You can laugh all you want to, but you can't deny that there is evidence that seems to support some kind of professional mind-control being done on Charlie and Family before TLB.
Firstly, you have to agree that the Family WAS very definitely under a form of mind-control practiced on them by Charles Manson.
Witnesses noticed the total control Charlie had over his followers:
coolopolis.blogspot.ca/2016/05/meeting-charles-manson-montrealer-on.html
Charles
Manson would come in (to the Topanga Corral) with his band of women,
his family, and sit down. When he would sit, they would all sit and when
he would get up, so would they. You could see the control he had over
these people.
www.cielodrive.com/archive/movie-lot-satan-portent-of-death/?fbclid=IwAR0Q5JkEXxzKN1uPlwPjLQuHODvFgdSXCIu2ov6Brut6UKSCPGtVuCF9qmI
"He
was playing his guitar and singing to about a dozen starry-eyed,
dirty-looking young girls with long, straggly hair who were squatting in
a circle around him on the scrubby ground. ... The thing that got me
was the way the girls just stared at him as if they were mesmerized, you
know, in a hypnotic trance." ...
"They’d just sort of wander
around the ranch aimlessly. To me, they appeared to be in a very sad
state of life. And when they’d come toward you, they moved as if we were
controlling them and had hypnotized them to come closer."
"Approaching
one of the girls one day, Regina asked if she could help her. Instead
of a direct reply, the “slave” girl said: ‘We love animals. We love any
dog. We don’t have much to eat but we feed the dogs what we have.’ "
Cease to Exist – Charles Manson, the Beach Boys and the Death of the Sixties by Christian Sellers
Stromberg
was distracted by the way Mary, Lyn, Pat and Susan constantly watched
Charlie, waiting for him to signal whatever it might be that he wanted
them to do. ..
Manson's Right Hand Man Speaks Out by Charles "Tex" Watson c. 2012 pg20
I never heard Manson mention Scientology... I know he was into mind control and good at programming us with his beliefs.
www.laweekly.com/the-last-supper-mansonites-converge-at-el-coyote/
Family member Patricia Krenwinkel, in correspondence with researcher John Judge, swore she had been a victim of mind control.
youtube.com/watch?v=RALD3lxuOVw
LVH: "The whole thing was always geared toward just complete mirroring of him(Charlie).
Krenny: ".... With Charlie he actually did like drug programming. I mean he was the focal point at all times."
www.xenu-directory.net/news/library-item.php?iid=4037
Cult leader was Svengali
"Manson's
'rule' at the ranch, the cowboy(Juan Flynn) said, began slowly. "He got
a lot of girls first, then began to bring in the men. He called the men
Zombies, I guess because they couldn't, do what they wanted to do."
Box 46 vol 26 Grogan retrial Aug, 1971
pg417 Spahn visitor Dawn Quandt:
Q: After the Manson family arrived, did some change come over Clem? ..
A: A change of--he was in their power or their thoughts. ... he had a tendency to be programmed by them.
My Life With Charles Manson by Paul Watkins, Chapter 23
Basically, Charlie’s trip was to program us all to submit: to give up our egos....
Death to Pigs by Robert Hendrickson, c.2011 pg277
Watkins: "He(Manson) always said, he said, "I'm gonna unprogram you and program you again," and that's what he did."
youtube.com/watch?v=HomPx76mAd8&lc=Ugy9oaX89l4WgGoOAAB4AaABAg
Kasabian's attorney: "She said that all the girls felt as if they were computers for this man (Manson)." (10:40mark)
Death to Pigs by Robert Hendrickson, pg244
Brooks:
"Well, before when he put his motions in with it, all he had to do was
start his motions and it's like, I would immediately turn on like a
computer. Like, the button would be clicked and I'd become whatever
machine or whatever tape was playing at the time."
The Mind Manipulators by Alan W. Scheflin c.1978
pg39
Many of the Family members have concluded that they were indeed hypnotized....
pg471
At
her re-trial, former Manson cult follower Leslie Van Houten argued that
she was a programmed dupe whose mind had been softened by LSD and then
shaped to commit horrible, violent crimes without remorse.
Box 16 Vol5020 pg75of166 Tex Watson
A: ... I was being run by Mr. Manson.
Q: So he put the thought in your mind, then, right?
A: That's the only thought I had.
December 1969 grand jury testimony of Susan Atkins, quoting Manson:
www.cielodrive.com/manson-case-files/BOX-24
Box 24 pg291of396
Marvin Part interview with Leslie Van Houton
VH: "And -- and he(Manson) used to -- he used to even say, umm, "I've become an empty hole." He'd say, "I can --" He says, "I have no control of what I'm saying." He just says, "I have no control of my actions. I don't even think about what I'm doing or saying."
----------------
The Last Psychological Evaluation of Charles Manson: Implications for Personality, Psychopathology, and Ideology
(from a series of psychological tests given to CM in 1997)
pg5
He was particularly imbued with the idea that some people can place their thoughts into the minds of others and control their behavior, and he felt he was a victim of this phenomenon, and ironically denied taking any part in the Tate-LaBianca murders. ... He was viewed as manipulative, crafty, and seductive, with a good grasp of human motivation.
pg16
Reality distortions(exhibited by Manson) include a variety of hallucinations and delusions, including odd and unrealistic beliefs like thought insertions, mind reading, and thought broadcasting.
---------------
www.cielodrive.com/manson-case-files/BOX-12c.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1JiVFd36w3l8SGzfK7WLcfOAd-82FN4Sp_SzXPi0yc2DkqACaAO1Q4Rnc
Manson Case Files Box 12c pg29of746 newpaper article Feb 20, 1970
"Manson's personality, too, is changing, the jailmate claimed. "They take him to the medical dispensary twice a day now, and I don't know what they're doing to him, but everybody is noticing a change in him--he's depressed, different." "
www.cielodrive.com/manson-case-files/BOX-12c.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2g_rduAK5VC7woYupWxgyGmHsJlWGIxMUZ1ctxmPQMRPKXaQY84wUCgWc
Manson Case Files Box 12c pg38of746 newpaper article Feb 4, 1970
"Charles admits to being afraid of only one thing: "These doctors here. They take me down to them every day. That's how Ruby (Jack Ruby, the killer of presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald) died--from the doctors; they gave him a leukemia shot!" "
If he was 'treated' after his arrest, could he have been 'treated' before the murders?
---------------------
'Manson's mother talks of his early life' LATimes article by Dave Smith of 1-26-71
And it was during this time(1958), she says, that she began to feel he(Charlie) needed psychiatric treatment, though it was far beyond their means.
Note that at this time Charlie had just been released from a long stint in Federal Prison.
Even Charlie thought he was going nuts in 1955:
HS, pg195
(Manson arrested for stealing cars Oct '55) "Taken to federal court, he pleaded guilty to the theft..., and asked for psychiatric help, stating "I was released from Chillicothe in 1954 and, having been confined for nine years, I was badly in need of psychiatric treatment. I was mentally confused and stole a car as a means of mental release from the confused state of mind that I was in."
---------------------
More evidence of an altered state:
https://www.tiktok.com/@mindthroughaudio/video/7240909758822157611
Dennis Hopper after visiting Manson in the downtown LA jail: "He said that like you know, he was a big star, like his whole life.. he had been acting out a movie but there hadn't been any movie cameras there."
(Secret Service interview from 1994)
Manson did ask several times what was the current status of the O.J. Simpson case. Manson stated "What do you think of that O.J. thing-- is it a movie or what?"
From researcher Paul Hart:
"Manson's cellmate Lanier Ramer said Manson was part of an LSD / behavior modification program at McNeil Island and Terminal Island just before his release. I have the interview with Lanier Ramer... never publicly released. Manson was subjected to LSD and sensory deprivation. He says Manson's personality was totally altered. He became messianic."
www.facebook.com/groups/1883381595256076/posts/3796820603912156/?comment_id=3797376933856523&reply_comment_id=3798324783761738¬if_id=1738172460431330¬if_t=group_comment_mention
Me: (quoting Schreck) "...her(Angela Lansbury) role in The Manchurian Candidate." Was it your impression that Charlie saw the movie?
Schreck: Yes, he definitely did and knew the plot well.
At the very least, we know that Charlie was fascinated with the topic of mind control
=================
Dianne Lake experiencing voice-into-brain technology? More MK/Ultra high strangeness from the Manson/TLB saga:
New York Times, Nov 11, 1970 Dianne Lake trial testimony
A key witness in the Tate-La Bianca murder trial admitted under cross-examination today that she hears voices... . When questioned.. as to what the voices said, she replied, “They say that this, is Charles Manson speaking” She said that it did, not sound like Manson's voice but that it: said it was him and would give her orders. Miss Lake... said that she first began hearing voices while she was on an LSD trip nearly three years ago.
[So just about the time she joined the Family.]
Sadie too?
Reflexion by Lynette Fromme, pg339
In late 1968-- "One day her(Atkins') eyes grew large as she told me, "The radio has been telling me to do things!" "
129 comments:
Star, thanks for this interesting post. Lots of revealing quotes here. And let's not forget that Paul Crocket had to actually deprogram Brooks, Paul Watkins and Juanita. The fact that they had to be deprogrammed is significant proof that at the very least the three had been brainwashed.
There was no fucking mind control. A bunch of uneducated drugged out dumbasses surrendered their free will to an experienced, grifting ex con. Subscribing even 1% to the stupidity of Tom O'Neill is grounds for contempt.
Hey coincidentally I JUST a minute ago checked out the Lynyrd blog for retards for the first time in years - it imploded years ago! Anyone know the story? Special ed people came and got them? I ask because I see starviego was peddling over there as well as here with the cool kids. Bret, Cats and now the tards!
Yes, Col. I agree with your assessment entirely. I'd respectfully ask that you refrain from using the word "retard" as a noun.
Hi Gina, I will consider it but tbh that's the only way I've described it for a decade. If you've been there you would understand. Just crazy ass people.
Off topic:
Here's the adult version of StevenWeiss, the kid who found the Buntline Special. If it was posted before I don't remember seeing it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ODe4VtYBXzA
In my opinion, Manson's order to kill simply gave those involved a figleaf to cover their own, all too ready, impulse towards violence. The most he did was to catalyze them to action.
It's there in everyone. Most keep a lid on it.
Jerry Dunphy!!!
shoegazer said: "Most keep a lid on it."
Manson stole the lids. That is the point.
Torque said: "The fact that they had to be deprogrammed is significant proof that at the very least the three had been brainwashed."
Good point! I've always been amazed that a talented deprogrammer(amateur or professional?), in one of the most remote corners of the continental United States, just happens to hook up with a group arguably more in need of deprogramming than anybody else in the continental United States. Co-incidence? Again?
"Manson stole the lids. That is the point."
I thought thats the point you were making was that he put stuff in.
Let's quit trying to be cute. I read your comments that Manson completely controlled their thoughts--and perhaps for a few he did. But my point is that for many--and I'd include Watson and Atkins here--he just encouraged them to do what they were personally predisposed to do, anyway.
He released them from inhibitions.
Paul Crockett (Inyo County Interview 10/3/1969)…..”And so he (Manson) has programmed all his people, to the extent that they’re just like him. He has put all kind of things in their head. I didn’t believe it could be done, but he’s done it, and I see it working.”
Thanks for the added reference!
Shoegazer said: "He released them from inhibitions."
And then he steered them to mass murder. And he did it in a devious and diabolical way. And he was good at what he did. Too good, if you ask me.
ColScott…… Why did Preston Guillory tell Mae Brussell and others that LASO deputies were given a directive of “hands off Manson and his followers” beginning weeks before the August 16, 1969 Spahn Ranch Raid? Was that LASO directive given so that the Tate-LaBianca murders could be carried out? I don’t think so. Why did both Gary Fleischman and Stanley Ralph Ross say that “something big was going to happen, and the whole thing was scary, very scary.”……?
Would someone please expain to me how Charlie remained free after numerous parole violations while Virginia Graham couldn't catch one break. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7hJA2XXHpd4&t=1450s&pp=ygUcRGVhcmx5IGRlcGFydGVkIHRvdXJzIGdyYWhhbQ%3D%3D
@orwhut....I am pretty sure your question is rhetorical and you already know the answer to it as much as I, or frankly anybody who has studied this subject in depth,do. Nevertheless, I'll humor you with the most cogent and succinct reply I can offer. Manson escaped punishment for all of his numerous violations between 1967 and 1969 because he was, in essence, a US Government and Intelligence "protected asset and test subject". He was being used to see how well he could persuade American youth to commit illegal acts. Not unlike a lot of Fed employees these days who go online looking for vulnerable and easily led people to entrap in various sting operations of one sort or another.
In a letter Charlie once said this about Paul Watkins and Brooks Poston.
“ the other three you said DiCarlo Posten and Watkins I seen them around - Watkins & Posten sold and wrote stories and made some money - they were never in my circle -”
No one takes into consideration the liberties they take to tell stories to make a book sell.
Also, Paul Crocket sounds like the “programmer” since he was able to “program” Watkins and Poston to work like slaves.
Other than O'Neill's unsupported claims, what proof have you that ANY of that is true?
Spot on, James. And others who know everything about this case refuse to accept that HS was at least SOMEBODY'S motive, if not Manson's. Too often, this case has become a magnet for those who just want to white wash CM's rep and to trash Bug's. Guys like John Michael Jones and Brian Davis are only in it to squash the bug at any cost, even though the latter only used HS as the motive with the most evidence, not excluding there weren't other or more major motives at play.
True, buy in this case, there's little to no exaggerating needed.
There is zero proof for what you say. O'Neill's story is complete fabrication without any evidence. He was/is only trying to finish a book contract for which he was on the hook for a ton of money. The last half of that book is more fiction than Schreck's comic book. Zero evidence. No traceable sources. At least Bugs' witnesses could be tracked down and relate the same story.
Earlkeese1978 said:
"...even though the latter [Buglioso] only used HS as the motive with the most evidence, not excluding there weren't other or more major motives at play."
I think that this is an important point you're making about varied and mixed motivations. People in general seem to want a simple answer--and over-arching mega conspiracy, Svengali-like mind control at a very granular level, etc. Anyone who tries to look at the milieux of the TLB killings should be able to see not only the fulfillment of as fantasy (Helter Skelter), but also specific revenge/intimidation (Melcher), the underdog (Manson et al) striking upward at "The System", the need to keep his followers motivated to continue to follow him by involving them in group commitments (crimes, hiding out at Barker, etc.).
It was a very mixed bag.
I think that other, more informed contributors here have noted that Bugliosi probably saw that he needed to present to the jury a single, clear, emotionally powerful motive for the mixed-up crimes, and chose to emphasize Helter Skelter as being the easiest to comprehenend.
Agreed. It's interesting how many try to distance CM from being the leader, yet are quick to present the "get your hands dirty" narrative, which easily puts CM back in the driver's seat. It seems unbelievable that CM would put so much faith in these teen/amateur criminals to keep their mouths shut under threat of prosecution and punishment.
No doubt Bugs chose HS because it was easier to digest, but also as he said, it had the most evidence. And 50+ years later, that's still mostly true. If not the most evidence, certainly the best with 2 of the killers naming it as the motive and the blood-writing on the fridge at LB. None of the other motives like revenge, drug-burn, copycat have anywhere near enough evidence to bring into court. HS was/is the best shot to explain motive to a jury, and many others.
E1978:
"It seems unbelievable that CM would put so much faith in these teen/amateur criminals to keep their mouths shut under threat of prosecution and punishment."
This is a very interesting discussion E78.
I have a personal take on *why* he did the relatively dumb thing you mention, and it's that he actually *thought* he knew the law, or at least what's "fair", and over the years he kept falling back to "well, even if I told them to, they're adults and made the decision themselves".
I saw him in interviews and I think he actually believed that this absolved him of legal responsibility; he honestly believed that if he was not present, he was not legally responsible at all. He had seemingly no concept of the legal definition of conspiracy, and how culpability pertained to a conspirator. I think he went to his grave thinking that he had been screwed by the legal system as regards any of the murders since he, himself, did not commit the acts They had "cheated" by using conspiracy.
Earlkeese1978
You seem disagree with the reason SixtiesRockRules! gave for why Charlie wasn't sent back to prison for his many parole violations. (Actually, you say there's no proof.) If you or anyone else has a better explanation, please state it.
The mark of a conspiracy theory is a desperation to be special, to be in the know, to have secret information. Tom O'Neill is a three time loser who was working in this grift for decades (which he argues is a good thing). He has no evidence for anything but, you know, children in the basement of a pizzeria. Was Preston murdered last year? Last year Leslie was released was she in Colorado when it happened? It's just a moronic question.
Just because I (or anyone) lacks an answer for a question doesn't mean that ANY explanation is the truth. Providing an answer to a question when there is no other answer is not evidence or proof. There are certainly other explanations not the least of which is that CM was quite transient, without a job and having no permanent address so was difficult to keep track of. Before we can assume that Manson's parole officer's lack of attention was evidence that the C.I.A. was using him as an agent, we seriously need to know the extent to which other parolees were monitored by their parole officers. Even if CM's case is unusual, it's a very, very, very long stretch from there to being used as an agent by the C.I.A. Seriously, if you're going to claim such things, you better have blue tons of evidence AND proof. And no one has EVER produced any durable proof, O'Neill included.
Times were different. Parole officers were not like how they are now. They really didn’t care. Copies of those probation check in reports do exist.
Earlkeese1978
Thank you. Your answer tells me what I needed to hear. 0'Neil had lots of time to come up with his details about Charlie and MKUltra and most of what I read about it from nonbelievers is simply that there's no proof. If there are records of other parolees who slipped through the cracks as often as Charlie, I never read about them from his detractors.
If someone would write a book with examples to that refute what O'Neil says, I'd probably buy it.
It is not anyone's responsibility to refute O'Neill's claims. It is his responsibility to prove them. The amount of time spent working on anything does not equal its accuracy. O'Neill has not proven his point in any way. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
@earlkeese1978.....Regarding your response to my reply to orwhut: There would not be any surviving documentation, of the type you'd consider "proof", from US Govt. or Intelligence agencies/sources attesting to their use of Manson as asset. Such documentation would've been destroyed long ago. It's laughably naive of you to think any sort of Manson-related paper trail confirming their relationship would still be extant,
With that same logic. It’s all just speculation as no proof exists. Thus without proof it can’t be true.
I don't believe I said refuting O'Neal's claims was anyone's responsibility. I do think a book doing that would make the author a tidy sum of money.
For the record, I have no dog in this fight I simply think it makes an interesting discussion and have picked no favorite.
So, you have nothing to support your claim. So why do you believe it? Because it sounds good? Because it distances Manson from responsibility for his role in these crimes? I've noticed this of late in the TLB circles that many people are just rebelling against the experts and defending CM at all costs. Like John Michael Jones and Brian Davis. Seeking a change of narrative that only benefits Manson and only hurts Bugs, both of whom are dead.
By labeling me "laughably naive" you have reinforced the idea that people who hold conspiracy theories are doing so to feel special and a member of an elite group. Who is more laughably naive: the person asking for evidence for an idea or the person who advances an idea with no evidence? And how can you say with such confidence that "there would not be any surviving documentation?" What proof do you have that statement is true? There's lots of surviving documentation from decades and centuries ago.
Exactly. O'Neill had lots of time. Decades. Yet he turned up nothing except a good sounding story that distances Manson from responsibility for the murders. What do you mean "simply" that there's no proof? What else is there? If lack of proof is the simple dismissal of an idea, what else matters? If someone wrote the book that you want, you and the author's significant other would be the only ones to buy it. The only fact here is that you and O'Neill make claims without supporting evidence and then dig in to the idea that you don't need evidence to support it.
@earlkeese1978 and @jamesd....To begin with, this is going to be my final response to you both on this question, so don't bother responding as I will not be engaging with y'all further. "Why do I believe [my statement]?" Because I've studied this case in-depth for decades and have most likely forgotten more Manson-related factoids and minutiae than either of you will ever know. You are entitled to believe that Manson wasn't functioning as a Fed-controlled and directed asset, but in reality he was. Furthermore, contrary to your implication, I am no "Manson apologist" or "Manson defender".
First and foremost, I don’t know why you had to bring John Michael Jones up in the conversation because he’s not pushing any particular narrative. For those that believe Helter Skelter is the motive…and claim there is evidence for it. That’s super. Just like there is evidence that copy cat killings were the true motive. I can’t speak for Brian Davis as I don’t know him, but I’m pretty sure that’s not his purpose either.
However when it comes to this CIA/MK-ULTRA business, there is only speculation…and cherry picked quotes taken out of context.
To me, it seems like when examining a situation you'll find evidence of varying quality. You need to personally evaluate its importance and its accuracy. Everyone's bar is different, and everyone's powers of objective analysis and evaluation are different,
Then, in areas with much less, or even no, evidence, if we still want to dive deeper into speculation, we need to understand the relationship between the *possible*, the *plausible*, the *probable*, and the *certain*. So, e.g., you have a particular instance for which you have little or no evidence so you must decide if the physical/mechanical details needed to create the instance are possible (and virtually everything is possible, so this is a very minimal qualifier).
So next, if we find that details are possible and they seem plausible given our understanding of the circumstances, if there is additional reliable evidence we need to consider whether, given what evidence we have, and judging the circumstances using our own life experiences, were the details probable? More likely than not?
If we can to this point and there is no new, reliable evidence, we can form a hypothesis and it's constantly subject to re-examination and re-evaluation. By *everyone*.
It is very unlikely we'd ever achieve certainty.
What happens here is that some posters are unable or unwilling to differentiate between what's possible, what's plausible, and what's probable. They seem to jump directly past plausibility and probability to certainty: a possibility becomes a certainty. Probably it's because they personally like, or are satisfied in some strange way by, the narrative that this leap of faith supports.
Anyway, that's how it looks to me, and over the years at various times I've thrown my hands up in bemusement and walked away from the site, only to return, as Steely Dan so aptly puts it, to "Go back, Jack, and do it again...".
:^)
You don't get to decide when the conversation ends. You just can't stop taking the position that you know more and are in a better position, can you? The tell-tale earmark of a conspiracy theorists. And you can't stop the cheap move of trying to make your opinion a fact on the way out the door, can you? Allegedly, you have all these Manson-related factoids and minutiae in your brain but nowhere in there is the proof to back up your claims. You can say you prefer Van Halen over Van Hagar without much pushback, but you can't make statements as though they are fact without proof. Here's some inarguable truth for you: your opinions are not equal to facts and doubt is not evidence. Interesting that when I basically asked you to put up or shut up, you chose to shut up without defending your statement that you claim is fact.
do you think Chaos made a mint then?
no more like a "Manson Idiot"
You got that right. I'm away more than here and comment almost never for the reasons that I see as weakening discussion on too many social media sites. People think opinion has equal value to facts and that doubt equals evidence. And some people in this case are just Manson groupies who will do anything to whitewash his reputation. And some are just idiots. The sixties rock guy keeps stating opinions like their facts at which point anyone would want evidence.
"do you think Chaos made a mint then?"
Who gives a shit?
Me, I want to know what the wires in this enlarged photo of post-Aug 9 '69 were for:
close up
in this larger photo:
full size
This is the kind of stuff that interests me: I think that there are a few others here who share this preference.
Or the spatter pattern at the front door--*exactly* how could that sort of pattern have been made? That can add to our knowledge of what was *probable* at the doorway.
Motivations/personalities are pretty much arbitrary and unknowable, but the physical evidence, can, in theory, be resolved.
Oh, well! Diff'r'nt strokes, I suppose!
James D said: "First and foremost, I don’t know why you had to bring John Michael Jones up in the conversation because he’s not pushing any particular narrative." I remember him on Brian Davis's show and FB page pushing the narrative that basically everything Bugs said about CM was not only wrong but a deliberate lie with no basis in facts. His narrative seems to be the same as many others which is to completely whitewash CM's reputation. Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is.
Wires question is interesting but I don't know how the splatter question could ever be definitively answered. Different strokes indeed. I prefer hard answers over guessing.
"I don't know how the splatter question could ever be definitively answered."
It can't. But you can eliminate things. E.g., they are not drag or contact marks, unlike some of the others on the front porch.Did it drip or spurt? If spurt, it implies an artery cut, and we could maybe examine victim wound types to form a possible, maybe even probable, picture.
I've found some forensic works on blood spatters. Nothing I've read yet gives me a lot of faith in the science/art, but I did not make an exhaustive attempt at it yet, either.
You can get close(r) on some of the stuff. There is a lot no one will ever know, and if we leave it at that, this site goes away. Speculation is what it's all about, but there are qualitative differences in how to speculate.
Shoe those are scratches and cracks in the photograph, not wires
Cielo:
"Shoe those are scratches and cracks in the photograph, not wires"
There are indeed lines/cracks on the photo, but take the file and blow it up to 100% then 200% and look, then 500%. See if you still think they are wires... Look at some of the other lines/cracks.
They might be. Hard to make certain.
Hah! You probably have have to photo, for sure!
Shoe, concerning your photos of the wires recently posted here: in the enlarged photo, please can you describe exactly where this is on the property? I'm looking at this on a phone, so may be missing finer detail. Are there only two photos here for reference.
Secondly, on the blood drop evidence on the front porch: If we accept the blood drop pattern to the right of the front door as one exits is Sharon's, how exactly was this produced? My reading of this is that the two shallow slice wounds she received on her arms (biceps) may have caused this.
It could have gone this way: Sharon is brought out to the front step--perhaps already with the arm wounds--but then is stopped and held there because "she had to watch" Abigail and Voytek being killed. As Sharon was held there, her arm wounds would have dripped blood to the front porch, and curved "tails" as they landed. LAPD believed she would have been standing there for some minutes. The idea is that the blood would have had most of the length of her arm to run down before landing as drops. Then the fatal wounds would have been administered back inside the house, after Susan "brought her over" to the couch.
The killers do not describe this as happening, but I think we can be ressonably certain it did. Of course, exactly what wound(s) brought this about is open to question. But in the end the killers go out of their way to not discuss this.
Cielo, I just saw your comment on the wires being scratches on the photo. Perhaps my question on them has just been answered.
Could the presence of Sharon's blood at/near the front porch give credence to the idea that Manson and (?) went to the scene and moved bodies around? The killers indicate the crime scene they left was different than what the police found the next morning. Didn't a staff member of the coroner's office say Sharon's body appeared to have drag marks on it? Maybe the killers don't go out of their way to discuss it as much as it didn't happen that way. I've always thought it unlikely that CM went to the crime scene but who knows. They were feeling especially ballsy at that time, likely feeling above the law, especially given what CM allegedly got away with. It's really gutsy to stay behind at a crime scene and eat food and shower, for instance. The idea that someone would take Sharon to the front porch to watch murder seems unlikely, given the absolute panic described by the killers. Leading her there would have risked screams or her running, complicating what was already a night of utter terror.
This will give context. To enlarge use your browser's Zoom feature:
Original Context
This is at 100%:
100%
This is 133%
133%
At 200%
At 300% with additional odd wire-looking things noted. Especially odd is that if these are cracks, they disappear into the foliage and re-appear, pretty much like a regular wire would.
300%
However Cielo raises a good point. They might be cracks/flaws.
Hah! The joke's on me! Even if wires, they mean *nothing* in the context of the case. It's just being anal.
Unless some CIA spooks strung this stuff, or worse---scratched it into the photo!... :^O
Here's 200%
200%
"Could the presence of Sharon's blood at/near the front porch give credence to the idea that Manson and (?) went to the scene and moved bodies around? "
Possible, maybe plausible, but not probable.
"The killers indicate the crime scene they left was different than what the police found the next morning. Didn't a staff member of the coroner's office say Sharon's body appeared to have drag marks on it?"
Appeared to have been handled, I think is what they said. So it could mean moved or dragged,m or just rolled over.
If we accept their comment, which I do for now.
"Maybe the killers don't go out of their way to discuss it as much as it didn't happen that way. I've always thought it unlikely that CM went to the crime scene but who knows. They were feeling especially ballsy at that time, likely feeling above the law, especially given what CM allegedly got away with."
Yes. Possible.
It's plausible/probable that Watson reported to Manson that it was a big mess, with shouting and screaming, which makes it more risky to go back. This contrasts with...
"It's really gutsy to stay behind at a crime scene and eat food and shower, for instance."
Yes, but I think there was much less screaming, etc.
"The idea that someone would take Sharon to the front porch to watch murder seems unlikely given the absolute panic described by the killers."
Yes. But it might be possible that she ran out there when Frykwoski did and was caught and held, and likely stabbed as she ran out, and maybe out there, too.
'Leading her there would have risked screams or her running, complicating what was already a night of utter terror."
Somehow people get off on making a bad thing even worse. I don't think they had the presence of mind to take her out there solely to have her watch. If they did, that's EXACTLY the kind of think Atkins would have boasted about to her jail-mates. So...
I think you’re reading into it more than there is. JMJ believes the motive for the murders was to mislead the police into thinking that they had the wrong person arrested for the killings of Gary Hinman by committing copycat killings. Bug mentioned copycat killings in his book as the motive but he dismissed it. Why? Because if he went with that motive, There would’ve been no conviction against Manson. There is much more evidence for copycat killings then there is Helter skelter. It was even interesting to hear Gypsy say in episode 3 of “Making Manson” that no, There was no race war, And no Charlie did not preach a race war, And no, did he not tell anyone to go out and start a race war.
If we are talking about Sharon, let’s not forget that Watson stabbed her in the heart…there would be sprays of blood. Blood that got all over the knife and would drip onto the porch.
Earl: No. the Coroner testified that the bodies had not been moved and were in the same spot as they were when the died. There was however rope burn on Sharon’s face to indicate that she was suspended in air at some point before she died.
Also, outside of the book Manson in his own words and to other people that were actually close to Charlie such as JMJ (excluding Nik Schrek) Charlie denied going there after the murders. When asked also at a parole hearing he said “No”.
Even more than two of the killers saying they killed to start HS and writing HS in blood at the crime scene? There is more evidence and then there is better evidence. There were sure a lot of people saying CM preached HS incessantly towards the end. Much more than just Gypsy saying he wasn't, 55 years later. Are we going to wipe all of that testimony out from dozens of witnesses because of one person saying it's not true, 55 years later? And why was the copycat motive not brought up until the penalty phase? Manson would have still been convicted with or without any motive because he was present at LaBianca and both crimes were tried as one crime. He was never charged with being a leader, ordering murders or trying to start a race war. Without all of those, his conviction and sentence would have been the same.
Bugs said in his opening statement the only reason they were accenting HS as motive was because it was the one with the most evidence, not that it was the only or even main motive.
The reason I'm so suspicious of JMJ is because he has been trying to cash in on those tapes for many years and has dedicated so much of his life to whitewashing Manson's rep, years after his death. Even to the point of severing relationships with family and friends over his dedication to Manson, or so he claimed on FB. That's not a friend, that's a follower. But that's probably more of a personal beef than an issue with his narrative.
Thanks, James. I thought I read that the coroner said the Sharon's body had drag marks. But my mistake. I doubt CM went to the crime scene, but he did say to two people (as you mention above) that he did so if nothing else this shows how unreliable his word really is and why it's not a good idea to take him at face value. Of course he would say that to the parole board, but two people he allegedly held in his confidence tell a different story. Both NS & JMJ seem to be followers and loyalists so if I had to take anyone's word, it would be Emmons, who seems more objective and definitely not a follower like the other two are.
I will say that it’s weird that Patricia said she never touched the French doors going out to the pool when chasing after Folger but yet a print was taken or a partial print.
She could have easily forgotten in the chaos.
However moving the bodies is a detail that wouldn’t be forgotten and that would also be something that Susan would have bragged about. ESPECIALLY to make the police look “stupid” as she said to her jail mates.
The issue with Emmons is those weren’t Charlie’s words. And I’m not being an apologist here. Emmons had to…. Remember the conversation and write it down when he got to his car… And past public conversation with George Stimson, When George asked Charlie if he went to the residence After the murders, he told George no. So we have three people saying no and two people saying yes. I don’t take stock in anything NS has to say because he has no proof to back up any of his claims. And I will say that JMJ did record calls with Nik when Nik Was working on the second edition of his book… And that it was Nik Who tried to convince JMJ That Charlie did go there after Charlie denied it.
I only bring up the moving of bodies if CM & an accomplice did it, not that the original killers moved them. And that only in the context that Clem said they "got 5 piggies" when he was asked what they did last night, last night being the Tate night. Combined with CM telling 2 people he went to the scene. Lots of ifs, and only as an interesting point of conversation. I doubt he went back at all so it's kind of a moot point.
Understood, but it would be pretty hard to forget if CM said he went to the scene so little imagination was needed. I don't trust Nik either, but I also don't trust JMJ's motives as he seems like an opportunist. My whole issue with the copycat motive is that it made an appearance so late in the game. Not to mention that BB wasn't that close into the family. Perhaps CM was thinking BB would owe him and maybe he really wanted BB in the picture since he was good at attracting pretty women, was a great guitarist and had connections in the music biz. I also don't trust Stimson as he is a Manson apologist as is JMJ and Schreck. Cherry-picking data to conform to an already-held belief is not research, it's seeking for confirmation.
I personally don’t believe he went there after the murders. It makes no sense that he distanced himself from the actual acts but yet could have made a slip up and been tied to the murders. Nothing apparently came about with his prints as I’m sure his prints were checked and compared to the “unidentified” prints found at the scene. If they were checked and he did go there after the murders, and there was a match, Bugliosi had a solid case on him right there.
I know JMJ and many have the wrong impression about him.
The copy cat motive was there way before Bugliosi was dumped the case. Aaron Stovitz also felt that was the motive as well. Police noticed the similarities in the murders compared to Hinman. It’s more than just the writing on the walls and refrigerator.
For example, Hinman was stabbed in the heart, Sharon was stabbed in the heart. Hinman was “pistol whipped.” Frykowski was Pistol whipped. Hinman was cut on the ear/face. Folger was cut on the face. Sharon had a bad rope burn that resembled a cut.
War was carved in Leno’s stomach because they were “at war” with he system holding Bobby. And his trial, Bobby also verified he was “at war” with everyone in the court room.
If you’ve read the transcripts of Bobby’s last parole hearing where he was granted, he said Manson betrayed him. Could that have been because Manson always maintained the murders were committed because of Bobby? Bobby also admitted that he had a meeting with Charlie while on trial. Oddly enough this is verified by Charlie in those recordings and Charlie elaborated that he told Bobby to say what he needed to say if it helped him get out. When looking at Bobby’s earliest parole hearings, He takes credit for cutting Hinman while Charlie takes credit as well.
Col. Scott,
All I know about Chaos is that it the theory it puts fourth gets some mention on podcasts and in this blog. If you know how many copies have been sold please tell me.
Stabbing in the heart, slashing an ear, pistol-whipping, facial cuts – these are too common in murders to use as evidence to link one murder to another. I don't think these are exclusive enough to render them as evidence of copycat. And 'war' was a common theme at that time with Vietnam and many people used the term to describe the generational differences. None of those seem enough to link the crimes together. And in the heat of murdering someone, is it reasonable to expect a murderer's inner dialogue to remind them "cut the face, stab the heart, pistol-whip?" Especially if you didn’t commit the first murder? Would they have even known those details about the Hinman murder? BB was down the road and busted quickly and likely didn't share the details of the crime from which the TLB murderers would apply the same tactics. Blood on walls? Maybe. Pig? Lots of people used that term at that time. But what makes the copycat so weak to me is that BB wasn't that close to the family to warrant killing 7 other people to get him out of jail. Unless, as I said earlier, CM saw BB as an asset to whatever he was trying to do in the music biz. But CM seemed dead-set on getting out to Death Valley so perhaps he had given up on whatever goals he had to be in the music biz.
Bugs didn't need to establish motive to get CM convicted of first-degree murder, only for conspiracy. He was physically involved in LaBianca and since it was tried with Tate as one crime, he would have been convicted of murder one X5. One of the jurors even admitted they didn't believe the HS motive at all. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't the only one. And as I said multiple times: Bugs used HS as the motive because it’s what the prosecution had the most evidence for. He said in his opening statement that HS wasn’t necessarily the only motive or the main motive, just the one for which they had the most evidence. And 55 years later, that’s still true. And it still has the best evidence: two of the killers said it was the motive AND it was written in blood at one of the crime scenes. This doesn’t mean it was the only one, or even Manson’s motive, but it sure as hell was at least two people’s partial motive. To deny HS as at least one motive is to look squarely in the face of the best possible evidence and deny it.
RE: JMJ I will say this. CM would have been convicted of murder one for all counts and without the HS motive, he may not have been convicted of conspiracy. Either way, his verdict and sentence would have been essentially the same. He was never charged with being the leader, ordering the murders or trying to start a race war. These were circumstantial items that were only used to support motive, but he was never charged with these things. So, for JMJ (and many others) to spend so much energy and resources to distance CM from the HS motive in favor of copycat – including but not limited to severing friendships and family relationships – to change the narrative that only benefits CM, is a complete cult-follower, groupie disposition. And I’m no fan of cults including the major religions that function exactly like cults. Which makes me always want to ask: why would you spend so much time and energy to change the reputation of a dead man? Anyone who has seen CM’s interviews knows that he too often sounds like a maniac so the chances of changing public perception about CM are about zero.
FWIW I don't think he was there, either. Not knowing if someone would walk in, or cops would show up. Entirely too risky. But I find it odd that two people claim he told them he did. If he DID tell them that, maybe it was just his way of stirring up controversy to get attention.
If many have the wrong impression of JMJ, that seems like a sign that there is a wrong impression to be had.
Bobby has changed his story so many times that it's impossible to take him as anything other than entertainment. No way to take him as a serious source of information to establish narrative. And the same with Manson. I can't take anything the guy says seriously because he too often sounds like he's out of his mind. Figuratively speaking. I know he was intelligent, but I've seen and heard every interview with him and the instances of him sounding rational are very few. He changed details and narratives too frequently to be relied upon to establish narrative of any coherence.
Absolutely with the dialogue. You have to remember that Susan was at Hinman’s when he was murdered so she knew what the scene and what happened. If you read in her grand jury testimony she said she remembered something that she had previously been involved with (when writing the word pig on the door of the Tate residence) and these details would be relevant for future copycat killings. When reading Linda’s testimony, she acknowledged that she spoke to Mary and Susan about Hinman. She also admitted she spoke to Bobby about Hinman.
Bobby was pretty close to the family he was there quite often. Had relations with Sandra, Kitty, and Linda(to whom said she was pregnant with his child and knew the exact moment she became pregnant) and those details would have to have been discussed on the trip to Cielo and to Waverly. Susan was in the car both nights As was Watson, as Patricia.
In Helter skelter, Bugliosi Stated numerous times he had no case against Manson. While he was inside of the residence of the Labianca’s, He was not present when any crimes were committed.
Doris Tate also did not believe Helter skelter, And she never attended anyone of Manson’s parole hearings. She was thankful for the motive in regards to the arrest of the actual killers.
And as far as JMJ goes; There has been so much negative stuff said about him coming from the Schrek camp… And it’s constantly Regurgitated. He’s not an apologist nor sympathizer. He was a friend to Manson And he was Charlie’s confidant. You can’t really judge a book by its cover. And much like John Michael Jones believes, I also believe there is more evidence to support the copycat killings motive than Helter Skelter.
And as far as Manson himself goes With his behavior towards interviews, He’s reflecting back with the media represented him to be. Again, I’m not being an apologist, But an actual phone you don’t get that version of Charlie. Let’s be honest, People tuned in to what he had to say, Because he was a raving lunatic as far as the media was concerned.
But back to the copycat killings, If you look at the earliest news reporting of the murders, They report that the police noticed the similarities.
E78:
"No way to take him as a serious source of information to establish narrative. And the same with Manson."
I think that in understand habitual liars, what they do is mix truth and lies. They stick to the demonstrable truth when it dies not harm them or maybe even helps them, then make it up as required when it does not. They tend to tailor to their audience, to see what works best with them, and for the effect the liar wants to achieve, and this is why their stories often drift.
If this is true, that they mix fact and falsehood, it means that some of what they say is accurate and "true" and our work is to attempt to weed out the falsehood to see what's left.
Because really, those at the crime scenes really do have the most, and the best, information.
Too, there's the burden of credibility that a jury is instructed to use. If someone testifying is caught in a falsehood, it's allowable to dismiss everything else they say as false. This is fine for a jury trial, where because there is a legal consequence the evidence needs to be as close to unquestioned as possible, But we're not a jury here. We're deciding likelihoods, with no consequences, and only to suit our own level of veracity. I try to keep my own level pretty high, but still I'd like to figure out, in detail as much as possible, the actual events of the crimes.
As I've said, motivations/personalities mean little to me, but that's just my thing. I'd like to figure things like where Parent was when he first caught sight of the intruders. I won't ever know for sure, but I can eliminate the least likely, leaving a set of probable locations.
E.g., he probably did not see them when he was at the head of the path down to the guesthouse. If he had, he might be more motivated to go quickly back to Garrison and tell him, and they'd then try to call, find out the phone was dead,
Fair enough, but those murder characteristics are too common to tie these murders together. How many murders have those characteristics? Copycat may have MORE evidence than HS, but it doesn't have BETTER evidence, namely two of the killers admitting this was at least their reasons and the HS blood on the walls. But it could have been both motives at play and one doesn't have to be the main or only motive. Copycat is definitely more believable (although almost as insane) than HS, but the quality of the HS evidence can't be disregarded.
If you look at Manson’s testimony, he uses the words “Helter Skelter” and what its literal definition means. Confusion. He says something in the lines of “Helter Skelter means confusion, and not a race war.”
If you look at news paper articles (and I can post a clipping of one) you’d be surprised that even in the early 60’s, Helter Skelter was used to describe confusion and or haste between blacks
https://imgur.com/a/y1F9ufF
Chaos: The Manson Murders airs on Netflix on March 7. Another bit of income for Mr. O'Neill.
The joke is usually on you methinks
While I'm off on what the wires around Cielo were for, I recalled an interesting (to me) question I had some while back...
At the gate activation button *inside* the property, the one that you'd ostensibly push to go out, there's blood evidence, and Watson says that he had probably left his prints there, but that subsequent police investigators smeared them.
So we can conclude for now that Watson pushed the inside button at some point after at least one killing. I wondered when/why he did this, since there's testimony that the intruders left the same way they came, up and around the end of the fence. Accordingly, they did not leave by the open gate.
Did the gate have a timed closer feature, such that after the button was pushed and the gate swung open, after a period, one minute, for example, it closed automatically. Seems like there's some form of testimony that it did (maybe by Garrison), but I can't recall now.
Does anyone know?
Shoe, yes the gate had an auto-close feature. It closed approximately 30 seconds after it had swung open. This is in Garretson's testimony.
Torque:
Thanks about the gate!
So we are now left to figure out why, when Watson pressed the gate button after killing someone, they did not simply walk out of the gate instead of climbing back over the fence, as they testified to doing.
Right now, my guess is that the gate closed before they picked up the stuff they left near the fence when they first climbed over and in. The gate timed out after 30 sec, closed (probably scared them), then they simply climbed over the fence since they were most likely over there when the gate closed.
The blood type on the gate button was type O (undifferentiated), and since Parent's was type B-MN, we can assume that the button was pushed on the way out.
Didn't Tex cut some lines and maybe thought the gate wasn't working? Or maybe the C.I.A. agents parallel-parked on Cielo would have been awakened by the gate opening.😅
In the context of this case, HS refers to a race war and there are too many people in and out of that group who've stated CM preached it. It's meaning outside of this case has no bearing on it. CM was likely covering his ass too late to try and distance himself from what so many people who were close to him said: that he preached HS and even prepared to avoid its affects.
As far as CM in interviews, it doesn't matter what his intentions were and that's not even my point at all. The point is there are people like JMJ who are trying to change the narrative to one that removes CM from the things he was never charged with like being a leader, ordering murders and trying to start a race war. Basically trying to whitewash his reputation when he himself had so trashed his reputation by acting and sounding like a maniac, that no one will be interested in a few phone conversations, where he sounds only a little less batty. The effort to rehabilitate CM's reputation is an utter waste of time given the overwhelming amount of evidence that makes him sound like a maniac. Maybe he was putting on a show and following this ridiculous, child-like idea of "reflecting what people expected," but that only shows he was more interested in being a showman than telling the truth. And if he didn't care enough about his reputation to make any effort to correct it, why should JMJ or anyone else?
JMJ seems the most ardent of CM apologists. I've heard him on the CM-apologist YT show TLB Radio multiple times defending anything negative said about CM, even when those negative things are easily verifiable.
LOL @ the CIA comment 😂
But yes, he cut phone lines
You had more people saying the race war theory wasn't true than those who did. It’s easy to say that the copycat motive came late in the game when the defense rested shortly after the prosecution rested…no witnesses for the defense were called until the penalty phase.
The ones who said the race war theory was true were the ones who were facing problems legally such as Linda who should have at least served 10 years in jail, and Danny DeCarlo.
"But yes, he cut phone lines"
Yes, that was never a question. But *why* did he push the button when they left, opening the gate, but then exit over the fence, as testified?
Did the radio tell him to? ;^)
Watson was going for the Diminished capacity argument. During his trial he testified that they walked through the gate but he didn’t touch the button.
Vol 20. Page 3274
“ And 1 belleve you testified yesterday you don't
know hew you got out of the zate.
Did you climb around it
or did you go through the gate?
A
No, we walked right through the gate, I remember.
Did you press the inside button?
A No, I didn’t”
The exact opposite is true. The people claiming HS was part of CM's philosophy and preached far outnumber those who later said it wasn't true. Watkins, Lake, Watson, Van Houten. Most importantly, two of the killers said it was their motive AND one of the LB killers wrote it in blood on the fridge. Even if a thousand people say it wasn't the motive, the fact that two of the killers said it was the motive and HS was written at the crime scene outweighs any number of people saying HS didn't exist. Even if it was 40 or 50 years later when the old, drug-tortured brains start to deny HS.
They wouldn't let a book be named that if weren't true.😅 AND a movie!
"Watson was going for the Diminished capacity argument. During his trial he testified that they walked through the gate but he didn’t touch the button."
We then need to figure out either:
a) was he lying at the trial (there is testimony from one of the girls that they left by going over the fence, after picking up their extra clothes); or
b) which of the girls opened the gate.
c) some other possibility.
Which do you think?
A.
While we haven’t seen Patricia’s testimony so we don’t know what she testified to concerning the night Tate,Sebring,Parent,Folger and Frykowski were killed.
His testimony is in contradiction to Susan and Linda. For example, Susan and Linda both testified that Watson removed the screen entered the house through the window and let the girls in by opening the front door. Watson testified that he walked up to the door, turned the knob, and went in that way.
Susan testified at the Grand Jury that Watson did all the talking going to the Tate-Polanski residence. Watson testified that he was in the back seat and was listening to the others talk.
When looking at his parole hearings, he makes admissions such yes he did enter the residence through the window.
"Earlkeese1978 said...
The people claiming HS was part of CM's philosophy and preached far outnumber those who later said it wasn't true. Watkins, Lake, Watson, Van Houten... "
Add to that Watson, Jakobson, Flynn, and Share.
When working on the Making Manson documentary, Diane said she was told Manson did the things he was accused of and that’s what she had to testify to. It took tooth and nail to be able to keep in the part where she admitted “I don’t what is true any
more”
Gypsy stated in episode three of Making Manson that Helter Skelter was not real, nor was Manson preaching race war nor was he telling anyone they had to start one.
Susan at her Grand Jury hearing.
“ QUESTION: What is the next thing that happened?
ANSWER: I walked out the front door at a very rapid pace up to Tex and Katie and Tex pushed the button that opened the front gate.
QUESTION: Is this the electric button?
ANSWER: Yes, and we proceeded to walk down the hill to the car. When we got to the car we saw Linda Kasabian in the car. She started the car and Tex ran up to her and said “What do you think you’re doing? Get over on the passenger side. Don’t do anything unless I tell you to do it.” Then we drove off.
We can't undo the massive amount of testimony given to support HS because of one documentary with geriatric interviews with the people involved. Especially when a Manson supporter/apologist like JMJ is providing the source material. You keep saying you're not a Manson apologist, but you keep sounding like one more and more.
"Susan at her Grand Jury hearing."
Yep. I misremembered. I now think that it was Kasabian who said that she left by going around the fence.
"When looking at his parole hearings, he makes admissions such yes he did enter the residence through the window."
If I remember correctly this time, in one of the hearings he seem to note, ironically, that when he went in thru the window and around to the door to let them in, the door was apparently not locked. If this is accurate, anyone could have walked right in.
I’m definitely not an apologist. However there is overwhelming evidence that the motive was copycat killings. The actual killers all stated this as the motive. Susan Atkins, Tex Watson, Van Houten, and Bobby. Others such as Cappy testified this as being the motive and was willing to kill to “get a brother out of jail” and was willing to go the night the Labianca’s were murdered. And it’s not “geriatric” when Share Testified at the trial that she was asked by Van Houten and Kasabian if she was willing to kill to get a brother out of jail. Leslie confirmed this testimony.
It’s easy to apply the doctrine of The Fountain of the World — where Watkins spent occasionally— to Manson. The girls outside the courtroom telling the media that “Charlie never preached a race war” were listed as witnesses…whom were out there daily waiting to be called to testify…
And last but not least…If Manson, by Bugliosi’s theory was trying to start a race war…and the only way he could do that was through his music…how would the music be released when he’s hiding out in the desert in the “bottomless pit”?
I do seem to recall that SOMEONE said the door was unlocked. It may have been Watson. I don’t recall Linda testifying to that. I’ll have to look over her transcripts from both trials. It doesn’t make sense that she would because according to her and Susan she ran back to the car.
As I've said multiple times: two of the killers said the motive was HS and they wrote it in blood. And as I've also said multiple times: Bugs said it wasn't the only or main motive, just the one with the most evidence. Evidence for copycat is anything but overwhelming, especially in light of the fact that two of the killers names HS as the motive and wrote it in blood. Maybe it wasn't the only motive - even for the killers - but it was at least a motive. I can keep saying it over and over, even though you keep not getting it.
Apparently we've been reading different histories, or alternative facts. According to Bugs, Watson and Van Houten, they were committing the murders to try and pin the blame on the blacks so the the whites would start killing. If you hear Van Houten's interrogation from December 1969 and don't think HS was the motive (at least for her) then you're not listening close enough.
And if the evidence for copycat is so "overwhelming" (even though it isn't) why is the motive the most hotly contested idea in this whole case? And has been for decades? Remember, there is a difference between evidence and proof.
" I don’t recall Linda testifying to that."
To *what*? That the door was unlocked? No one claimed that.
So far as her going back over the fence, I *think* she said that.
Too, it's sometimes unclear when they talk about "the car", especially in conjunction with the gate. I think some of the time Kasabian is saying that she waited around Parent's car, before she went back and witnessed the killings at the front of the house..
MISS KRENWINKEL TESTIFIES THAT SHE KILLED TWO
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19TH, 1971
LOS ANGELES, Feb. 19 – Calmly and without remorse, Patricia (Katie) Krenwinkel confessed on the witness stand Thursday that she killed two of the seven Tate-LaBianca murder victims.
Her demeanor was warm and friendly at first as she talked about life with Charles Manson and it was entirely matter of fact when she described how she stabbed Abigail Folger and Rosemary LaBianca.
Like Susan Atkins before her, the pale, brown-haired young woman assured the court that the 36-years old Manson was not a leader of the “family” and had had nothing to do with the murders.
“Do you have any remorse for these murders you committed,” asked prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi on cross-examination.
“I don’t know what the word means,” she replied.
“Well,” Bugliosi said, “do you have any sorrow for having murdered these people?”
“No,” she said.
“You feel you did the right thing, is that correct?”
“It was the right thing, yes.”
The seven men and five women who must decide whether the four convicted defendants live or die watched intently as “Katie” confessed.
She said the thought to “sidetrack police from Bobby Beausoleil came from a sort of “brain-storming” session on how to free the handsome, young man from charges of murdering musician Gary Hinman.
From newspaper on Patrica’s testimony.
Susan Atkins in both of her books said Myth of Helter Skelter: “ "We didn't know how to get Bobby out of jail, so someone mentioned we should do something equal as to make it appear like someone [else) had done it and not Bobby, who wouldn't be present."
Child of Satan, Child of God by Susan Atkins;
"Out of all the confusion and mass of words, the constant use of drugs, came a vague sort of scheme to try to convince the police that Bobby could not have done the Hinman killing. It was a plan for
"copycat murders" that would make the police believe they had the wrong man in jail since similar "revolutionary" killings were still taking place while
Bobby was behind bars."
Van Houten testified that the killings were done to get Bobby out of jail.
Susan Atkins again in Child of Satan, Child of God.
"To the best of my understanding, the copycat plan was the primary motive behind the.... Tate-LaBianca murders."
Patricia: "About August 4, 1969 Bobby Beausolail got arrested for the murder of Gary Hinman.... Then one day [Susan Atkins, Leslie Van Houten, and I] were speaking about it, and Linda was present. We thought about how to free Bobby. We put a lot of thought into it and one [thought| stayed in our minds.
We thought of doing some killing like sidetracking the police to make them believe that someone else did it."
E.g., Kasabian's testimony:
""What is the next thing that happened, Linda?"
"I came around from the back, and Tex was standing at a window, cutting the screen, and he told me to go back and wait at the car, and he may have told me to listen for sounds, but I don't remember him saying it."
"While you were down by the car do you know where Tex, Sadie, and Katie were?"
"No, I didn't see them."
"Did either of those three come down to the car?"
"Yes, Katie came down at one point."
"Did Katie say anything to you?"
"Yes, she asked for my knife, and 1 gave it to her, and she told me to stay there and listen for sounds, and I did, and she left."
"When she left, did she walk in the direction of the residence?"
"Yes."
"Did you see either Patricia Krenwinkel or Susan Atkins or Tex walk into the residence?"
"No, I didn't."
"Were you all alone by the car?"
"Yes.""
In every case when they say "the car" they're talking about Parent's, otherwise Kasabian went up and down the hill more than once.
From Will You Die For Me?
*Note that even Aaron Stovitz believed the other part of the motive was to get money to get Mary out of jail. This is also confirmed by Stephanie Schram’s statement to the police because she was with Manson when he went to see Dennis Wilson “to get money to get Mary out of jail” after the Labianca’s were murdered and it’s confirmed by Melba Kronkight, whom Manson went to see the night the Labianca’s were killed looking for money to get Mary out of jail. If you don’t know who Melba is, several people at the commune worked for her and she owed them money.
Watson also contradicts himself in parole hearings about when the talk of murders took place.
There were three basic motives behind the murders that took place sometime past midnight on August 9. The most obvious was the one Charlie had articulated to us that afternoon: to do what blackie didn’t have the energy or the smarts to do—ignite Helter Skelter and bring in Charlie’s kingdom. There was also the need for more cash, first of all to finance our preparations for Armageddon—the same thing that had motivated the drug burn and Bernard Crowe’s supposed murder, the killing of Gary Hinman, and all the proposed abductions and murders in the Chatsworth area—and also to pay $600 bail for Mary Brunner, who had been arrested earlier that day for using a stolen Sears’ credit card. If she had not been in custody, Mary would most likely have been the one sent with us that night, instead of Linda, since Mary had the other valid driver’s license in the Family and had already proven herself at Gary Hinman’s. Beyond getting money and bringing down Helter Skelter, there was a third, less important purpose: to clear Bobby Beausoleil of the Hinman slaying by committing a similar crime while he was in jail.
I was talking about Linda testifying about climbing back
Over the fence. I don’t recall her testifying to that.
And there is an inconsistency there. Susan said she was the one that lost her knife and went to get Linda’s.
Right. I believe I remember Linda testifying she wanted to get help…so it was possible. And we know she was close by to see Frykowski come out of the house and fall into the bushes.
James D: citation for the newspaper article? Also remember everything the girls said and did in the courtroom was directed by Charlie, as with all their actions. The motive for the murders to the girls was because they were told to do it. Full stop.
I never said the copycat wasn't a motive. You've got the killers saying the motive was HS and copycat. Which is all I've been saying. But Bugs was right in that HS had the most evidence and was never claimed to be the only motive or main motive. Just the one with the most evidence. And that's still true today, especially with the writing in blood at LB and the testimony of the killers like LVH's 12/69 interview and Tex's statement from his book. But I've never said HS was the only or main motive nor have I denied the copycat motive. My only argument is the quality of evidence to support the HS theory is better than the copycat motive.
I tend to rely on the statements and actions of people when they are closest to the event in question. If something happens to anyone, they are encouraged to record the experience immediately as that is when the information is most pure, without being sullied by other people’s statements or other inputs. It’s hard to give credibility to statements made further from the event, especially when decades separate a recollection and an event and especially when heavy drug or alcohol use is in play. Long distant recollections blur between memories, imagination and influence. First thought, best thought. Stories and recollections are enriched, stripped-down and sometimes outright changed. It happens with age and is impacted with heavy, concentrated drug use as so many of these people did. And time does nothing to help any testimony or recollection. Sadie and BB are the most unreliable, especially the latter as he has changed his story so many times it’s virtually impossible to believe anything he says or has said. But so many of these people changed their stories multiple times that it is almost impossible to take any of them seriously.
I don’t think any of girls’ testimony is reliable during the trial and for several years after as they were heavily influenced by CM. He was directing the girls in the courtroom and likely the protesters on the street, so their testimony becomes more unreliable the further from the crimes it is taken. Notice their actions in the courtroom duplicate CM’s only AFTER he does the action first. They never moved as one. They didn’t carve Xs at the same time as each other, they all did it only after CM did it. And several other actions for months on end, with many opportunities for CM to tell them to stop because they were helping the prosecution’s case. Their dedication to CM was severe, and some of them said it took years to be totally free of his influence, even though they were physically isolated from him for years. Anyone who says CM WASN'T in charge is ignoring his actions and - more importantly - how they were copied by the girls in the courtroom and the street protesters. That kind of control is not suddenly turned on. It takes some time for it to be implemented so no doubt whatever control he had over them was not limited to the courtroom but likely existed before that time.
You keep claiming you're not an apologist, but all of your arguments are identical to all arguments and dispositions held by pro-CM supporters like Brian Davis, JMJ, Stimson and Schrek. So, you can hopefully understand how I assume you're an apologist. Perhaps only you know for sure, but I’m just saying this is what it looks like from here.
Charlie denies so many things that multiple people have confirmed. I'm not a pro-Manson apologist so I don't take him at his word for much of anything. Besides, DeCarlo and Posten never wrote books and never seemed to try to capitalize on their fame. Watkins wrote one book, it bombed with only one pressing and then he disappeared other than an interview on Larry King where he seemed more focused on trying to keep people from getting into cults. CM always had a way of over-simplifying things and only within the context of how they affected him, not whether they were true or not. He had the logic and reasoning of an alcoholic barfly.
How can you verify the statement "parole officers were not like how they are now. They really didn’t care?" What makes you think P.O.s care more now than then? It's easier for them to do their jobs with tracking devices, but how we can gage someone's capacity for caring needs some fleshing out. At that time, physical addresses and phone calls being the only way to communicate with a parolee, how often were the P.O.s able to conduct fact to face with the parolees? Without a consistent residence and no job to visit, how could ANYONE keep up with someone as transient as CM was?
Typically, the royalty rates an author received is about 75 cents per book sold. And a secret of the publishing world is that thick books are preferable to thin books as the printing cost for each is about the same but thick books can be sold for substantially more money. Even with all the books Chaos has sold, I doubt O'Neill has even recouped all of his advances. He was at the tail end of a dying industry and business model and was trying to hold on to the past ways of doing things as long as he could. Social security will no doubt be his sugar daddy from here on out. So, he can post all the unsubstantiated, bat-shit crazy stuff he wants with the only payment being the likes he gets on social media.
@JamesD: JMJ has TOTALLY been pushing a narrative that attempts to whitewash CM's rep as leader and starter of race wars for several years in any forum he can. On FB and especially on TLBRadio where he is revered as a virtual god of this case. They kiss the ring and brown-nose that guy to no end on that show and he laps it up. Even though CM was never charged with being a leader or trying to start a race war, JMJ has fought for too long and too hard to try and wipe that from the public's memory and the historical record.
Medium Patty. Article can be seen here.
We we’ll have to agree to disagree about the orders, Because several sources who were involved all had the plan before Manson arrived back at Spahn Ranch Sometime on the afternoon of August 8, 1969.
That is when he learned about Bobby ‘s arrest.
https://www.cielodrive.com/archive/miss-krenwinkel-testifies-that-she-killed-two/
@earkkeese1978 The likes are important- as a self hating gay man Tom likes affirmation and support from wherever it comes
there are blogs and podcasts that argue that Kohlberger is not a vile killer. If that is your standard then you are a low information thinker. Your comment made it sound like you thought it was a best seller. People who read it and cannot process information repeat it because the conspiracy angle gives meaning to a meaningless crime. That's all chum
In order to believe the copycat motive you have to assume that the killers were sub moronic insofar as not a single parallel was drawn between the murders for MONTHS
And in the "personal anecdote" department: I lived in L.A. and worked in construction/building of sets for a production company. Twice we filmed on Frank Retz's property which neighbored the former Spahn Ranch. This would be in the mid-90s. He was a great character and would gladly talk about his days as a soccer star in Spain, fighting for the Germans in WWII and being a stunt double for Zorro. And his interactions with Manson when the family lived at Spahn's. He gave the exact description of Manson that Springer did in his interrogation tape: a homicidal maniac. He also said the Manson and his group were always "spewing off about that race war." I have no tapes and it doesn't prove anything, but Manson's (and many in his group) obsession with HS is easily verifiable multiple times over from dozens of people, in and out of the family. And Retz told me that everyone around there hated Manson and his group. "They were useless shit punks" as he said in his still-thick German accent. RIP to him as he died a couple of years later. I wish I would have picked his brain more.
And two of the killers HS said it was at least PART of the motive. And they wrote it in blood at the LBs. But, yeah, it's not a motive.
A previous thread debating whether or not Charlie really believed in Helter Skelter: https://www.mansonblog.com/2020/09/not-ready-did-charlie-really-believe-in.html
Yes, that's a good discussion and thank you for sharing. It's no doubt CM believed it. There are just too many people who were close to him affirming that he believed it to think otherwise. Even people who weren't close to him like Schramm's sister witnessed his obsession and she only spoke to him for maybe less than an hour. I know pro-Manson apologists like John Michael Jones, George Stimson, Nikolas Shrek and Brian Davis will fight tooth and nail to distance Manson from this, but the evidence to affirm it is overwhelming.
But it almost doesn't even matter what he believed. He was never charged with ordering murders, being a leader or trying to start a race war. He wasn't charged with having certain beliefs. He received the conviction and sentence based on the fact that he was physically involved in these murders. He is the one common denominator. Even though he wasn't physically present at Tate, he was at LaBianca and they were both tried as one crime. He was present at Hinman. He was present at Shea. THAT'S why he was in prison. Not because of his beliefs in a race war, or whether he was the leader or whether he ordered the murders. Because he was there. That's it. Take away the leader and HS stuff, and he still gets the same verdict and sentence. Those who are trying so hard to distance CM from the leader/HS thing are doing a fool's errand because they're only trying to clean up the reputation of Manson. He is the only beneficiary of a narrative change. Which will never happen because Manson himself trashed his reputation by sounding like a maniac in every single interview. In none of them does he even remotely sound coherent or safe. Even if the narrative changes as they would like, his sentence would not have changed. He would have still been guilty of 9 counts of murder and conspiracy. It's one thing to believe in alternative motives, but to dedicate time, energy and other resources to change the narrative as proposed in modern documentaries like Making Manson is to only have one goal: to whitewash Manson's reputation in the public's eye and the record of history.
That's an excellent compilation of points to prove that HS was not only believed by CM and the killers, but also a part of the motive. James D. The Manson Archives would be well-advised to view that discussion. Of especially persuasive comment is LVH's Parole Hearing 9/6/2017
Inmate Van Houten: "But prior to the murders, he began to say that it looked like the blacks weren't going to start the revolution, that we would have to. And that's when he seriously started talking about us killing people."
Col. Scott,
Your reply makes it sound like you don't know how many copies Chaos has sold. Do you?
Post a Comment