Monday, December 26, 2011

As I was “labeling” this thread (for the index), I realized:
This is the first thread I’ve run regarding Linda Kasabian specifically (here on LSB3.COM).

My thoughts on Linda in a nutshell:
Linda was making bad decisions, before she ever arrived at the ranch.  She was no Snow-White.  She also made bad decisions after the trial… as this article demonstrates.  Preventing firefighters from attending to a fire, is not exactly the work of a genius.

Linda was clearly a criminal in regards to the TLB murders.  She was going to jail.  How long was she going to jail?  I don’t know for sure… I’m not a lawyer.  But, considering the fact that “conspiring” to commit murder, carried the same sentence… as actually murdering someone (ie, Manson)… it doesn’t take a genius, to realize… Linda wasn’t on solid ground.

Linda was an opportunist… period… as was, Bugliosi.  This was a marriage made in heaven.  Linda was going to jail for an undetermined amount of time (maybe even the gas chamber)… and she wanted, no part of that.  Linda’s cooperation with the prosecution, was an act of self-preservation… plain and simple.  She was no heroine.  Also consider: Kasabian hadn’t associated with “the family” for very long.  She had no reason to look-out for anyone, other than number one.

As for Bugliosi:
He knew, the more “innocent“ he could paint Kasabian’s character… the more weight her testimony would carry with a jury.  A “wholesome“, “mis-understood”, “victim of circumstance” Kasabian… would be more valuable to Bugliosi (as a witness)… than say… another murder conspirator on the stand.  It’s quite simple.  The more “Snow White” Bugliosi could paint Kasabian… the more effective her testimony would become… and hence… the more profitable she would be, to his case.  This is obviously why, Bugliosi went lengths to separate Kasabian from the others, in terms of her image.

Like I said… a marriage made in heaven.  Kasabian and Bugliosi were both opportunists.

And, there you have it, in an all too small nutshell.

Historically... I believe what "happened" (as I outlined above), is really quite straight forward.
I think the more interesting question here, is not what happened historically... but rather:
"What would we have done in Linda's shoes"? 

Do the math:
You're very young.  You're (possibly)  facing the gas chamber... which is a fact, Bugliosi surely made abundantly clear to her (time and again), as leverage.  You have a small baby.  And... you've known this entire "family" for a few weeks.  Would you have "fallen on the sword" for folks you had known roughly a month?  You have to admit, Bugliosi's deal would have been very tempting.  Anyone who doesn't (at least) admit that much... (that the deal would have been very tempting)... is lying to themselves... and probably giving themselves way too much credt.  Just something to think about, for the sake of discussion...
===================================================================
Here's a few fabulous clips from the BackPorch Tapes Collection on this (Kasabian) subject.   
It always amazes me, how much more coherent Paul Fitzgerald came across (spoke), back in the late 60's.  In later years, he came across as a baffoon.  But, he's quite sharp back then...

155 comments:

katie8753 said...

Linda Kasabian joined the family in July of 1969. She fit right in.

According to Linda and Tex, the two had sex that night and "it was an experience they'd never felt before". (Not sure what that means. Maybe he did the "counterclockwise swirl at the end"... HA HA )

She then stole $5000 from her ex-husband's friend to give to Tex. That's what you do when you join the family.

She was tainted before she even joined the family.

She gave up her daughter Tonya when she got there, according to the family wishes.

She claims to have been traumatized by the Tate murders, but never made any effort to either get away from them or alert the police.

She claims that it was her daughter's safety she was worried about in "ratting them out", but she finally left without her daughter.....so much for that!

Without Linda's testimony, it's probably doubtful that Bugliosi would have gotten convictions on all of them....but putting her on a pedestal is a bit much.

katie8753 said...

Well Lynyrd, I have to agree with you.

First Sadie volunteers info on the murders freely, wagging her tongue like she always does, and agrees to testify against the others, with the promise that she will get life in prison instead of the death penalty (HA HA), but then she is approached by the tough guys....Sandy, Squeaky, Leslie, Gypsy, Brenda, Pat, etc., given death threats...she asks Bugliosi to separate her from the others...he doesn't do it...she recants her Grand Jury testimony for fear of her life.

In steps Linda. She's given "immunity" because she didn't enter either house. She grabs at that like a thirsty sailor. HELL YEAH!!!

Does it mean she's innocent?
HELL NO.

Does it mean she walks?

Unfortunately....yes.

bobby said...

If I had been in her shoes at that age or now at my current middle age : I take that deal without hesitation ! I wouldnt be able to live up to Charlies no snitching request. Of course Charlie would then ask everyone to snitch me out as the the mastermind, but hey comes around goes around.

katie8753 said...

Hi Bobby!

If Linda had any brains, the next day after the Cielo Drive murders, she would have put a quick call into ANY news media and tipped them off.

That ranch would have crawling with news crews within the hour. Then she could have gotten away if she really wanted to.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks for your input and honesty Bob!

To Everyone:

Of course, the other big "morality" question for this thread topic, beyond the "snitching on friends" concept:
Did Linda tell the truth on the stand?

That of course depends on what "motive theory" one adheres to... and we're full circle (as is always the case), with this Manson topic. LOL

I'm sure Bugliosi "steered" her in the direction which he needed.
I mean... what's the point of making a "star witness" deal, if the "star witness" doesn't benefit the prosecution?

I suppose... a juror does have to be suspect of a witness who has everything to gain by padding the prosecuton's case.

It's also possible (I suppose), that Linda didn't lie... and told the story, as she knew it.
I highly doubt Linda was "inner circle" and knowledgable about all family business (ie, true motive).
I'm suggesting... the Helter Skelter motive, may well indeed, have been her (personal) extent of "motive knowledge" (for lack of a better term)... whether it was the "true motive" or not.
Hence... she didn't intentionally lie.

There are also those bloggers who don't dismiss "Helter Skelter" completely... and they consider the fact, that Linda may have painted a very accurate picture for the world, and jury.
I believe Leary is one, who doesn't completely discard the "Helter Skelter" motive into the trash can.
(Although, I shouldn't speak for others)

Just playing devil's advocate, and throwing a bunch of random thoughts out there to spark discussion.
I'm intentionally opening as many "cans of worms" as I can... to hopefully ignite some participation.

bobby said...

I believe Leary is one, who doesn't completely discard the "Helter Skelter" motive into the trash can.

I consider myself in that catagorie simply because that was the motive presented to the jury and it got a conviction. Many other motives are argued and most everyone would like to discover the "real" and hidden motive. In fact it is sorta funny that the people get downright angry about helter skelter as motive cant give another motive with more evidence than helter skelter. Lots of new bloggers will even feel the need to introduce themselves as someone who is new to the case but they know helter skelter is bullshit.Lynyrd, hope this helps inflame the discussion. lol.

Mary said...

"Kasabian and Bugliosi were both opportunists."

That is pretty harsh, I feel. Bugliosi had a job to do - he works for the people of CA and has an obligation to get scum off the street. Of course he found Linda much more "attractive" than the others...she didn't commit murder and she was not tied to the group.

Bugliosi did his job and did it well. Linda Kasabian may not be a model citizen but she is not a murderer.

I absolutely would do the same thing if I was in Bug's shoes or in Linda's shoes. Not sure why everything thinks what they did was so horrible - he put dangerous people behind bars and she helped. Our streets are much safer with 1969 Linda than 1969 Tex, Charlie, Pat, Sadie, Lesley

Mary said...

As far as Helter Skelter goes - I guess I agree with Leary. There are too many people out there who have heard and vouched for these sayings and the talk about Helter Skelter. I believe that the girls actually believed that they were killing for Helter Skelter - so IT is a motive. Charlie and Tex may have other reasons...but the girls thought they did these deeds for Helter Skelter.

Charlie on the other hand - probably had alterior motives. I don't get when people say that Helter Skelter wasn't a true motive. There is hardly ever one particular motive in a crime - planned crime. The prosecuter had to go with one...again, that was his job and he was successful.

katie8753 said...

Mary I agree with you about Bugliosi.

In his book he says that he didn't really want to use Susan to testify against the others because her hands were dirty, and also because there were certain things she couldn't say about the other defendants because she was a defendant too.

I can't remember exactly how that law went. Mr. Dill....can you explain that more clearly?

Anway, he was glad that Susan backed out and he was able to offer immunity to Linda in exchange for her testimony. He felt that her guilt was much less since she didn't participate in murder.

And you're right Mary. Using Linda to get the others convicted was worth letting her off.

bobby said...

Katie said "If Linda had any brains, the next day after the Cielo Drive murders, she would have put a quick call into ANY news media and tipped them off."

Katie, I agree completly.

As you know I was answering Lynyrds question.

I really think had I been Linda at the Tate murder I would have left in the middle of the night and istead of a phone call to tip off police, I would have turned myself in and tell them what I had just witnessed.

mattprokes said...

as time goes on and i see more and more of bugliosi my feeling is that everything hes in his career was for his own ego instead of thr greater good.
that being said the helter skelter theory may be valid but i would'nt put anything past him as far as shading the truth to further his own agenda goes.

Marliese said...

As always, wonderful words, Mary. Love the way you state your opinions. You have such clarity.

The problem i have with Linda...while she may not be a murderer per se, she watched Tex Watson shoot Steven four times in the face and chest, and didn't run out of there for help. After seeing Tex get right to the business of killing when he first entered the property, what did she think he was going to do when he encountered the people in the house? And then she hears the screams and sees VF staggering like a monster covered in blood and says "i'm so sorry".
I don't understand her apathy. Run for your life. Go get some help.
And then the next night, she goes along for round two...huh? Hanging in the car and dragging on a cigarette like she doesn't have a care in the world while the slaughter gets going again. Just another day in paradise. I don't understand how she could even be there. And people talk about...oh she saved that Nader guy at the beach. They wouldn't have even gone to Nader's if not for Linda. So she gets no credit from me there. Ooops i changed my mind, sorry for bringing maniacs to your apt building.

She left her child with murderers! I'll never, ever understand.
Okay, that's my linda rant.

By all accounts, she was a very credible witness. She was there. She recounted the tale, and the physical evidence backed up what she was saying.

But she was there. And she knowingly went along the second night...

It's been written, i think in HS, that Linda wanted to talk, wanted to purge her guilty conscience, had an emotional breakdown when she was taken back to Cielo Drive, that she would have talked with or without immunity. I have always believed she deserved to spend several years in prison for her criminal acts on August 8 and 9, 1969, so I don't get why they offered her full immunity. I don't know enough about the law to answer that question though...could they have prosecuted her for crimes that would have carried a sentence other than life, for example.

I also don't care for the way she comes across now...the Larry King interview for example. Say thanks for the life you were handed, lose the trash and get a little grace and sophistication! Forty years later, she's still star struck by her attraction to Charles Manson. Seeing that in her all these years later, was just sickening to me.

bobby said...

or it was just three botched robberies by his associates and after they got caught his other associates told the authorities about this helter skelter idea Charlie was talking up. I guess they did this so they could get in on the fame that the murdering associates were getting.

Cease2 said...

The Kasabian thing is just a straightforward immunity-bargain. Same as when a mob guy walks for ratting out his cohorts. No one likes it that a killer/conspirator gets off, but it's the only trade-off in town.

But bashing the Bug has become de rigueur of late. And it's ludicrous if you ask me.

Picking Manson out as a poster boy for miscarriages of justice is just the wrong man, wrong case, plain & simple, if that's the basis of the Bug bashing.

There are plenty of other convicts who could be discussed & campaigned for if battling unsafe convictions is your bag. And other prosecutors, cops & judges who could be pointed to as much better candidates as bad public officials compared to Bug.

It's true that Bug did make Helter Skelter the common currency for media outlets & their audience - and the central motive presented in court - but in reality what the jury was sold on was that The Family idolised Manson, and slavishly obeyed him & did his bidding at every turn (as the jury themselves got to witness in court). And, obviously, Bug successfully demonstrated that Manson was a warped, habitual offender with a talent for rhetoric & manipulation of some susceptible follower-types. And Charlie performed his "reflection of a mad society" act in court to help Bug along just fine.

To quote Bobby's earlier post, "...it is sorta funny that the people get downright angry about helter skelter as motive cant give another motive with more evidence than helter skelter."

Marliese said...

Cease2 said...>>>>
The Kasabian thing is just a straightforward immunity-bargain. Same as when a mob guy walks for ratting out his cohorts. No one likes it that a killer/conspirator gets off, but it's the only trade-off in town.<<<<<


I understand, but i wonder if it's really the only trade off in town. If Linda Kasabian was so ashamed, so emotionally distraught when she was taken to Cielo, and supposedly would have talked with or without immunity, she could also have pleaded guilty to some kind of accessory charges...whatever they are, in separate proceedings, no?

I think there's more to it. VB was awfully quick to control what she was saying when she veered off track during the Larry King interview, and all these years later, that was really weird.

Cease2 said...

Sorry, Marliese. I should have mentioned re the trade-off that Linda had a decent lawyer who negotiated the best deal for his client with a time-pressured Bug.

And it's true that Bug has continued to sell the same "certainty" to tabloid media in the decades since, like in the clip you mention. Unfortunately, that's what tabloid media wants to buy: certainty & concisely packaged sensational stories.

And Bug has the "big trial lawyer" thing going on. Same as F.Lee Bailey, Mel Belli, Johnny Cochrane et al. All masters of their art & performers to the last. And not particularly liable to go back and change their mind on, or introduce doubt about, a case they've presented.

katie8753 said...

>>>Marliese said: I understand, but i wonder if it's really the only trade off in town. If Linda Kasabian was so ashamed, so emotionally distraught when she was taken to Cielo, and supposedly would have talked with or without immunity, she could also have pleaded guilty to some kind of accessory charges...whatever they are, in separate proceedings, no?>>>

Marliese, I think it was Linda's attorney who insisted on the full immunity for her testimony and VB had to accept it on their terms in order to get her testimony, because frankly, without it, he just had innuendo, hearsay and smoking mirrors.

>>>I think there's more to it. VB was awfully quick to control what she was saying when she veered off track during the Larry King interview, and all these years later, that was really weird.>>>

Yes he did seem to jump in quickly and cut her off. That was strange.

katie8753 said...

>>>Cease said: Picking Manson out as a poster boy for miscarriages of justice is just the wrong man, wrong case, plain & simple, if that's the basis of the Bug bashing.>>

Cease I agree completely. Couldn't have said it better!!

katie8753 said...

According to Tex, after Tex, Sadie & Pat were thru slicing, dicing and painting, they came down to the gate, pushed the button, opened the gate, left bloody fingerprint and walked to the car.

According to Tex, Linda was in the driver's seat with the car running. Which means of course that she had the keys.

My question is this: if she had the keys and was alone at the car during the killin', why in the hell didn't she peel out and drive like a bat outta hell to someone who could help?

Am I missing something here???

bobby said...

I would like to hear thoughts on what more there may have been in the bug linda deal and his need to help her speak at appearances. I know I have employees that start to speak up at meeting and I feel the need to interupt them in any way possible ! lol.

katie8753 said...

>>>Bobby said: I really think had I been Linda at the Tate murder I would have left in the middle of the night and istead of a phone call to tip off police, I would have turned myself in and tell them what I had just witnessed.>>>

Bobby I don't think it was so easy to leave the ranch. If she was caught, she most likely would have been killed.

bobby said...

True Katie, I am a HE Man and would have fought my way out !

I'm kidding to some degree, and since Linda was not a man your correct.

Marliese said...

Katie said >>>>>Marliese, I think it was Linda's attorney who insisted on the full immunity for her testimony and VB had to accept it on their terms in order to get her testimony, because frankly, without it, he just had innuendo, hearsay and smoking mirrors.<<<<<<


Oh i understand her attorney wanted immunity for her...that's his job as a defense attorney, but Bugliosi claims that he learned firsthand from Linda that she would have talked with or without it, and that she actually went against the advice of her attorney by willingly coming back to California...and i know he needed her testimony, she hadn't actually killed anyone and was very credible etc etc but full immunity? He couldn't negotiate at all? She was looking at the gas chamber with everyone else, no?

And what did she do with the chance she was given...stayed a flake.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

It's a great feeling to know, that I can still ignite a great TLB blaze, moving forward into a New Year.
Ahahahaha

Thanks Bob, for bringing an extra can of gasoline! : )

As Eddie Murphy's uncle used to say in the old "Eddie Murphy Delirious" movie:
"Now that's a fire"!

Linda... better than pure propane every time!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'll give my honest opinion tonight, when I have a chance...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I find myself agreeing with bits and pieces from everyone.
I’ll try to state my opinion(s), while giving credit (as best I can) to each person, as I go…

---------------------------------------

Mary said:
"Kasabian and Bugliosi were both opportunists. That is pretty harsh, I feel. Bugliosi had a job to do… etc., etc”.

Bugliosi was a very effective lawyer.
If I needed a lawyer in the late 60’s, 70’s or 80’s… I would have been thrilled to land Bugliosi as my legal counsel.
The man was brilliant.
I’m also very happy (as you are Mary), that Bugliosi was successful in jailing these murderers.
A job well done, by Bugliosi...

But…
Bugliosi was an opportunist from the standpoint, that he only helped Linda, because Linda had something to offer his case.
Actually, Linda had LOTS to offer his case.
In that regard, this was truly a relationship based largely (if not solely) on mutual opportunity.

Make no mistake about it Mary:
If Linda had nothing to offer Bugliosi…
Bug never would have helped her.
This was not a good-will handout.
Moreover… he would have jailed her for as long as he possibly could, as an accomplice (or even conspirator), just like all the rest… and rightfully so.
“Opportunist” is really not a major insult, depending on the surrounding circumstances.
As for myself:
I (like Bob and Linda), would have taken the deal, if it were presented to me, as well.
So, in that regard, I’m an opportunist as well.

Moving on…

----------------------------------------

Bob and Mary stated, that they don’t totally discard the HS theory.
I agree.

I don’t discard HS (basically), because of the reason Mary stated:

Mary said:
“I believe that the girls actually believed that they were killing for Helter Skelter - so IT is a motive. Charlie and Tex may have other reasons...but the girls thought they did these deeds for Helter Skelter”.

I believe (as Mary suggested) that HS was, in fact, preached at the ranch… and was, in fact, believed by at least some of the folks.
In that regard, it is, in fact, an eternal part of this case… and one possible motive (among others) from which Bugliosi could have chosen.
He chose that one…

-------------------------------------------

I do believe, that Linda was somewhat of a piece of shit, for several reasons:

For starters (as Katie and Bob suggested)
Linda made no successful effort to flee or notify authorities, until the eleventh hour. .. when she was in custody herself.

Secondly (as Marliese stated):
“While she may not be a murderer per se, she watched Tex Watson shoot Steven four times in the face and chest”… etc., etc…

Lastly…
And this IS the clincher for me personally…

As Marliese said:
“And then the next night, she goes along for round two...huh?”

That’s always the clincher for me.
One time might be a mistake.
But, two nights in a row???
C’mon…

Again, agreeing with Marliese…
Marliese said:
“I also don't care for the way she comes across now...the Larry King interview for example“.

I agree.
Bugliosi had his hand up the back of Linda's shirt, for that entire interview… just as though Linda was a virtual puppet.
After all these years… the need for Bugliosi to STILL guard her words to that extent, makes me very uneasy.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

CONTINUED-------

Matt P said:
“as time goes on and i see more and more of bugliosi my feeling is that everything hes in his career was for his own ego instead of thr greater good.
that being said the helter skelter theory may be valid but i would'nt put anything past him as far as shading the truth to further his own agenda goes“.


I agree Matt.
Being a great lawyer, and a great person, are quite simply… two different things.
I’m convinced Bugliosi was a superior lawyer.
Character-wise… the jury is forever out for me.
I simply don’t know the man well enough personally, to draw a fair conclusion…

-------------------------------------------

Cease2 said:
“The Kasabian thing is just a straightforward immunity-bargain. Same as when a mob guy walks for ratting out his cohorts“.

My point exactly, on my “opportunist” remark. Bugliosi’s relationship with Kasabian, was business.

-----------------------------------------

Cease2 said:
“It's true that Bug did make Helter Skelter the common currency for media outlets & their audience - and the central motive presented in court - but in reality what the jury was sold on was that The Family idolised Manson, and slavishly obeyed him & did his bidding at every turn (as the jury themselves got to witness in court)”.

I’ve already written two entire threads expounding on that subject.
I was the first to relate that concept.
I’m the founder of that mindset.

The jury knew who the killers were.
That was established.
They were going bye-bye.
The jury convicted Manson (in addition to the killers), because they were convinced Manson was in-charge.
The motive could have been about spaceships…

If you're going to paraphrase me in the future, please give credit to your sources...
AHahahaha
(I'm just busting ya)

But, it would be polite... : )

katie8753 said...

Marliese, I THINK that the reason they agreed to the full immunity (instead of charging her with manslaughter, etc.)was the time factor.

They had to have either Susan or Linda testify or they were sunk. And they had to be ready to go to trial when the date was set.

Actually, Linda said she would rather be tried and acquitted rather than testify against Manson for fear of retribution. She was separated from the other family members in jail until her baby was born, and then I think after that as well.

katie8753 said...

HAPPY FESTIVUS EVERYBODY!!! HA HA HA!

Mrstormsurge said...

I never forgot the Larry King interview of Kasabian (in shadow) and Bugliosi together. it was about a year or two ago (maybe 40th anniversary?) Anyway, Bugliosi really dominated Linda's answers to Larry's questions put DIRECTLY to her. Bugliosi would interrupt and guide/shape the response. I got the feeling then that there is stuff that Linda could have said that would have not been so pretty about here involvement in the murders and that Bugliosi wanted to prevent that and preserve his idyllic rendering of her as this innocent little flower child.

Mrstormsurge said...

Katie,
Is Festivus one of those pagan celebrations where the chicks pee in a pot and put them at four corners of a city block? If that's the case then include me out!!

katie8753 said...

Hi Stormy!!

No Festivus involves an aluminum pole and the "feats of strength". Mainly George Costanza wrestling his Dad to the ground. HA HA HA.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I said to Matt:

"I agree Matt.
Being a great lawyer, and a great person, are quite simply… two different things.
I’m convinced Bugliosi was a superior lawyer.
Character-wise… the jury is forever out for me.
I simply don’t know the man well enough personally, to draw a fair conclusion…"


Although, I hasten to add...
Any man who authors an entire book in an effort to disprove the existence of God to the world... loses a few points with me character-wise.

I'm not exactly a bible thumper... "to each his own"... "live and let live"... and all that bullshit.
But, for a person to feel the need to write an entire book as such... against God... is a bit further than I would recommend taking things... to make a few book sales.

Like I said...
Bugliosi lost some points with me there, on a personal level.

Fabulous lawyer!
As a decent, upstanding guy... who knows...

Marliese said...

The look on that baby's face with a cigarette hanging out of its mouth cracks me up every time I see it. ROFL!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Stormsurge said:
"I never forgot the Larry King interview of Kasabian (in shadow) and Bugliosi together. it was about a year or two ago (maybe 40th anniversary?) Anyway, Bugliosi really dominated Linda's answers to Larry's questions put DIRECTLY to her. Bugliosi would interrupt and guide/shape the response. I got the feeling then that there is stuff that Linda could have said that would have not been so pretty about here involvement in the murders and that Bugliosi wanted to prevent that and preserve his idyllic rendering of her as this innocent little flower child".

------------------------------------------

I responded earlier:

Bugliosi had his hand up the back of Linda's shirt, for that entire interview… just as though Linda was a virtual puppet.
After all these years… the need for Bugliosi to STILL guard her words to that extent, makes me very uneasy.

katie8753 said...

"It's a Festivus for the rest of us". HA HA HA.

Sorry guys, I'm just in one of those moods to be silly.

Oh....this just in, from a reliable source:

Vincent Boo-gli-oooo-si first met Linda Kasabian at a party at Mama Cass's house. HA HA HA.

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

Also I have it from a "reliable source" that Leslie Louise Van Houten's (a/k/a horseteeth) braces were auctioned on Ebay.

They were finally purchased by a Mr. Richard Kiel, who later used them when he starred in Moonraker as the character "Jaws". HA HA HA.

Mrstormsurge said...

Sorry, Lynyrd, didn't catch that comment earlier but those were my thoughts then exactly. I've always wondered how a woman who'd been on the ranch the total of ONE month could get picked to go on this expedition? I don't buy that she's the only one who had a driver's license excuse either. I suspect that she was not just an innocent uninvolved bystander watching the Tate murders go on in front of her and that Bugliosi had to cover up the entirity of her actions pre-, peri- and post-murders.

Mrstormsurge said...

Katie is in rare form tonight.

Marliese, just doing my part to encourage childhood smoking. I firmly believe that it toughens up the lungs for later life.

katie8753 said...

Stormy...smoke 'em if you got 'em. HA HA.

>>>Stormy said: I don't buy that she's the only one who had a driver's license excuse either. I suspect that she was not just an innocent uninvolved bystander watching the Tate murders go on in front of her and that Bugliosi had to cover up the entirity of her actions pre-, peri- and post-murders.>>>

Well the driver's license stuff wasn't true because Linda didn't even drive. Tex did.

There's a lot of stuff that has been said by certain individuals in this case that just isn't true.

Stormy, if you think that Linda was not just an innocent bystander, tell us what you think she was.

I wouldn't use the word "innocent" to describe Linda at ANY time. She was a hustler, a thief, an opportunist.

But I don't think she was a murderer.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Stormsurge.

You're correct.

Linda was involved in criminal activity in regards to the TLB murders.
That's a fact.
She wasn't entirely innocent.
She was going to jail for an undetermined amount of time, without this deal from the prosecution.
She may not have gotten the death penalty, or even life... but, she had some serious Splainin' to do.

I also agree...
It seems likely, that Linda has more information (that's never been shared)... and that's why Bugliosi guards her answers so vehemently.
What else could one conclude?

Bugliosi didn't completely fabricate HS... but, he certainly watered it, fertilized it... and enhanced it to the prosecution's benefit.
There's no doubt about that.
That was his job.

Likewise...
I doubt that he ever asked Kasabian to outright lie... but, he certainly "coached" her... and instructed her on what NOT to say.
Again... that was his job.

As for why she was chosen after just three weeks... that will be addressed in an upcoming thread.

"All good things, in all good time".

Jerry Garcia

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Bugliosi's job, was to present Kasabian "as innocent as possible" to the jury.

Conversely...
Fitzgerald's job (defense), was to question Kasabian's credibility as much as possible, for the jury.
His goal was to destroy her character (sorta speak), as much as possible, and hence make her testimony less effectual.

Fitzgerald explains this very clearly, in the video footage on this thread.

Mrstormsurge said...

Katie, I find it hard to believe that Linda just stood and watched everyone else stab and kill that night. I'm not saying she was a primary assassin herself but I wouldn't be surprised if she took some part. I also wonder about why these people and why then. I wouldn't be shocked if there was a drug deal burn or something Linda/Tex had been involved in that led these people to the Tate residence that night.

katie8753 said...

Well Stormy, I'm gonna hit the hay.

I've been watching Alfred Hitchcock night on Cinemax. Cool stuff.

The Birds. Now Psycho. It's just getting to the scene where Janet Leigh "gets to now" in the shower.

HA HA.

Night everyone. Will continue tomorrow.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Beauders...

Where you at girl???

I'm missing your awesome contributions BIG TIME!!!

v717 said...

Manson talks about Linda Kasabian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYvQQzzeedE

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

((((((((((V-MASTER))))))))))

LOLOL

What's up Dawg?! LOLOL

Haven't seen you in a while either...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

V717...

I've seen that clip.
It's from the Geraldo interview.

Given the fact that Linda was at the ranch a total of 3 weeks... four weeks tops... Manson's account may not be that far-fetched. LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Speaking of MIA bloggers...

Where the hell is Tom?
Tom... where you at Brother?!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Stormsurge...

Hands-down, one of the best avatars ever!
Thanks man!

Cease2 said...

Lynyrd said..."If you're going to paraphrase me in the future, please give credit to your sources...
AHahahaha
(I'm just busting ya)
But, it would be polite... : )"


Alright L/S, ya miserable bastard. My lawyers, Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel, have advised me to plead no contest to a lesser charge of unconscious plagiarism with regard to paraphrasing from Lynyrd's two HS threads. Original thought © LSB.com ®

This can't be right? Kasabian gets off & I get busted!

adam said...

Kind of ironic that Linda walked free and continued to be a blight on society, while Sadie went to prison, reformed and spent her life dedicated to helping others.

I think a prison spell would have done Linda the world of good.

Mary said...

Thank you for the compliment, Marliese...means a lot coming from you!

I agree that Linda is/was trash. But unfortunately, I feel that Bug was presented with picking the lesser of evil - you know, kinda like all of us having to decide on politicians. LOL - so we can relate, no?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

LOLOL
That was a good one, Cease2.

Flywheel... AHahahaha

Now, I wanna know how you got the copyright symbols in the comments section, since they're not on the standard keyboard.
Pretty clever!

Marliese said...

Mary said...>>>>>>
Thank you for the compliment, Marliese...means a lot coming from you! I agree that Linda is/was trash. But unfortunately, I feel that Bug was presented with picking the lesser of evil - you know, kinda like all of us having to decide on politicians. LOL - so we can relate, no?<<<<<<


Exactly right, Mary.

Yes, i see that Bugliosi had virtually no choice in picking the lesser of two, and I think Katie touched on the fact that the testimony of co-defendants needs corroborating evidence...so immunity for Linda was what the prosecution needed, i guess.

Just doesn't seem right...because for all her supposed horror at the first night, she went along the second night driving around talking about finding people to kill...still, the lesser of two like you said.

And when it was all finished, like Adam said, Susan did well in prison, while Linda, given a clean slate and a chance at life, continued to break the law...and I cannot for the life of me understand how she could abandon her daughter...giving her up to maniacs from the moment she hooked up at the ranch, along with her disregard and neglect for her unborn child too.

She was damn lucky and for her second chance, she's given back nothing.

katie8753 said...

You know, I've often wondered what would have happened at Cielo Drive if Tex had ordered Sadie or Pat to "keep watch" and gave Linda the knife to chop & stab.

Or what if Charlie had ordered Linda out of the car at Waverly Drive instead of Leslie.

Would Linda have killed for Tex or Charlie??

bobby said...

Sadie said on her web site that LULU and Katie didnt speak tom her in jail and held a grudge against her for spilling the beans. Has anyone read how they felt abpout Linda as time went on ?

bobby said...

yikes, to her not tom her.

katie8753 said...

Bobby all the girls hated Linda because she was hurting Daddy-Charlie. LOL.

MrPoirot said...

Mrstormsurge said...
Katie, I find it hard to believe that Linda just stood and watched everyone else stab and kill that night. I'm not saying she was a primary assassin herself but I wouldn't be surprised if she took some part. I also wonder about why these people and why then. I wouldn't be shocked if there was a drug deal burn or something Linda/Tex had been involved in that led these people to the Tate residence that night.

Poirot replies:

the reason Linda went to live with the Family was because Her hubby and his friends wife had voted Linda out on allowing her to come with them on an around the world sailing trip. Another words Linda's hubby and all her friends sent her packing. Sheesh! She must have been a real witch to be around. However, the $5000 she took from her hubby's travel trailer was actually her money as well as her husband's. Technically she didn't steal it. It was her money too.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., as usual you are nuts.

The $5000 she stole was from her husband's friend. There was no around the world trip.

v717 said...

Linda suggested the Tate-house cause she had been there, Sandra Good.
If there is "some truth" in Sandra Good´s assertion then we have a whole different scenario than presented by Vincent Bug.
The outrage´s on Cielo Drive wasn´t about a "holy war" in the form of Helter Skelter but instead about more mundane things such as money and drugs.
Had linda bought drugs from Frykowsky and if so,
how many more of the Mansoids had he sold drugs to? How many had he swindled? Wasn´t it time for pay-back? Drugs and money are among the most deadly weapon´s ever created by humans.

katie8753 said...

As "old blue eyes" said:

Luck Be The Lady Tonight.

HA HA HA.

MrPoirot said...

Katie you are always calling me names. Please stop it. I'm really tired of it.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to call you names. I guess I get carried away.

I love you just like I love the rest.

My apologies!!! Didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Sometimes we disagree,

katie8753 said...

>>>V717 said: Linda suggested the Tate-house cause she had been there, Sandra Good. >>>

What does that mean???????

Pray tell.

v717 said...

Katie asked:What does that mean???????
Katie, could you please be a little more specific.

adam said...

Sadie had been at the Tate house prior to the murders. I remember reading that she had swam in the pool there a couple of times when Melcher owned it. I think Sandy may have been there with her.
Didn't Charlie also claim that Sadie had fucked Jay once or twice?

These people were not total strangers to each other.

Marliese said...

The thing is though, they're all liars.

I accept that Charlie was at Cielo looking for Melcher, that he was seen by Hatami, Sharon's friend and photographer, but i don't know about other tales...like the girls swimming in the pool or Charlie's nonsense that Jay had cut Sadie's hair!...that's a good one. I think Jay would have taken one look at Sadie and called an exterminator, but who knows...

MrPoirot said...

adam said...
Sadie had been at the Tate house prior to the murders. I remember reading that she had swam in the pool there a couple of times when Melcher owned it. I think Sandy may have been there with her.
Didn't Charlie also claim that Sadie had fucked Jay once or twice?

These people were not total strangers to each other.

Poirot replies:

Adam I don't think Manson was being accurate saying that about Sadie. Charlie may have heard that about Sadie and Jay but it was just false gossip that got to him. Charlie also said once that the Tate house was hit because they picked up hith hikers and filmed orgies with them but that is most likely false gossip amongst the imprisoned Family members. Gossip and 1nd hand false rumors
circulated amongst the Family just like it did amongst the general public.

katie8753 said...

Adam I agree with Marliese and Mr. P.

Circulating rumors that the victims knew the perps is just another way to blame all this on someone other than Charlie.

The girls could possibly have gone swimming in the pool when Melcher lived there (I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Candace wasn't home at the time or she would have had a fit!), but it's no proof at all that any of them knew Sharon, Jay, Gibby or Voytek.

leary7 said...

you really have to wonder if Linda does have a story to tell. There are just so many Manson books, 140 odd according to something I read recently. And wasn't it on here recently that Manson's grandson is coming out with one. Gypsy has one that she hasn't been able to get published. And Stephanie, but she was with the Family for what, a month? Isn't Lyn writing another one? What could she possibly have new to say at this point?
Linda just might have so untold info but it would have to be both radical and substantial to warrent a book. Now if she wrote one titled "Yeah, I Did The Bug" in which she confessed to a tryst with Vince, that one I would read.
Others I would read....
"Donkey Dan Rides Herd" - do you remember the book 'The Happy Hooker' back in the 70's? If someone could get DD to tell a similar romp I would pick that up.
"I Killed, And Walked" by Nancy Pitman. Good old sweet Brenda moves to a country like Malta that doesn't have an extradition treaty with USA and confesses to a half dozen hits as Charlie's "chief assasin".
"The Last Cackle" - Charlie realizes he is checking out and decides to talk straight for once. Probably not possible.
Any others?

katie8753 said...

Leary...HA HA HA HA. LMAO!!

"The Last Cackle". Too funny!

MrPoirot said...

leary7 said...
you really have to wonder if Linda does have a story to tell. There are just so many Manson books, 140 odd according to something I read recently. And wasn't it on here recently that Manson's grandson is coming out with one. Gypsy has one that she hasn't been able to get published. And Stephanie, but she was with the Family for what, a month? Isn't Lyn writing another one? What could she possibly have new to say at this point?

Poirot replies:

I heard that too about gypsy but never heard anything else. Lynn can't do interviews or write books or use internet as part of her parole conditions. I doubt we'll hear from lynn again.

leary7 said...

really? i didn't know that Mr. P.
Thanks. I just thought one of the women who seems to know Lynn (AC or one of the T&L women maybe) mentioning Lynn was writing again. I probably misremember.

One thing I would pay to see would be Charlie being interviewed by Chelsea Handler. That would be a championship game match-up.

leary7 said...

and Liz seems certain that Stephanie is writing, but I just don't see (even though she seems now a highly intelligent and accomplished woman) what insight or such Stephanie could provide. I mean I am sure she has a short story to tell...but then most of us have one or two of those...but a book, or at least a successful one, needs a whole lot of meat in it.
Is there a site that tells how many books have been sold of a certain title? It would be interesting to know how many of Tex's or Sadie's sold. Or "Taming the Beast". Anyone have that info???

katie8753 said...

Leary I agree. I don't know what kind of info that Stephanie could have to write a whole book about. Unless she wants to embellish here and there.

Or maybe throw in 60 pages of pictures, starting with her baby pictures. LOL.

adam said...

Whats's really annoying about studying the Manson case is after a while of reading so many accounts, testamonies, stories, secondhand gossip, interviews etc... I have a bad habit of forgetting who said what when! I'm aware this case is rife with liars and such but I have read from certain sources (not from just within The Family)
1- Sadie did swim at the pool a couple of times.
2- Various members got treated for the clap at the free clinic where Abigal worked.
3- Charlie was seen in a resturant with Abigal and two other people quite some time prior to the murders.
4- Manson claimed to have been at a party or two which Sharon Tate also attended.
5- Several Manson girls got roughed up at a kinky party up at Cielo.

Not saying for a second that its all 100% true but who really knows for sure? I don't believe that these people were all bosom buddies and lived in eath others pockets but I do think there is a strong possibilty that certain paths had crossed previously. And the implications of that should not be outright discounted.

leary7 said...

yeah, Adam. But it is like Oswald knowing Ruby. Or Oswald's uncle being in the New Orleans Mafia. Or the woman Marina was staying with having a father in the CIA.
It seems you can always connect people to either each other or situations. Syre, you don't 'discount' possibilities, but after forty odd years the speculation surrounding TLB seems more of a parlor game than anything else.

leary7 said...

It's not like the Lizzie Borden case where the killer is still unknown, or the JFK thing where there never was a trial or even a legit police investigation.
It's more like the OJ case...the killer(s) are known, the motive(s) debatable, but in the end no smoking guns or hidden timebombs. Just whole lot of idiots and assholes.

katie8753 said...

Adam, I'll clear it up for you. LOL

>>>1- Sadie did swim at the pool a couple of times.>>>

Like I said, maybe she did when Melcher lived there, but not after the Polanskis moved in.

>>>2- Various members got treated for the clap at the free clinic where Abigal worked.>>>

This is true. Although Abigail wasn't there in person with the patients as much as she gave money and did admin work.

>>>3- Charlie was seen in a resturant with Abigal and two other people quite some time prior to the murders.>>>

Seen by whom? Never heard that one.

>>>4- Manson claimed to have been at a party or two which Sharon Tate also attended.>>>

This is untrue.

>>>5- Several Manson girls got roughed up at a kinky party up at Cielo.>>>

Again, not after the Polanskis moved in.

mattprokes said...

manson in a resturant with folger and shorty shea a year before the murders comes from maury terrys 'the ultimate evil'

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary.

I've heard that Lynn was writing a book, myself.

I've also heard that Lynn can't do interviews, write books or use the internet... as part of her parole conditions.
(As Poirot stated)

I've heard both versions... but I've yet to see any definitive proof or documentation, to support either assertion.

Back to "anyone's guess", as always...

The second scenario (Lynn's restrictions) seems more logical to me... but then again, Grogan was released after just 12 (or so) years... so logic, doesn't always apply...

Anyone?

I believe they might have mentioned something about Lynn's "restrictions" in that Wal-Mart parking lot footage that came-out a year ago... but, everything (as Adam suggested), seems to just blend together after a while... and I can't remember what I've heard where.

I for one, would buy a book authored by Lynn, in a heartbeat... just to see what's swimming around in her head these days... if anything. LOLOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

MattP said:
>>>>"manson in a resturant with folger and shorty shea a year before the murders comes from maury terrys 'the ultimate evil'."<<<<

Wow... AND Shorty Shea?!
The plot thickens...

I'd love to hear what Starship has to say about all this... LOL

Thanks Matt!
Great information, as always.

adam said...

Blogger mattprokes said...

manson in a resturant with folger and shorty shea a year before the murders comes from maury terrys 'the ultimate evil'

Thank you, if only to reassure me I didn't dream the whole thing!!

katie8753 said...

Manson in a restaurant with Shorty Shea & Abigail Folger! Hoo hoo.

Well, it must not have been a truck stop, because I don't think Folger would frequent places like that.

And it must not have been in the Ritz-Carlton because I can't see Shorty & Charlie there.

Must have been some fast food place. Maybe McDonald's?? HA HA.

Were Manson & Shorty together? Or did they all come alone?

I wonder if Manson sprung for the meal.

"Shorty....eat up. This is your last chance." HA HA.

katie8753 said...

I can just see Manson in ANY restaurant.

"I want a T-Bone, I want it rare...or I'm going to make you COME TO NOW!!" HA HA.

Mary said...

I believe Squeaky is under parole for life...and since she was convicted for a federal crime committed before 1987 - she is essentially still in prison but is able to walk around...from a comment placed on a law blog

"she is one of fewer than 500 "old law" (pre-Guidelines, i.e., 1987) prisoners still in Federal prison, out of 204,000 inmates. As an "old law" prisoner, she is not on "supervised release", but is on real, old-law parole for the rest of her life. This is a very strict regimen. She could easily be violated and returned to prison for misconduct so minor that it doesn't even constitute a crime"

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2009/08/parole-granted-to-squeaky-fromme-after-serving-30-years-in-prison.html

Mary said...

I read through some of the rules and regulations for federal parolees but they do not get into specifics - however, they do differentiate the differences in parole conditions based on the date of the crime

http://www.justice.gov/uspc/rules_procedures/uspc-manual111507.pdf

Mary said...

I am thinking that unless she wants to go to prison again - she won't be writing a book

Mary said...

but what the hell do I know...these people are unpredictable

katie8753 said...

Thanks Mary!!! Great research!!! :)

So Squeaky better watch her P's & Q's

mattprokes said...

this is from page 496 of the ultimate evil.
'but we learned that charlie and abigail folger were friends for a time in san francisco and that manson hooked up with the process there as well.
the folger information comes from a reliable informent who knew both manson and folger.the source said he had dinner one night in september of 1967 with manson,folger and two other individuals at a small seafood resturant near golden gate park not far from the haight.
one of the others at the table was an aspiring actor and stuntman named donald (shorty)shea.he later headed south to los angeles and found work at the spahn movie ranch.
shorty shea was murdered by the family in the fallout from the tate labianca slayings,allegedly because he knew too much.
he indeed did.unknown by the police and prosecution,shea had known manson and folger in san francisco two years before the murders and actually went down to l.a. in manson's company,according to the source.this revelation also seriously impact impacts the case.two people seated in that seafood resturant that night in 1967 were later murdered on the instructions of a third'

end quote:theres alot more to it than that.
the book the ultimate evil is about the son of sam murders and sets out to prove that berkowitz did'nt act alone and was in fact a member of the process who was set up to take the fall for the murders i think terry does a great job of proving just that.
one of the people above berkowitz in the cult was a guy named bill mentzer who had ties to manson,cass(yes mama strikes again)billy doyle and others in the late 60s and supposedly had some sort of involvement with the tate murders.
now if any of this is true is anyones guess. the idea is that the murders centered around drugs-not a drug burn exactly but money nonetheless.
for what its worth i used to talk to a guy online years ago in another forum who worked for mentzer in the 74-77 time period and said that mentzer confirmed that he knew manson,cass and the rest of that crew and that mentzer also used the term son of sam a year or two before those murders started.from talking to this guy i believed him but who knows.
mentzer is in prison for the cotten club-roy radin murders.
i think maury terry really did a good job proving that berkowitz acted alone but the manson stuff in his book is pretty shakey,intriguing(sp?)but unless you know who his sources are for things like the manson-shea-folger info have to be taken with a large grain of salt.
could be white rabbit for all i know!

MrPoirot said...

leary7 said...
really? i didn't know that Mr. P.
Thanks. I just thought one of the women who seems to know Lynn (AC or one of the T&L women maybe) mentioning Lynn was writing again. I probably misremember


Poirot replies:

I was disappointed when I heard Squeaky wouldn't be heard from again. Especially since nobody has ever heard the Squeaky that has disavowed Manson. I'd be curious what that Squeaky is like.

leary7 said...

wait, now I really feel like an idiot. Lynn has disavowed Manson? For more than parole purposes?? Where is that documented?

katie8753 said...

Matt it's fun to read all these made-up stories about Charlie knowing all the victims, but the reality is that anyone who quotes "a reliable source" is lying.

You never have to prove the statements.

Mrstormsurge said...

Yes. I'd be interested when Lynn disavowed Charlie. I suspect she went to New York state at the "encouragement" of the parole board not only because she has family there but to keep her as far away from Charlie as possible. And she has never written any book as far as I know. Jess Bravin wrote a book about her.

adam said...

A very good book too!

MrPoirot said...

OK I assumed everybody knew this so here goes. The reason I say Squeaky disavowed Manson is due to Manson calling her by phone upon her arrival home to New York state after her release. It was a short phone call. Charlie asked if she minded him calling her again to which she replied, "I'd rather you didn't".

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

Mr. P., I've seen where other people have made comments about Squeaky disavowing Manson too, but I don't know if any of that is true.

I would hope that it is true. It's about time she grew up and started being an adult.

Mrstormsurge said...

OK I assumed everybody knew this so here goes. The reason I say Squeaky disavowed Manson is due to Manson calling her by phone upon her arrival home to New York state after her release. It was a short phone call. Charlie asked if she minded him calling her again to which she replied, "I'd rather you didn't".>>>

Mr. P, where did you read this?

Mrstormsurge said...

Mr. P., I've seen where other people have made comments about Squeaky disavowing Manson too, but I don't know if any of that is true.

I would hope that it is true. It's about time she grew up and started being an adult.>>>

Katie, iirc the guy she shacked up with in New York is a pretty serious character who was into some dark stuff and had done time for manslaughter. It's interesting how many of these girls went on to find men a lot like Charlie after Charlie.

Marliese said...

MrPoirot said...>>>>>
OK I assumed everybody knew this so here goes. The reason I say Squeaky disavowed Manson is due to Manson calling her by phone upon her arrival home to New York state after her release. It was a short phone call. Charlie asked if she minded him calling her again to which she replied, "I'd rather you didn't".<<<<<<


I'm guessing you weren't sitting alongside Squeaky when she took this supposed call, so source please?

katie8753 said...

>>>Stormy said: Katie, iirc the guy she shacked up with in New York is a pretty serious character who was into some dark stuff and had done time for manslaughter. It's interesting how many of these girls went on to find men a lot like Charlie after Charlie.>>>

Thanks Stormy. I didn't know that. I haven't paid a lot of attention to Squeaky or Sandy.

Yes they do seem to keep gravitating to the "dark side". LOL!

v717 said...

Just seventeen days after Squeaky had tried to assassinate president Gerald Ford another assassin appeared, by the name of Sara Jane Moore.
According to Adam Gorightly in his book "The Shadow over Santa Susana" Manson and Sara Jane Moore knew each other from childhood. Manson´s mother and Moore´s mother was both prostitutes.
"An informant who grew up near where Manson lived as a kid in Charleston, Vest Virginia, noted that Charlie´s residence was in close proximty to that of Sara Jane Moore´s, located on Woodward Drive.
In the mid 80´s, a local store owner named Van-who operated "Van´s Never Close Market"-was interviewed on the local news, confirming that Manson and Moore did indeed know each other as kids, and would often come inti his store together." It´s a small world after all.
Anyhow here is an interview with Sara Jane Moore from 2009.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/sara-jane-moore-tried-to_n_208512.html

katie8753 said...

V717, Sara Jane didn't mention knowing Manson in the interview.

Gee...what a shock!! HA HA.

Maybe she met him at Mama Cass's house and just forgot to mention it.

leary7 said...

And that, I suppose, is the bugaboo of blog world - folk stating "facts" without attributing source. Not that I am challenging you Mr. P., it could have happened. But Squeeky telling Charlie not call her anymore would be a HUGE piece of news, would it not? It just surprises me that I have never heard this before.

I second Marliese's motion - source please.

Mrstormsurge said...

Katie, here's the source as to Squeaky's guy. He was the same guy she was with when Inside Edition (?) accosted her at the Wal-Mart parking lot: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/manson-assassin-new-love

Yes. I realize it's The Enquirer but a lot of what they said seemed to be supported by the Inside Edition newspiece.

katie8753 said...

Stormy, thanks!!

I guess it's fitting that Squeaky hooked up with a murderer.

It's probably a case of "who kills who first". HA HA.

I'm not sure who I'd be more scared of....Squeaky or Robert Valdner. I wonder who is the last one to shut their eyes at night. LOL.

I think Sandy hooked up with a beefcake that was on the other side of the law too.

These girls just don't know what's good for 'em. LOL.

katie8753 said...

BTW Stormy, I read the Enquirer every week. They are really more truthful than you think.

Plus I like the 2 crossword puzzles.

I'm ADDICTED to crossword puzzles. HA HA.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Stormsurge is correct.

Lynn's most recent "Beau" (threatening to punch the camera in the Wal-Mart footage), killed his ex-brother-in-law.

I've heard that Lynn has dis-avowed Manson.
I've also heard (from a more reliable source), that Manson and the guy in question... (the ex-brother-in-law killer)... contact each other by phone (or, did when Manson wasn't in "the hole")... and he (the boyfriend) conveniently hands the phone to Lynn.

Eh... who knows...

I don't believe anything, until I see proof these days.

But, the boyfriend information from Stormsurge, is accurate.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Actually...

The story I heard (technically)... was that Lynn "listens-in" to the conversations (on speakerphone, I would presume)... and the "boyfriend" relays her messages to Manson.

I'm assuming the conversations must be recorded by the state.
So him actually "handing the phone" to Squeaky, isn't very likely.

Eh... whatevers..

It's all here-say.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

... or is that "hear-say"? LOL

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd, it is "hear-say". HA HA.

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

Lynyrd, that is very interesting. It sounds like a way for Lynette to get around what I imagine is a likely condition of her parole: namely, that she not contact Charlie.

I learn something new every day.

beauders said...

atkins and share swam in the pool at cielo drive when deane morehouse was living in the guest cottage--before tate and polanski moved in.
maury terry's claim that manson, folger, and shea were seen in a restaurant together is most likely a bunch of bull. terry got most of his research from ed sanders, is an alcoholic, and does not back up his research with any sources. i heard that it was sandy good who told him this little gem just to mess with his research.

leary7 said...

I know this sounds obsequious, but clearly Beauders is the most knowledgable and reasoned voice when it comes to Manson lore. I suppose I could email Matt or Lynyrd and ask for some inside info on Beauder's story but I'd rather ask openly. Is she a Manson scholar or is there a personal connection to the TLB story? And what of Matt's question about her 1600 page book?
Enquiring minds want to know.

MrPoirot said...

http://www.amazon.com/Squeaky-Fromme-Scrapbook-John-Stevenson/dp/B004PH4Y42/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325313494&sr=1-4

katie8753 said...

Leary, Beauders does know a lot about this case and she is writing a book about it.

The last time I asked her about her progress, she said was looking for an editor. I don't know how close she is to publication.

I think that Lynyrd told her we would put an excerpt of her book on here as a thread to boost sales.

Mrstormsurge said...

I would buy it. Beauders, is there a certain aspect of the case that you'd focus on?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary.

You want my honest opinion?

There's only 20 people in all of TLB-land, who impress me consistently with knowledge... and Beauders is a front-runner on that short list.
The rest of the blowhards who occupy these boards are gawkers, stalkers, groupies, thieves, freak collectors, psychos, mental patients, substance abusers, illiterates, and hangers-on.
I hate to be nasty... but, it's true... and, there's more worthless baggage at some locations, than others.
If you want to actually learn something...
Beauders is the real-deal.

I've offered Beauders a position on my staff (twice now)... and she's declined both times... stating that, she's simply too busy, at the present time.
She hastened to add... that she may be able to join, in the future... after she completes her book.
Beauders has an open invitation, (from me) to join my staff, anytime.
Beauders is a person who could write fabulous threads, and impart great knowledge to the masses.
She'd be a huge asset, to everyone.

Yes... she is a scholar.
Yes... her words are reliable the vast majority of the time.
And Yes... she IS writing a comprehensive 1600 page book on the subject... which she describes as an "encyclopedia on TLB".

Starship is another wealth of knowledge, worthy of note.
He only speaks when he has something of substance to impart.
Moreover... he only speaks when he can back his words with sources.
Starship... is hands-down, an asset to any location.

Your nemesis Frank is nobody's fool either.
Frank has been around the blogs for years... and he knows his shit.
The man is very intelligent.

Cat's... although distained by many (evidently)... knows this case backwards and forwards.
Like her, or hate her... that's an undeniable fact.
She's definitely second to none.
Her critics have absolutely ZERO on her, when it comes to TLB knowledge.
I've personally seen that woman rattle-off information like nobody's business.
Moreover, she knows where EVERYTHING on her blog is... (that's everything), and can access information for you (on any topic) in 30 minutes or less.
If it exists... she's got it on her blog... AND in her head.

When I really want to know something for absolute certain... I speak to Cats, Beauders or Starship.
'Nuff said...

Even the Colonel, has given Cats props for her knowledge... and as you know... the good Colonel compliments no one!

Marliese and Kimchi are very sharp.

There are certainly others who clearly impress me (15 or so more)... but, I won't make an exhaustive list, as not to insult anyone, who's not included.
I think we all know who the literate, intelligent bloggers are... and where to find them.
I mean c'mon... who's kidding who?

If you plant corn, you get corn.
LOLOL

leary7 said...

muchos muchos gracias Lynyrd. That was a great post, full of insight and info.
By the way, I don't consider Frank a nemisis, he is obviously very intelligent...I just don't deal well with folk who insult or are condescending or rude. It's the old hockey player in me.
It would still be a kick to know if Beauders has an angle or hook to her story or if it is just a comprehensive data book.

leary7 said...

by the way, Lynyrd, I am clearly one of those who doesn't know allot with regards to TLB but also sincerely desires to know more. That is why I appreciate posters like Katie and Beauders and Brownrice and such who obviously know their stuff.
I think allot of the spats that happen on these blogs originate when folk who clearly do know their stuff get fed up with my group (the lesser-knowers) when we offer up opinions and such. Sort of like a freshman speaking up in a seminar full of seniors.
Maybe us "lesser-knowers" should be quiet till we learn more...but screw it, what fun is that.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary.

Don't sell yourself short.
You're in my "top 20".
You don't have all the minuscule details on every topic, but you have good skills of discernment and interpretation.
Bottom line... you can apply logic, to draw accurate conclusions (with the facts that you do possess... and the facts that others present).
It's not everyone who can do that...

I remember your first post.
You said (paraphrasing):
"This case has longevity, because it contains several interesting elements"

I was impressed.
I knew I wasn't dealing with a mental infant, after reading your synopsis.

Also you write well... which is very refreshing in the blog boneyard of horrible grammar, spelling, diction, etc.

All-in-all, I may have been a bit harsh.
Most bloggers bring something to the table.

But yes... every once in a while... someone exceptional like Beauders will arise, who is head-and-shoulders above the rest.
She is simply a bottomless pit of information on seemingly EVERY conversation.
Time after time... Beauders surfaces after hours with spot-on information that blows my mind.

If this were a fictitious ninja movie... Beauders would be "The Chosen One"!
AHahahaha

But alas... I talk too much.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Sorry...

If this "WAS" a fictitious ninja movie...

(Speaking of bad grammar) LOL

leary7 said...

All good as always, Lynyrd. Thanks, nice post. But like Ken, I do realize I don't have the skill set of some of the more learned posters....but I still do so love the elements and dynamics of this story.
I mean, forty odd years later, and Cappy, the loving grandmother, still regrets not being chosen to join the murder posse on those two evil nights. Where else can you find psychotic dimension like that?
Then again, we live in a culture that finds the Kardashians fascinating, so I know nothing.

katie8753 said...

Leary I have a hard time believing that Cappy said that..... :)

leary7 said...

yeah, I agree, Katie. It does sound absurd. But Matt swears his source is reliable and I do trust and respect him.
You know what I liken it to Katie. All the white captives taken by the Comanches who resisted being rescued and prefered staying with their Indian captives and even when rescued for years tried to return to their tribe.
Cappy is like Cynthia Ann Parker, Quanah's mother, tribal loyalty dominates.

katie8753 said...

Leary, you're so sweet and trusting!

Refer to what I said above about someone having a "reliable source".

Cappy said a lot of things on the sidewalk during the trial and on the stand during the punishment phase that were just the untrue ravings of a young girl trying to look big and tough.

She's not a young naive girl anymore.

But...if you want to believe it, no harm done. It doesn't affect this case.

I just chose not to. LOL.

bobby said...

Leary, Thats a bit of a stretch comparing Parkers mother with Cappy but, I enjoyed that book very much myself.

katie8753 said...

You know, when you stop and think about it, every one of these people who were arrested and imprisoned for any crime relating to Charles Manson should resent the hell out of him.

That felony charge stays on your record for the rest of your life. It affects you in many ways...getting a job...getting a loan...getting car insurance...getting good credit.

I don't think Cappy was ever picked up and charged with a felony offense, but even so, I can't imagine ANY of them still glamorizing a dirty life with Charlie in the 60's.

They've got their own families now and they're better off. Who needs Charlie?

bobby said...

Who needs Charlie?

What would Lynyrds blog be called without Charlie ?

Lynyrd's Marylin Forum ?

attempt at humor.

katie8753 said...

Bobby...you got a point there. HA HA.

Although if I clamored after Charlie as a Daddy I'd be better off with a 2x4 upside my head and six foot under.

leary7 said...

yeah, I figured someone would call me on that, Bobby. You're right, it is a stretch. But I am reading a book called 'Captured' that is about a bunch of German folk taken by the Comanches in the hill country of Texas where I live and some of the psycho-dynamics seem eerily similar. I've always felt the "tribal element" of the Manson story, seen from an anthropological perspective, was never given enough discussion.

leary7 said...

is "sweet and trusting" an euphemism for naive idiot, Katie. Just kidding, but I have never been called the former and often been called the later so point taken.
It is intersting, the whole issue of credible sources. I get a kick out of the link Mr P. gave to support his Lynette telling Charlie to buzz off story. It is a book on Amazon called Squeeky Fromme Scrapbook and there is only one so I am guessing it is just this guy John Stevenson's personal scrapbook of Squeeky clippings and such. Maybe there is an article in there that substantiates Mr.P's claim but how can anyone access the info without said article being specifically cited?
This is, of course, how urban myths get started - people cite obscure and unaccessible sources as documentation and fact.
Like you say, Katie, there is allot of "chosing" when studying the Manson story.

katie8753 said...

Leary, you have a point. I know that there were white settlers who were captured by Indians who were transformed by the "Helsinki Syndrome" (of course back then there wasn't a name) and actually identified with their captors.

That's an interesting look on the subject, except that the difference is these skanks (errrr...girls) weren't "captured". They went willingly with a con man who told them what they wanted to hear.

So I'm not sure if in this instance, it would be the same thing.

But it would be worth exploring.

Any ideas you come up with are worth taking a look at. :)

Now pardon me while I say Happy New Year to 2 specials ladies...Thelma & Louise.

katie8753 said...

>>>Leary said: is "sweet and trusting" an euphemism for naive idiot, Katie. Just kidding, but I have never been called the former and often been called the later so point taken.>>>

No, not a naive idiot. Just a guy who wants to believe in people to the point of accepting truths that aren't completely proven.

>>I get a kick out of the link Mr P. gave to support his Lynette telling Charlie to buzz off story. It is a book on Amazon called Squeeky Fromme Scrapbook and there is only one so I am guessing it is just this guy John Stevenson's personal scrapbook of Squeeky clippings and such.>>>

It's way too easy to cite a link to some obscure book to prove your point.

As you know Leary, there are many of us on THIS blog who want to know the truth, and often ask for reference points to certain ascertations made. If it can't be proved up...it's thrown out.

>>>This is, of course, how urban myths get started - people cite obscure and unaccessible sources as documentation and fact.>>

This is exactly right. If you go on other blogs and someone says something obscure and unprecedented, and you just believe it, it's just the start of an urban legend. However, if you start delving into where this person got their info and they reveal it came from someone who was relying on Ed Nelson, then you just sniff and go on.

>>>Like you say, Katie, there is allot of "chosing" when studying the Manson story.>>>

Yes there is Leary, and that will bring you closer to the truth. I'm miles away from it, and still learning, but the most important lesson I've learned in this search is that when people broadcast ridiculous information that you've never heard before...weigh it out, ask where it came from, and then make your own decision on its truthfulness. I'm serious when I say to avoid anyone who says "a reliable source". It's too easy to make that up.

There's an AWFUL LOT of mud to wade through on this case. LOL.

Not just from the family members who ALWAYS lie, but from the bloggers who like to make you think they've solved everything.

I'll say one more thing. There seems to be more and more of the "Charlie likers" who like to blame the murders on Tex, Linda or someone else.

You have to realize this is a ploy that was instigated back in 1971 and is ongoing.

katie8753 said...

Oh, check that...BILL Nelson.

I haven't researched that guy at all because from what I've heard he was a lunatic drunk.

Sigh.......

beauders said...

thanks for the compliments. my book is a literal a-z encyclopedia and will end up between 1600-1700 pages. it something i have been working on since 1994. i am going to self publish it because i do not want it cut up by a publishing house. i would like to put a print copy out but the price to the buyer would be enormous.

beauders said...

p.s. i have no tie to the case, just a bad case of ocd. i was five when the murders happened.

MrPoirot said...

leary7 said...

It is intersting, the whole issue of credible sources. I get a kick out of the link Mr P. gave to support his Lynette telling Charlie to buzz off story. It is a book on Amazon called Squeeky Fromme Scrapbook and there is only one so I am guessing it is just this guy John Stevenson's personal scrapbook of Squeeky clippings and such. Maybe there is an article in there that substantiates Mr.P's claim but how can anyone access the info without said article being specifically cited?
This is, of course, how urban myths get started - people cite obscure and unaccessible sources as documentation and fact.
Like you say, Katie, there is allot of "chosing" when studying the Manson story.

Poirot replie:

Leary I posted that link to let folks know about it.I can't afford a $125 book. I have no idea what the book says. I was not posting the link to provide a reference to my post about Squeaky telling Charlie not to call anymore.

if you and Marse must know here it is. I read it on the Col's site. If you don't believe it I really don't give a fuck.

There are other statements made by Squeaky herself from interviews that were widely circulated about Squeaky's change of heart about Manson but i'm sure you haven't read those either.

I get tired of being insulted after i reveal even the most casual facts and then being bitched at. Several of you keep asking for references as if I make shit up. The fact is most of you are too lazy to do your own research. You want me to annotate everything I tell you. Some of you in here must have the reading comprehension level of a 4th grader.

v717 said...

Katie, allow me to correct you about a small detail.
It wasn´t the "Helsinki Syndrome."
It was the "Stockholm Syndrome."

katie8753 said...

>>V717 said: Katie, allow me to correct you about a small detail.
It wasn´t the "Helsinki Syndrome."
It was the "Stockholm Syndrome.">>>

Thanks V717! I knew it was something Nordic. HA HA HA.

leary7 said...

Sorry to get you so riled up, Mr.P.
I had/have no desire to insult you. It's just that Squeeky disavowing Charlie would be such a HUGE piece of info I think it is natural for those of us who haven't heard it before to want some sort of documentation. And no, it's not laziness, that is an unfair assertion. I read the Col's blog and a few others religously and have never come across that info.
If you are truly offended when folk want to know where controversial information originates then that's a tough one. As Katie says, so many lies and untruths have been told about the Manson story I think it is quite reasonable to ask for sources and such. Sorry if you see it differently.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., calm down please. Don't wear your feelings on your sleeve.

We both know that anytime someone introduces some new information, that person should authenticate it with where it was obtained.

After doing so, THEN we can to to that link and do our "research" regarding that news item.

After almost 43 years have passed, there really isn't any new info available that can be viewed as factual.

Unless one of the imprisoned perps decided it was finally time to talk.

Mr. P., you do have a lot of valuable input at times and mention little things that I have missed, and I appreciate your comments. :)

Happy New Year Mr. P!

katie8753 said...

Ooopsss...meant to say "GO to that link". LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Mr. P... what Leary said.

(Thanks for saving me ten minutes, Leary)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot...

It's all good man... we all like you.

You have obviously done much reading on this subject from blogs, books, etc... and have likely watched much video footage.

I'm sure you have a gazillion tidbits of information, floating around in your head... from all different sources.
I don't doubt that for a moment.

Problems arise, because:

-You state things that you've read (from any, and all sources) as absolute fact.

-You state your own conjecture and personal conclusions as fact, as well.

I've watched as you've done both, many times.

That's where you get yourself into trouble with folks.
It's your "presentation".

Most of the things we read on blogs... and a vast abundance in some books even (unfortunately), are unsubstantiated.

That's why I usually "taper" my comments with disclaimers, like:

"I believe"...
"I think"...
I"ve heard"...
"According to so-and-so"...
"But, I'm not sure if it's true"...
"It's my opinion"...

...and the like.
These catch-phrases can be extremely helpful, when I'm offering straight-up, personal opinion.

State facts you can substantiate, as facts... and, your opinion as opinion... and there will be much less headaches.

85% of what's shared on these blogs is opinion, rumor, and hear-say... not facts.

If you can't provide proof on a blog... you really have to "soften the blow" of your comments, with disclaimer catch-phrases (such as I've suggested, above)... because EVERYONE is asked for their sources, when they don't... that's everyone.

You're not being singled-out.

No one here, has ever communicated to me, that they have a personal gripe with you.
It's never happened...

Peace... Lynyrd

Dilligaf said...

Katie, my apologies to you. I just read a question you asked regarding LK testifying against co-defendants. She was prohibited from testifying on matters that lacked an independant verfication of allegation. Without such corroboration, such testimony is considered hearsay.

katie8753 said...

Thanks for explaining that Mr. Dill!!!

Love your new Avatar!! LOLOL.

fiona1933 said...

There's a phrase "lighting up your witness" i read it in "Bonfire of the Vanities". It's when, for example, a lawyer has to prosecute a gang member, and needs to use another such guy as a witness, so he tries to paint his witness in better colours, even tho both defendant and witness are just the same.

Janson2112 said...

I agree with Mary, and beleive there are more than just one motive. I think it depends on what level of the family you were at depends on what motive you were told. I doubt the guys ever really bought into the HS stuff and there actions were controlled by other motives.
Charlie = control of every body
Tex = wannabe drug kingpin
Bobby = wanted his own family
Bruce = I think he just liked killing
Clem = pedophile and general pervert