The Seattle based News Tribune lists Chiochios, Linda Darlene, of Tacoma 73, as having passed on Jan. 21.
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article272541349.html
UPDATE:
A copy of Linda's death certificate.
The Seattle based News Tribune lists Chiochios, Linda Darlene, of Tacoma 73, as having passed on Jan. 21.
https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article272541349.html
UPDATE:
A copy of Linda's death certificate.
Maybe now she can pay her murderous debts. She should have been locked up with the rest of the gang.
ReplyDeleteDefense attorney Maxwell Keith once described Kasabian as "Wily, opportunistic and frightfully resilient."
ReplyDeleteHistory will judge her, I guess. But she did the right thing by her kids, and it was to them she owed the greatest loyalty.
RIP Linda Kasabian
Linda certainly lived off the radar for many years. There is an updated Wikipedia article on her, which quotes a Rolling Stone story claiming she lived in "near poverty" in Tacoma, WA.
DeleteMoreover, she "avoided and refused media attention," and appeared only one time between 1969 and 2008, on the TV program, A Current Affair, in 1988.
The Wikipedia article goes on to say Linda appeared in a 2008 documentary in the UK, which later aired in the US, in 2009. She made her famous appearance on Larry King Live with Bugliosi in September 2009.
Many people, including myself, have wondered out loud if Linda had more to say about TLB. She was in the car on both the Tate and LaBianca nights, and was on the ground at Cielo, looking into the eyes of a dying Voytek Frykowski, as she says. Although not convicted of murder, she will forever remain a part of this historic story, with her 18 days on the stand of the original trial, helping to bring down the house of Manson.
Nikki said:
ReplyDeleteMaybe now she can pay her murderous debts
Do tell us, Nikki, how this is likely to happen ?
Many people, including myself, have wondered out loud if Linda had more to say about TLB.
ReplyDeleteTorque, perhaps she left some written memories behind?
Loegria15, I don't know. To my knowledge Linda did not write anything for public consumption. Perhaps she communicated something to her kids during her life. As more people become aware of her passing, additional things may matetialize. It may well be, though, that in the end her greatest contribution will be her words on the stand at the trials. The trial transcripts of Linda's words may be the only source we ever get to gain a window into the summer of 1969.
ReplyDeletegrimtraveller said...
ReplyDeleteDo tell us, Nikki, how this is likely to happen ?
LOL
I always felt sorry for her and, to a degree, thought she was one of the victims who lived after that fateful weekend. Granted, she was by no means an angel - she happily burned her estranged husband and was 100% on board with the thefts, frauds and creepy crawls as soon as she arrived.
ReplyDeleteTBF,she only came to Spahn via Gypsy as she had a child and nowhere else to live. Little more than months later and no way indoctrinated or on board with murder, she's the designated driver for the ensuing bloodbath. I wonder, and only Linda would know, when did sh*t get real for her? Did it only hit home when they encountered Steven Parent?
Whatever the circumstances leading up to the murders, it was clearly obvious Linda wasn't on board with the rest of the participants. I can't begin to imagine how PTSD would manifest itself in someone who was forced to witness the carnage up close and personal.
Then there's the matter of the testimony. From what I've read, I always got the impression that after a successful conviction, Bugs and co. were all like "Thanks, have a nice life" and she was left to fend for herself, her child and unborn baby. The killers had decades of psychological assessments, counselling/therapy and initiatives to help them deal with and come to terms with their actions/involvement.
Therapies in the early 70's were, admittedly, still in relative infancy compared to what is available today, but it's sad nonetheless that this young woman didn't seem to have any sort of professional support network, leading to both her and her daughter to careen into a life of substance abuse and trauma.
Again, she was far from an angel but one of the few at Spahn who seemed not to have the humanity ****ed out of them during their tenure. I hope her family eventually find some level of solace and peace. RIP Yana.
Linda Kasabian showed her true colors when she willingly robbed her husband / friend at their trailer, taking $5,000, which back in 1969 was quite a sum of money.
ReplyDeleteI recall one of the Manson women (can't remember her name, a heavy light-haired woman I think) stating that Kasabian was nowhere near innocent, that it upset her to see Kasabian sitting on the witness stand at trial, fingering her cross necklace, looking like an angel, while testifying against all the others.
I have to say that if it was me at the Tate murder site, I would have attempted to make a run for it to a neighbor and get law enforcement out there immediately. I would not have been able to witness that carnage, she had a chance to do something, and she didn't.
I realize Kasabian said that her own little girl was at the ranch and she was worried about her, but law enforcement could have gotten there quickly. That never made any sense to me, that she could look at those poor people being butchered.
RonnieJersey said:
ReplyDeleteLinda Kasabian showed her true colors when she willingly robbed her husband / friend at their trailer, taking $5,000, which back in 1969 was quite a sum of money
Yes. She did. But it has to be pointed out that she never benefitted from that money. So her colours were more rainbow-like than black & white.
I recall one of the Manson women (can't remember her name, a heavy light-haired woman I think) stating that Kasabian was nowhere near innocent, that it upset her to see Kasabian sitting on the witness stand at trial, fingering her cross necklace, looking like an angel, while testifying against all the other
Sandra Good was one of them.
'Nuff said.
I have to say that if it was me at the Tate murder site, I would have...
It still causes me to raise an eyebrow 🤨 or two 😧 when people declare what they would have done in a traumatic situation they had no control over 50+ years ago.
attempted to make a run for it to a neighbor and get law enforcement out there immediately
But you know, even if you had been able to steel yourself after seeing Tex blow away Steven Parent and then pouncing on Wojiciech Frykowski while stabbing him incessantly and Pat running after Abigail Folger with a knife, can you imagine a neighbour even opening their door to you at that hour, if they even came to the door ? The following night, Frank, Suzan and Joe tried that and were rebuffed by one of their neighbours.
I would not have been able to witness that carnage
I would bet your life that you have little idea what you actually would have done in her position.
she had a chance to do something, and she didn't
Whereas, the next night, she did, where Saladin Nader was concerned. Are you going to give her any credit for that ? Or has bias made their presence felt to such a degree that even a little objectivity refuses to enter the building ?
That never made any sense to me, that she could look at those poor people being butchered
Try reading multiple accounts from soldiers in war. See how even battled hardened veterans that have been trained to kill react to seeing friends and enemies killed or having limbs or organs blown off. Then think about air-headed druggy Linda in a similar situation. It might make more sense then.
All Kasabian had to do was jump in the car (she had the keys) and drive to a well-lit house in the area where people were home and get to a phone - Isn't that better than standing there, watching and listening to people being stabbed and shot?
ReplyDeleteShe had every chance to do something, and she didn't.
She most certainly was not not a soldier, you really need to get a grip.
And stop picking other people's comments apart - your opinion, and that's all it is, is no more important than anyone else's.
And frankly - yes I would have jumped in the car to get help.
I would have thought those monsters were going to turn on ME.
Oh and Sandra Good was NOT the woman who said Kasabian was not innocent -
ReplyDeleteIt was a heavy woman on a recent documentary, I'll get her name when I see that again.
You don't know everything.
By the way, it raises MY eyebrows when someone second-guesses what others might or might not do in any given situation.
ReplyDeleteRonnieJersey ... Barbara Hoyt ???
ReplyDeleteAnyone who would have disobeyed Tex's orders would not have been sent that night, and probably not even allowed to stay at the ranch. Only sufficiently broken people were involved those two nights and that is why they were chosen.
ReplyDeleteMultiple Family women have hinted that Linda was not the innocent portrayed on the stand. But then again, no one is truly acting like themselves in a courtroom, are they?
To Unknown above:
ReplyDeleteYES - I think you're right, it's Barbara Hoyt!
She is not mentioned much, so I had forgotten her name, but I am sure you're right!
No - no one is truly 'acting like themselves' on the stand - BUT Kasabian was on the stand for 18 days. And according to Hoyt, she was anything but innocent.
Hoyt wouldn't go into more detail, but said Kasabian was involved.
She escaped Justice, guess one of them had to testify against all the others.
But I wouldn't have wanted her as my neighbor!
She's smoking meth with the angels now.
ReplyDeleteJust ordered 'Chaos' by Tom O'Neill on the Manson murders from our library.
ReplyDeleteApparently O'Neill investigated the case for 20 years and interviewed something like 1,000 people -
I've always felt that the 'Helter Skelter' theory by Bugliosi was made up nonsense, more like 'money and drugs'.
I don't think she saw as much as what she testified to. She was hiding in the car most of the time. She was offered a free pass to testify and she had the script provided by Atkins before she changed her mind. She walks, Buglosi gets his convictions against the actual killers, win win.
ReplyDeleteRonnieJersey said...
ReplyDeleteAll Kasabian had to do was jump in the car (she had the keys) and drive to a well-lit house in the area where people were home and get to a phone - Isn't that better than standing there, watching and listening to people being stabbed and shot?
Her child was at Spahn...
But when she escaped spahn she left her child behind anyway
DeleteRonnieJersey said:
ReplyDeleteAll Kasabian had to do
Sure thing, Mr "Wise after the event of 53 years ago."
Isn't that better than standing there, watching and listening to people being stabbed and shot?
Yes. No one is or ever has, as far as I'm aware, denied that. But that's really beside the point.
She had every chance to do something, and she didn't
Here is the reality. She could not have stopped a single death that night. They happened far too quickly and can you relay an occasion in crime when a person that is part of a troupe that is in the act of committing murder has broken away from their comrades-in-arms and gone and got the police ?
If you can, let us know. It would be interesting to look into the story and gauge the context.
On the other hand, the following night, when ordered to commit murder with 2 other people {one of whom had been involved in 2 murderous episodes already}, she absolutely did do something about it, right down to disobeying Charles Manson, and as a result, someone who was scheduled to die, didn't.
She most certainly was not not a soldier
That was precisely the point that I was making. Hardened soldiers have cracked in similar/comparable situations. Her actions on Cielo night are neither glorious nor commendable ~ but they are totally understandable. To anyone that actually wants to understand. Which you clearly do not.
you really need to get a grip
Well, I guess that is the reaction of someone that thinks I'm yanking their chain. ��
And stop picking other people's comments apart
Why should I ? Are your thoughts and comments not up to scrutiny ? Are your opinions so weak and worthless that they should be ignored ? Treated as fodder that matters not one jot ? This is a public forum and as such, any comment is up to be agreed with, disagreed with, commented on etc. If you only want one-way conversation, talk to yourself or your pet gerbil.��
your opinion, and that's all it is, is no more important than anyone else's
Good one. I think I've been saying that here in one way or another since 2015. I have informed opinions, I'm not afraid to state them and I have no problem with robust debate/conversation/arguments. You disagree ? Good. I welcome that. That's often where the best conversations happen.
And frankly - yes I would have jumped in the car to get help
And frankly, I don't believe you.
I would have thought those monsters were going to turn on ME
That could, of course, be one of the reasons Linda didn't get help.
On the other hand, it is arguably illogical to follow that line of reasoning. Why, if you were doing nothing to impede the progress of murder, would your confederates turn on you ?
RonnieJersey said:
ReplyDeleteOh and Sandra Good was NOT the woman who said Kasabian was not innocent
I didn't say that Sandra Good was the woman. I said that Sandra Good was one of those women. And she is. She has made the point time and time again. George Stimson quotes her as diplomatically and cryptically describing her as "experienced" which is a euphemism for not being "innocent." A number of family or ex-Family women, like Squeaky, Brenda, Susan and Pat have done likewise, Pat pretty recently, actually.
I was using your quote as a jumping-off point to make a more general point as well as shining a light on the reality that one has to look at the source of a quote and much else in context before enlisting it in one's army.
You don't know everything
Oooooohhhh ♫♪♫ de♪♪♪la ♫♪li !
That's the sort of reaction that is always forthcoming when someone is displaying very openly that they do not like being debated with.
it's Barbara Hoyt!
I'd be most interested to hear exactly what you're saying that Barbara Hoyt did say regarding Linda Kasabian. Considering that they were both prosecution witnesses. Come to think of it, it would be interesting to find negative things that any of the prosecution witnesses from the Family said about Linda.
Hoyt wouldn't go into more detail, but said Kasabian was involved
The obvious question here would be ¬> how in the world would she know ? Only Pat and Susan could justifiably make that statement. And what does this mystery person mean by "involved" ?
I suspect this woman you are talking about is Cathy Gillies. It fits, she was in a fairly recent documentary {2017's "Charles Manson: The Final Words" which came out around the same time as "Inside the mind of a madman"} and in it, she says words to the effect of the ones you quote. And as I pointed out many moons ago, she, if it is Cappy, is parroting the old, tired, discredited penalty phase party line, the one that ended up netting Charlie and his co-defendants the death penalty.
Medium Patty said:
Multiple Family women have hinted that Linda was not the innocent portrayed on the stand
But how many of them were decidedly not on Charlie's side ? How many of the ones that didn't remain with Charlie have held that view, outside of Pat and Susan ?
But you know, Linda Kasabian was not portrayed as an innocent. Actually, that was the prosecution's ace-in-the-hole. They portrayed her as she was ~ scummy, druggy, lawless. What they said she was innocent of was murder and conspiracy to commit murder and even there, Bugliosi made it abundantly clear that he would have gone after her on a 2nd-degree murder charge had Susan not recanted ~ even though it wasn't his preference.
Matthew said:
ReplyDeleteBut when she escaped spahn she left her child behind anyway
Good point.
But needs must. She tried to escape with her and couldn't because the children were guarded. By that point, the initial and immediate trauma that would have been very present on Cielo night no longer applied in quite the same way. She wasn't stuck out in a place it had taken an hour to reach {remember, they got lost on the way and she wasn't driving which would have made getting out of there doubly difficult}. And when she did locate her husband and he said let's go to Spahn right now and get Tanya, she said no, because she was afraid all of them would be killed.
It's nuanced, but I've long understood where she was coming from on this. A few nights previously, she'd heard Charlie give, as one of his reasons for not bringing more carnage to a house he had scoped out, the fact that he'd seen children's photos through the windows and didn't want to have to have children killed in cold blood. So she had a reasonable confidence that Tanya wouldn't be killed by the Family whereas that might not be the case if Bob came stormin' in. And when she was away from Spahn, she had time to think, plan and act and the simple fact is that she did. She wanted Tanya back, she was confident she'd get Tanya back, she took steps to get Tanya back and she got Tanya back.
RonnieJersey said:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, it raises MY eyebrows when someone second-guesses what others might or might not do in any given situation
But not to the extent that you'd apply it to yourself.👋🏿
Interesting.
I take into account many comparable situations and reactions and responses and I will not, for popularity's sake dismiss what someone says about their response in a particular scenario unless I've got a very good reason for doing so or unless it fits a particular pattern of behaviour of that person that gives me sufficient pause.
Peter said:
ReplyDeleteI don't think she saw as much as what she testified to....She was offered a free pass to testify
From the moment she told Gary Fleischmann her story, he was angling for immunity. She wasn't offered a 'free pass' ~ it's a lot more nuanced than that.
and she had the script provided by Atkins before she changed her mind
The script provided by Atkins ? Come on Pete, Atkins didn't provide the story of them going to Ocean Front Walk ~ a story that Atkins subsequently describes in 2 autobiographies....such as they are. Atkins says she never saw Watson shoot Parent. If Linda was following the prepared script, she would have said the same thing. Atkins never testifies to Frykowski falling into the bushes or which bushes ~ but Kasabian does and the physical evidence backs her up. Atkins never testifies to Pat chasing Abigail with a knife, outside. In fact, the only things she says about Abigail and being chased or stabbed are from inside the house {a place she testifies Linda never was} and when Abigail falls over on the grass. Susan actually says "I saw Abigail Folger on the front lawn bent over falling onto the grass. I don't know how she...I didn't see how she got outside. I didn't see her go outside. I just saw her outside and I saw her falling and her nightgown was a seethrough nightgown and I saw blood on it and I saw Tex go over and stab her three or four -- I don't know how many times". In fact, not only does she say she stayed in the house, she says to her lawyers that she didn't know if Pat went outside running after Abigail. Linda says nothing at all about Jay or Sharon. But Susan does. Susan says nothing about Watson cutting the screen on the window, either to the GJ or to her lawyer in that 1st December interview. But Linda does.
So really, your assertion of following the Atkins script has very weak legs, if it can be said to be standing up at all.
To grimtraveller (what a name! LOL)
ReplyDeleteNo one asked for your critique on my comments, and I have been reading up on this case for some years -
You sound as if your only thing in life is to study others, interesting.
And who cares what you think anyway? It is one thing to discuss, and another thing to pick apart what others have to say, and quite arrogant and rude.
If you want to run a blog site, perhaps you should move on to your own -
Doubt anyone would be there though.
Not reading anything further you have to say, as it is not constructive, so just ignore my comments - you have my permission.
To Matt -
ReplyDeleteNo kidding, I said her child was back at the ranch.
If law enforcement had come to the Tate residence, she could have told them about the children at the ranch, and they all would have been taken into custody.
And she left her child behind anyway at the end.
So what's the difference?
If I was Kasabian, I still say I would have been afraid that I would have been next.
Ronnie Jersey
ReplyDeleteIs Grim rattling your cage....awww diddums!
Why post if you don't want debate/critique.
It's not personal with Grim.
You are not alone in finding that your research is not as extensive as Grim's
He has been posting and critiquing for well over a Decade and rattled a few cages in that time.
As he will freely admit, no one has the definitive answer and the chances of that answer are getting slimmer as the years pass.
Ronnie Jersey
ReplyDeleteA word to the [not so] wise.
As a recent arrival on this forum you cannot be expected to know that there are a few people who have been posting and reading here for many, many years. Not always under the same handle, admittedly, and not only in this relatively recent blog [started by Evil Liz when she did a runner with part of Cats' archives] but back in the old sock puppet days it was common to move around between monikers.
Some of these old-timers were short-lived on the blogs; some have stuck around. Some spouted unsubstantiated garbage; others showed good observational and analytic powers.
As has been pointed out, forums like these are for exchange of ideas and subsequent debate. Debate is an intellectual process, in which reasons are [politely] given. We all have opinions, but informed opinions are valued more.
Despite your paranoid reactions, Grim has been around a while and has shown himself to be nonpartisan. Not for him the ad hominem attack - his theories and observations tend to be grounded and relevant, albeit peppered with occasionally wicked humour.
Johnnys-come-lately are not well received in any community - the received wisdom is not to come in to a new blog blasting with both barrels but to lurk a while, take the temperature a little, see how things work, who are the players, etc.
Bueno, ya está. Tomála con soda ...
Jem
Very well said/delivered Jem
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteReading Mansonblog is like reading Moby Dick-a great drama with 100 chapters in the middle in which Ishmael explains the history of whaling. If you've got the energy some days you slog through the history of whaling. If not you skip it.
ReplyDeleteKanarek: "...it is our belief that Linda Kasabian had a participation in these murders that is far and much greater than Linda Kasabian has testified to."
ReplyDeleteHi Jem, always nice to have you check in.
ReplyDeleteRIP Linda Kasabian. To her family, I wish them peace.
ReplyDeleteRot in Piss Linda
ReplyDeleteHi back, Matt. I do read most of the posts but [unlike many here] don't post when I have no worthwhile contribution to make. And so much has been said over the years.
ReplyDeleteUnknown's recent contribution "rot in piss Linda" typifies for me all that's wrong in blogging, but hey, what would I know, I'm just a Patagonian duck.
Stay well
Jem
grimtraveller said:
ReplyDelete"I suspect this woman you are talking about is Cathy Gillies. It fits, she was in a fairly recent documentary {2017's "Charles Manson: The Final Words" which came out around the same time as "Inside the mind of a madman"} and in it, she says words to the effect of the ones you quote. And as I pointed out many moons ago, she, if it is Cappy, is parroting the old, tired, discredited penalty phase party line, the one that ended up netting Charlie and his co-defendants the death penalty."
I concur. I recall reading a newspaper extract on one of the Manson blogs that took place in the mid-70's after Squeaky was arrested for the assassination attempt. The story was an interview with Cappy, one of those "where are they now?" affairs. Two things in that article stood out. A) In regards to Linda Kasabian, Cappy said how it was fortunate she didn't hold grudges as a lot of people would have been in the crosshairs and B) Cappy went on to mock Linda's appearance and demeanour when she testified, *specifically* citing how she was affectively drawing attention to the cross she was wearing round her neck.
I don't doubt at all this unidentified "heavy set" woman said the same thing, however. I'm sure quite a few of the group would have discussed such observations in detail.
LOL. To Grim: "Not reading anything further you have to say, as it is not constructive."
ReplyDeleteGrim, your facts are no match for his feels.
RonnieJersey said:
ReplyDeletegrimtraveller (what a name!)
Yeah, it’s a doozy, isn’t it ? It’s a deliberately ironic one as I’m not generally grim.
Although I can be. I’m pretty grim about Linda Kasabian’s life.
No one asked for your critique on my comments
Au contraire monsieur, the moment you elected to make a comment in a public comments section and pressed “send” or whatever it is, you lost any cocooning of whatever it is you had to say. I wasn’t being rude when I said if you don’t want people commenting on your comments talk to yourself or your gerbil, I absolutely meant it and I mean it now. The public commentary arena is a grown-up place for grown-up people. It’s a place where all manner of discussions can take place, where the different personalities of people that more often than not don’t know each other will sometimes clash, will sometimes align with people they were clashing with yesterday and where we give away a little bit of ourselves, sometimes unwittingly, sometimes purposely.
Every single thing you write/say here is up for being loved, studied, torn to shreds, agreed with, taken out of context, placed within contexts you did not foresee…..and more.
I have been reading up on this case for some years
Which is all the more reason why what you have to say is so valuable. Just because I don’t agree with much of it or call some of it into question does not lessen its value. I can count on 1½ hands the number of people over the last 8 years that I have not been able to learn something valuable from.
You sound as if your only thing in life is to study others
It’s not my only thing in life but it sure as the sun is above us is one of the important things in my life. And where is the problem in that ? You honestly have a problem with the notion that someone might find you interesting enough to count what you say as worthy of examination rather than simple dismissal because they may not agree ?
For my considered reaction to that, listen to the first 3 seconds of the Beatles’ song “When I get home.”
ReplyDeleteRonnieJersey said:
And who cares what you think anyway?
I don’t know, Ronniejersey, who does ? You certainly cared enough to react angrily and tell me I’m arrogant and rude for disagreeing with you and inform all of cyberspace that you won’t read what I have to say and tell me not to address you any further !
Who does care Ronnie ?
One thing I do know, I am not embarrassed or ashamed to state quite openly that I do care what people think of what I think. Just as I do not see it as some kind of character defect to say that I count as important what other people think about subjects I happen to be interested in. Agreement and disagreement are not deal-breakers in either event.
It is one thing to discuss, and another thing to pick apart what others have to say
Well…..it can be. But in reality, they are part and parcel of the same process. If two or more people are discussing and various points come up, how in the world can any of the participants not pick apart what the others have been saying ? You call it picking apart. I call it answering and commenting upon.
Different people do this in different ways. I accept that different people have their ways of doing this. Yes, sometimes it can leave one feeling like they’ve just been clean-shaven with one of the Family’s Buck knives, but the hair will grow back. In time.
and quite arrogant and rude
I don’t think I’m arrogant. I never aim to be rude. I’m not so naive to not be able to see how some may take me that way, but there’s absolutely nothing I can do about how someone else is going to react, especially in cyberspace where we are denied the benefits of eyeball-to-eyeball communication and the glories of body language and voice reading and have to rely on poor substitutes and the odd emoji.
If you want to run a blog site
I don’t. And I don't run this one. I comment within it.
perhaps you should move on to your own
Is that a genuine suggestion ? That I stop contributing to these pages and set up on my own simply because you don’t like what I’ve said ?
In the morning, I’d regret making such a statement too.
Doubt anyone would be there though
Everyone is entitled to one cheap shot. That was yours.
I wouldn’t deny you may well be right though ! 😄
Not reading anything further you have to say
That, my good fellow, remains to be seen. However, although I may be commenting on the quote of a specific person, whatever I write is actually for everyone here if they are choosing to read.
as it is not constructive
I actually find that rather sad because at the end of the day, it is really a comment on your own contribution. You are in effect saying that whatever you write cannot have any merit because when examined robustly, it will simply and easily wilt.
Come on Ronnie, get some backbone. Own your arguments. Stand up for what you think, particularly in the light of disagreement and opposition. And I’m not trying to score cheap points. I genuinely mean that. One of the things I have always loved about the contributors to this blog over the years is that they are prepared to stand for what they think and explain it, particularly in the face of robust examination. As have I. It’s one of the chief ways we’ve all learned from one another.
so just ignore my comments
Never. OK, maybe not never, but ‘no’. If you’ve got something to say that sparks off a train of thought in me, I most certainly am not going to ignore it.
you have my permission
Hey, don’t do that. It’s much more fun when I don’t have it ! 🥶
Peter said:
ReplyDeleteLOL. Grim, your facts are no match for his feels
Peter, you're right. But it's a chance worth taking.
Unknown said:
Rot in Piss Linda
That's probably Susan Atkins checking in from graveside.
starviego said:
Kanarek: "...it is our belief that Linda Kasabian had a participation in these murders that is far and much greater than Linda Kasabian has testified to."
This was the line Irving pushed throughout the trial. He had to push it. To not push it would have been tantamount to admitting that Charlie was in sole charge of directing the events and thus the conspiracy charge. I don't even think Irving was wrong to do this. He was a defence lawyer.
Of course, what he ultimately did was demonstrate the veracity of Linda's testimony. But you can't blame a guy for trying.
RonnieJersey said:
And she left her child behind anyway at the end
Yes, but the stakes were totally different. She felt that her child would be safe at the ranch but this was a last-minute decision ~ she had packed Tanya's stuff and was all for taking her. The situation demanded that she couldn't, without alerting suspicion. She wasn't about to go and turn herself in to the police and she was fairly sure that with Tanya at the ranch, the Family wouldn't harm her because they didn't think she'd go and tell the police. By the time the Family knew she had told someone {Joel Sage}, Tanya had been taken into the care system and was no longer in danger. But the Family knew Linda hadn't told the police ~ and she never did.
So what's the difference?
It's a pretty huge difference. And that leads me to this; you did not answer my pointed question. Can you give me details of a situation you are aware of where a murder is taking place and one of the involved troupe breaks off and gets help and stops what's going on ?
I'll say it again, even if Linda had run to a house on Cielo or nearby, there's no guarantee she'd have been allowed in to make a phone call, let alone believed at 12.40am~ish, a barefoot hippy ? And if she'd driven off to get help, she didn't know where she was ¬> they'd gotten lost on the way up, she wasn't driving and it's not like she had written down the address and GPS wasn't a common thing on a rancher's mashed up car in them days. So how would she have known how to identify the place ?
But even if she had, not a single one of the victims would have not died as a result.
And what do you say about her actively preventing a murder the next night ? I've not heard you say anything about that yet.
But I'm interested in your take on this, seeing as though you seem to be levelling some blame on Kasabian for the Cielo deaths that she couldn't have stopped.
If I was Kasabian
But therein lies the major flaw in your observation ~ you're not Kasabian.
Did Cielo ever track down the missing volumes from Kasabians trial testimony?
ReplyDeleteRest in Peace, Linda, for you, as with any life that was, there is the above all.
ReplyDeleteThere is a time for love and there are times of anger and recriminations.
For every season and life there is a turn.
Though she faced death, as others we know from a street named Cielo, that doesn't mean she had to face fear in every day life or now, in the valley of the shadow of death, for there is redemption and a higher power to be with her and with us, isn't there?
And the victims of what Linda saw and heard, there has been peace.
The sorrow of Steve Parent's family, the sorrow of the loss of Sharon and her son, her mother and sisters agony, the sorrow of the other victim's family is so heavy. I'm truly sorry.
linda was also a victim of that night, in being there, going along and, what have you, as were those we recall: Sharon, Jay, Abigail, Voytek and Susan/Sadie.
Linda and Susan were sort of like the old saying-"there's a sucker born every minute." They were used, but still, they didn't have to keep going along with the
games, so to speak. They were at Cielo. Then, of course they knew of the LaBiancas.
One thing that I have seen in different situations that I thought about since the events were written about is this: how come just about everyone in the media and showbiz, as in movies, books, documentaries ad nauseum, grabbed money, while Linda was living, basically, in poverty or near there. The TV hosts/interviewers, the likes of Bugliosi and well, she appears and then, "have a nice day Linda, thanks for your time." So, they grabbed 100's of 1000's or millions, like Bugliosi or those that made millions from making a movie and very rich actors that played, badly, the characters of the 'Manson' August 1969 events. Linda should have been more aware and
tried to get some good money for cooperating in making and being part of productions of documentaries. It's easy to say, I know, but look at how many people got rich or richer because the crimes of August '69 happened.
And, still, the beat goes on.
Because of the crimes of August 8-10...of sixty nine
Fayez Abedaziz said:
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I have seen in different situations that I thought about since the events were written about is this: how come just about everyone in the media and showbiz, as in movies, books, documentaries ad nauseum, grabbed money, while Linda was living, basically, in poverty or near there
Are you saying that she should have gotten rich out the crimes ? When all is said and done, Linda was an aimless woman who was a prosecution witness in a crime that happened to grab a nation’s imagination for a while. The life she appears to have led after the trials seems to me to have been completely logical and commensurate with her life before going to Spahn.
Linda reminds me of people I’ve known {particularly where my parents are from} that prize education and spend until well into their late 40s and 50s studying and then only have a few years to actually work and rarely make it to jobs that befit the status of all that studying. Obviously it’s not quite the same, but there is a similarity in the “always having big plans and talking a good game.”
Linda Kasabian was never fated to be rich or make big money, partly because she simply did not have that kind of drive. But I also think she was looking for something far more important in her life than mere riches. She was looking for worth and peace. That’s the impression I always had of her.
The TV hosts/interviewers, the likes of Bugliosi and well, she appears and then, "have a nice day Linda, thanks for your time."
That is the nature of their profession. They deal in whatever may be an interesting story in the moment. And even back in the 70s, 80s, early 2000s, long before the internet speeding up a story’s spread really got going to its current levels, there was an aspect of here today, gone tomorrow. A story, no matter how compelling can only have a certain shelf-life of interest. Once Linda was in the can and the film was ready to roll, they were not responsible for her life. She was responsible for her life and it seems to me that you’re on the borderline of denying her that most precious gift or commodity, depending on how one looks at it ~ autonomy. Self-direction. Responsibility for charting one’s own way.
So, they grabbed 100's of 1000's or millions, like Bugliosi or those that made millions from making a movie and very rich actors that played, badly, the characters of the 'Manson' August 1969 events
And people bought those books, watched those interviews and went to see those movies. Their professions exist to make money while providing the consumer with what the consumer wants. You can’t hold it against them that ghouls like us happen to be interested.
Fayez Abedaziz said:
ReplyDeleteLinda should have been more aware and tried to get some good money for cooperating in making and being part of productions of documentaries
Why ?
Yet, if she had written her life story, I would have bought it, many of us would have bought it and no doubt it would be a part of the fabric of many discussions.
I suspect that she would have been quite happy if the world at large had forgotten about her and moved onto its next fascination. If that was how she felt, I admire her for that.
Anyway, how do you know she wasn’t paid for those documentaries and interviews she appeared in ?
look at how many people got rich or richer because the crimes of August '69 happened
I’m not sure of the point you are making.
News and media companies by their very nature deal in tragedy among other things. They also have to be profitable or there’s little point in existing. So those two things meet and merge like the rain and the ground. They can’t avoid each other. As an example, people want to see photographs of things {like Polanski at the ‘PIG’ door} in the magazines and papers they read and someone had to take the photos, someone had to write the story, someone had to set the type, put the magazine/paper together, print, distribute etc, etc. That takes money. Same with reporters and film crews, directors, producers etc. So people getting rich is a logical outcome of the world in which we live.
I bet Susan thought she could make a few beans when she agreed to be part of that stupid book, “The Killing of Sharon Tate.” I’m actually surprised there wasn’t more of an outcry over the notion of a criminal making money from their crimes. But hey.
Incidentally, while you point at all the people that got rich because of the crimes, there’s a much larger roll call of people that did not get rich. Most of the pre~”Helter Skelter” books {and there were at least 7 of them} bombed. Robert Hendrickson didn’t get rich and famous on his documentary. Paul Fitzgerald nosedived, other lawyers were spat out, Irving ended up destitute, the reporter and press secretary Bill Farr went to jail, a number of people ended up dead, Bugliosi didn’t get to be what he really wanted ¬> attorney general, others lived in fear for ages…..
There’s more than one side to this part of the story.
Jempud said:
ReplyDeleteUnknown's recent contribution "rot in piss Linda" typifies for me all that's wrong in blogging
...and indeed much of contemporary "culture".
Always a pleasure to read your comments, Jempud.
Her punishment was that she had to live in Tacoma. Is that commensurate with her crimes? This author says, "Yes."
ReplyDeleteSeems more like a Fife Washington type to me 🤔
DeleteInterestingly there does not appear to be a 5239 S. Warner Street, Tacoma, WA. The house numbers skip from 5237 to 5241.
ReplyDeleteWhile Linda will never be looked upon as a model citizen, or anything close to it, her 18 days on the witness stand were vital to the conviction of Charlie, if not the others. And for that, she deserves credit.
ReplyDeleteThat she lived an indigent life for many decades afterwards has never been a surprise.
Peter said...
ReplyDeleteInterestingly there does not appear to be a 5239 S. Warner Street, Tacoma, WA. The house numbers skip from 5237 to 5241.
------
Somebody pointed out to me that the address didn't seem to exist. I've just looked at the satellite photo of the address and it looks as if 5239 might be at the back of 5237 with the two addresses sharing the same driveway. Perhaps 5239 is a converted garage???
Hah, Peter, that's a good one:
ReplyDeleteliving in Tacoma, yeah that's not a pretty picture is it? Of course, it could have been worse if the Dear somehow ended up in a formerly nice, attractive, generlly safe city with (used to be) so much to offer, we know as Seattle. Much ruined by rioters the past several years.
Grim, how you?
Ever hear this song by the late and talented Ricky Nelson: Travelin' Man
eh?
Another underrated singer and good guy and well, part of Americana that evolved steadily from Rick, Elvis, Fabian and more in the early/mid 60s to Beatles, hippies,
drugs, in to the open sexual this and that. I watched it all. What trips, being a middle years teen in the mid/late 60s and watching television and then seeing people doing some funny things from trippin' Spahning and travelin' round from the Haight all the way to Topanga, Chatsworth and Benedict Canyon, not to mention that area in LA with streets like Waverly.
Just Linda's luck, looking for 'something' in life. Freedom? What did that mean in 1968? or 9? Ran across brother Charlie and one lousy month and it's 'crazy city.'
Why am I saying what I am, the above? 1- why not-2- I'm kinda weird.
As to your replies to what I wrote, Grim, most of what you said of Linda, money and the media/showbiz is true, I know. Still, couldn't Bugliosi have said, from the millions he got from the book and so on, "here's a few dollars to help you and your child, get going in your life?"
Why not?
That type of thing isn't done is it? It's amazing how cheap so may people are toward others. I wonder: shouldn't have Paul Watkins and Linda have been offered more of a role in some films and if not, I would suggest that if I was them, I'd say, "pay me for my time and insight." And, "for what I have been through you greedy money grubbin' show biz freaks."
You know, I gotta say this, as it just got into my head:
Oh no, I can hear some of yopu saying, heh heh.
I was told, that, very rich rock stars, when asked, or the subject came up, to give money to certain charities, any human need type ones, to do with even hunger, disease, etc. it's like 'they froze,' and always someone changed the subject. This nice studio engineer, who worked at Caribou studios in Nederland, Colorado, then in LA, said this with shakes of his head. I said, to him one time, "hey pal, I've heard that my guys, our Beatles gave diddly squat to anything and they each had/have at least several hundred million."
No, I can't agree that Linda and Paul, to name two former performers of the Spahn theater group, should have lived in lower middle class situations, with a couple of children to raise.
I don't know, you know, I just don't know.
BTW: if Susan Atkins was released from prison after say, 15 years or so, I had planned to go to California to see her and I wanted to marry her. But, I would not 'put my money where my mouth is,' for any of the August 69 or October Barker desert town people from what is called the 'Manson Family'/Spahn funky town ones.
Most of them took off when it all came down and the rest were interviewed and kept on with supporting old Charlie. And Ron Reagan JR and Tom Snyder and Rivera interviewed them and Charlie and continued getting big money on their cheap shows. Talk to ya later alligator
I'm not sure what Fayez's posts remind me of more: reading Penelope, the final chapter of James Joyce's Ulysses, or listening to "The Murder Mystery" by the Velvet Underground...
ReplyDeleteDefinitely no Sister Fay(az)!
DeleteGorodish dijo
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what Fayez's posts remind me of more: reading Penelope, the final chapter of James Joyce's Ulysses, or listening to "The Murder Mystery" by the Velvet Underground...
Interesting contrasts! Molly’s ‘thoughts’ in ‘Penelope’ show her to be sexually promiscuous, self-centred but charitable, [potentially] sympathetic toward others, uneducated but clever, opinionated and frank, hypocritical and self-contradictory, etc. Just how far we can extrapolate from this into an analysis of what we know or think we know about Susan is a matter of personal choice. And there is something delightfully Joycean too about the Underground’s ‘Murder Mystery’. Separating out the two ‘parts’ show it to be greater than the product of its constituent parts. Not ‘outta sight’ great, but worthwhile.
As a writer Joyce is phenomenal, one of the writers I most admire even if I don’t always fully understand him. I’d not want to attribute too much literary merit to the lyrics of ‘Murder Mystery’ (though it was published in the ‘Paris Review’). The writings of Fayez, at least those we see here, show him to be confused, derivative and largely unintelligible. I would take the time to disentangle ‘Finnegan’s Wake’ (and have attempted to do so); I would give time to analysing ‘Murder Mystery’; I would be unconcerned (probably happier) never to read Fayez’s posts again.
Jem and Gorodish, I still remember reading Joyce in college. I can remember trying to wrap my head around the fairly common 50-100 pages in his novels of stream of consciousness thoughts of his characters. I still often think of that when watching Charley or Sandy on YouTube.
ReplyDeleteFayez Abedaziz said:
ReplyDeleteGrim, how you?
To some acid trippers, according to "The Alternative London" that I read back in 1981, that could be a deeply troubling metaphysical question !
I'm alive and well and glad to be so.
couldn't Bugliosi have said, from the millions he got from the book and so on, "here's a few dollars to help you and your child, get going in your life?"
Firstly, how do you know he didn't ? And if he did how would you know ?
Secondly, did she not have husbands ? The point being that Bugliosi wasn't her point of focus or responsibility to. Did she not have abilities ? Could she not work ?
Thirdly, why do you assume that whatever problems she may have had in life would be instantly cured by money ? There are many solid, together people who know where they are going in life that don't have huge, vast sums of money, you know.
There are also many messed up, very wealthy folk, the world over.
shouldn't have Paul Watkins and Linda have been offered more of a role in some films
Paul wrote a book. I seem to remember Vera reminding us of him doing book tours with the endorsement of Vince Bugliosi. While it's true that sometimes being in the right place at the right time is key, as is being well promoted, it's equally true that there are some things that only the market and public interest can determine. His book wasn't a best-seller. Bugliosi's was. Why ? Tons of people have passed comment or judgement on "Helter Skelter" over the years on these pages. Nowhere near as many have done so regarding "My Life With Charles Manson." Why ?
I was told, that, very rich rock stars, when asked, or the subject came up, to give money to certain charities, any human need type ones, to do with even hunger, disease, etc. it's like 'they froze,' and always someone changed the subject
I'm kind of reluctant to ever tell someone what to do with their own money.
I said, to him one time, "hey pal, I've heard that my guys, our Beatles gave diddly squat to anything and they each had/have at least several hundred million"
That's because you don't have your ear to the ground, nor do you look to the right sources.😄 One could easily make the argument that at least 3 of the Beatles were almost foolishly generous.
BTW: if Susan Atkins was released from prison after say, 15 years or so, I had planned to go to California to see her and I wanted to marry her
What do you think she would have said to you, a guy she supposedly met in her most drugged out, diseased {her words, not mine} phase of life, knew {supposedly} for a couple of weeks, who then disappeared from her existence with no words of encouragement or support in all her time in jail or while on trial....just turning up and proposing ? I can hazard a few guesses !
Those guesses would of course depend on all of your tales of the Atkinistic mother lode being true ~ which I personally don't believe for a moment.
can you imagine a neighbour even opening their door to you at that hour, if they even came to the door ? The following night, Frank, Suzan and Joe tried that and were rebuffed by one of their neighbours.
ReplyDeleteAnd this, while there wasn't even any murderous action going on.
RonnieJersey said:
She escaped Justice
I don't think she did. Besides, she wasn't the one determining what justice was. The DA's office and California LE in general did that.
But it's a view, and a view that many hold.
guess one of them had to testify against all the others
For me this is always a matter of a simple equation ¬> Linda says nothing, there is the real possibility that all of the perps except Leslie and Susan walk. Or Linda speaks up and five murderers get put away, the ripples of which also are key in Bobby, Clem and Bruce being put away. Everyone must take their pick.
Now, I must admit, it would significantly alter my thoughts had Linda murdered one of the victims by her own hand.
But I wouldn't have wanted her as my neighbor!
As long as she wasn't having regular all-night parties and playing Bros and Milli Vanilli songs loudly, or letting her dogs shit all over the shared paths and stairs, I think I could stand it ! Hey, she might have been a model neighbour 😇 that you could leave your keys with while you went on holiday for 3 weeks....😥
😀 😃 😄 😁 😆 😅 😂 🤣
One of my favourite writers actually is Richard Brautigan. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
ReplyDeleteMilly James dijo
ReplyDeleteDiolch yn fawr iawn.
Peidiwch â sôn amdano. Actually, I don't speak much Welsh but many of my neighbours do. I live in Patagonia!
And I like Brautigan too. But Latin America has good writers too: Borges, Cortázar, Vargas Llosa, García Marquez, etc. Good to read widely.
JemP
it would significantly alter my thoughts had Linda murdered one of the victims by her own hand
ReplyDeleteOr even if Susan, when she didn't envisage the police being told {when speaking to Howard and Graham} or Leslie, when she and Linda had been charged with 7 counts of murder, had said something other than what they did say to people whom it was clear were not supposed to take these private conversations any further {in Leslie's case Marvin Part}, ie, that Linda did not kill anyone and indeed, had run away. Anything pointed at Linda by the defence during the trial will always have the disadvantage of having been preceded by 8 months of info from the perps declaring her as having had no part in the actual killings.
Gorodish, what about doing both simultaneously?
ReplyDeletegrimtraveller- regarding leaving your keys with Linda while you go on vacation: at the very least we do know that she had a valid driver's license.
ReplyDeleteFayez- always interesting to read your posts
It's getting pretty late in the game to expect any new writings by any of the principals in the TLB saga- time is taking most of them. I would love to see the manuscript Gypsy supposedly was working on. Anything else by Squeaky would be interesting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"It's getting pretty late in the game to expect any new writings by any of the principals in the TLB saga"
ReplyDeleteAnd half of bloggers reading here wouldn't believe what was given to them anyway. I.e.how many of those that lived the saga have said Helter Skelter was directly (if not wholly) responsible for the murders? Many! Paul Watson did and he had the clearest mind of any of the Spawn ranch survivors.Yet people who weren't there to witness anything deny Helter Skelter as a Bugliosi
con. I'll take the words the former thx and thank you Vincent & Linda. Carry on.
Peter said:
ReplyDeleteI don't think she saw as much as what she testified to. She was hiding in the car most of the time. She was offered a free pass to testify and she had the script provided by Atkins before she changed her mind. She walks, Buglosi gets his convictions against the actual killers, win win.
That's very interesting. Thinking about it, I tend to agree with you. I've always felt that she testified to having *more* direct knowledge than she had, rather than the opposite school of thought, which is that she knew much more and was hiding it, especially her own personal involvement.
I don't think that the sort of person she actually was (myself, I'd guess that she was a sort of drifting, goal-less opportunistic survivor, and there's a fair percentage of people like her nowadays, and these are the west coast homeless) actually mattered all that much. I think she tended to react to situations, to optimize her position, but never actually initiated much of anything.
She left that night thinking that she was ready for anything, but found out in the course of the evening that she was in far over her head on that particular escapade, and tried to cover herself as best she could, without risking her position in the family.
In short, she kinda wussed out...
When Bugliosi offered her an out, she played true to form.
gt said:
ReplyDeleteWhen all is said and done, Linda was an aimless woman who was a prosecution witness in a crime that happened to grab a nation’s imagination for a while. The life she appears to have led after the trials seems to me to have been completely logical and commensurate with her life before going to Spahn.
Precisely.
This one as obvious as anything in real life ever gets. She lived a pretty consistent type of life, all told.
Peter said:
ReplyDeleteHer punishment was that she had to live in Tacoma. Is that commensurate with her crimes? This author says, "Yes."
Very funny!
Like the old joke:
"First prize! One week all expenses paid trip to Pittsburgh!
"Second prize, two weeks all expenses paid trip to Pittsburgh!"
Tacoma is not that bad. It is an odd town, for sure, but I spent about 6 weeks scouting it our for RE investment about 7 years ago. Some parts (the Spanish Steps, Elks Lodge, old Union Pacific train station) are pretty neat.
But there's also something *not* right about it...
"Linda Kasabian is dead." There, fixed it for you.
ReplyDeleteEidolon said:
ReplyDelete"...fixed it for you."
Yep.
I have to laugh. We'reliving in an era where simple fact, if a bit uncomfortable, needs to be airbrushed into cheerful euphemism.
You know, with all this discussion about Kasabian, and the type of person she was, it might be interesting to contrast her to Atkins and to someone like VanHouten.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Kasabian (K) and Atkins (A) had a similar semi-hard-scrabble upbringing, closer to po' white trash than someone like VanHouten (V) who could have been the poster girl for middle-class youth alienation of the 60s.
So with K and A, A had a willful, attention-seeking streak. She sought the limelight, and ultimately she was unable to resist her thirst for notoriety to the point that she was overtly self-destructive.
K seems to have been a background character. Had her eyes open for opportunity, but had no lofty goals--she apparently had a limited horizon of personal advancement of any kind, but she could pretty clearly see what was good for her, or bad for her, in the short-term, and steered toward survival within the limited context of her life experience.
They both were to a degree amoral at the core, rather than VanHouten, who had to work a bit at overcoming earlier inhibitions dictated by a conventional morality. Too, L and A both had only limited scope of life, living mostly day-to-day. I suspect that V fell into day-to-day as a sort of rebellion against longer term expectations.
And more generally speaking, the entire clan, and this includes Manson, had as a major weak spot, the inability to see mid-to-long term consequences with any clarity or objectivity. They operated tactically more than strategically. They reacted more than they acted, and hence were often on the wrong foot.
I wonder if Linda Kasabian felt any survivors guilt. She was obviously there and only she and the 3 others know to this day how much input she had.
ReplyDeleteBut if it was more than was reported did she live her life regretting that extra involvement, did she realise when the death penalty was handed down that on the basis of her just being at Cielo she dodged that bullet and then for the next 50+ years whilst many of the others were in prison she had her ‘freedom’ ?
RonnieJersey, I’m from the UK; when I enter a restaurant I don’t think about where to sit incase things take a bad turn which I understand to be the modus operandi of a certain type of person in more dangerous countries. Maybe you posses that trait and why you would have acted differently to Kasabian in the circumstances. However on the 3 occasions I have found myself in an awkward situation I didn’t panic but I certainly didn’t have time to map out a fool proof plan. Maybe if Kasabian had been in the ‘right’ frame of mind to run for help she would have also been in the knowledge that by the time she reached help and the police had arrived it would have been too late anyway.
Hindsight offers a person a wonderful advantage.
I think running away is a pretty basic instinct in these situations. It's fast, it's easy, it doesn't take a lot of planning. You just move as fast as you can in the opposite direction avoiding anything 4hat gets in your way. I would have probably done that.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lane said:
ReplyDeleteShe was obviously there and only she and the 3 others know to this day how much input she had
I cannot believe that if she had more input than we've been told, that Watson, Krenwinkel and Atkins wouldn't have been singing it from the rooftops for 40+ years. They'd have nothing to lose.
Yet the fact will always remain that in those days of '69 when Atkins and Van Houten were spoutin' off their mouths in private conversations that were intended to go no further, and when Van Houten was interviewed by Mike McGann a month before her Marvin Part interview, it came out over and over, in totally unrelated, unconnected conversations that Linda had not killed anyone. Or stabbed anyone. Or shot anyone.
It's been pretty clear for over half a century that many people don't like that fact. It's been even clearer since Manson blogs began and pro~Charlie writers started freely having their say, that people hate this fact and have gone to rococo lengths to try to present her as the villain of the piece that should have been put away or tried to stop murders that had already happened or were happening and it interests me ever so much that when one presents those objectors with the very thing they claim she did not do, ie stopping the murder of Saladin Nader, they either do not answer {Ronniejersey being this instalment's latest exponent} or dismiss the whole Ocean Front walk episode as bullshit that did not happen or fudge a "Oh, Linda's self-serving unsubstantiated story" type excuse, only once again emphasizing the strength of her lack of input and ability to act when necessary.
That's actually quite funny ¬> kick a person for not stopping that which had already happened, don't credit that same person for stopping something happening that had already happened the night before that you won't credit them for not stopping though it had already happened. 😔
Wisdom is indeed borne out by its children.
Totally agree grimtraveller.
ReplyDeleteIndeed by discrediting Kasabian they had everything to gain. I view the alternative involvement of her being suggested by contributors eager to get into the spotlight and find fame themselves by their earth shattering revelation.
Makes me wonder why I’m still reading and researching this subject 50+ years later as I firmly believe that most of the details are pretty much documented as they happened.
All I’m left with is motive and the personality traits / people behind the group. Not just those that murdered but also most of the ‘followers’. In some respect I feel they were as guilty, one level down from Van Houten by supporting Manson.
I remember watching the 3 girls (Fromme et al.) in Hendrickson's film sat inside one of the barns threateningly handling guns and knives thinking, ‘why’?
My analysis of Kasabian; she was as drugged up as the others at Cielo, she was a known thief, promiscuous and generally undesirable person. Although when she’s described as such people forget to compare her to Watson, Atkins and Krenwinckle.
I think Ronny Jersey may be a Trumper.
ReplyDeleteLinda Kasabian looked out for one person. Linda Kasabian.
ReplyDeletePeter said:
ReplyDeleteLinda Kasabian looked out for one person. Linda Kasabian
I think it is more nuanced than that. I think all of the things she said about telling the truth were true, but.......
she wouldn't have done any of that if there was seriously any danger of her either ending up in jail or dead in the gas chamber. So in a sense, you're right. But I also think she deserves some credit for doing what she did when in reality, she didn't have to. The DA basically had no case against her and Bugliosi recognized that.
grimtraveller said
ReplyDeleteThe DA basically had no case against her and Bugliosi recognized that.
I thought her just being in the same group would have by default made her as guilty as the others by association. In some respects she was more involved than Manson on the trip to Cielo.
Regardless, I personally believe she was genuinely shocked by the events and didn't have the level of commitment that the others showed. Thus although guilt by association was evident I would have said she was less guilty. Just to reinforce my judgment of her actions; she was pretty much dragged into it and powerless to stop the murders by the others.
Grimtraveller, do you think that is the reason the DA had no case?
David Lane said:
ReplyDeleteIn some respects she was more involved than Manson on the trip to Cielo
On an actual physical, being there level, it's true.
The case is always going to be an interesting one because we simultaneously approach it from at least two directions, the legal and the actual "what one did." Legally, she was guilty, no doubt about that. Bugliosi actually says that blatantly to Joan Huntingdon, in Robert Hendrickson's book, "Death to pigs."
But the flaws of the legal system are also shown up and exposed by her presence in the case. Because in terms of her input, intent and what she actually did, one simply cannot put her on the same level as Tex, Susan, Pat, and Leslie or later Clem and Bruce. And only Linda presents this particular grey area.
Many pro~Manson punters and even many that are not pro-him, hold Linda as being more damaging than he ever was and that's one of the paradoxes in the case.
Although in truth, she's not really more damaging. But one has to accept the control that Charlie exercised and how it played out while the others were still in control of their faculties ~ and many don't accept this. It's an almost endless and fascinating debate point.
she was genuinely shocked by the events and didn't have the level of commitment that the others showed
This is what made her convincing. Her actions after she got into that car on Cielo night are by and large consistent with someone that claimed what she claimed.
she was pretty much dragged into it and powerless to stop the murders by the others...do you think that is the reason the DA had no case?
I think the reason that the DA had no case against her is that there was absolutely nothing outside of her own words to prove she had been anywhere near Cielo or Waverly.
Before Watson's fingerprint was ID'd, he was a suspect.
Before Pat's print was ID'd, she was a suspect.
Before Leslie was slam-dunked by Dianne Lake, she'd been indicted.
Charlie was a suspect a good 3 weeks before the November confirmations.
Susan put herself in a position where there was no way on earth she could escape prosecution, thanks to Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard.
There was evidence of some sort against those 5 that corroborated things said by either Susan or later, Linda.
But there was nothing to demonstrate Linda's involvement outside of Susan's words and Aranda was always going to scupper that unless independent corroboration could be found. But there wasn't any. So if Linda simply kept silent and let the prosecution prosecute, it would soon become quite clear that they had no case against her.
Bugliosi was of the mind that it would be better for her, from her perspective, to let LE prosecute and her be acquitted than risk the wrath of the Family.
But she went the opposite way.
So while it's clear that Linda looked out for no.1, that has to set alongside a certain social conscience.
Some lawless people do have a conscience at times.
What did LE have on LK? Only conspirator's testimony? Why did she even make any bargain? I guess people will do a lot with just being detained and having the threat hanging over them of prosecution.
ReplyDeleteAs to earlier comments, Babs Hoyt is an unreliable witness.
Grimtraveller said:
ReplyDelete'Some lawless people do have a conscience at times'.
Which is why I wonder why there is so much negative content written about her. That conscience kicked in as soon as she saw Watson shoot Steven Parent. The others had to stew in gaol a few years for their moral sense to function.
That has now got me thinking. Does that prove incarceration works in so much as it leads to a greater sense of responsibility and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or is displaying that quality just a convenient route to release?
'Many pro~Manson punters and even many that are not pro-him, hold Linda as being more damaging than he ever was and that's one of the paradoxes in the case'.
I find it incredible that anyone should give that any serious consideration. Referring to my second paragraph Manson’s moral compass pointed in no ethical direction and his time in gaol had absolutely no affect on rectifying his immorality.
Thanks for your thoughts and analysis grimtraveller.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe cosmic vag that launched a thousand stabs....
ReplyDeleteDan S said:
ReplyDeleteBabs Hoyt is an unreliable witness
But was she ?
The main sum of her testimony was that she heard screams and thought it was Shorty and after that night she never saw him again. And the next day she heard Charlie say he'd committed suicide with help from them. And on Cielo night, she brought clothes for the departing troupe and the next morning, Susan wanted to watch the news.
I don't dispute that after the threats against her family and being dosed with that burger, she may have been inwardly gunning for some vengeance of the Barbara kind. But she was like many of the witnesses, there to provide circumstantial evidence and none of her circumstantial evidence was seriously challenged. I don't think she was any more unreliable than Clem and Bruce years later giving different and contradictory accounts of Shorty's murder, indeed, she was a whole lot more reliable than much of the Family per se.
What did LE have on LK? Only conspirator's testimony?
Yeah, as simple as that. If she turned round and said "I was not at either scene," with the Aranda rules in place, LE had nothing. It might be a slightly different case today with DNA evidence. She might have left some on the gun or some of the clothing.
Why did she even make any bargain? I guess people will do a lot with just being detained and having the threat hanging over them of prosecution
I think there's a lot in that Dan. David, the lawyer that sometimes chimes in, once made a really interesting point, that in Linda's position, she was looking at murder and conspiracy charges. When you hear that, even the most confident and hardened criminal is going to curl their toes before giving their lawyer the "get me out of this shit !" ultimatum. It is easy in retrospect to make some of the points that we do. We've had many years to think about things in a certain postscript context.
They didn't have that in '69/'70 in the same way we have had subsequently.
In saying that though, Bugliosi recognized it back then. Gary Fleischmann, Linda's lawyer, also was hedging his bets. It's far better to go into a murder trial as a protected species than a perp looking at gas. Especially in her case, it being clear she didn't take part or assist in any actual murder. In reality, if there had been nuggets to glean, the defence would have gleaned them but all they did was demonstrate over and over that she was a solid witness who actually did not agree with or like what had come down those nights. The same could not be said for any of the others. None of them was philosophically disagreeable with Charlie Manson's overall ethos.
Her indoctrination was much shorter. She was a caralyst though: Her cosmic love making with tex got him more eager to be in the inner circle....
DeleteDan S said:
ReplyDeleteThe cosmic vag that launched a thousand stabs....
Lotsapoppa notwithstanding, there's actually some truth in that.
David Lane said:
Which is why I wonder why there is so much negative content written about her
I think it's fair to at least ask the questions. Especially now that we have much more at our disposal than was apparent to the average punter in '70/'71. We have the trial transcripts, we have the Linda-brought knowledge that she went through Steve Parent's wallet {it seemed to raise questions like, "what else was hidden all these years ?"}, we've heard from Family members that support or supported Charlie, we’ve heard from loads of intelligent and articulate Charlie supporters, we’ve heard all kinds of dirt on and from all kinds of people involved, some true, some not, some taken way out of context, we’ve heard divided opinions and thoughts from the perps, many questions have been debated, much speculation has arisen.
But when it comes down to it, I think that there are a lot of negative comments towards her for a mixed bag of reasons. Some people have an un-thought-out bias towards everyone they see as “The Manson murderers” and feel that she got away with something although they don’t often articulate exactly what because most of what is articulated can be easily deflated. So you get people pfaffing over how she should have gone to get help at Cielo or reported the crimes the next day without acknowledging the extenuating circumstances. They make for good debates. Sometimes.
The others had to stew in gaol a few years for their moral sense to function.
That has now got me thinking. Does that prove incarceration works in so much as it leads to a greater sense of responsibility and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or is displaying that quality just a convenient route to release?
I think a bit of both.
Incarceration achieves something that a death penalty carried out may not. But there’s a price to pay for that, namely what happened to all the perps. They all came to their senses ! And concluded that they were wrong and society had been right all along and decided that they wanted in, now. And society wasn’t interested in hearing a load of murderers say “oh well, you were right after all,” they wanted them dead or the next best thing, in jail for life, suffering daily and never to exit the prison gates. Ever. Except in a wooden box. Preferably having been thin and very ill.
Manson’s moral compass pointed in no ethical direction and his time in gaol had absolutely no affect on rectifying his immorality
True, but then, they’d point to Linda raising lawless kids and getting involved again in crime, be it of a slightly less devastating variety, but sometimes with some of those kids. And I guess many lines would get blurred at that point.
Dan S said:
ReplyDeleteShe was a catalyst though: Her cosmic love making with tex got him more eager to be in the inner circle....
Tex was already a major part of the inner circle. Just a few days before Linda arrived and the cosmic vag song was sung from the rooftops, he'd ripped off Lotsapoppa. $2700 was no small feat for a Spahn Rancher in 1969. That's $22,132 {and 64 cents !} today.
According to Leslie back in '69, Tex was a major part of the inner circle that used to discuss HS. He, as someone good with vehicles, was actually going to be an essential part of the Family's plans out in the desert during HS.
Yeah but charlie made him sleep in the outlaw shacks and he couldn't get in on the orgies
DeleteUp to a point.
ReplyDeleteDanS typed:
ReplyDeleteYeah but charlie made him sleep in the outlaw shacks and he couldn't get in on the orgies
That had more to do with Tex's association with Dean Moorehouse. Once Moorehouse left for good, Manson gave Tex Mary Brunner and let him into the inner circle. Manson wasn't going to send any fringe characters to do murders for him. Kasabian wasn't there very long, but from different accounts I've read, she was full of "kill the pigs" sloganeering and attitude, and Manson probably thought she was a good choice, drivers license notwithstanding. When she was faced with literally "killing pigs", she realized, unlike her bloodthirsty partners, she was human after all.
As a sort of an exercise, let's make an arbitrary threshold of social stratum, and determine which of the four principals of 8-9 Aug fall on either side.
ReplyDeleteWhat has fascinated me is the social strata from which Manson followers derived. So I'm going to make a simple threshold, above which you came from a background where a conventional education (including the strong likelihood of college) and a clear, established career path were the norm, and below which the family background had never, apparently, had higher expectations than to wake up the next morning and start again the activities that would get you through, at the maximum, of one rent cycle.
The former stratum may have had dysfunctional families, but at least there were at least well-formed expectations and even a sort of multi-generational template for how to succeed at least a modest level.
Conversely, the lower stratum may have had loving family relationships, but were basically clueless so far as how to find a comfortable niche in the post-modern industrial society that has emerged, especially post WWII.
I'll lead off...
I think that Atkins and Kasabian were of the lower stratum, and Watson was of the higher stratum. I don't know about Krenwinkle.
This could quickly devolve into an attempt to draw some form of moral truism about wealth, or lack of it, but I'd prefer for now just to identify the four Manson folk from Cielo as to likely stratum and hence what they saw as normal, or not, and how this effected their own idea of self-worth.
E.g., Atkins, narcissistic and attention-seeking, saw nothing much wrong with petty theft. So creepy crawls, use of stolen credits cards, etc., didn't make her question her own self worth, to the degree that other comparable crimes might affect Watson's judgement of his self-worth.
So given Watson's family life, he probably viewed himself as a deadbeat loser--thoroughly damned already--whereas Atkins saw herself as merely living as full a life as was available to her, no real guilt attached.
Again, I'm not looking to make her look evil, but I am interested in how difficult it was to motivate herself toward the direction Manson was leading them.
Tex came from a very small community and was over eager to impress his peer group leader.
DeleteDan S said...
ReplyDeleteTex came from a very small community and was over eager to impress his peer group leader.
Dan, before Robert Hendrickson passed he mentioned the possibility that Watson possibly suffered a concussion - possibly from HS football or from that Dodge Coronet he wrecked. Everyone thought it was idiotic except me (cuz I'm an idiot). I wrote his sister and asked, but got no response. I've never been able to shake that thought.
Little ideas that tickle and nag and refuse to go away, should never be ignored, for in them lie the seeds of destiny.
-Farmer Hoggett from the movie Babe.
Stabbing 4 people is probably less work than stealing 17 typewriters
ReplyDeleteding dong the witch is dead
ReplyDeletewhich witch?
Yana the witch
cig butt may have had linda's DNA on it from Waverly. Not possible in '69 of course... wallet fingerprint or camera footage at the gas station from putting it there; the latter not possible in '69 either. Testimony from a non-participant that she left with the crew or got their change of clothes may have been a corroborating element to get around Aranda.
ReplyDeleteDan S said:
ReplyDeletecig butt may have had linda's DNA on it from Waverly. Not possible in '69 of course... wallet fingerprint or camera footage at the gas station from putting it there; the latter not possible in '69 either
The point is that any evidence found linking the perps or of significance to them was found after they had already been mentioned as participants.
Except Linda and Clem. There was nothing outside of a murderer's testimony to prove they'd been there. Ergo, they walked.
Testimony from a non-participant that she left with the crew or got their change of clothes may have been a corroborating element to get around Aranda
But what does it prove ? Juan Flynn said that he saw Charlie, Tex, Clem, Linda, Leslie, Pat and Susan get into a car one night in August. It was clearly the night of Waverly. But it doesn't prove anything. They could have been going downtown to play some music. It doesn't tie Linda to murder.
On the other hand, some of the things you mention were used as part of the prosecution's "death by 1000 cuts" to emphasize time and time again the participation of the perps. They're all pretty minor things in themselves that don't prove anything. Even the prints of Pat and Watson don't prove murder. After all, although both were in the system, they were in the system for such minor infractions that few would have immediately made the jump to concluding they were guilty of murder.
Until Susan told her cellmates that they were guilty of murder. Then things began to fall into place.
But as for Linda, they only had Atkins' word for it. And it was useless for a conviction.
Now, if Susan hadn't recanted, had told the truth about what happened at Ocean Front Walk, had told the police that Linda had taken Rosemary's wallet into the restroom at the gas station, and the two police officers that had stopped Linda and Charlie could have been located {presuming Susan actually saw the encounter} and Saladin Nader had testified as to knowing Linda along with the manager at Ocean Front Walk's testimony, then maybe a better case against Linda could have been made.
Of course, even if that had been the case, Gary Fleishmman would have been duty-bound to bring out some important facts ~ none of the events were Linda's idea, she ran away the first night, she was directed to get rid of weapons and clothes by Tex, she was directed where to drive by Charlie the next night and ordered to commit a murder which she went on to prevent, she ran away from Spahn and even left her daughter there, she told Joel Sage, Jeffrey Jacobs and her husband about the murders that August, etc, etc, etc.
Even if they could concoct a case against her, she had a good riposte that was gold dust to a decent lawyer.
And with Susan Atkins as the star witness, her complicity in Ocean Front Walk would have had to come out, so that would be powerful for Linda because most of her exoneration.....would have come from Atkins, the star witness !
ReplyDeletestarviego said:
ReplyDeleteDefense attorney Maxwell Keith once described Kasabian as "Wily, opportunistic and frightfully resilient."
When it came down to it, she had way sharper street and survival smarts than Charlie Manson. She may not have been charismatic like him, but what good is charisma in jail ?
A strange thought just struck me about Linda on Cielo night. Did she know that Tex had left the car keys in the ignition ? In a way, it was a bit of a stupid or let's say, risky, move on Tex's part. Imagine if some youngster had decided to drive off in it ! Anyway, Linda, once she'd fled from 10050, hid by the car, but she didn't get into it at first. She had just got into it when she says the others arrived.
ReplyDeletePerhaps going to get help was not the obvious option it can at first appear to have been. She didn't know when the carnage would stop. She could easily have been spotted by the others if they were in the car. Just some raw {and perhaps flawed} thoughts.
bucpaul2812 said:
ReplyDeleteGranted, she was by no means an angel - she happily burned her estranged husband
You know, if it had been her husband she burned, I, for one, wouldn't have held that against her. He's the one that went off with another woman.
But it wasn't her husband that she burned, it was her mate Charles Melton, someone she said she considered a brother. She knew what he intended to do with that $5000. By nicking it, she scuttled his plans to sail if not around the world, at least far and wide. She went a long way towards denying him the experience of a lifetime, something very few people get to have.
Such was the contradiction of Linda Kasabian.
Does anybody know who paid Fleischman's fee? I know it couldn't have been Kasabian. Or was Fleischman a public defender? Or was he, as a member of the Bar, drafted to defend Kasabian? He was a cut above the sad sacks at the defense table, that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure Gary Fleischman and the another attorney for Linda Kasabian, Ron Goldman, were part of the fledgling federal indigent defense fund program. From an article about Goldman reflecting on a 50-year legal career:
ReplyDelete"Ronald L.M. Goldman, the attorney who helped secure immunity for Linda Kasabian, the prosecution’s key witness in the case against Charles Manson and members of his infamous “family” in the Tate-LaBianca murder trial and who made a name for himself in aviation law, celebrated his 50th year of practice on Thursday.Goldman, a name partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman PC in Los Angeles, began his career surrounded by attorneys practicing the then-modern niche of personal injury and wrongful death law. In a time before Miranda rights and public defenders, he began getting trial experience after volunteering for the federal indigent defense counsel." (Goldman retired from law in January 2023 after 60 years).
Fleischman seemed like the type of decent guy who would have taken Kasabian's case gratis anyways. Here is his obituary from 2020. He was apparently going by the last name of Fields later in his life.
Here is another interesting article from 2009, about Fleischman getting Linda to manipulate Susan Atkins into recanting, using the prison "kite" system.
Thanks for that great info Gorodish!
ReplyDeleteGorodish said:
ReplyDeleteHere is another interesting article from 2009, about Fleischman getting Linda to manipulate Susan Atkins into recanting, using the prison "kite" system
I never believed that story and I don't believe it now. Gary struck me as one of those lawyers that loved having his face on telly and when that kudos ran out 40 years later, documentaries !
Slightly off-topic, but speaking of deaths, Bernard Crowe died in 1992. Does Deb S or anyone know the cause of Lotsapoppa's death>? Thanks
ReplyDeleteBernard F Crowe https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/38637762/bernard-f-crowe
It would be ironic if it was due to complications resulting from that bullet.
ReplyDelete@grimtraveller: I like your approach. Rock solid logic. Karen Howell and Crystal Sturgill, teenage codefendants in the 1997 Lillelid murders, could sure use an advocate like you and how you argue against the crazy notion that Linda "should have done something" on that night(they have "Justice For..." pages on Facebook).
ReplyDeleteThere are books written on the subject of even trained soldiers and law officers freezing up once the bodies start dropping amidst screams, stabs, bullets and blood. Especially where troubled teens with a history of poor coping skills is involved.
I enjoy your posts. All of them.
If I found myself at a murder scene, where I was seeing or hearing people being stabbed, etc, I would RUN to that car outside and drive myself right to a police station.
ReplyDeleteNothing on this earth would stop me, fear is a great catalyst.
And no one can honestly say that they wouldn't make a run for it, in a situation like that.
If I found myself at a murder scene [...] I would RUN to that car outside and drive myself right to a police station.
ReplyDeleteNothing on this earth would stop me, [...] And no one can honestly say that they wouldn't make a run for it, in a situation like that.
Easier to say than do. Especially when your own life might be at stake later if you did. And harder still if you have a child in the hands of those who might come after you.
It is never clear how people will react in extreme circumstances, despite whatever they claim in their comfortable armchairs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you have the car, and you're the driver, there's no excuse for not getting to law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteI think that's part of why Kasabian was not looked upon favorably by many, and Kasabian herself said she couldn't believe she never faced charges.
RonnieJersey said:
ReplyDeleteIf I found myself at a murder scene, where I was seeing or hearing people being stabbed, etc, I would RUN to that car outside and drive myself right to a police station
That is so unrealistic.
Firstly, Linda didn't "find herself at a murder scene." She was with the people committing murder !
And you said it yourself, quote, "fear is a great catalyst."
Fear is far more likely to make you do the complete opposite to what you claim you'd do.
In situations akin to this, people tend to do one of two things. They either try to stop the perps themselves, as we have seen in many terror-related incidents where groups of people have clubbed together to try to subdue a perp {eg, 9/11 on the plane that crashed, with the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, in London a few years back, when people subdued a knife wielding terrorist that had just stabbed two people that ended up dead} or they freeze. Either out of fear or they just don't know what to do.
But going back to a question I asked some months ago, can you relate an incident in the annals of known crime, where someone that is part of a troupe committing murder {especially where they did not know murder would happen}, broke off from the action and went and got the police ?
If you have the car, and you're the driver, there's no excuse for not getting to law enforcement
There could be a number of reasons, actually. And up until that point {in fact, not until much later in the day} Linda had not been the driver. She may not have known that Tex left the keys in the ignition. That's not the first thing you'd think about as a pregnant 20-year-old that has witnessed what she had.
Kasabian herself said she couldn't believe she never faced charges
When did she say that ?
She did face charges. In fact, one of Bugliosi's first questions to her on the stand was "You realize you are presently charged with 7 counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder ?" to which she replied "Yes, I am aware."
If you were with your wife, son, lover/partner, daughter or beloved parent and they were in the midst of killing someone, you'd break off from all that and find a police station to tell them what was going on ?
ReplyDeleteThere are any number of scenarios that one could paint in which the "what you'd do" would be anything but clear-cut.