Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Back to Leno. 
Every theory has a loophole, and Leno's Gambling Debts/ Mob Hit theory is no different. 
Let's explore what we know, and see where it takes us...
What we know from the Homicide Report:

"Subsequent investigation into the business dealings of Mr. LaBianca revealed he had been misappropriating money from his own company's treasury. The bookkeeping records of the Gateway Markets showed a deficit of approximately $200,000 since 1964. This deficit was discovered in June, 1969, by other family board members. 

To the family's astonishment, it was learned after Mr. LaBianca's death--he owned nine thoroughbred race horses, including Kildare Lady, one of the more prominent horses. 

Mr. LaBianca was a chronic gambler, particularly a horse better. It would not be uncommon for him to wager $500 a day. Every racing day he frequented the various racetracks and it is not known at this time if he used the services of a bookmaker.

Even though the LaBianca's lived expensively, their properties were extensively mortgaged and had personal loans totaling $30,000. 

The only connection between the LaBianca's and the underworld is Mr. LaBianca's previous association as a member of the board of directors of the Hollywood National Bank, 6225 Hollywood Boulevard. According to LAPD and LASO Intelligence, the bank was backed by "hoodlum money. " Investigation at this time has not substantiated the connection between the underworld and the bank, although three board members were indicted and convicted of a kiting scheme".

The man was obviously a chronic gambler, averaging $500 a day at the track. 

He had been "misappropriating funds" for five years from his supermarket business, to the tune of $200,000.

His properties were "extensively mortgaged"... and he had another 30k in personal debt.  

He was on the board of directors at a bank... that was... according to the LAPD, "backed by hoodlum money".  Let's keep in mind folks, this is 1969 money.  A very nice home in my area, sold for 20K in those days.  Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

Basically, the theory goes, that Leno (like most gamblers), had borrowed money from places other than the bank, when things got outta hand.   Most claim, it was the Italian Mob, and Frank Carbo specifically... and Carbo "contracted" the Leno "hit" to Manson... when Leno became a dead-beat for his debts.

Now for the big loophole.  Why would the professional Mafia contract a "hit" with a bunch of hippies?  
A complete bloodbath, with foolishness left behind... and the man's wife being killed to boot... just doesn't fit the mafia's methods.  That's always the stickler with this theory. 

Could it be, that Leno was borrowing money from lower forms of life towards the end?
Did he borrow money from folks less "organized"?  That's the only thing I can figure.

BTW... if anyone can confirm, or expound upon the following information, that would be cool:
I was chatting with a dude on another blog, and he said...
"The Shadow over Santa Susanna: Black Magic Mind Control and the 'Manson Family' Mythos by Adam Gorightly. Page 325: "At the time of his death--it has been alleged--Leno was in debt to the tune of $30,000 to Frankie Carbo's organization.
Now, his source for that datum was Bill Nelson's Manson Behind the Scenes, a book I no longer have in my possession".

63 comments:

MrPoirot said...

If you kill someone who owes you money you will never get a dime from them. Thus the mob prefers breaking your arm. Ive known many compulsive gamblers. None were ever murdered and they all were in debt. I did know a girl who committed suicide for stealing $50,000 from poker machines in her own store.

But again, you won't get any more money from a debtor if you kill them.

Leno had nice cars and boats and a valuable gun collection.

When Leno was murdered it was bad news for the mafia for it meant they were out any and all monies owed to them by Leno. It was a sad day for the mafia too when Leno was killed by Charlie.

Leno's survival would have been an advantage to the mafia.

bobby said...

MrPoirot said:If you kill someone who owes you money you will never get a dime from them. Thus the mob prefers breaking your arm.

I think the same way. Seems like he would have been threatened, beat up, had his horses taken away before he would be murdered.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P & Bobby:

I agree totally with both of you. Killing Leno for owing money would be like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

The article says that the family found out about the $200,000 deficit in the supermarket business in June of 1969. I was thinking they were unaware of that until after Leno's death in August of 1969.

I would think that if Leno owed money to the mob (Frankie Carbo??) that they would try to get it from him in other ways.

Rosemary had plenty of money to pay off his debts. But...was Rosemary in the dark about his gambling debts? Was she like so many other wives who don't have a clue what hubby is up to???

I would think that if a person owes money to the mob, they would have connections to see exactly what assets you do have, and get the money that way.

Also, why would the mob hire a bunch of hippies to go slaughter these people so gruesomely? That's not their style.

katie8753 said...

I know there's lots of talk about this "little black book". If this book does exist, I don't think it was the reason for the killings.

If Charlie wanted that black book, why didn't they just "creepy crawl" the Waverly drive residence that weekend when the LaBianca's were away and just take it? Charlie knew they weren't home. There was no reason to kill them for that.

Plus, if Charlie wanted that book so badly, why did he leave without it. Nothing prevented him from looking for it. And he didn't mention that book to Tex, Pat or Leslie. If it was so important, why not?

If Alice found it while cleaning up the house (which I find strange that she was cleaning it up anyway), then it must have not been hidden that well.

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd, interesting thread! Thanks for posting.

I earlier said "the article says". I meant to say "the homocide report says".

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment:

Marlin Marynick described the scene as a "botched home invasion" in one interview.
Could it be, that they were only supposed to "rough Leno up", as you are all saying... and unfortunately, Tex went amp-nutziod, and took things much further?

Didn't Manson say something to the effect of... "don't scare them, like last night"?

Didn't Manson assure the LaBiancas everything was gonna be alright (or something like that)?

Could it be that Manson became more paranoid following this incident, 'cuz he knew they fucked-up the "rough-up" job... causing a conundrum the mob didn't want... AND killing their debtor??

BTW... was it after this LaBianca massacre, that Manson said to Susan... "you just sent me back to jail"... or was that Tate?
My memory is escaping me now.

This conservative group, always forces me into the devil's advocate angle. LOL
I really wanted to argue the issue from the other side... but, so be it.
"Man, I'm whatever you want me to be". : )

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

BTW... it's worthy of note.
When this subject has been raised in the past, AC always states that the motive is correct... but, the organized group "contracting" was not the Italians.
She always maintains, we should look elsewhere, in terms of the "organized group".

Like I ssuggested... maybe Leno had descended to lower forms of organized criminals for his "borrowings"?
... or "disorganized" criminals? LOL

katie8753 said...

Leno was on the Board of Directors of the Hollywood Bank, which supposedly was funded by "hoodlums". I'm trying to figure that one out. Aren't banks regulated?

I've never seen any mention of Leno ever meeting or knowing Carbo.

Lynyrd, I like your theory of "murder versus roughing up", but it all boils down to Charlie.

Charlie knew the carnage that had taken place the night before. I think that if they were just supposed to rough Leno up, he would have made that perfectly clear to Tex.

So in order to validate your assumption, we would have to also assume that Tex ordered the girls to kill the LaBiancas on his own, AGAINST Charlie's orders.

I don't think Tex was an automaton like the others, and I think he did have free will at times. Burning Crowe was his idea. Charlie didn't tell him to do that. But I have a hard time believing that Tex would go directly against Charlie's orders in this magnitude.

Does anyone have an opinion??

Marliese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

Marliese I agree with you. It doesn't make sense to kill people who owe money to the mob. The only real motivation by the mob is take MAKE money, not LOSE money.

Marliese, is gambling legal in California, or was it back in 1969?

I know Leno had race horses, but where did he keep these horses, and where did they run? In California, or maybe Nevada?

MrPoirot said...

He kept them at spahn ranch. LOL!

mattprokes said...

you've got to look at where the info about this little black book comes from.
charles manson and bill nelson.
two of the most unreliable unstable people on the planet.
i don't think adam endorses this theory in his book he just wanted to get all the theories and myths into one place.
the mafia would'nt contract a bunch of drug addled hippies to do something like this and like others have said theres plenty more money to be had there without killing anyone.

the only way this works is if manson took it upon himself to do this in order to impress someone
which probably would have been death for manson at the hands of the people he was trying to impress
cm might be alot of things but i don't think stupid is one of them.

so leaving that behind another possibility for someone to use the family for something like this would be bikers.
they would probably be a little looser than the mob with who they use to do their dirty work.
if you can make a solid connection between the labiancas and the biker gangs that we know have ties to the family(joe dorgan for instance)then you might have something to think about.

even that seems like a pretty big leap to me it doesnt explain the tate murders does it? and i think we're mostly in agreement that all the murders have some thread that ties them all together,so you're left with hs or the copycat motive.

do you really think manson loved or feared(what he might tell the cops about hinman)beausoleil enough to put his freedom on the line for him by commiting these murders?
if it was you would'nt you leave california and never come back rather than risking your life by commiting murders for the "love of brother"?
remember cm was'nt a hippie he was a con man.

that leaves hs which no-one believes or something else that we don't know anything about.
every path takes you back to the beginning like a maze.
all we know for sure is we don't know anything.

Marliese said...

Hi Katie, yes, there is gambling in California. i've never heard where Leno kept "his horses"...or the horses it's been said they discovered he owned after he was murdered. Just guessing, aren't valuable race horses, or at least some of them, partnerships? I've never heard how much of the horses he supposedly owned, maybe just a percentage. Doesn't that make more sense than "leno owned race horses?" The care and welfare of a racehorse is for the seriously wealthy. I tend to think Leno's involvement was more gambling on the horses than owning any outright, or maybe he had a tiny interest in one or two, but i don't know. These things get blown up for sure. You know?
The big race track near L.A. is Santa Anita, out near where horseface grew up. :) Very nice, very popular. Big money. There's del mar too, closer to San Diego. And off track.

MrPoirot said...

do you really think manson loved or feared(what he might tell the Mattprokes said:

cops about hinman)beausoleil enough to put his freedom on the line for him by commiting these murders?
if it was you would'nt you leave california and never come back rather than risking your life by commiting murders for the "love of brother"?
remember cm was'nt a hippie he was a con man.

Mr Poirot replies:

Charlie discusses this in Nuell Emmon's book. He knows he effed up, but he was as emotionally tied to the Family as much as they were emotionally tied to him.

Marliese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marliese said...

Hi Lynyrd, i know that's been said a lot, 'you just sent me back to jail'...didn't that come from Sadie? I don't remember. Anyway, do you really believe he said that? I don't.

Marliese said...

Lynyrd, i hit publish too soon. Didn't mean to say do you 'really' like you're an idiot if you do. :)
How about do you believe he said that?

katie8753 said...

Matt, I've always thought there might be a connection with the bikers because of Joe Dorgan and Suzanne. Rosemary didn't like her seeing Joe and they fought about it a lot. There was no love lost there.

I've often wondered if Suzanne had something to do with this, especially in light of her "forgiving" Tex years later and rallying for him to get out.

MrPoirot said...

Little known fact. Charlie Manson was the jockey who rode Leno's race horses but Leno fired Charlie so Charlie murdered Leno. That's why the little black book is crucial for inside the little black book Leno had written , "get new jockey".

katie8753 said...

Marliese, that's an interesting thought, that Leno owned a percentage in the horses.

I've always wondered how he could maintain 9 thoroughbred horses and still be in such a deep hole debtwise. He could just sell the horses for money if he owned them...right?

Leno didn't appear to be a man who felt like his life was in danger because of his gambling. The last thing he did on earth was read the racing results in the paper. It didn't sound like he thought that habit was going to be a fatal one.

If gambling was legal in CA, then I'm assuming that he used the money he skimmed off the supermarket to fund his gambling, and I guess that was getting to risky and he took out a $30,000 personal loan. From who?? If gambling is legal, you wouldn't have to borrow from an illegal source...right?

I hate to say this, but Leno evidently sucked at gambling. He never seemed to win. LOL.

katie8753 said...

>>>Mr. P said:

He kept them at spahn ranch. LOL!

Little known fact. Charlie Manson was the jockey who rode Leno's race horses but Leno fired Charlie so Charlie murdered Leno. That's why the little black book is crucial for inside the little black book Leno had written , "get new jockey".>>>

Mr. P, we actually got an "LOL" out of you again!!!

No actually I think Charlie wanted Leno dead because his 9 racehorses were crapping on his nice green ATWA lawn at Spahn's. HA HA.

v717 said...

Ronnie Reagan jr interview with Charles Manson:
Charles Manson: "Leno La Bianca was killed because of the little black book that hold the names of those who controll the music business. It had noting to do with me."

MrPoirot said...

What was Charlie going to do with
Leno's black book that he couldn't do with a phone book?

I think the little black book is a fabrication Charlie created because Leno had an Italian name. Charlie watched too many Jimmy Cagney movies.

Remember Cheers? Sam Malone had a little black book too.

katie8753 said...

>>>V717 said: Ronnie Reagan jr interview with Charles Manson:
Charles Manson: "Leno La Bianca was killed because of the little black book that hold the names of those who controll the music business. It had noting to do with me.">>>

Those who control the music business??? HUH???

What does that have to do with gambling?

katie8753 said...

>>>Mr. P said: Remember Cheers? Sam Malone had a little black book too.>>>

Oh, now I know why Charlie wanted that litle black book. It had all the names of his bitches in it.

"For a good blow job, call Squeaky @ BR-SQEK....woo, woo, woo."

HA HA.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Several great posts here... thanks.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Marliese asked>>>>
"do you believe he said that"?<<<<

Sometimes I intentionally play "devil's advocate" to stimulate discussion.

To answer your question specifically:
I take all the quotes from this case (in which Manson himself, or members of the family, are the only witnesses) with a large grain of salt.
Unless we were physically there ourselves (or have the quote on videotape)... it's always suspect.

As for Susan Atkins... she's one of the least credible people involved.
She was definitely prone to exaggeration.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi V717!!

V717 said>>>>
"Ronnie Reagan jr interview with Charles Manson:
Charles Manson: "Leno La Bianca was killed because of the little black book that hold the names of those who control the music business. It had noting to do with me."

<<<<<

Manson also discusses the "black book" during an episode of "Hard Copy" in the mid 90's.
He mentions the "black book" 3 times, in the Geralod interview... here amd there, as well.
All total (assuming your information is accurate), that's three videos.

Trouble is... few people believe a word Manson says... so video testimony from Manson carries little weight (as I said, with most people).

katie8753 said...

So if the motive for the LaBianca murders isn't a mob hit, are we any closer to knowing what it is?

I personally don't think that the Manson killers knew ANY of the victims.

But...I also don't think that any of these murders were random hits either.

There was a reason that Charlie targeted these houses.

And the reasons for Tate are different from LaBianca.

Why bring rope, wire cutters for the phone and a "look out" at Tate, and none of that at LaBianca? The LaBianca house was much less secluded than Cielo Drive.

Why shower and raid the fridge at LaBianca and not Tate? I guess carving someone's stomach gives you more of an appetite.

katie8753 said...

Manson isn't about to say anything that might cast suspicion on him, even after all these years.

That's why he talks in circles, to confuse.

His words are very unreliable for making any sense of this case.

v717 said...

I think that FBI-profiler John Douglas was right when he said: "What happened was that Manson lost control of the group."
And I would also like to emphasize that Manson is the kind of guy who kills with words not with knives.
He speaks in metaphors and throws out deadly threats around him but for him its just another "mind game." He has long ago left the normal world that other people lives in and risen into a world of symbolic manifestations where the only thing that matters is "the mind.After over sixty years in jail: " "Cant you see? I´m free!"
He is what every scientologies trying to be. But he is a natural. He don´t need to take any study cirkel. He was probaly born that way. He is Theta Clear and more.
To find the motive for the murders one has to look into what Tex Watson and Susan Atkins was up to.
There I think lies the solution to those tragic incidents.

MrPoirot said...

And the reasons for Tate are different from LaBianca.

Mr Poirot repies:

No there is little difference. TLB were copycats to free Bobby.

Hinman and Shea were different motives. Hinman was a robbery and Shea was a revenge killing since Shorty snitched.

ACFisherAldag said...

If you kill someone you won't get a dime, but you send a message to other deadbeats.

And you're forgetting, once again, that the Ranch was chock full'a 1% bikers, who do, on occasion, perform hits for organized crime, if the price is right.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Ac said>>>>
"If you kill someone you won't get a dime, but you send a message to other deadbeats".<<<<

I agree AC.
They do get pissed enough to kill folks over money sometimes. It does happen.
The old "sleeping with the fishes" consequence. LOL
----------------------------------

AC said>>>>
"And you're forgetting, once again, that the Ranch was chock full'a 1% bikers, who do, on occasion, perform hits for organized crime, if the price is right".<<<<

Thanks for your input AC!

beauders said...

there was something more going on at the labianca house. they were creepy-crawled, their phone was tapped, etc. catherine share said grogan and atkins creepy-crawled it the week before the murders. another witness, a neighbor i believe, said he heard noises coming from the house the day after the murders when no one had discovered the bodies yet. maybe the black book is a red herring, but that was not a random murder.

beauders said...

a lot of the anti suzan laberge struthers information came from nelson as well. she wouldn't cooperate with the christian, used car dealing, pedophile so he slimed her. i have a ten minute vhs tape of nelson trespassing on her property. he actually walked around on her personal land with a video camera and without her permission. i believe she arranged the murders about as much as i believe in the helter skelter motive. so what if she's strange--i wouldn't be normal if my mother and stepfather had been brutally murdered in the crime of the century either. especially if it happened in my early 20's when i wasn't getting along with them.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Beauders!

Someone else mentioned to me "off-blog" recently, that the LaBianca house had been previously "creepy-crawled".

It was the first I had heard of that... but, I'd like to know more.

Marliese said...

Leno LaBianca wasn't a deadbeat.

katie8753 said...

Hi Beauders.

I've always thought that Suzanne MIGHT have had something to do with the murders.

Rosemary had threatened to cut her off financially if she didn't stop seeing Dorgan. She didn't want her associating with riff raff.

Suzanne would inherit a lot of money if mommy was gone.


>>>Beauders said: so what if she's strange--i wouldn't be normal if my mother and stepfather had been brutally murdered in the crime of the century either. especially if it happened in my early 20's when i wasn't getting along with them.>>>

I agree....but to publically forgive the main killer and rally for his release???? Come on now!

She didn't rally for Pat or horseteeth that I know of. Why just Tex?

Marliese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Marliese... without bullshit, we'd have nothing to discuss. : )

All kidding aside... much of what's discussed on these boards, is based on interviews/testimony/conversation with folks associated (many times loosely), with these events... i.e., Alice, Harold, etc... AND... books containing yet more opinion/interviews/conversation.
In many murder scenes, the only true "eye-witnesses", are the murderers themselves... and the deceased.
The prosecution and defense are left relying, at least in-part, on personal accounts.

I don't believe it's possible that everyone is lying, in all instances... in every book, and every interview.
There has to be, at least a portion of personal accounts, which are factual.
So yes... it definitely becomes a guessing-game as to "who's telling the truth".

Beyond these boards, parts of the trial itself, were based, in part, around personal testimony... much of that testimony conflicting.
Actually... personal account plays a role in most trials.
As I said... folks called by the defense and prosecution, are many times not actual "eye-witnesses" to the crime, but character witnesses, etc.

If we didn't believe anyone, was ever forthright... there'd be no sense in police questioning folks during investigation, or lawyers calling anyone (who wasn't physically present at the murder scene), to the stand.
To an extent, our entire justice system, is based loosely around the notion that some, if not most, witnesses are truthful... no... NOT a perfect system, to say the least... but, it's the best we've got.

Again... it becomes a task of deciding who, and what seems credible.
The answer to that question, varies from person to person... and that's (I'm presuming) why large cases are decided by an entire jury... instead of one individual... to (hopefully) find the "median of reason" sorta speak.

Unfortunately Marliese (or, fortunately depending on how one looks at it):
Weeding through the words of several "winesses" on tape... and in books... (and yes... in this large case... MANY witnesses... MANY books... and TONS of bullshit), and deciding for ones-self, what's true, and what's not... is part of the game.
There's tons of bullshit, because this case simply invloved/touched so many people.
You could easily list 100 people, worth interviewing in regards to these murders.

I operate under the notion, that there is some facts to be found in personal accounts... whether those accounts are in news articles, video footage, books, or whatever.

As for the Creepy Crawl concept... it's the first I've heard of it.
It's probably buillshit, and I accept nothing based on one blog entry.
BUT...I'm not "all-knowing"... and I do believe... I can learn things I don't currently know, from others.
In fact, I know that's true... as, I've learned many times from others over the years.
I'm always open to the possibility of being "convinced" by anyone... if they're up to the task.

The only thing I really know for sure, is that there isn't one blogger who knows exactly what happened from beginning to end.
THAT would be the most foolish notion of all.

MrPoirot said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
Hi Beauders!

Someone else mentioned to me "off-blog" recently, that the LaBianca house had been previously "creepy-crawled".

It was the first I had heard of that... but, I'd like to know more.

Mr Poirot replies:


I read where the Lab house was creepy crawled after the murders as well. Alice Labianca or whomever was taking care of the house after the murders said that she came in the house one day and logs from the fireplace had been arranged on the floor in a design.

Marliese said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

>>>Mr Poirot replies:

I read where the Lab house was creepy crawled after the murders as well. Alice Labianca or whomever was taking care of the house after the murders said that she came in the house one day and logs from the fireplace had been arranged on the floor in a design.>>>

Yes I read that too.

The reason I think the house was creepy crawled prior to the murders is because Rosemary mentioned to her co-owner in the dress shop, Ruth Sivick in August of 1969, that she was nervous because her house had been broken into 2 or 3 times by someone, but they didn't take anything. They just moved things around. And one time they came home and the dogs were outside, when they left them in.

Rosemary had called Ruth to come feed the dogs while they went to Lake Isabella the weekend of August 9/10, 1969.

Marliese, I know you're a hard nut to crack, and so am I, but just listen to my reasoning.

Harold True moved out of the house September 1968. Leno & Rosemary moved in November 1968.

Leno didn't know True.

BUT....Leno did complain to Alice that the people next door were having "drug parties and police raids".

Now...whoever moved in next door was evidently some hippy/no goods, just like True.

Who is to say that one or more of the Manson family wasn't crashing there again, AFTER True moved out with this new crew (whoever owned that house didn't care about it, because I'm sure they were trashing it out). I mean...the Manson Family was like a bunch of leeches.

So....my thinking is that the Manson family were aware of the LaBianca house before the murders. Creepy Crawling was a "one-up" on people.

I've been trying to locate the reparte with Ruth, but have had no luck. I WISH Brett's site was still here!!!! HA HA.

Not written in stone...just my opinion. :)

katie8753 said...

Hi Marliese.

I saw your post to Lynyrd when I made my post.

I agree with you totally about the victims being blamed. That's total horseshit.

Rosemary was not a drug dealer, didn't sell wigs with Tex & Sebring. I've even read that Linda was raped by Voytek.

My GOD....where does it end?

The ONLY bad guys are the killers.

I know...the residents at the Cielo Drive house were doing naughty, but nothing to deserve death.

And also..I'll repeat this one again!!!

THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE KILLERS!!!

It amazes me how people come up with this crap.

Let me spell it out for you people, who are too slow to read.

T-H-E V-I-C-T-I-M-S D-I-D-N-'T K-N-O-W T-H-E K-I-L-L-E-R-S!!!

I don't know how plain I can say that!!

So get off your drip pans and stop drooling in your "drink de jour" and get with the program!!

Oh, and for those of you who "talk to Charlie all the time", make sure you lose your watch and glasses. HA HA.

There's only NOW!!

beauders said...

could it be that laberge forgave watson because he was a born again christian? the others were not. only atkins was religious at the time and she was a catholic. most born agains do not believe catholics are christians.

beauders said...

also you are right katie, mrs. labianca had told ruth sivick her business partner and best friend that someone was going into the house while the couple was gone and moved furniture around and put the dogs in yard when they had been left inside. mr. labianca complained in a letter to his daughter of the same thing.
also if you want to believe her catherine share has come out claiming that atkins and grogan had creepy-crawled the labianca house the week before the murders. it's in one of her more recent televised interviews.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks for your input as always Beauders.
Much respected...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Marliese...
I pulled your long comment to the next thread, and responded there.
Looking back... I'm not really sure why, but I did. LOL

MrPoirot said...

beauders said...
could it be that laberge forgave watson because he was a born again christian? the others were not. only atkins was religious at the time and she was a catholic. most born agains do not believe catholics are christians.

Mr Poirot replies:

Many victims of severe trauma induced by crime are encouraged by religious and psychiactric councelors to get on with their lives and not let the violent offender ruin the remainder of the victim's life. The bible also teaches forgiveness. I suspect Susan Leberge was trying to deal with her trauma and somehow distorted the meaning of forgiveness. Forgiveness is for the victim not the abuser. I think Leberge tried so hard to get on with her life that she subconsciously wanted to "give' something to Tex in her misguided attempt to "forgive" Tex. Giving and forgiving are not the same thing. I think Susan got confused.

Marliese said...

Katie, So....my thinking is that the Manson family were aware of the LaBianca house before the murders. Creepy Crawling was a "one-up" on people.

I've been trying to locate the reparte with Ruth, but have had no luck. I WISH Brett's site was still here!!!! HA HA.


The way you summed it up, Katie, sounds perfectly logical.

I miss Brett too.

MrPoirot said...

Marliese said...
Katie, So....my thinking is that the Manson family were aware of the LaBianca house before the murders. Creepy Crawling was a "one-up" on people.

Mr Poirot replies:

Yes the Lab house was creepy crawled and known prior from partying at True's before the Labs moved in.. But they creepy crawled hundreds of houses.

Many of the creepy crawls involved no theft at all. They CC'd for thrill. Theft was not the motive. Thrill and instilling fear in the sugjrcts was the motive.

For instance: Leslie only creepy crawled once- her own father's house. Other members CC'd dozens or more times. Bel Air and Beverly Hills were the main CC area. When the Family started creepy crawling there was no name for it. The name CC was Sadie's creation in July 69. Charlie devised the game of CC in order to indoctrinate thrill into his cult. Remember how he talked about the coyote being constantly alert?

katie8753 said...

>>>Beauders said: could it be that laberge forgave watson because he was a born again christian? the others were not. only atkins was religious at the time and she was a catholic. most born agains do not believe catholics are christians.>>>

Hi Beauder.

"Born again" christians believe in forgiveness for everyone, not just christians. And I don't believe they think that Catholics aren't christians. I've never heard that one.

I don't know how Suzanne can justify only forgiving Tex and not the others. There are no stipulations on forgiveness. Either you forgive or you don't.

Marliese said...

beauders said...also you are right katie, mrs. labianca had told ruth sivick her business partner and best friend that someone was going into the house while the couple was gone and moved furniture around and put the dogs in yard when they had been left inside. mr. labianca complained in a letter to his daughter of the same thing.
also if you want to believe her catherine share has come out claiming that atkins and grogan had creepy-crawled the labianca house the week before the murders. it's in one of her more recent televised interviews.


Hi beauders, I think Alice LaBianca, in interviews with convicted sex offender nelson, said that the Labiancas believed Suzan was responsible for the creepy crawl activity going on at the house, the moving furniture and all that. I think Nelson is the one also that claimed Suzan knew Tex prior to the murders...i don't think he ever said how he came up with that though.

Interesting claim by Gypsy.

katie8753 said...

>>Marliese said: Hi beauders, I think Alice LaBianca, in interviews with convicted sex offender nelson, said that the Labiancas believed Suzan was responsible for the creepy crawl activity going on at the house, the moving furniture and all that.>>>

Wow I hadn't heard that one. There was an awful lot of creepy crawlin' goin' on in that house. Must have gotten pretty crowded in there. LOL.

It might be easier to figure out who WASN'T creepy crawlin' it. HA HA.

starship said...

Hey, beauders, can you come up with a link about CS story of the Atkins-Grogan creapy crawl at Waverly?

I agree about Rosemary being worried about the house being broken into.

It was Kasabian who asked about going to True's house...not Krenwinkle. In another odd coincidence, both the Family and the Kasabians partied at True's, many months prior to Linda arriving at Spahn.

And Katie, remember Leno's mother owned the house before him. Leno very well could have interacted with True and the other college students who lived there prior to when he and Rosemary moved in.

katie8753 said...

Hi Starship.

>>>And Katie, remember Leno's mother owned the house before him. Leno very well could have interacted with True and the other college students who lived there prior to when he and Rosemary moved in.>>>

That's true he could have, but I get the feeling in hearing about Leno's concern that this occurrence was AFTER he and Rosemary bought the home and moved in.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember him expressing concern for his mother's safety, but for his and Rosemary's.

katie8753 said...

Starship...for some reason, your avatar reminds me of Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men. LOL.

starship said...

If only I could be as dark and mysterious and as handsome as that sexy spaniard!

katie8753 said...

"If only I could be as dark and mysterious and as handsome as that sexy spaniard!"

Oooohhhh la la!!

Janson2112 said...

It is too weird that they drove around aimlessly looking for anyone to kill that night and then all of a sudden Charlie made a beeline for Labianca, I beleive they were a hit, but not from the mob, but somone who knew there whereabouts and timeframe of when they would get home and told Charlie's ass! Yes i say it was suzanne, it just fits, both motive, opportunity, and timing

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Carbo was big on organized gambling, and gambling schemes.
His big claim to fame was being heavily involved in the boxing (prize fighting) world.

Unknown said...

What if Leno labianca borrowed money from the straight Satan's motorcycle gang, Charles Manson new them.