herself being granted parole anyway.
Tobias and Shoe, do you share the opinion that Charlie sent everyone to Cielo to kill everyone inside with no reason behind it? Or do you lean one way another i.e. putting fear into pigs, drug robbery, Helter Skelter, whatever?
For the followers, it seems clear they were out to do the thing that had been discussed within the group since December 68 or so. Call it HS if you care to, they may have had different understandings or beliefs on exactly what that meant.
For Manson, seems more the kind of fuck you that he had been considering all summer. A few times he described the build up of events and his decision to strike out in anger, finally. He did preach the whole HS thing to enough complete strangers, including a law enforcement officer, that he may have truly believed in that, but it's impossible to say if that was his explicit reason in the moment.
First, I defer to many others here on whose opinion you should favor. This is an area where people who have been looking at this for years will have gradually assembled a much fuller picture of personalities and motivations. This is not relatively straightforward stuff, like running down the various likely routes to/from Cielo to Spahn.
But I'll offer where I am at this point in time.
I think the motives were as is supposed, in Manson's mind. They were a mixed up jumble of emotions and his Neverland philosophy of the founding of a new world--post Helter Skelter.
It's a sort of trailer trash version of the Aenid.
So I think he was resentful as hell over his fall from the fringes of the Big Time: he was no longer in with Wilson, and while Jakobson was in his pocket, more-or-less, Melcher--the man who could pull the strings Manson wanted pulled, was not. He was in the process of brushing Manson off.
My guess is that Manson felt something like a jilted girl might feel. But Manson was of a background where this sort of insult could lead to serious actual consequences; he was vengeful as hell, I think. Melcher had never lived in something like this.
Then there were the added motivations of bailing out someone--Brunner?--and maybe taking the heat off of Beausoleil. But these were more along the lines of "well, if we're going to do this, let's see if we can also accomplish extra stuff...".
So I think that the real motivation for Cielo was mostly to show Melcher that he could not trifle with Manson--more along the lines of demonstration of power, and also simply to feel a sort of catharsis by pushing back.
I think that in order to mobilize a broad swathe of family members, he overlaid the plan with the bigger, more idealistic goal of starting the next World Order. That would resonate with a larger group, because I'm unsure just how many were as deeply insulted by Melcher's rejection as Manson was. Maybe a few close ones, but...
What do you think?
Wow we made it on to the second page of comments!
Shoe, thanks for asking. Not to take the easy way out but I honestly have no idea. The more I learn, the more I wonder if I'll ever know.
The followers all talk of HS, those convicted and those not.
More than one speak of tbe "now is the time for HS" speech that day.
The '69 Van Houten tape does it for me. No doubt HS was their understanding and their belief. "I feel what I did was right, and I would do it all over again."
As for Charlie, I long felt "oh, surely HE isn't stupid enough to actually believe tbat! But when he is warning a sheriff who is hauling him in that, as a white man, he's in trouble & should retreat to the desert for safety - and when I hear Steph Schram recalling Charlie preaching the stuff to her San Diego roomie peeps, just a day or two before the murders, people who were complete strangers to him - then I have to think - well, maybe that really was Charlie's whole deal.
shoegazer said...
"Why bring him out and take him back in? Or let him crawl out and crawl back in, or let him crawl out and carry him back in? Especially in light of the fact that you leave two other victims outside, where they fell.
And the final, overall "why": why make up a story, and stick to it rigorously over a period of 50 years, that excludes this?"
Because they don't want to make liars out of themselves at this late date by changing the story. Also they don't want to implicate others who participated in the second visit to Cielo at 3:30-4am, which is when they moved the bodies.
Don't want to implicate a dead man? Who are they protecting?
Most people would snitch on their own mother to avoid dying in there. These must be super criminals.
G. G-W:
Don't want to implicate a dead man? Who are they protecting?
A line from Paul Simon is appropriate here, I think...
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest,
tobiasragg said:
So many little details that we all discuss here today are explored in this hearing . . . the fact that she'd gone "off into the distance, to the back house"
Here's an irony for you ¬> as I was doing a search to see if there were any Pat hearing transcripts of the 80s floating about obscurely in cyberspace {sometimes, you never know where something will turn up}, I was directed right back to here, and a very in-depth profile on Pat done by the late Icelander, Bret. I remember reading it around the time I first started commenting on this site back in 2015. I seem to recall he did a few of them. Anyway, in it, he speaks of Pat talking in 1987 to the researcher, Judy Hanson, who was doing a bit of sleight of hand on Pat, on behalf of Doris Tate, and he states:
When Patricia was talking to Judy about the Tate murders, she was very specific about what she did in visiting the guest house behind the swimming pool. Patricia told Judy, "I went inside, I looked around, and there was no one there. If there had been, they would be dead today!" Questioning more, Judy pushed and it must have irritated Patricia because she responded, "I may be a killer but I am not a liar!"
It's ironic that I got my answer ! I will still watch those hearings at some point though.
Of course, a cynic could point out that she said this to seem like she did actually have a heart of flesh, beating and pumping blood, and that she did have qualms about murder, despite the abiding image of her {with Leslie and Susan} singing and looking cheerful at court, even though there was a potential death sentence heading her way.
But the revelation of going to the guesthouse has, I think, had the opposite effect. Along with her not knowing that murder was on the agenda that first night, it has emphasized the suspected dangers surrounding her. It's left parole board members scratching their heads as to how she could launch so wholeheartedly into murder with virtually no warning and yet, have the supposed presence of mind to not go for whoever might have been in the guesthouse {although the answer to that is obvious; she would not have known what she was walking into, Tex~less and gun~less}. And yet, the next night, try to kill Rosemary.
GT:
Re: Krenwinkel relating that she went into the guesthouse, do you recall (or does anyone) whether the door/doorhandle was dusted for prints by the LAPD?
I'm not saying this snidely, just trying to bore down far enough to try to see what the likelihood is.
Let's see: this would be after the Folger attack, most likely immediately after because that's the closest proximity. She may/may not be bloody, she may/may not have left prints and blood on the door. Was she carrying something to wipe up? Was the light near the door sufficient to do an effective cleaning?
All is possible, but at differing levels of probability
What do you think?
"I may be a killer but I am not a liar!"
You may be surprised at the tale she tells in parole hearings these days. The paraphrase is that she arrived at the guesthouse front porch, paused, and thought to herself "this must stop!" and she returned to the main home.
I don't think that Pat Krenwinkel has ever received less than a five year parole denial, and I am expecting the same this summer.
Re checking for Krenwinkel prints, I was going thru the 1st Progress report. It had a bunch of addenda, listed below:
ADDENDUM
The following items are listed as addendum:
Addendum #1, an overall diagram of the property located at 10050
Cielo Dr.
Addendum #1A, a diagram of the northwest portion of the property
including entrance and garages.
Addendum #1B, a diagram of the main house 10050 Cielo Drive.
Addendum #1C , a diagram of the guest house located at 10050 Cielo
Drive.
Addendum #2, a 15.7 written by M.J. Granada, #7692, SID,
describing the victim's blood types, blood types of blood found inside
the location information on the rope which was tied around victim's
Sebring and Polanski's neck and progress has been accomplished in an
attempt to identify the cutters used in cutting the telephone, wire and
additional communications wire.
Addendum #3, interviews of uniformed officers that first arrived at the
scene.
Addendum #4, coroner's protocols and diagrams of the five victims.
Addendum #5, a complete list of model 9399 revolvers sold in
California since 1967.
Addendum #6, a complete list of model 9399 revolvers sold in Canada
since 1967.
Addendum #7, evidence report which includes items one through
seventy.
Addendum #8, a report prepared by the print section of SID listing
successful lifts of fingerprints and eliminations.
Addendum #9, witnesses, statements, numbered 1 through 191
Addendum #10, information sheets on Harrison Pickens Dawson (1).
(2) Billy Doyle
(3) Abigail Folger
(4) Wojciech Frykowski
(5) William Garretson
(6) Thomas Harrigan
(7) Witold Kaczanowski
(8) Steven Parent
(9) Thomas Sebring
(10) Sharon Polanski.
APPROVED: Lt. Robert J. Helder M. J. McGann, 10329
Robbery-Homicide Division
J. R. Buckles, 5829
Robbery-Homicide Division
Has anyone here had any luck finding any of these? I have not, so far.
Let's also reconstruct a possible scenario in which Krenwinkel enters the guesthouse, finds no one there, then leaves, as she told the researcher in GT's earlier post.
If she finds no one, this means that Garretson is either hiding in the house, or out back--in short, he knows someone is there--heard the screams, probably, is scared witless.
My gut feeling after reading his testimony, polygraph, etc. (all contemporaneous stuff I could find) was that it was about 50/50 that he was aware of something going on, and that he was scared and maybe hiding. But he'd have to lie directly about this, for no good reason that I can see, and this is especially true if you're a suspect and you want to distance yourself from any connection with the killings. All you'd need to do was to admit you were scared and hiding. This would be viewed sympathetically eventually.
Too, nothing about Garretson's testimony led me to think that he was an adept liar.
But to get back to the present "Krenwinkel was inside scenario", he hides and he waits.
Then after a while when he feels safe, he comes back, knowing full well that something bad has happened: he might look, or not. He tries to call the police but the line is dead.
Then he decides to just forget it and go back to sleep? Wait for the cops to find him the next day? This seems very unlikely, but if this is what he did, it could support that he suspected that something had happened, hidden, saw nothing afterward, and then ignored it, hoping for the best. But it still would not explain why he'd keep quiet about any of his suspicions. He was not a strong person, nor a quick thinker, and the police leaned on him pretty heavily early on.
And what about the dogs when Krenwinkel comes in and looks around? Even if they're in the back "dog yard" they'd hear her at the front of the guesthouse, it seems like. According to what Garret said, and also Altobelli in testimony (I think), they'd likely bark at this sort of approach that was that close to the guesthouse.
All this is possible, of course, and more.
Thoughts/comments/ideas?
Shoe, Billy's timeline that night is a mystery. I agree his going to sleep once he saw the dead bodies seems unlikely.
I'm not sure if anyone was stupid enough to return to the scene that night but the claims are out there. Charlie did say he went back to see what his children had done. We also have late night noise reports from people in the area. None of that is enough for me to accept it as fact, however. It's easier for others in the study. Usually those same people say I'm dumb or don't know what I'm talking about.
I assume everyone has seen this:
Beausoleil in "Demon"
This is Anger's 11-min experimental film. It's very unpleasant, but only 11 min.
FWIW, my working model is that Manson did not go back.
Bear in mind that Watson has stated in his book "Will You Die for Me?" that the 59 Ford was the only car working that night.
Manson had told me to borrow an old yellow 1959 Ford that belonged to Johnny Swartz, one of the ranch hands, since it was the only car that was running at the time.
Not definitive, but a possible indication that is consistent with other information about how many cars were available at any given time.
Did they take the Ford again? I've never heard this anywhere. If not, what did they take, who drove or did he go alone? Did Manson again insist on a driver's license? Why/why not?
Where did he park?
Did he go up the embankment like the others, coming and going?
Now, if you figure various scenarios for when Manson found out, decided to go, prepared and left, you can get into an area of deep risk based on whether the police had found out. You could get up onto the property only to have the police arrive at the gate, trapping you there.
Would Manson want to take that risk, and for what?
When he states he went back, I take it to most likely be blustering--screwing with peoples' heads, because it makes very little sense to me.
Just my two cents...
Shoe - if anyone did go back post- murders they would’ve been able to observe any police presence from across the canyon before heading up the cul-de-sac. Plus Manson was probably aware from the debrief back at the ranch that no one (neighbours etc) appeared to have been alerted by the murders. It would have been a risky venture to go back up there nonetheless. Maybe he just had some weird need to see the scene that had been left. Or maybe he wanted to take something from the property. We’ll never know one way or the other. But certain things do suggest that the scene may have been revisited.
Shoe - if anyone did go back post- murders they would’ve been able to observe any police presence from across the canyon before heading up the cul-de-sac. Plus Manson was probably aware from the debrief back at the ranch that no one (neighbours etc) appeared to have been alerted by the murders. It would have been a risky venture to go back up there nonetheless. Maybe he just had some weird need to see the scene that had been left. Or maybe he wanted to take something from the property. We’ll never know one way or the other. But certain things do suggest that the scene may have been revisited.
Shoe - if anyone did go back post- murders they would’ve been able to observe any police presence from across the canyon before heading up the cul-de-sac. Plus Manson was probably aware from the debrief back at the ranch that no one (neighbours etc) appeared to have been alerted by the murders. It would have been a risky venture to go back up there nonetheless. Maybe he just had some weird need to see the scene that had been left. Or maybe he wanted to take something from the property. We’ll never know one way or the other. But certain things do suggest that the scene may have been revisited.
Shoe - if anyone did go back post- murders they would’ve been able to observe any police presence from across the canyon before heading up the cul-de-sac. Plus Manson was probably aware from the debrief back at the ranch that no one (neighbours etc) appeared to have been alerted by the murders. It would have been a risky venture to go back up there nonetheless. Maybe he just had some weird need to see the scene that had been left. Or maybe he wanted to take something from the property. We’ll never know one way or the other. But certain things do suggest that the scene may have been revisited.
Spec:
Yes, I'm aware that Manson said that they came up from below, so that they could see activity in advance, if there was any. But that's not the big risk. The big risk is seeing no police presence, going up and in, and while there, having the police arrive because by God, someone had called the cops, but they had't yet arrived until after you were up there.
You speak of the debrief and imply that part of it was that no one had appeared to be alerted. Can you point to any statements for us to evaluate? Because from what I can tell, all they could report to him was that no police had arrived before they left. They could not say that no one heard anything therefore no one was calling the police even as they drove off.
And they didn't go straight home. So that gave still more time for the police to arrive: who knows?
Think about it: Watson very likely told him he had fired the gun a bunch of times; that there was lots of screaming and running around: these were the stated reasons he wanted to "show how it's done" the next night at LaBianca. If you were Manson, would that worry you a bit? Go back to what had been described as a horrific shitfest that may well have been heard? Would you stake your freedom on it, just to look? Manson was no fool; he seemed pretty deliberate.
So did he take the Ford again? If not, what did he take? Who went with him? Would no one at the ranch notice the coming and going? Would no one talk about it afterward? Some of them watched on TV the next day: do you think that Manson would have failed to mention going back?
I sometimes get the feeling that some posters here want to think certain people did certain things: Manson went back, like a mysterious, evil, gloating ghost. This then turns it into a sort of story of some kind. I mean, I don't care if he did or didn't so far as it makes a statement of any kind, I'm just trying to figure out the most likely steps, then the next most likely, then the next, etc. Going back is way the hell down the list, for all of the reasons I mentioned. And there are quite a few of them.
But you're right: there's no way to know for sure.
GG-W said:
So is it nurture or nature with Pat?
I think it was life.
I don't think she was someone that was heading in the direction of murder, come what may, but like many of us, in the "right" combination of circumstances, the chances increase. And the Family brewed the right combo of circumstances.
I've often described Pat as "dangerously in love." What I mean by that is that a person can be so taken with another, that they would do almost anything that person desired or required. I agree with Shoe, that Pat felt valued by Charlie and that tied her to him.
It's an observation I've made for decades and people routinely dismiss it, but you can even see it in primary school playgrounds, one child manages to command the respect and allegiance of a whole group and sometimes, one has to wonder why and how.
Pat felt neglected by her parents, didn't feel she was important enough to them. And drugs were more important to her sister than she was. And she didn't live in today's world, where there is a large degree of sympathy and understanding for her endocrine condition. Back then, she was just viewed as a hairy Mary that would be lucky to get a date.
But Charlie sexually liked her, told her she was beautiful and unlocked something in her that her life up until then had locked tight. A heady combination. I never underestimate things like divorce or the feeling of abandonment or lack of a Dad. Having worked with kids for 39 years, there honestly isn't a soul in the universe that can tell me with any credibility, that these things don't matter or don't affect children. They may not affect every kid, but they do affect a significant amount, even if the number is comparatively small. After all, 15 million is small compared to a billion. But 15 million is still a huge number.
I don't think Pat was an accident waiting to happen, the way Susan may have been.
Tex says in maybe his most recent hearing, certainly in the ones I wrote about a few weeks back, that they argued in the car on the way to Cielo
I do not believe him. I first heard it from him in 2016 and I didn't believe it then. Back in 1969, Susan stated that Tex did all the talking in the car and they never said anything. Pat, right from 1978, has always maintained that she didn't know what they were out to do. She says that it was as they approached Cielo Drive that Tex told them. Linda said she didn't know, either. It has never been clear exactly when Tex did say that they were going to kill.
I've wondered if over the years, people have thought I'm some gullible twat, defending the women on this because I genuinely believe them. Actually, I've long felt that the fact that they didn't know puts them {certainly Susan and Pat} in a far worse light than if they had known. It's one of the things that has gone a long way towards keeping Pat in jail. Because there's always that niggling uncertainty about a woman with no history of violence suddenly turning to murder with a few minutes notice, then going back to non~violence. Same with Susan. Possibly even Bobby. Is it a coincidence that both Leslie and Bruce, whose stories both contain a healthy dose of premeditation/prior intent, are the ones that get granted parole ? Maybe that's got nothing to do with it, but it's at least worth a thought.
Spec:
But certain things do suggest that the scene may have been revisited.
Let's work thru that a bit.
1. Glasses have been mentioned. I have no answer for that--it neither proves nor disproves anything.
2. 1st progress report said that investigators said:
3. Possibly a partial wipe down of some parts of the scene.
4. Anomalous blood evidence on the threshold the front porch and the lawn.
There may be more I'm not aware of.
Of these, all except #1 could have been done by the four intruders; no need for anyone to come back.
The glasses are a major discontinuity, but they don't require Manson's intervention. I know he *said* he left them there, but I'd like to know when he said it, and if he'd had access to description of the crime scene before he'd said it.
Again, not impossible, but unlikely.
"But certain things do suggest that the scene may have been revisited."
Yes, multiple things point to this possibility but unless Bruce Davis or Brenda or whoever the supposed companion for the return visit chooses to speak up, this will forever remain just that - a possibility.
There are three mentions of a Manson return visit that I can recall. Tex Watson indicated that he had heard of this happening, but his was second-hand info at best. Another came from one of the girls, though I can't remember which, and it was similarly vague. The most detailed account comes from the Willie Mendez book. Though Manson dismissed the work in the same way he dismissed most things said about him that he did not care for, the account is pretty compelling:
Manson and a companion decide to return to the scene. They take one of the dune buggies there*, crawl up the same embankment used by the killers, and inspected the scene. Manson brought a towel with him because no one could remember wiping much for prints and he wanted to see to that**, he says he viewed the boy in the car, then the other bodies. Manson indicates that, after wiping certain areas down, he placed the towel "on the head of the man in the room." Manson had added that they cased the area very thoroughly to ensure there was no law enforcement presence, and they parked the car at the bottom of the hill and hiked up the drive, much as the killers had done.
*Police report indicates that no finger or hand prints were found on the hood of Parent's car, though "wipe-like marks" were detected.
**A couple of neighbors reported hearing the dune buggies (which everyone in the neighborhood was familiar with by then) very late that night. Carlos Gill, the Mexican-American lad who lived just across the canyon from the Cielo house, ended his police interview account by indicating that he had difficulty getting to sleep after hearing a heated argument through his open bedroom window and, some time much later than those sounds, Gill says "and then the dune buggies were back." Manson family members have recalled joy-riding in this area during that summer, because so many of the roads are perfect for a little daredevil driving thrill. Some of the Benedict Canyon residents were growing pretty annoyed with the hippies and their loud vehicles roaring around their streets, there are police reports on the annoyance complaints from that summer.
There is also the mysterious matter of the glasses found at the scene, glasses that were built for a round, bowling-ball shaped head (Davis) and whose prescription was either a match or very close to the one associated with Davis. While Davis was forbidden to wear his glasses, family members have spoken of their having been kept on hand to aid in fire-starting out in the desert. I cannot recall if Mendez has Manson speaking of this detail in his book or not, I'd have to go back and look. The glasses were never, of course, connected with anyone associated with the crimes or anyone who is known to have visited the Cielo address.
All of these indicators lead me to believe that Manson probably did revisit the location. I include his quote from the next night, when he said that the Cielo murders were too messy - too panicked - and that he was going to show them how to do it at the LaBianca place, as another indicator that he just may have viewed the Cielo scene for himself. Of course, the quote from the LaBianca episode might just be based on Tex's description from the night before.
Ultimately, this is another unknowable but it certainly does seem quite reasonably possible.
Grim, my thoughts on Pat run parallel to yours.
If the goal was to blame the killings on black militants, does it make any sense to leave reading glasses?
Chris Rock
I mean, Manson was playing to stereotypes...
There are other things wrong with his description of going back, too. I'm pretty sure that most people here know this. We can discuss it in greater depth, if anyone is interested.
tobiasragg said:
There are three mentions of a Manson return visit that I can recall. Tex Watson indicated that he had heard of this happening, but his was second-hand info at best. Another came from one of the girls, though I can't remember which, and it was similarly vague. The most detailed account comes from the Willie Mendez book
There's also the account in the Nuel Emmons book.
I want to point something out about Watson and his account. I'm afraid it is beyond incredulous to accept that the chief Tate/LaBianca killer would not know for sure that Charlie went to look at the Cielo scene. That would be like one saying that their partner gave birth by caesarian section, but they don't know whether or not they had an epidural. And Watson doesn't know. He's only heard Manson went. The chief killer !
It's also quite interesting, as an aside, that Charlie didn't "go back" to the LaBianca house. If he had taken the risk to go to Cielo, he would have known how to navigate the risks in getting to Waverly, especially as he knew the layout of the house far better than Cielo, and he knew the dog[s] would present no danger. Also interesting, that he didn't go to Gary Hinman's isolated place to see what Bobby had done. Having thought he'd killed Lotsapoppa, he wouldn't exactly be squeamish.
Police report indicates that no finger or hand prints were found on the hood of Parent's car, though "wipe-like marks" were detected
Anyone that has ever pushed a car will know that one's hands move all over the place, gripping and re-gripping, placing and re-placing. The surprise would have been if there'd been a good set of prints on the car. Whereas when Bruce's prints were found on Shorty's car, the car had been stationary, which would lend itself to the leaving of prints. And also, where Watson's print's were found, it was in a place that didn't necessitate pushing, steering and movement of the kind that you'd need moving a car.
shoegazer said:
There are other things wrong with his description of going back, too
Not least that the classic Manson MO is to be as distanced from the killings he wasn't at, as possible. Plus the fact of the timelines; if it took 45 or so minutes to get to Cielo, and if Rudolf Weber met the perps around 1am ~ ish, and they had gone to get gas, then give Charlie a report on what happened and washed the car etc, that then puts the time available for a visit later and later.
GT:
Plus the fact of the timelines; if it took 45 or so minutes to get to Cielo, and if Rudolf Weber met the perps around 1am ~ ish, and they had gone to get gas, then give Charlie a report on what happened and washed the car etc, that then puts the time available for a visit later and later.
I agree with all of this, FWIW, and add something I thought about quite a bit yesterday.
In the Emmons quote of Manson:
“My partner had an old pair of eyeglasses which we often used as a magnifying glass or… to start a fire… We carefully wiped the glasses free of prints and dropped them on the floor, so that, when discovered, they would be a misleading clue.” — Charles Manson quoted in Manson: In His Own Words as told to Nuel Emmons ©1986 Grove Press
Like most others here, I'd read that the glasses found by the police were not of a type that could be used to start a fire. Being skeptical, I wanted to see if I could find any independent information online that could tell me about the properties of glasses for myopia, or near-sightedness, as clearly stated in the 2nd Police Progress Report.
2nd Police Progress Report (search "myopic")
Here's a sampling of what I found WRT starting fires with eyeglasses:
Answer 1
Answer 2
Answer 3
If this is accurate information, think about what this means. It means that if we take Manson at face value, the glasses he says he left were not the glasses the police found. This is very simple. He either made the story up, and screwed the pooch by adding embellishments to make a better story, which was his undoing; or he took some other glasses than the ones he said and left them--always assuming that against all odds, he went back, as claimed.
Now, reading the quote below--and this appears in quotation marks--that Emmons attributes to Manson, note carefully the diction, construction, choice of words. In honesty, have you ever read/listened anything by Manson that sounds remotely like the voice of the quotations? I haven't, but I'm not well-immersed in this as most others here.
Article with Manson quote
For now, I'd discount the quotation as either a falsehood by Manson, or a fabrication by Emmons.
Last thing: Carlos Gill.
If it's claimed that Gill is quoted as saying that he heard dune buggies, I've not yet seen this and would appreciate some kind of link. The only reference to him I've found is from the 1st Police Progress Report.
1st Progress Report (search "gill")
It seems to me that what we're doing here is to--for our amusement, to alleviate boredom--trying to solve an old puzzle: there's already a solution, but we want to double check it for validity. We do this by starting with a premise and working thru variations based on the premise. This means that it's very important to make sure that the premise is as sound as we can get it, because working forward from unsound premises yields no progress--just a vortex of disorganized hearsay.
"if it took 45 or so minutes to get to Cielo"
Grim, it only took about 25 minutes to get from Spahn to Benedict Canyon - especially at night, when the traffic was light. Assuming the Weber 1am marker, there'd have been plenty of time for the group to get back, do their report, and for Manson to have returned for a visit somewhere in the 3:30-4:30ish timeframe.
Grim, it only took about 25 minutes to get from Spahn to Benedict Canyon - especially at night, when the traffic was light.
We need to be careful here.
CA 118 did not exist at the time of the crimes, so Google maps is of limited use; they could not have taken the route suggested Google.
I think you're definitely onto something about accounting for traffic being lighter, and especially for a proposed Manson visit at ~3-4AM. This is valid.
As an aside, I played around with Watson's descriptions of the drive from Spahn to Cielo. It's interesting:
Will You Die For Me
We got lost. I missed a turnoff and we ended up going all the way into Hollywood, then back west on Santa Monica Boulevard through West Hollywood and the edges of Beverly Hills. We cut up past the landscaped mansions, most of them dark now, to Sunset Boulevard, then to Benedict Canyon, then finally turned left onto Cielo Drive.
2016 Parole
we got lost and we drove around about an hour, drove all the way into Santa Monica and then up the other side of Benedict Canyon. And finally got there at the place and...
2021 Parole
we got lost, we could've, I could've got there probably in 30 minutes but it took me an hour to get there, I was driving all the way around through Santa Monica.
First, there's conflicting descriptions, mainly unclear, jumbled. The two descriptions of going "through" or "into" Santa Monica are very, very hard to do: there is no clear way to get out to SM, the city, from Spahn unless you at first had no intention of going to Benedict Canyon.
Let me emphasize that the area around SM, Century City, Cheviot Hills, as far as UCLA, is an area I'm fairly familiar with, and also as it relates to Mulholland and the end of Sunset. If you want to go to SM from Chatsworth, at that time, you'd go either all the way down Topanga Canyon Blvd (very, very windy as you get to Fernwood!--would take a long time) then along PCH to SM, then to SM Blvd to any of a number of street to get up to Sunset, then to Benedict Canyon. This would take much longer than an hour, in my opinion.
But this route is what he seems to be saying in 2016 and 2021.
But Watson has a very jumbled, disorganized memory, and let me suggest that if we look at the 1978 version from his book, he doesn't say they went through or into SM, the city, but that they drove on SM Blvd, after going as far as Hollywood. If we take his 1978 description, the most likely route using available roads at the time, he went down Topanga until it crossed US 101 and he got on 101 heading east, with the likely intent of exiting at 405 south. This makes for a pretty direct route to Sunset, and you could go east to Benedict Canyon Dr.
But if he "missed" 405, then the next major exit that he'd be reasonably sure of would be continuing on 101 to SM Blvd, exiting west, and this would take you thru Hollywood, as described. So in that instance you'd be on SM Blvd, rather than into SM, the city, you'd also go thru Hollywood, you'd need to cut up to Sunset (as described), and it would indeed take about an hour at 11PM on a Friday night.
The one version, where he mentions "up the other side of Benedict Canyon" could mean that they passed Benedict Canyon Blvd, then went up Beverly Glenn to Mulholland, and back down Benedict Canyon. Seems inconsistent with other statements, though.
I'm much less familiar with that area of LA, having been a beach dweller for my whole stay.
1st Progress Report:
"Carlos Gill: He said that the severity of the argument so frightened him that he went immediately to bed after closing the window."
Was the window open at midnight-1am? If so, then Gill's not mentioning any gunshots at that time is telling.
"Was the window open at midnight-1am? If so, then Gill's not mentioning any gunshots at that time is telling."
Gill mentions no gunshots, but it is worth reporting that prosecutors chose not to use him during the trial because his time estimate on overhearing the heated argument differs significantly from the LAPD's timing estimate - Gill has the argument as happening more toward 3am or so.
The progress report you pulled the quote from offers only a partial summary of what the lad shared with cops canvasing the neighborhood the next day. Bugliosi summarizes the boy's story near the start of HS and the full LAPD report on their interview with the boy is out there somewhere.
The fuller story is that young Carlos was sleeping with his window open and he suddenly awakened in the middle of the night. As he was awake, he decided to get out of bed and write a letter to a friend. Between him and Garretson, there sure was a lot of letter-writing going on that night! He was at his desk writing the letter when he heard the heated argument involving 3-4 people. As the progress report states, he peered out of his window and saw nothing. You can gain an idea of his view onto the Cielo property from Googlemaps - it's a dead-on view and not all that far away, either, only the relatively narrow canyon separates the home. Anyway, the argument frightens him and he decides to go to bed, but he was apparently disturbed enough that sleep did not come quickly. It was later that night, as he was laying in bed, that "the dune buggies were back" as he put it. Carlos said that many people looking for Cielo would become confused and wind up on their road, instead. He became used to directing lost motorists on how to find their way to Cielo Drive. There was also some kind of mention on the dune buggy people joy-riding on those curvy roads in recent months - apparently the joyrides were frequent enough that he knew their sound by then.
My theory (and it is nothing more than that) is that the Parent shots are what woke Carlos up that night and led to him getting out of bed briefly. I think the argument he heard was the one that happened inside the Tate living room in the moments leading up to the murders. I don't recall any of the killers stating that the front door had been left open or closed after the girls entered the home, but I've always felt that it had remained open. Gill did not mention hearing the shots associated with Sebring or Voytek, but these could have happened after he closed his window and went back to bed. Or Gill really did wake up much later that night and overheard a different argument in the area.
Was the window open at midnight-1am? If so, then Gill's not mentioning any gunshots at that time is telling.
If we assume that the argument he heard (not screaming, arguing) was from 10050 Cielo, it might mean something, yes. But if it was not from Cielo, it means much less.
This is from the 1st Progress report:
(0400 hours)
Carlos Gill, 9955 Beverly Grove Drive, Carlos is a Mexican national, 14
years of age. He had been asleep, awoke at 2300 hours and began
writing letters in his room. From his bedroom located on the opposite
side of Benedict Canyon, it is possible to look directly across the
canyon a t approximately the same elevation and view the front of the
Polanski residence. The distance is estimated as approximately 1/4 to
1/2 mile. At approximately 0400 hours he heard the sound of voices
arguing. He believed it was three or four persons. The argument
increased in volume and became more heated. It lasted approximately
one minute and then subsided abruptly. He indicated that in his
opinion the sounds originated from the direction of the Polanski
residence. At the time of the occurrence he stood by the window in his
lighted room and looked in that direction but could see nothing. He
said that the severity of the argument so frightened him that he went
immediately to bed after closing the window.
Who'd be arguing at Cielo at 3-4 AM? Manson and the person who went with him? Did anyone argue with Charlie? Three or four people, Gill thinks...
The victims? We've got pretty good testimony that Parent left around midnight, according to Garretson, placed a call before he left t 11:25, said he'd be at the person's house in 40 minutes, and the person he called confirmed this to the police and testified under oath.
Vol 116, pages 13055-13062 Testimony of Jerrold Friedman
Vol 116
So it looks pretty solid that Parent was very likely killed near midnight. If true, then for whatever reason the killers left other victims alive when they left to go back to tell Manson, he returned and argued with the victims--who were understandably outraged--then killed them, and that's what Gill heard?
Anything's possible, but my question is: how likely is it?
and the full LAPD report on their interview with the boy is out there somewhere.
No search I've yet done has yielded anything other than the 1st Progress Report.
This is why I respectfully ask for a link. If there is no link this implies that it's contained in either scanned testimony, like the cielo.com library of transcripts of TLB, or is contained in a book--perhaps in a notes section. If it was in a magazine article, it would likely be found in a search.
I don't think you're making this up, but it's also possible that it's a flawed memory, and the actual interview would establish a solid working premise from which to extrapolate. Conversely, if it's flawed any extrapolation would be likely worthless--a waste of time.
As regards the location of where Gill and other "ear witnesses" were located in relation to 10050, there is good info in a 2015 article on this site:
locations
tobiasragg said:
Manson brought a towel with him because no one could remember wiping much for prints and he wanted to see to that
It's sometimes the little innocuous details that become more damaging artifacts than even eyewitness accounts.
How in the universe would Manson know where to wipe prints ? Between them, the perps were virtually everywhere on the grounds ~ especially given what Pat & Watson say about the guest house. And if he did go to Cielo with a towel to wipe prints, he did such a good job that he left 25 prints of people that couldn't be identified...and 2 that could ~ Pat and Tex.
Carlos Gill, the Mexican-American lad who lived just across the canyon from the Cielo house, ended his police interview account by indicating that he had difficulty getting to sleep after hearing a heated argument through his open bedroom window
I'm actually amazed that those that cite Carlos Gill and his compelling timeline busting evidence don't stop to think how it not only is inaccurate re: the murders {the timing is way, way off}, but also how it militates against Charlie and someone else being there around the 4am mark. Let's examine this. A felon out on probation/parole goes to a murder scene in which there are 5 bodies and he engages in a heated argument with someone, knowing that it is the quiet hours and that there are houses nearby and they could be heard. Surely discretion would be the greater part of valour, here ? When it comes to crime, Charlie's thing was not to attract attention to himself ~ unless he was bigging himself up to the Family or other criminals. I do accept that he was into doing things a different way, a psychedelic way, but that didn't extend to being caught.
There is also the mysterious matter of the glasses found at the scene, glasses that were built for a round, bowling-ball shaped head (Davis) and whose prescription was either a match or very close to the one associated with Davis
Where is this info from ? Both that Bruce even wore glasses or that the glasses found had a prescription that matched "the one associated with Davis" ? Who would have been asked this ? Manson, in George Stimson's book on two occasions says he gave the glasses to the group {in the 2nd example he says he gave it to Tex} to drop as a false clue. It totally contradicts what is said in the Emmons book. What's interesting about what he says to George, is that he says it was his only involvement connected with Cielo.
While Davis was forbidden to wear his glasses, family members have spoken of their having been kept on hand to aid in fire-starting out in the desert
Just out of interest, which Family members ?
In any case, there's reason to doubt this because, as David pointed out a few years back, the glasses were for someone with extreme near-sightedness and they are the glasses that don't start fires. It's the ones that are for far-sightedness that can start fires, as such glasses bend the light to a focal point rather than disperse the light like the ones for near-sightedness. A tiny detail, but one which already begins to unravel any obfuscation regarding the specs.
tobiasragg said:
it only took about 25 minutes to get from Spahn to Benedict Canyon - especially at night, when the traffic was light. Assuming the Weber 1am marker, there'd have been plenty of time for the group to get back, do their report, and for Manson to have returned for a visit somewhere in the 3:30-4:30ish timeframe
I take your point about the time, but my point wasn't that Manson couldn't have got there for the 3.30~4.00 time {that's the time Carlos says he heard the arguing}, but rather, by getting there at those times, he was increasing his risk of being caught by police, as Shoe earlier pointed out. he could well have gone to Cielo; it just seems to me that it would be an insane thing for even Charles Manson to attempt. If he went to the house, one would have to ask why he didn't find Susan's knife. After all, that would surely have been one of his main aims, as it might have had her prints on it.
I kind of explained my theory on Gill earlier, so no need to repeat the same thing again. In short, I think he was wrong on his time estimate. The rest is included in my earlier post.
As for the Charlie returning matters, who knows? I'm simply sharing what makes the most sense to me but I obviously do not know the truths any more than you do. I will say that I tend not to try and attribute ideas of "normal" behavior to Charles Manson, because he did not operate in normal ways and he certainly didn't seem to be allowing his status as a felon deter him from shooting drug dealers, butt-fucking 14 year olds, and threatening people with bullet gifts.
I do find the notion of a Manson visit to be credible, at least for reasons I stated in a previous post. For those who do not have the Emmons book, the matter is detailed pretty well here: https://2ndofficialtate-labiancamurdersblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/proof-is-in-putting.html
Sanders also discusses the idea of a Manson return in his book, if anyone has interest in checking it out. There he lists a number of reasons that he believes that there were two visits to crime scene, some of which are not discussed here.
Perhaps most interestingly, Sanders said that he approached Fitzgerald on this matter. Fitzgerald was reportedly fucking Squeaky and on very friendly terms with Manson and the family. Sanders asked Fitzgerald to ask Manson if he had returned and Manson said that he had, explaining that he left the glasses there to "create confusion."
Sanders asked Fitzgerald to ask Manson if he had returned and Manson said that he had, explaining that he left the glasses there to "create confusion."
Certainly worked well, huh?
Manson thought he understood the system, but didn't, really. All that happened was that the prosecution only presented evidence that fit their scenario, and skirted around the rest. Manson may have felt that they were obligated to deal with everything they found.
...but they weren't.
He didn't seem to know enough to know how much he didn't know.
shoegazer said:
Now, reading the quote below--and this appears in quotation marks--that Emmons attributes to Manson, note carefully the diction, construction, choice of words. In honesty, have you ever read/listened anything by Manson that sounds remotely like the voice of the quotations?
The thing with Charlie, is that there were times when he was very articulate and didn't speak in riddles. Not often in the interviews we have, but there were times, like his interviews in 1970 with the Davids Felton & Dalton or his one with Steve Alexander or his early 90s one with Diane Sawyer. But when he was speaking with Emmons, according to Emmons, Charlie spoke in his customary doublespeak, which Emmons could fathom, but knew that most of the English speaking human race couldn't. So he "translated" in a sense, to make it readable. He says that over the 7 years they talked, very few of the conversations he had with Charlie were taped, so after visits, he'd go into the car park and write the gist of what Charlie had supposedly told him. That's how the book came to be and that's why Charlie always said that it was in Emmons' words, not his {great Mansonian humour}. But although he called the book bullshit, he also said that Emmons didn't lie, just told things from his own perspective ~ which could mean anything, something or nothing at all. In 2013, He said to Rolling Stone, almost the same thing about Vincent Bugliosi and Helter Skelter.
GG-W said:
Charlie did say he went back to see what his children had done
Filtered through my over under sideways down logic, I've long doubted the veracity of that. Particularly when I learned that its source, Ed Sanders, says that he got it from one of the defence lawyers during the trial. Now, to be fair, George Bishop, writing in his 1971 book "Witness to evil," tells us of pre~trial conversations he had with Pat's lawyer, Paul Fitzgerald, and Paul makes it clear{it's a fascinating set of quotes actually, considering this is before the jury has even been picked} that the girls committed the murders, but he doesn't go as far as to say they are guilty of murder {a cleverly subtle distinction}. And Pat's plea was 'not guilty'. But he at least accepts that she did it, even if privately.
But Manson was different. He was stating right from the moment he was charged that he had nothing to do with the murders. He did not speak in a personal, "I've had something ~ just a smidgen ~ to do with these events" kind of way. He distanced himself from them to the courts, to his lawyers, and most importantly, to the world's press and media. He went on and on about representing himself, even after his pro per {being his own lawyer} status was revoked. He didn't even speak about Lotsapoppa back in those pre~trial days, or Gary Hinman or Shorty, in terms of any involvement. So to believe that he, while on trial for conspiracy to commit murder, would admit to a journalist, through a defence lawyer that he engaged in activities that identify him as part of that conspiracy {even though I have long identified many ways over the years, in which he definitely beat a different drumbeat to the prevailing society and the counterculture}, I just can't do. People do strange things. People play arcane head games and engage in all manner of weirdette for all kinds of strange reasons {strange to anyone but the person, that is}. But for all his attacking the judge and disruption, Charlie wasn't that mule-headed.
Also, on a lighter note, while he sometimes spoke of being a father to the people on the ranch in those days of 1970~71, does he usually refer to them as his children ?
tobiasragg said:
In short, I think he was wrong on his time estimate
I don't. There's a 5 hour span of time that he speaks about, from 23.00 to 4am. I don't think what he says he heard is any more significant to the murders than the tales of Emmet Steele or Robert Bullington or any of the other things heard or related to between 2 and 4am.
Charles Manson...didn't seem to be allowing his status as a felon deter him from shooting drug dealers, butt-fucking 14 year olds, and threatening people with bullet gifts
Well, let's look at those one by one.
a]A felon shooting a drug dealer dead {as he supposed, at the time}, what has he to fear ? The other people in the room didn't know him. To this day, there has never been any comeback on Charles Manson as regards shooting to kill Lotsapoppa.
b]Most of the girls that ended up having sex with Charles Manson, let's face the uncomfortable reality of the times, wanted to. There were clearly codes of silence at play there. Witness the testimony of Nancy Pitman during the trial. In a sense, it reads as chilling, even now. But young girls that wanted sex wanted sex. Even the accusation of rape that was made against him, what happened with it ? Did it go to trial ? #me too didn't exist in them days. And as Rosie Boycott observed, the major beneficiaries of the sexual revolution during the 60s were the men, not the women. Their time was still to come. A felon like Manson could be pretty sure he was on fairly solid ground, parading his wares, unfortunately.
c]Since when is it a crime to give someone a bullet ?
Sanders...lists a number of reasons that he believes that there were two visits to crime scene
To me the theory has never made sense. None of the perps had a good look at the scene as they left, in order to be able to photographically reproduce it for later comparison with the police. They wanted to get out of there quick time ! So all we have are descriptions and wholly incomplete ones from the side you need them from ~ the perps. They were murderers, not reporters.
Sanders asked Fitzgerald to ask Manson if he had returned and Manson said that he had, explaining that he left the glasses there to "create confusion"
Many years later, he said to George Stimson {or at least, it is quoted in Stimson's book} that he gave the specs to the group, more or less for the same reason.
But I think he was lying to George {or at least the quotes in the book are lies}. And I'll tell you why. Susan told one of her jail pals, Roseanne Walker, that the glasses had not come with the killers. She actually thought it quite funny that someone could be arrested for murder when all they had done was to lose their glasses. So that's one strike against Manson's claim. There's also the reality that nowhere does Watson mention it. Nowhere does Atkins talk about it coming with them. As far as I know, Pat hasn't mentioned it {although I clearly don't know everything Pat has ever said !🤧}. Furthermore, for the women to mention it would clearly show they knew why they were at Cielo and Susan told Paul Caruso in '69: "We were instructed to go to this particular house. It was at night and I had no knowledge of what was happening until we actually got there."
tobiasragg said:
As for Charlie, I long felt "oh, surely HE isn't stupid enough to actually believe that! But when he is warning a sheriff who is hauling him in that, as a white man, he's in trouble & should retreat to the desert for safety - and when I hear Steph Schram recalling Charlie preaching the stuff to her San Diego roomie peeps, just a day or two before the murders, people who were complete strangers to him - then I have to think - well, maybe that really was Charlie's whole deal
I've always believed that he believed it, especially having once been atheist and then becoming a Christian and not only experiencing belief, but being around thousands of people that believe and seeing both the benefit and damage of it, and also from my cultural upbringing in which belief in various things, many of which we'd dismiss as insane, is not only prevalent, but the norm. And even in the enlightened 😳 west, people genuinely believe in character designations according to star signs and planets, genuinely believe in "the universe" directing the fortunes of their lives, genuinely believe in reincarnation and a whole host of things that somebody else, somewhere, would think of as ridiculous.
I think the Family believed HS and all its components, precisely because Charlie did. The idea that he needed HS to control them and keep them from leaving him simply ignores the blatant evidence set before us ~ and I'm not going to do that, no matter how out of step with the general consensus it is. There's often an attempt to pitch Manson as a typical cult leader of a typical cult. I just don't think it applies to him or them. He was in control long before HS came along. Squeaky's book actually shows us how.
and when I hear Steph Schram recalling Charlie preaching the stuff to her San Diego roomie peeps
It was actually her sister. I've long wondered how Bugliosi learned this detail {as I do with how he learned of Steve Zabriske}, because in his & Gentry's book, he says it was while Stephanie was packing her clothes that Charlie laid HS on her sister. Did Stephanie tell him ? How did she know, if she was out of the room packing ? Did he speak to her sister ?
It was more than just laying HS on her though; it was him describing the images of people lying dead on their lawns that is the real eye opener, as it happened the next night.
"He was stating right from the moment he was charged that he had nothing to do with the murders."
This isn't what Manson ever said.
Charlie's go-to line was "I didn't kill nobody!"
Back then and over the years, Charlie has admitted to most everything he's been accused of - except for thrusting the knife or firing the bullet into someone. He admits to being in the LaBianca house, to stopping at the church, to shooting Lottsapoppa, to making suggestions to Tex and the girls that night. But that doesn't make him responsible for anything, he says. Society, or "your world" is to blame for fucking up the kids and as for what Tex and company chose to do that night - that's on them.
Conspiracy? That concept doesn't exist in Charlie's world. Therefore he can never be guilty of something that doesn't exist, you dig?
Fitzgerald and the others were doing their job, they were providing the accused with a defense. But there was never any kind of illusion that these folks were innocent. "We're not here to talk about the sex lives of these people, we're here to discuss the murder lives of these people", dontchaknow.
Sanders and Hendrickson were outsiders, but they were young and hip and semi-trusted within the family back then. Charlie had given each the nod, therefore they were welcomed into the fold in a way that other outsiders were not. Charlie's motivator was to get his word out - we was always a fame seeker - and folks like these two guys could help him accomplish this.
"My mind doesn't work like your mind does." This was another of Charlie's favorite lines and I often find myself thinking of it as I read your reactions to some of these things. It's never a good idea to apply normal standards or expectations to Charles Manson, that's not the way he operated.
"Susan told one of her jail pals, Roseanne Walker, that the glasses had not come with the killers."
That is not what is being suggested. No one that I know of has spoken of the killers bringing the glasses with them. The story is that Manson brought the glasses with HIM when he returned to the scene.
GT:
Re Manson diction, I agree with your observations. He could shift gears, without doubt.
It's just how I tend to evaluate: line up the pros and cons. The final hypothetical outcome is after weighing them all, as best I can at the time.
Same with the idea of a Manson visit to Cielo after the crimes. I need to lay it all out there to see it, evaluate it, because a second pass at Cielo certainly could resolve some anomalies.
But we have to work at it from the other direction. Not that because a visit would explain things nicely, and I want it resolved, so I'm looking for facts that resolve it, but because after an evaluation of the facts it looks like that's the most likely answer.
Don't start with the outcome and find the facts, but find the facts that point to an outcome.
GT:
Filtered through my over under sideways down logic,
OK, it's partway in my head now, an earworm. Who sang this?
Seems in my head the next lyric is:
"Backward, forward, square and round..."
he definitely beat a different drumbeat to the prevailing society and the counterculture
Not am I convinced that it was a drum he was beating. It was that different.
"My mind doesn't work like your mind does." This was another of Charlie's favorite lines and I often find myself thinking of it as I read your reactions to some of these things. It's never a good idea to apply normal standards or expectations to Charles Manson, that's not the way he operated.
I think that really, Manson's main difference in philosophy was that he was simply amoral.
I honestly don't think that most people have ever wrestled with what "amoral" means, since the majority have come from some a background of a moral code derived from those looked upon as guide figures. Often this is parents. So they see "amoral" as similar to immoral, maybe even congruent.
Basically, it means that the *only* restriction to what you, the individual, wants, is your lack of ability to get. If you want it, that's the sole necessary justification, and there is no counterbalancing possible social impact. There is no internal wrestling.
One might think of morality as "conscience", and that Manson basically lacked, or suppressed, his.
I think his actual thought processes were fairly sound, or potentially so, right up to the time he unleashed a bloodbath, but muddled by drugs and his unique position as the leader of a insular secular group whom he dominated.
Where he was weak was mid/long-term planning--strategy. He tended to be unable to foresee likely consequences out a ways in the future, and so he optimistically glossed over them as manageable.
Simply my guesses at this point.
while he sometimes spoke of being a father to the people on the ranch in those days of 1970~71, does he usually refer to them as his children ?
Actually, he did so during his court testimony in November 1970.
tobiasragg said:
"He was stating right from the moment he was charged that he had nothing to do with the murders."
This isn't what Manson ever said
Actually, that's inaccurate. He may not have used that exact form of words, but it is what he was "saying." In the bundle that LA County send, with transcripts and stuff, there are a plethora of newspaper stories and court motions from the back end of '69, right through '70, pre~trial stuff. The Charlie word games are not much in evidence there. The word games really begin after conviction and sentencing. For example, during his trial, he testified:
"I have killed no one and I have ordered no one to be killed." In other words, "I had nothing to do with these murders."
In his March '70 Rolling Stone interview, he said, regarding Susan Atkins:
"She is going to change her testimony. She's going to say that she was there, but that I didn't know anything about it. Even if she wasn't there, she is going to say it." In other words, "I had nothing to do with these murders."
In those press stories, everything he says adds up to him stating that he had nothing to do with the murders. As a follow on from that, what do you think the penalty phase of the trial was about ? That penalty phase was what their defence would have been. And notice, Charles Manson is conspicuous by his absence from it. In other words, "I had nothing to do with these murders."
Charlie's go-to line was "I didn't kill nobody!"
Actually, that became his post-sentencing go~to line. That's what he said to psychiatrists, interviewers, parole boards, authors....He added to that "I didn't break man's law or God's law."
Back then and over the years, Charlie has admitted to most everything he's been accused of - except for thrusting the knife or firing the bullet into someone. He admits to being in the LaBianca house, to stopping at the church, to shooting Lottsapoppa, to making suggestions to Tex and the girls that night
Yes, all true. Over the years. Now show me where he did any of that prior to his trial, conviction and sentencing. He never admitted to being at the LaBianca's before then because that would be tantamount to saying "I am guilty." Where, prior to the trial did he admit making suggestions to Tex and the women on either night ? He admitted to Bugliosi that he'd shot Lotsapoppa, but said it was in self-defence. When, in front of the jail guards, he apologized to Crowe for shooting him, he didn't specify what he was sorry for, just that he had had to "do it." Crowe knew of course. No one else did.
Conspiracy? That concept doesn't exist in Charlie's world. Therefore he can never be guilty of something that doesn't exist, you dig?
Not true. He has frequently spoken of conspiracy and not getting involved in someone else's conspiracy. What I would say is that he had little real understanding of what, legally, conspiracy is. But he soon learned it. Which was precisely why he, in those pre~trial days, always distanced himself from the murders and didn't play the kind of word games that he did afterwards. The weight of evidence was so much against him however, that subsequently, he adopted the "I didn't kill anyone or tell anyone to kill so I can't be guilty" line.
In terms of the TLB murders, Charlie can be accurately split into 2 phases; pre and post conviction.
starviego said:
Was the window open at midnight-1am? If so, then Gill's not mentioning any gunshots at that time is telling
Yes, it would be telling. It would be telling us that whatever Carlos says he heard, had absolutely nothing to do with the events at Cielo.
tobiasragg said:
Gill mentions no gunshots, but it is worth reporting that prosecutors chose not to use him during the trial because his time estimate on overhearing the heated argument differs significantly from the LAPD's timing estimate - Gill has the argument as happening more toward 3am or so
That just makes it all the more obvious that whatever he heard had nothing to do with the events at Cielo.
shoegazer said:
Who'd be arguing at Cielo at 3-4 AM? Manson and the person who went with him? Did anyone argue with Charlie? Three or four people, Gill thinks...
Aside from the fact that no one argued with Charlie, let alone loudly, let alone at the scene of a murder, it seems to me there is being made an attempt to shoehorn in Carlos Gill's statements. Why do we automatically assume that what he heard came from 10050 ? Would we assume that if there had been no murders that night ? Or would we assume that it could have come from anywhere in that general direction ? Carlos said he looked over and didn't see anything.
There seem to be 2 points being made regarding Carlos; that he heard the murders or that he heard Manson and his cohort trying to stage the scene after the murders. There are very solid reasons to conclude he heard neither.
tobiasragg said:
Sanders and Hendrickson were outsiders, but they were young and hip and semi-trusted within the family back then. Charlie had given each the nod, therefore they were welcomed into the fold in a way that other outsiders were not
I can't remember about Sanders, but Hendrickson, yeah. However, they weren't welcomed into the fold to tell the world that Charlie Manson had been complicit in murder. Or to make it known that he'd been to the scene of the murders.
Charlie's motivator was to get his word out
Yes. But the word didn't include "I went to Cielo after the murders" because that would be shouting from the rooftops that he had knowledge of it prior to the cops, which would scream conspiracy.
he was always a fame seeker
Sure, and doubtless he dug it back in the day. But prior to conviction and sentencing, he didn't want to be famous for dying in the gas chamber at age 36.
and folks like these two guys could help him accomplish this
Possibly. But not by telling the world that he had, in actual fact, been involved in the murder of pregnant Sharon Tate.
shoegazer said:
OK, it's partway in my head now, an earworm. Who sang this?
The Yardbirds.
Seems in my head the next lyric is:
"Backward, forward, square and round..."
Yeah. It was originally "That's the best way I have found" but they decided to change it because they thought the BBC would ban it. English bands were starting to get a little risqué by 1966, after "Satisfaction" and "Norwegian Wood."
tobiasragg said:
"Susan told one of her jail pals, Roseanne Walker, that the glasses had not come with the killers."
That is not what is being suggested. No one that I know of has spoken of the killers bringing the glasses with them. The story is that Manson brought the glasses with HIM when he returned to the scene
I don't think you've understood the point I was making.
We were talking about Manson having told one of the lawyers {you say it was Paul Fitzgerald} that he'd gone to Cielo to see the crime scene. That moved onto him now altering the scene and wiping prints and dropping the glasses. I then went on to say that there are two direct quotes attributed to him in George Stimson's book "Goodbye Helter Skelter", in which he blatantly states he gave the glasses to the troupe before they left for Cielo and that I think he was lying to George {actually, it was from a taped phone call to Sandy in 1996, so to be accurate, he was lying to her}. I went on to point out that this has certain implications, hence pointing out the thing that Susan said to Roseanne. In terms of the glasses, however you look at it, Charlie was bullshitting.
"My mind doesn't work like your mind does." This was another of Charlie's favorite lines and I often find myself thinking of it as I read your reactions to some of these things. It's never a good idea to apply normal standards or expectations to Charles Manson, that's not the way he operated
It's ironic that anyone should say that to me of all people, because I've spent the last 7 years taking flak from friends and foe alike on the blogs for continually making the point that the Family and Manson in particular, operated from a different thought process. Even more ironic is that I make the point in the post directly before the one of yours that I'm quoting from.
Yes, Manson's mind didn't work like most others. But not in everything. Not in every aspect, all the time. For example, his willingness to throw the women under the bus {or to be more precise, into the gas chamber} in order to save himself wasn't psychedelic, unconventional or the slightest bit unusual. He did what probably most of us would do if faced with a situation where you might have to pay with your life. His appetite for sex with very young girls wasn't some great out there piece of uniqueness. Tons of blokes are like that. Him not wanting to get caught in crime wasn't different to any other criminal. Him not being backchatted to by a woman is the norm in most cultures outside of the west {and even in much of the west}. Etc, etc, etc. There are hundreds of examples where Charlie Manson showed himself to act and react just like anyone else would.
Equally, there are hundreds of examples where he showed himself to be on a different plane. Part of trying to understand any human being involves the difficult process of trying to ascertain which particular mind they are thinking with or acting from, in any particular situation, especially if they don't bat on a straight wicket all the time or if they have delved into the psychedelic experience.
tobiasragg said:
I tend not to try and attribute ideas of "normal" behavior to Charles Manson, because he did not operate in normal ways
As a follow on, I would say that there are many times when Charlie Manson himself presented himself as reacting like other people or being like other people, for example, talking of being a father to Dianne lake and conditioning her mind with pain {by beating her} to stop her burning down the ranch. I know tons of Dads that would do that, including my own, when he was around.
GT:
There is a whole lot to think about WRT to the Gill account, and it's this:
According to the 1st Police Progress Report, under REPORT ON STRANGE SOUNDS, GUNSHOTS, INDICATIONS OF VIOLENCE, RELATED BY PERSONS WHO WERE IN HEARING DISTANCE
OF THE POLANSKI RESIDENCE ON THE NIGHT OF 8-8-69, AND THE MORNING OF 8-9-69
Gill is listed here, along with 6 other separate ear witnesses who say they heard something worthy of note between 0030 and 0411 on 09 Aug.
So does anyone think that ALL of these were related to the killings? No?
Then which ones, and why do you say this?
I think that Bugliosi shopped these and took the one he liked best--to establish a soldi timeline. You had Friedman testifying that Partent called him at 11:30, saying that he'd be at Friedman's in 40 min, and this suggests that if he indeed tried to keep to that commitment, he was prevented sometime before midnight. And Garretson confirms this.
So the jury sees that something unusual is happening up there ~12AM.
Then Bugliosi selects Ireland (who originally says 1-1:30, but changes this to 12:40 on the stand, saying that his supervisor told him that he had reported the noise to him (the supervisor) at 12:30. Bugliosi does this to provide acoustic confirmation that a possibly violent event happened at that time, and this is implied to be Frykoski being killed at he front of Cielo.
Clearly Gill and the four other earwitnesses did not hear the same thing--they reported shots at different times, one of which was *after* Gill says he heard the argument--so why choose Gill?
GT:
Yeah. It was originally "That's the best way I have found" but they decided to change it because they thought the BBC would ban it. English bands were starting to get a little risqué by 1966, after "Satisfaction" and "Norwegian Wood."
Wow, this is taking me back...maybe that's the biggest attraction of this forum is--it's trigger more detail memories of that era, like no other discussion I've been in.
I can recall being at a party likely in 66 probably. Rubber Soul was a major revelation, it had lots of appealing hooks.
In addition another Stone song that really stood out was "Let's Spend the Night Together", somewhere in this time frame.
Prior to Rubber Soul, the Beatles were becoming a bit old hat.
shoegazer said:
In addition another Stone song that really stood out was "Let's Spend the Night Together"
One of my favourite Stones' songs. This song was the one that first alerted me to Charlie Watts' drumming, which I love in that '65-'69 period.
Prior to Rubber Soul, the Beatles were becoming a bit old hat
Keen observation. Not many people catch that.
By the way, do you mean the British "Rubber Soul" or the American one ? After Dylan, the Kinks, the emergence of the Stones, the Byrds and the Who, and PF Sloan {Eve of destruction} all in '65, with their more adult and incisive lyrics, lyrically, the Beats were kind of old hat. Rubber Soul changed that, because even though 10 of the songs were about boy~girl matters, they were delightfully cynical and misogynistic twists that the Beatles hadn't explored in depth before. They were never the same again. Mind you, they were never the same before !
Clearly Gill and the four other earwitnesses did not hear the same thing
Back in July on another site, I stated:
A simple experiment: just take the evidence of timelines from what is generally regarded as the official narrative, with all their flaws and changes {yes, very few cases are totally perfect}, with the ending point being when the killers claim they went to bed.
Then take the timeline evidence of Steele, Gill, Bullington, Karlson, Correll, Mounton, the unknown caller, the unknown officer and Seymour Kott. Forget anything the killers have said, in fact, forget the Cielo crime for the purpose of the experiment and just bundle that lot together and ask yourself, honestly, if they could all possibly be witnesses to the same event.
I just wonder how many times prior to the murders, multiple sounds like the ones heard that night were heard and no great significance was attached to them, or minor significance was attached to them...
GT:
I just wonder how many times prior to the murders, multiple sounds like the ones heard that night were heard and no great significance was attached to them, or minor significance was attached to them...
Anecdote time...
Fir many yers I have had trouble sleeping thru the night. As a consequence I read a lot between the hours of 1-4 AM.
It is astounding what you can hear in an urban environment. Many times I thought: "By God. I'm sure to read about this in the news tomorrow."
But nope.
American Rubber Soul.
IN my peer group of the time, this changed everything WRT the Beatles.
GT:
English bands were starting to get a little risqué by 1966, after "Satisfaction" and "Norwegian Wood."
Here in the USA, maybe in 70 or so, there was some kind of pushback against songs that might suggest drug use. There was an FCC crackdown on songs that mentioned drugs; they got radio stations to quit playing them.
I can recall this song, Junkie John, as having a whole lot of airplay maybe in 70 or so, when I was a student in San Diego, and then it just disappeared.
It is not much musically, but tremendously evocative. If you listened to this song, they very last thing you'd do would be to shoot up.
Here are a couple of articles about the song.
text
text
Here's the song, itself:
text
I searched for YEARS for this, and finally found it as a Japanese import, maybe 15 years ago. Now anyone can hear it for free.
shoegazer said:
It is astounding what you can hear in an urban environment. Many times I thought: "By God. I'm sure to read about this in the news tomorrow."
But nope
Even where I live, in sedate, relatively quiet north west London, if you shut out everything at night and just listen, you'll hear sirens, screaming, crying, foxes, arguing....
American Rubber Soul
The American one is very different to the British one, which was the version that the band intended as the definitive one. Yet, it is an amazing historical point worth noting, that both versions in their respective parts of the world, were true groundbreakers. Certainly in the UK, "Rubber Soul" is the specific point at which albums began to take over from singles as the dominant medium for showcasing what artists could do.
IN my peer group of the time, this changed everything WRT the Beatles
It's important to hear that. In the past, it has tended to be artists like Brian Wilson that have extolled its virtues. But the artists of the time don't tell the whole story.
Here in the USA, maybe in 70 or so, there was some kind of pushback against songs that might suggest drug use
That process began in England somewhat earlier. "Eight miles high" from '66 was criticized in certain papers for having drug content and even the Beatles were getting into trouble and having songs banned due to suggestions of drug use by 1967.
shoegazer said:
Here are a couple of articles about the song
I love that second article, the liner notes one. The way the album, the band, the mix of genres, orchestration and its making is described, it really reminds me of "Christian Lucifer" by a guy called Perry Leopold that came out in about '73.
The author of the article, Richie Unterberger, is a tremendous writer. I have 3 damn hot books by him, "Turn turn turn" and "Eight Miles High" which is a really good {and I'd say almost, if not actual, definitive} two part book on folk-rock and how it morphed into psychedelia and encapsulated the countercultural changes of the 1960s. Many of the musical figures that come up on this blog are in the book. And the other one is "Urban spacemen and wayfaring strangers ~ overlooked innovators and eccentric visionaries of 60s rock." It's one of those books that is easy to miss its significance....until you get its significance ! And its greatness is assured because it features the Pretty Things and talks a lot about "SF Sorrow", an album that actually, justifiably, can be described as a lost psychedelic masterpiece.
I searched for YEARS for this, and finally found it as a Japanese import, maybe 15 years ago. Now anyone can hear it for free
I used to hunt down obscure records, or try to find out the names of songs I knew, but didn't know the title of or the artist. I used to actually go into shops and sing the piece to the people working there. Most of the time, I came out with either the record, the name of the song and artist, or where I could get it if I couldn't get it there. When the internet came along, I'd hum or sing it and make an MP3 and e-mail it to specific stores or individuals. The only one I've never been able to get an answer on was one that I'm sure was a Hendrix piece from some obscure live recording I heard at the tail end of 1979.
According to the 1st Police Progress Report, under REPORT ON STRANGE SOUNDS, GUNSHOTS, INDICATIONS OF VIOLENCE, RELATED BY PERSONS WHO WERE IN HEARING DISTANCE OF THE POLANSKI RESIDENCE ON THE NIGHT OF 8-8-69, AND THE MORNING OF 8-9-69
Gill is listed here, along with 6 other separate ear witnesses who say they heard something worthy of note between 0030 and 0411 on 09 Aug
At the time of the report, it is understandable that the police had to list all of those sounds heard. They had nothing else to go on. They pretty much had to consider everything that came to them ~ which makes it all the more amazing that Jess Buckles so easily dismissed the info that Whiteley and Guenther brought him about the Hinman murder. Actually, it's not really amazing. Police officers wore some of their prejudices on their sleeves.
But all those sounds heard had to be taken into consideration.
Most of them became moot, once Susan Atkins {via Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard} appeared on the police radar.
GT:
Thanks for the reference to the Unterberger books. I will try to find them. They'd be enjoyable reading.
...and I just found 8 of them at the local library! E-books, too! I can start on Turn, Turn, Turn today.
One of the aspects of the era, of the zeigeist (hate using that word, but it gets the job done in eight characters) was a really, really naive belief--and let me assure you that even I entertained this as likely, did not reject it outright, with scorn--is that "love", the agape form, I suppose, was the overlooked panacea. Our parents had somehow overlooked it, it was simple, and it would cure EVERYTHING.
"All you need is love", and "Come on people, smile on your brother, everybody get together, time to love one another, right now, right now..."--these were actually taken seriously to a large degree. I would say that 67 was the high water mark of this sentiment on the west coast of the USA.
I mean, my peer group actually believed, for a little while, that none of this had ever been considered by our parents (or any previous generation, either), they had simply overlooked it. We failed completely to realize what coming out of the Great Depression and right into WWII would mean the the previous generation's worldview.
Much of this was driven by escapism WRT to the Vietnam war--it was despair at being drafted, let's be honest...
I just wanted to point out, regarding the claim "People who work for Uncle Sam have insurance. Former service members have VA records. Everyone pays taxes," you should look up the depositions of ex-CIA contractor Robert Booth Nicholls from the fraud case of Sam Israel. Starting on pg 32, Nicholls is asked, "You mentioned that in 2004 you had personal income of over $10 million. Did you file any tax return for that money?" He answers "No", and explains that he'd been told by his CIA case officer to never file income taxes:
"He told me I was involved in projects that were sensitive, of an extremely sensitive nature. He said he did not want these projects nor any of the electronics, engineering or any part of them ever reaching the public and I was -- I would never be bothered and to proceed with my life and do not file. And I asked repeatedly what should I do about this. You pay me, what do I do? You will never be bothered by the United States government. You keep what you do private and never let this reach the United States -- never let the things you are involved in reach the public. They are national security matters. That's what he told me."
It became an issue in this case because creditors were suing to recoup money Nicholls had received from a Ponzi scheme, but when the court was trying to establish Nicholls's assets, it came out that he had never filed tax returns, despite owning real estate worth tens of millions all over the world and having no visible means of income. So when Nicholls was deposed, he admitted under oath that he'd never paid taxes on millions of dollars in income over decades from US intel agencies, but he was never pursued by the IRS, even after the deposition. Which is just to say, I don't think we can categorically state that because someone isn't on paper receiving money from an intel agency, that necessarily means they never worked for that agency.
I previously wrote a less-detailed version of this comment that its not letting me delete. Sorry.
tobiasragg said:
Let's examine this. A felon out on probation/parole goes to a murder scene in which there are 5 bodies and he engages in a heated argument with someone, knowing that it is the quiet hours and that there are houses nearby and they could be heard. Surely discretion would be the greater part of valour, here ? When it comes to crime, Charlie's thing was not to attract attention to himself ~ unless he was bigging himself up to the Family or other criminals. I do accept that he was into doing things a different way, a psychedelic way, but that didn't extend to being caught.
Didn't Charlie threaten a bunch of firemen with a machine gun on the trail next to the ranch? And wasn't he driving stolen cars all the time (which he was arrested for) despite never getting a license (which he was also arrested for, along with DUI)? And didn't he get an interfering with an officer charge with Ouisch? And didn't he get caught by cops trespassing in a cabin next to the ranch, with a bunch of weed, having sex with an underage Stephanie Schram? Sorry, but the idea that Charlie was being careful or "discrete" while on probation is kinda laughable; he was driving stolen cars without a license while intoxicated, arguing with cops trying to arrest his underage girlfriends, and threatening firemen with guns that he couldn't legally possess. He was the opposite of discrete.
Tobias didn't make that statement, I did.
Secondly, don't take what was said out of context ~ that quote is directly referring to the notion of Manson being at Cielo in the aftermath of the murders. He did not want to draw attention to himself.
Post a Comment