Saturday, July 7, 2012

ColScott Said:
You know I was reading one of the recent articles, maybe one of the ones I posted (not going to go back and look, doesn't matter) and they referred to Cielo Drive as a HOME INVASION. Now true this was 1969 and I am not sure when I first heard the term but it was more likely than not the 90s so this is retrofitting of course.

But what word do we normally hear after "Home Invasion"? ROBBERY, right? I never heard of a Home Invasion Race War Startup, have you?

It was a robbery or drug deal burn or both. There IS a meaning to it I know there is.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lynyrd Responds:
Marlin Marynick, psychiatric nurse, and author of the book "Charles Manson Now", described the events at Cielo as a "botched home invasion", during his interview with "Good Day LA".
He makes his statement at 2mins/40 seconds into the interview. (video below)
 
Marlin's description of the event (and carefully chosen language) made an impact on me as well, as having some significance.
 
I agree with the Colonel on two things:
 
#1) "Home Invasion" implies that there was a goal to this event, which had nothing to do with a race war.
Marlin could have just as easily said "race war"... but he intentionally did not.
"Home invasion" suggests to me, that "the family" was there with a purpose.
The most likely purpose of a "home invasion" is robbery, or retribution (i.e., payback of some kind).
This is straight forward logic... and as I said... I agree with Colonel on this subject.
 
Marlin quickly follows-up with these statements:
"Drugs were definitely involved" and "all these people knew each other".
This suggests to me, a "payback" purpose for something drug-related.
But, either way you slice it... Marlin clearly implies a purpose for Cielo... and that purpose does not include a race war.
As I said... Marlin could have easily stated "race war", as his response to the interviewer... but, he intentionally did not.
 
#2) The word "botched" is also significant, as it implies that things went beyond the intended goal.
Bottom line:
The execution of the "home invasion" went awry... and the subsequent bloodbath was beyond the intended purpose of the "home invasion", which was robbery or payback (for something drug-related).
Marlin's chosen descriptor of "botched" makes sense... as the type of bloodbath which resulted, was not what one would expect from a routine robbery, or "tune up".
 
I agree with Colonel on all counts here.
 
The question becomes:
How much significance does Marlin's testimony carry?
That depends (I suppose) on how much weight, we give to Marlin's opinion.
Marlin strikes me as a grounded person... not prone to sensationalize or hypothesize without forethought and research.
He's obviously an educated man.
 
As always, there are no definites here... but I submit, Marlin's view is a piece of the puzzle, worthy of some thought.
 
Peace... Lynyrd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marlin's Interview 
video
Video from the Backporch Tapes Collection

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Something to think about...

ST. Circumstance said...

I have nothing against Marlin- he seems like a reasonable guy..

I agree with most of your impressions of him..

BUT

He doesn't know any more about this than any of us do...

He says Charlie told him this and that...

but Charlie is liable to say anything to anyone.

He says it was def about drugs...

Except for the snorts of speed Tex and Susan say they took- everyone else testified they weren't on drugs that night...

and they left all kinds of drugs in the house at Cielo...

Coke- joints laying out in ashtrays..

So why do I need to believe drugs were DEFINITELY INVOLVED?

also- he says Charlie told him he knew Sharon and Roman-

In my entire time of following this case I have never heard anyone say that this ever happened... I dont remember reading that in his book ( its been awhile though maybe he did)

so all I am saying is- quite a few poeple have interviewed Charlie and spoken with him in jail, and not sure why he would change his policy of playing games and tossing around vague ideas and commentaries to spill out any real important secrets???

and if any of them were so- it wouldn't seem like it would be impossible to prove...

I dont know for sure what or why these things happened- but probably Charlie didn't open up and spill them to Marlin...

Marlin has listened to the stories - talked to some of the poeple Charlie does, and formed his own hypothesis...

just like the rest of us....

If one of us went to see Charlie in prison- he would mumble jibberish at us for 45 minutes as well...

would we then know any more than we do now??

do we take Star or Squeaky or any of them seriously when they regurgitate Charlies current ramblings???

Marlin has an education, so I guess he gets more credibility, and I certainly have more respect for him than the others...

but his ideas are no more valuable to me in any way...

he wasn't their- he wasn't inside the family....

it shouldn't take a nurse or Doctor to explain Charlies has some mental issues...

and all of the rest of it is just second hand information and opinion....

Their had to be a reason for what happened and botched home invasion is as good a theory as any- but haven't we all been arguing over that as one option for a long time already??? possible drug burn or payback angle is not new to me...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

You're correct Saint.

This is Marlin's opinion of the motive, based on his own research.

How much weight one gives to Marlin's opinion, will vary from person to person.

You're also right, that a money and/or drug-burn motive, are not new earth-shattering concepts.

Nothing really new here...

One thing's for sure though... Marlin's words do imply that a race war, had nothing to do with it.
Yet another person echoing that sentiment, for those inclined to that mindset....

revatron said...

The VERY FIRST thing they did when they got over the wall was kill Steven Parent, no questions asked.
That doesn't sound much like a robbery.
ALSO, (if) Manson's orders were to kill everyone on Cielo Dr. That doesn't sound like robbery OR drug burn. It sounds like they wanted to do something big for the world to notice. Notice what? I don't know.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I believe that Manson knows everything there is to be known, about ALL these events.

The trouble is:
Even if Manson sat any one of us down, and explained EVERYTHING... we wouldn't believe him anyway... unless of course... he told us, exactly what we wanted to hear.
Manson has told so many versions of the story at this point, he's lost all credibilty with everyone.
Let's face it... that's the Gods-honest truth.

Therein lies the biggest obstacle to finding the truth in this case.

I honestly believe, that Manson HAS told the truth at times (if not many times) during some of his interviews.
Trouble is... how does one pinpoint... (or worse yet, PROVE), those moments of honesty and clarity?

Manson himself... due to conflicting stories... and a deteriorated mind... has become worthless in the search for truth, in regards to this case.

That's essentially what Saint said, as well...

Ruby said...

Also keep in mind with Marlins book, he is friends with the ATWA group and ATWA had input in his book. No one needs to have an education to know their agenda.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Revatron!

Interesting points.

Yes... the killing of Steve Parent immediately, for no apparent reason, gives new meaning to the word "botched" doesn't it?
I'll agree with you there.

If these kids had a purpose, they certainly deterred from it, almost immediately.
I see your point.

But then again...
Wasn't Manson somewhat steamed about how things "went down" too messy?

If there really was a specific goal in mind.. the kids certainly didn't act "profesionally".
I think we can all agree with you there.

This is why... I don't think the term "home invasion" fits very well, unless you add the word "botched".

As for your second point:
Has it ever been proven that Manson said "go kill everybody".
I'm not sure on that one.
If it's true... that Manson DID in fact, say that... then I agree with you.. it doesn't fit the robbery/drug motive very well...

leary7 said...

Damn, that is some seriously good writing by both Lynyrd and Saint. Great stuff.
And great point by revatron - not your standard robbery M.O. to execute someone like that. And of course Tex's famous proclimation of being 'the devil and here to do the devil's business' doesn't quite fit with robbery.
Anyways, the Col is riding again. Love him or not, he's always entertaining. I can't log on over there, must be banned. For the best. A couple of regulars here that I really respect got attacked over there by the zealous "truth purists". Don't tell Katie, there will be another war.
That is why I so enjoy it here - Lynyrd is all about peace and minimizing hassle. Katie goes off the reservation from time to time but that is just part of her Texas charm. But it is great to have a place to disagree without the pitchforks coming after you.
Thanks Lynyrd.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary you ROCK!

That's all I have time for... but, that says it all!

Peace Brother!
All the Best!

ST. Circumstance said...

Thanks Leary :)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Good post Revatron.

One of the key points of this thread, was to illustrate that the "home invasion" theory doesn't fly very well... unless you add Marlin's disclaimer, which is "botched".

Revatron...
Your Steve parent comment aided in shedding more light on that concept.

Thanks...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I spelled "professionally" wrong earlier... and it's bothering me.

So there it is, spelled correctly. LOL

leary7 said...

I do so love both good writing and thoughtful analysis and you guys simply hit it out of the park.
I also have to give a compliment to Marliese for a strong debate performance over at the Col's.
I guess I am just an old fashioned wimp, but I just enjoy a good arguement without the nastiness.

leary7 said...

Man, if we are getting deducted for spelling I would have been expelled months ago.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Saint you ROCK!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Shit... now... I spelled "P"arent with a small p.

Time for a break, I guess... LOLOL

Katie... where are you?

Your shift girl! LOLOL
I'm in the penalty box! : )

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I hear the Celtics picked-up a couple young, very large players... a center and forward.
Just what we need... bigger bodies out there.. with some mileage left in their legs!

Anyone have details???

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

HEY RUBY!
WELCOME TO THE BLOG!

Sorry, I missed your comment in the moderation pool... and you got a little buried there...

My Apologies.

bobby said...

Thanks Leary.

bobby said...

Seems very possible with all the socializing that was going on at the time some of the folks on each side ( Mansons group & Ceilo group ) would at least know of each other. Certainly the house was picked for a purpose and I am stating the obvious. Lol

Ruby said...

Hey Lynyrd!
Thank you - No apology needed. I can swim in the pool - it's all good.

katie8753 said...

Wow, some really good comments here. St., you are "spot on", as usual!!

>>>Revatron said: The VERY FIRST thing they did when they got over the wall was kill Steven Parent, no questions asked.>>>

Hi Revatron! Boy you hit the nail on the head with that one. It's funny how we stomp all over this case looking for clues, and the biggest ones just get trampled.

Very good point.

There was absolutely no reason to kill Parent. They certainly didn't know him, and he certainly didn't "burn them" on a drug deal!

ST. Circumstance said...

Hey Bobby!!

Fair to say anything was possible...

My thinking is it is also impossible to say anything definitively ...

Some of them COULD have met...

but to say they def all knew each other...

would be hard to be able to keep that a secret this long no????

If Sharon and Roman had met Charlie- we wouldn't be able to prove that by now???

Hard to tell me this is unquestionable...

although I guess possible....

katie8753 said...

>>>Ruby said: Also keep in mind with Marlins book, he is friends with the ATWA group and ATWA had input in his book. No one needs to have an education to know their agenda.>>>

Hi Ruby!! Welcome to the blog!!

You are so right about that one! As Lynyrd pointed out, Marlin is just parroting what Charlie told him, which could be the truth, could just be misleading info, or could just be a big fat lie. LOL.

ST. Circumstance said...

I agree with all about Parent not fitting in...

BUT lol

if they were there for WHATEVER reason, and someone was leaving as they were arriving and they thought he was a threat for ANY reason..

wouldn't he still get what he so tragically got??

As someone earlier pointed out
( L/S)- maybe this was what first caused this situation to become a botched ... .whatever it was

ST. Circumstance said...

Star did a not so good review of that book on the ATWA sight...

wonder how Marlin took that???

katie8753 said...

Hi Bobby. I know it's been said many times that the killers knew the victims, but I've said many times, and really have never been convinced otherwise, that the killers did NOT know the victims.

I think what people don't remember is that Sharon & Roman weren't in the country that much. They spent a lot of time overseas. They rented Cielo Drive in February of 1969 and by March they were both gone. Sharon didn't return until July of 1969. That doesn't give her much time to run around and meet the Manson Family.

Abigail & Voytek? They had more time to do so, but as St. pointed out, there's no real proof that they knew the killers either.

It's all just conjecture and speculation.

katie8753 said...

St., you have a point. Maybe Tex killed Parent to shut him up?

But what if they had just hid in the bushes until he left? He's the one who ran out and confronted Parent....

Ruby said...

Per Tex Watson's book he admits to picking out the house as they left the ranch because he knew that house well. He had been there a few times. He knew it was well hidden from busy roads, etc and he knew the layout. He was a drug dealer - that's been proven. Voytek or however you spell his name used drugs and bought them on a regular basis. ???? During that time in LA, it was a tight community. Could've been a combination. Manson needed money to bail the 2 idiot girls for the stolen credit card and sent Tex and the other 3 idiot girls, Susan Atkins and Katie wanted to do the copy cat killings to save Bobby B and Tex was a seller and knew someone rich had to be in that house, probably knew Voytek lived there. ????? Parent was at the wrong place at the wrong time. ???

leary7 said...

I watched the Diane Sawyer interview again recently. I truly believe Charlie was at his most honest and cogent and believable persona in that interview.
At one point Charlie says...
"When you go to war, against an enemy, you go to war for God and country and you give your life for that cause."
Diane says, "so that night they were going out to fight the war."
And Charlie says, very matter of factly...
"They were going out to fight the war."
Forty two years later and folk are still trying to find a drug motive and a personal vendetta motive and a Mafia hit motive and so on.
No, it wasn't a race war. Helter Skelter was a P.R. strategy, a way for the Bug to focus the jury.
But it was a war. It was Charlie's War. He hated society. He'd had the Family practicing death and killing for months. And now Bobby was in jail for murder, Mary and Sandy were in jail, the Straight Satans were pissed, Charlie believed the Black Panthers were on the horizon, the sword of LottsaPoppa and Hinman were hanging over his head, he couldn't get the money to get everyone to the desert....
the charming sociopath just snapped and decided to make the war real. He says so right there on tape. And Pat carved the word WAR right into Leno's belly.
Forty-two years and folk are still grasping at straws and theories that have no evidence.
Was everyone involved in drugs so there was some six degrees overlap? Sure. Did folk know each other, or at least have encountered each other? Sure, the Laurel Canyon music scene was very active and communal. Could robbery have been part of the equation? Sure, the Family needed money. Could Cielo have been picked because Manson and Watson knew the place and possibly one or more of the victims? Yeah, both had been there before. Both knew Melcher.
But come on, 42 years and none of the first hand participants have altered their story and no solid evidence points to drugs or vendettas.
Is this debate going to last forever?

Ruby said...

Thanks Katie!
St. Circumstance, who knows but he keeps going back for more per his interview on Star Radio
Leary has a good point
Who knows? It's hard to figure out crazy people.

bobby said...

Katie, I dont think they new Roman or Sharon,if they knew of any of them it would be Jay, W or AF.

bobby said...

Did Dennis Wilson or Terry Melcher know any of the victims ? If they did that makes it more likely the family did.

katie8753 said...

Bobby don't know if the victims knew Terry or Dennis. I've read that Gibby & Voytek hung out at Mama Cass's house (don't know if that's true or not), so if either Terry or Dennis hung out there, it's possible they knew each other.

katie8753 said...

Leary I agree.

I think there is only one person who knows the real truth, and that's Charlie.

And he's not gonna reveal anything he doesn't want anyone to know.

katie8753 said...

One thing I could never figure out is, why didn't they take the cars?

Jay had a Porsche, Gibby had a Firebird, Rosemary had a T-Bird.

Expensive vehicles. They took Gary's run-down cars, why not steal these cars?? They had all the keys.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Ruby said:
“Also keep in mind with Marlins book, he is friends with the ATWA group and ATWA had input in his book. No one needs to have an education to know their agenda”.

I agree Ruby.
Yours is a worthy thought.

One not only has to look at a person's education and experience when assessing their credibility and statements, but also their sympathies and loyalties.
I like Marlin personally, and respect him a great deal.
But, there’s no denying that he has sympathies towards Manson, and the "Pro-Manson" camp of thought.
It's just a fact, one has to consider in an honest assessment... you're right.
---------------------------------

Saint said:
“I agree with all about Parent not fitting in...
BUT lol
if they were there for WHATEVER reason, and someone was leaving as they were arriving and they thought he was a threat for ANY reason..
wouldn't he still get what he so tragically got??
As someone earlier pointed out
( L/S)- maybe this was what first caused this situation to become a botched ... .whatever it was”


Makes some sense.
That is essentially my thinking, as to why Bobby ultimately killed Gary.
I think Bobby was afraid of going to jail… felt as though he was left ’holding the bag” sorta speak… panicked, and acted in haste.
That’s certainly not the reason that Bobby was there of course (the “motive”, as it were)... but (I believe) it was the reason why things “escalated”.

These were young perpetrators.
Young folks (as Tom often says) make poor decisions under stress.
Killing folks must be a stressful situation, regardless of how willing someone is “to die for me”. LOL (pun intended)

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

Bob said:
“Seems very possible with all the socializing that was going on at the time some of the folks on each side ( Mansons group & Ceilo group ) would at least know of each other”.

I agree Bob.
I think it’s likely, that some of the Manson folks, and some of the Cielo folks, at least knew (of) each other.

The operative words here, are “likely” (not definitely), “some” (not all)… and knew “of”.
Knowing “of” someone, implies a loose acquaintance... not a close relationship.

As Saint said:
I don’t believe they “all” definitely knew each other... and were (in fact) “friends” as Marlin states… just because Manson told him so.
I’d need more evidence than just Manson’s word, to be completely convinced of a “definite friendship” between "all" the members of both camps.

Again… unfortunately, Manson’s word does not really carry much weight, at this point.
I agree with both of you (Bob and Saint), on that subject.

Like Johnny Cash... I'm walkin' the line. LOL

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

Ruby said:
“Who knows? It's hard to figure out crazy people”

Exactly.
I… and Harold True (LOL) have been saying that repeatedly.

OR… as Harold said it best:
“You can’t ascribe reason to crazy people”.

That is precisely why… I think we have to look outside the conventional box for a motive, as well as inside.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary...

I've watched countless hours of Manson footage.

The "Manson line" which always looks the most genuine to me, is when Manson lears into the camera with complete unabashed intensity... and says to Geraldo:

"Some people didn't do things, they were supposed to do".
(In regards to Melcher)

That one has always haunted me.

I'm not sure the significance... but, Manson looks serious as shit, at that moment.
It's almost like he "forgot himself" for a moment, and let it fly.
There's no pretense at all.
Then of course... the camera cuts, and the subject is changed immediately.

I've always wondered if Geraldo signed a legal paper, which forced him to edit-out everything, which may have been incriminating to Manson.

Does anyone else notice, that EVERY TIME that interview "got good"... the film was cut, and the subject was immediately changed by Geraldo???
It's uncanny.

Every time you think:
"This is it"!
The film is spliced, and Manson is interrupted.
There's GOT to be a reason for that, beyond dumb bad luck.

Dilligaf?
Does such "legal paperwork" get signed before these interviews???

In general Leary... (comparing all the interviews)... I've always found Manson to be the most lucid with Geraldo.
Manson is still quite young and vigorous during the Geraldo interview... and if all the important points weren't edited-out... we may have gotten somewhere.

By the time Manson gets into that large white beard... I think he's simply crackers.
He's just entertainment, at that point.
My two cents...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Actually... was it the Geraldo interview, where Manson says, "Some people didn't do things, they were supposed to do"?

LOLOLOL

Things are all starting to run together folks.
I need a break!

Try holding a conversation with 5 people simultaneously.
It's not easy... LOL

Peace!

matt prokes said...

thinking outside the box does anyone think that tex watson and his connections might hold the answers to the motive rather than just focusing on mansons role in all this?

katie8753 said...

>>>"Some people didn't do things, they were supposed to do">>>

Hmmm....that could be a host of people.

That might even include his father. His mother. Or Rosalie.

I think that Manson's anger toward people started a LONG time before the murders. Long before the broken promises of a recording contract. Long before he started gathering naive girls to do his bidding.

katie8753 said...

>>>Matt said: thinking outside the box does anyone think that tex watson and his connections might hold the answers to the motive rather than just focusing on mansons role in all this?>>>

There has been some talk that Tex is the catalyst that started this ball rolling, but I for one don't believe it.

I think that Manson told Tex to kill everyone at Cielo Drive, and the Labiancas.

I also think that Manson told Clem, Bruce & possibly Tex to kill Shorty. Him being a snitch and all.

The only thing I'm not sure of, is if Manson told Bobby to kill Gary. I still think that was all Bobby's idea.

I really think this all happened because Charlie snapped and blew a fuse. After Gary's murder, things just started unraveling for him. His family was getting upset. He was afraid of being alone. He had to maintain some type of control.

Marliese said...

Hi all,

I don't think Tex or any of his connections hold the answers. I think Tex was the hired gun, so to speak. Charlie knew Tex could kill, probably Krenwinkel too, but she doesn't know anything. And after Cielo, any doubt about that would have been gone.

Charlie knew Tex would kill the Labiancas. That's why he's a murderer, and a coward...he won't admit going in that house and handing those people off to killers.

I'd guess the people that probably hold the answers about motive are Charlie, Nancy Pitman and maybe Bruce...though Bruce seems so dense...at least in his parole hearings, so i don't know.

katie8753 said...

Hey Matt, Leary asked on the previous thread if there are any transcripts to the civil suit filed against the killers by the victim's families. I don't really know anything about this.

Was there a trial??? Or just a judgement against the killers??

Do you have any info on this? I know you are a "go to guy". Thanks!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Matt...

I wasn't so much focusing on Manson's role, but his knowledge of the situation.

I think regardless of motive, Manson was a pretty perceptive guy, and had to have known what was going down... and why... even if it was all Tex's doing... or anything (or anyone) else, for that matter.

I think some of the others had some pieces of the puzzle (knowledgewise)... but... I believe Manson... (before he went totally bonkers LOL)... had ALL the pieces.
Hence my focus...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

It seems Marliese and I, basically said the same thing just now...

Hey Marliese!

katie8753 said...

M-A-R-L-I-E-S-E!!!! Good to see you.

I think we're on the same wavelength.

>>>I don't think Tex or any of his connections hold the answers. I think Tex was the hired gun, so to speak. Charlie knew Tex could kill, probably Krenwinkel too, but she doesn't know anything. And after Cielo, any doubt about that would have been gone.>>>

I agree. Krenwinkel was a zombie who would have done what she was told. She never even knew why. But it was a "slam dunk" that she would do the same the next night.

>Charlie knew Tex would kill the Labiancas. That's why he's a murderer, and a coward...he won't admit going in that house and handing those people off to killers.>>>

He admitted going in to the LaBianca house to Diane Sawyer, but now likes to take it back. Well, you can't take back what you said on celluloid. It's there forever. LOL.

>>>I'd guess the people that probably hold the answers about motive are Charlie, Nancy Pitman and maybe Bruce...though Bruce seems so dense...at least in his parole hearings, so i don't know.>>>

I don't think anyone knows the real motive except Charlie. Nancy? Maybe, but I doubt it. Bruce? He was dense back in 1969....

katie8753 said...

Marliese...question.

The killers have said that Charlie & Nancy were "dancing in the moonlight" naked upon their return. (WAY TMI...HA HA). A lot of people think it was Nancy who returned to Cielo Drive with Charlie that fateful morning. I think it was Clem.

What do you think?

katie8753 said...

We all know that Nancy is/was completely capable of murder.

Was she more into Charlie's mind than the rest???? I wonder......

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Make no mistake...

Manson had all the answers, as to what went down and why...

Unfortunately... he has no credibility left.
He's supported just about every motive theory at least once at this point (except HS)... and his mind (let's face it folks) is compromised due to mental illness and years of incarceration.
I seriously (and earnestly) don't think Manson remembers "the truth" at all, at this point.

When I was researching the "LIE" album and the related recordings... Michael from Backporch tapes said:
"No one is a Manson expert... not even Manson".
Michael continued:
"At this point, Manson himself, probably doesn't even remember all the people he recorded with... and al the places those recordings were made".
I think Michael's assessment is very accurate.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

BTW... does anyone know where Kimchi is?

Kimchi, are you with us?

We miss you!

Marliese said...

leary7 said...>>>>>>
I do so love both good writing and thoughtful analysis and you guys simply hit it out of the park.
I also have to give a compliment to Marliese for a strong debate performance over at the Col's.
I guess I am just an old fashioned wimp, but I just enjoy a good arguement without the nastiness<<<<<<

Hi Leary, i agree...great reading on this thread. And I appreciate your compliment. I usually try to ignore Jim and his delusions of grandeur but had a little time the other night and took the bait. Anyway, thanks.

I was surprised to read that you think you're probably banned at the Col's site. Maybe so, though it's been my experience that the Col doesn't censor or otherwise micro manage his blog....unless someone really steps over the line and doesn't respect that at the end of the day, it is his blog, and he'll post when he's so inclined, or at least has the time for it. Anyway, sorry to hear you suspect you're banned there.

Marliese said...

Hi Katie! I miss you.

We're usually on the same page!

You said something the other day, and i was howling. I expect him to gobble up whatever i put down in front of him...that one. LOL!

Please email me anytime. Lynyrd has my email.

katie8753 said...

Yeah Kimchi. I miss you too....

I think of you when I see those Power Wagon photos. :)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary... I highly doubt that you're banned at Colonel's, just because you can't log-in.

In fact... I can almost guarantee it.

There's no way for a blog administrator to prevent just one person from logging-in.
That's just an old myth...

If it's possible to block one person with a Google Blog... it's news to me... and a capability I've never come across.
A private website maybe... but, not a Google Blog.

Sometimes, I actually wish that were possible. LOLOL

You must be doing something wrong.

Be more careful when typing-in the "captcha" word.

Marliese said...

Katie, my guess would be Charlie, Clem AND Nancy.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Marliese.

I know that arguing with Jimmy is useless. I used to do that, and I will never do it again. It doesn't change anything.

He will think what he wants to think, and I'll think what I want to think.

And I guess that's okay... LOL.

Do you think Nancy went back with Charlie that morning to Cielo Drive? The only reason I ask this to you directly is because you seem to think that Nancy has some inside info.

I will contact you on e-mail. Just to check in on you!

katie8753 said...

Okay thanks Marliese. I think our comments crossed.

That's interesting. 3 people went back to Cielo Drive.

Well...that's perfectly possible. I don't know why we always thought it was 2 people.

I can see Nancy going with him if they were "dirty dancin'" on the boardwalk when the killers drove up, getting out, Tex saying "it sure was Helter Skelter" and Pat saying "they were so young".

I can just imagine Charlie, Nancy & Clem hopping into the old Ford and high-tailing it back to Cielo Drive "to see what my children had done".

Planting glasses, moving bodies, yelling at each other. HA HA.

"You aren't doing that right"!

"Well if you're in charge, why don't you do it? Why do I have to do everything?"

"Will somebody tell me where the bathroom is?"

"What's all this rope doin' here?"

"I tole' them what to do, and they f*cked it up! Cain't they do ANYTHING right??? Leave it to a bunch a amatoors."

HA HA HA.

CarolMR said...

I've always read that Nancy went back to Cielo with Charlie. I also read that she was probably the most violent of all the girls at Spahn. Curious that Charlie wouldn't send her to either Cielo or Waverly.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie... believe me... there's no sense in arguing with anyone.

State your opinion, and leave it... that's my policy.

If your opinion is sensible, the sensible folks will recognize it as such...

That's the best you can hope for, in the blog world.

I used to try to jam my opinion down other people's throats.
Needless to say... that's a complete waste of time.
No one will ever convince everyone they're right.
That's an exercise in complete futility.
More importantly... NONE of us are right all the time, anyway.

The truth is this:
A wise man is very much aware of how much he DOESN'T know.

Most bloggers at ALL locations are pretty cool.
There's a very small minority of folks, who must simply be ignored.
They have a right to their opinion... and that's-that.

My two cents...

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd, I agree. It's all Incense & Peppermints. LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Or, "nonsense" and peppermints. LOL

katie8753 said...

Hi Carol!!! Good question!

We're working on it! :)

CarolMR said...

Hi, Katie! I like your question about the cars. I always assumed that they didn't take the cars at Cielo BECAUSE they were expensive and these dirty kids knew they would stick out like sore thumbs driving around in cars like that. I'm also assuming they knew the victims at Cielo were famous and the cops would really be on the lookout for those cars.

katie8753 said...

>>>Carol said: I always assumed that they didn't take the cars at Cielo BECAUSE they were expensive and these dirty kids knew they would stick out like sore thumbs driving around in cars like that. I'm also assuming they knew the victims at Cielo were famous and the cops would really be on the lookout for those cars.>>>

Carol, I always wondered why they didn't take those cars, because it was after midnight and it was dark. The murders weren't discovered until after Winny Chapman showed up for work around 8:30am the next morning, so they had roughly 8 hours to transport those vehicles back to Spahn Ranch. They could have changed the plates out, and re-sold those cars probably pretty quickly.

I've always wondered that because they took Gary's cars in lieu of money.

They only got $72 at Cielo Drive. But they didn't take the cars or the drugs in Jay's car, or in the house.

Doesn't sound money related or drug related to me.

Sounds like a personal vendetta. Not against the residents of Cielo Drive, but against anyone who had ever rubbed Charlie wrong. Cielo Drive was just a target in his mind. Had nothing to do with the residents.

I think that we overthink this motive thing. Charlie was mad.....he told his minions to kill. And they did.

It's that simple.

TomG said...

That's all it was. Hippies gone bonkers. Too much Coors, too much dope, friends in jail, Amuurica in Viet Nam, where they didn't belong, or Iraq, or Afghanistan or wherever Fox News tells you your son has to go to get his leg blown off for your fweedom!

katie8753 said...

Hi Tom!!!

Slow down boy! Sounds ominous.

I hope you're okay!!!

katie8753 said...

I had a lot of friends go to Vietnam when we graduated high school. It was really sad. There was no choice. Sometimes they came back..sometimes they didn't.

Sad.....

I don't like to talk about it.

katie8753 said...

Okay, I'm going to retire. It's about that time.

I hope everyone is okay....

SWEET!!! Night night!!!.....

And I mean that for EVERYONE. LOL.

Night!!

katie8753 said...

Okay I'll leave you with one song:

England Swings.

Roger Miller was also from Texas. I went to school with his niece.

Night y'all....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWB1Sqsx1jo

TomG said...

I always be okay. The only constant in the universe.

But I do have anger, of which is justified.

katie8753 said...

Hey listen to this, he's better than Charlie on the goofbutt nonsense language stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1s7HHnnjU4&feature=related

The winner!!! HA HA!

katie8753 said...

Tom, calm down.

Just listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_5_AD9wXuY

Boy howdy. This song just puts me to sleep every time!

It is sooo peaceful.

Sweet dreams Tom!!!

TomG said...

Peace Out Big Girl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5s9illHQlc

MrPoirot said...

This is truly ridiculous. Even the brain behind the helter skelter motive told the jury in his opening statement that there was that the motive was more complicated than just a wild idea off a Beatles album. Bugliosi then went on for 9 months explaining a multitude of motives that led to TLB. Helter Skelter is just the name of his highly successful book. People confuse the name of the book as the single motive.
As far a Marlin's purpose behind his book om Charlie gleaned from 40 recent prison interviews he has clearly stated in many youtubes that he approaches Manson and his book on Manson from a psychiactric viewpoint. Marlin knows almost nothing about TLB. He even says he has never read Greg King's book on Sharon.

CarolMR said...

TomG, not surprised you found a way to tie Fox News to TLB. Geez!

TomG said...

My bad my right wing friend.

What you want to hear, you decide!

CarolMR said...

"What you want to hear, you decide!" - TomG

I have to admit - that's funny, Tom!

TomG said...

Funny......funny like a clown? Am I here to amuse you CarolMR?

katie8753 said...

Okay calm down guys!!

Kokomo!

Sleep......

axl805 said...

I've met Marlin...he's composed, intelligent and very thought out. I agree with what he says and I feel that he has been told by someone with first hand knowledge. I didn't read all the comments before posting this. What's up Lynyrd...I LOVE YOU BRO!!!! I'll try to post more here, I promise. Come to CALI and hang with us all my good, good compadre!!!!

axl805 said...

oooooo lord I think I stepped into a load of shit...lol....not trying to start war. I've been reading, writing, researching this subject for almost 20 years now, I've met everyone that will meet me, I've listened to everyone that would talk and I'd have to say that Manson has much less involvement than he is charged with and I think that there is much more to this than has been stated. Schrek, Marlin and Manson tell stories that make WAY more sense than anything the Bug came up with, but way to swing for the Governor's office bud. lol......I love reading all of your posts, I got love for everyone whether we agree or not. War and fighting is BS an Love is TRUTH......you're all COOL.....PEACE & LOVE....ONE

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

HEY AXL805!
Welcome to the Blog!

I must know you by a different name, on the other sites.
I don't recognize AXL.

ST. Circumstance said...

:) Marliese- Axl

Kimchi said...

Axl805 said:
"come to Calif and hang out".

Just don't eat at the el coyote unless you want Montezuma's revenge......LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Montezuma's Revenge. LOLOL

LMAO!

((((((((((KIMCHI))))))))))

Where You been?
Takin' the summer off? LOL

It seems by all accounts, the El Coyote is more of a drinking spot... than an eating place! : )

I can't seem to do one without the other though, so I think I'll just take a pass altogether! LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Evidently, patrons of the El Coyote, go home hoping to be murdered. LOL

Sweet Relief! : )

katie8753 said...

HI KIMCHI!!! Good to see you girl!!! :)

I always wondered why Sharon and the gang went to that restaurant if the food sucked so bad. You'd think that Sharon would want something lighter than cheese enchiladas or tacos.

Kimchi, is El Coyote close to Cielo Drive?

Kimchi said...

Believe it or not I've never been to Cielo ... But when we were at the coyote a few weeks ago I asked my compadre how to get there and he pointed north and said you can just about see it from there, so I guess it's not far.

From what I remember in the 60s Hollywood you didn't have many choices for Mexican food - my first taco was from jack in the box....LOL

I'm on dial up right now so my replies will be s-l-o-w-w-w

CarolMR said...

"Funny......funny like a clown? Am I here to amuse you CarolMR?" - TomG

That's funny, too! You know I mean "funny" in a good way, Tom! BTW, I love GOODFELLAS.

leary7 said...

I enjoy Manson in the Geraldo interview too, Lynyrd. He was definately on his game. But I do think he was smitten a bit with Sawyer, even though she was dressed and buttoned up like a school marm. She still is sexy and any man who has spent a couple of thousand hours in isolation would be 'affected'.
I do agree there are several times in alot of the interviews where Manson seems to lock in and step out from behind the curtain. I really do believe when he said, "they were going to war" about the Cielo killers he was being as honest as he is capable of.
The thing we never seem to debate around here is why in the name of holy hell Charlie continues his charade of innocence. He is intelligent enough to know he will never get out. Does he really believe he is innocent just because he didn't plunge the knife himself? Are there really ten people on these blogs or in the world who believe TLB would have happened without Manson's intructions/influence? Honestly, no disrespect to AC, but a rationale person simply cannot believe that.
This whole alternative motive game just seems to border on the theatre of the absurd. The COL, God bless him, takes a quote by an obscure Canadian psych nurse turned prison pen pal junkie turned Manson bosom buddy turned author and trumpets it as some sort of newly discovered cooberative evidence of robbery. Botched home invasion my ass.
"I am the devil and here to do the devil's business."
Deal with it. You don't take the time to carve "WAR" into the stomach of a victim if your intent was robbery or home invasion.

ST. Circumstance said...

Hey as the most drunken inbred that ever typed a word online...

This was a great post - great conversation- and your all great people...

I have some great weed- it is a great day in South Florida....

Coors lite is not great- but I have lots of that too..

I am heading over to my favorite local beach in Deerfield...

Which is really great....

and I hope you all have a day that is....

Just Great....

ST. Circumstance has an list of his all time favorite bloggers- these are the people who keep me coming here and keep my spirits up when I start to think these blogs are mostly just an argument waiting to happen....

No particular order- I leave you with my all time favorites :)

Matt ( From Liz' site)- my first online "friend'....

Evil Liz- my first off- line correspondence...

L/S- my first online ass whipping and eventual long time friend. owner of one of my top 3 favorite online websites...

Marliese- my first online romantic crush ( you have all seen her avatar lol)

Starship/Pritash- a very intelligent and very well informed gentleman who reads and recommends great resources on this subject....

AC - My first online contact with anyone who actually knows Charlie, and someone whom I disagree with strongly but respect immensely and have said stupid things to which will haunt me forever...

Katie- who is the toughest and most endurable blogger of the female persuasion I have yet to encounter. I have taken her wrath on a couple of occasions- but have more often than not been on her page for a long time- and she makes every conversation she enters more entertaining.... and at the end of the day we see eye to eye on alot of things- not the least of which is how important Brett and his site were to educating all of us on many aspects of this story...

Bobby- he is a very thoughtful up and coming guy in this blog world. but he always has a very valid point to add. He comes up with some of the funniest and wittiest posts since....

well- since me :)

plus I just like his manners and his style

Brian Davis- who shows up so rarely but always add so much when he does

Patty- who is maybe the nicest and most respected person on the Liz site- and always makes me feel like I am wrong when I am - but in a way that makes me feel worse myself- than I would have if she were preaching at me and making me feel defensive. ( This is a great skill in life in my opinion)

Ken/Tom G - guys who- I bet- have a few things in regular life in common with me...

Leary - a very smart mind and a very strong point of view. and most important- a forgiving soul :)

and that aint a bad way to be....

Sorry again Man :)

and wherever you are- its been awhile since I have seen you post...

if you are reading my fellow neighbor in South Florida...

Mary :) you are always on any list of my favorties

Stacy and Lynn who are also very nice- get honorable mentions and I love the rest of you too- but hey one Saint can only look over so many people...

I am not Pope circumstance :)

ST. Circumstance said...

P.S...

I didn't count the Col...

he is - to me -

unrivaled and I assume we all know that he is the reason I got into this stuff in the first place...
it was my first sight and I will always give him the respect and props I feel he has earned as the fore bearer and and standard setter for all of this....

ST. Circumstance said...

PSS

If this were my " Hall of Fame" I would have to add both Thelma and Louise...

my favorite old bats who also are the last ones to have kicked me off a site...

but I dug their site until the day they did lol

plus- many of us met at that sight

so I thank them for that

now I gotta go- beers getting warm, and Mrs. C is getting pissed....

bye bye

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Wow Saint!

That's quite a list!
Thanks for sharing!

I agree...
There are LOTS of great and interesting folks out there!

Maybe I'll make a list of my own sometime, when I have a chance.

"My first online ass whipping."

Ahahahaha

That's kind of a weird way to be remembered... but I guess in retrospect, it's true! LOL
Well... look at it this way:
Somebody had to do it... and it might as well have been me. LOL
I've mellowed with age. : )

My earliest memories of you Saint, are your epic battles with Leary!
And to think, it was all under the pretense, that Leary was Jim. LOL
That one still baffles me... but, it was sure entertaining, as all hell.
You guys would apologize in the afternoon, and start-in the same night. LOL
Freakin' hilarious!

I TRIED to tell ya several times Bro, that that Leary WASN'T Jim... but you were still a young grasshopper, with a mind of your own! LOL
A "know-it-all", as it were...
AHahahahaha
(I'm just bustin' ya Brother!)

My second greatest memory, is the night you threatened to stuff an autographed baseball bat, up someone's parents' butt, for having bred them!
Bwahahahahaha
(And no... it wasn't Leary)
It was when you finally got your hands on the real Jim. LOL

I could write a book... and Kimchi keeps telling me to! LOL

Good times!

Peace Bro... You ROCK!!!!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Great post Leary!

I gotta run, but I'll reply later......

revatron said...

I think Tex went back to Cielo, with whom I'm not sure, but I have a hard time believing Manson went along.
Katie, I liked what you said about Manson being afraid of the Family unravelling and leaving him.
The murders, in Manson's twisted mind, could have been a way to bring the Family together, or to drag them down with him.

Unrelated question,
Does anyone know what Sandra and Mary were buying at Sears when they were arrested? Anyone ever seen that police report?

matt prokes said...

in the nuel emmons book manson says they were sent to town to buy 'gifts and trinkets'.
whatever that means.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Kimchi. I figured Cielo wasn't far from El Coyote. They probably wanted a quick "in and out" so Sharon could get back home and rest.

I don't remember any Mexican food places when I was growing up either. It was mostly "Mom & Pop" diner type stuff.

Here we have the basic enchilada plate: (2) enchiladas, borracho beans, spanish rice, guacamole and warmed flour tortillas. All covered in LOTS of cheese. My kinda plate. LOL.

ST. Circumstance said...

Matt Prokes...

I should have a poke up my ass for not mentioning you and how much you have added to this for me as well...

My apologies

katie8753 said...

>>>Leary said: But I do think he was smitten a bit with Sawyer, even though she was dressed and buttoned up like a school marm.>>>

Her demeanor in interviewing Manson is obviously showcasing her extreme dislike of this guy. I have a feeling that she probably had to take a long, hot shower afterward to feel clean again. LOL.

>>>The thing we never seem to debate around here is why in the name of holy hell Charlie continues his charade of innocence.>>>

There seem to be a lot of people who like to say he's innocent. I can't fathom why they would think that.

>>>You don't take the time to carve "WAR" into the stomach of a victim if your intent was robbery or home invasion.>>>

That's very true. Or take the time to write words in their own blood.

leary7 said...

Man, this has turned into a LoveFest. The Col, whom I rever, would not approve.
I am still waiting for Katie to start the Manson dating site. There is one for Red Sox fans called Matching Sox. What would be the appropriate name for a dating service for Manson students?
Hey Katie, do you listen to Jimmy Lafave, one of my Austin favorites?

katie8753 said...

St. Circumstance!!! S-M-O-O-C-H!!! HA HA.

You always have GREAT comments and make the blog more interesting!!

And you and I see eye to eye on most everything that I can think of!

Have fun at the beach....and let Mrs. C. drive, won't cha?? LOL.

leary7 said...

whoops, revere, I think. Not Paul.

katie8753 said...

>>>Revatron said: Katie, I liked what you said about Manson being afraid of the Family unravelling and leaving him.

The murders, in Manson's twisted mind, could have been a way to bring the Family together, or to drag them down with him.>>>

Revatron, Gypsy said in an interview (can't remember when it was, but it was after she got "saved") that she felt the reason it all came down was because the family members were tired of hearing about the Apocalyptic War because nothing was happening that Charlie had been preaching about. She says that he DID say that he had to jump start the war to get it started. She felt that he felt he was losing control of his members and they were possibly going to leave him and she didn't think he could handle that.

matt prokes said...

katie i'm looking around for info on what you asked earlier in this thread.
are you looking for transcipts of judgements against manson in cases such as bartek frykowski?
if so its hard to find those online but theres lots of articles about the judgements mostly of frykowskis son and the tate family mostly having to do with the whole guns and roses look at your game girl mess.

heres one i found

'Revenue resulting from notoriety of Manson’s felonies is used for the benefit of family members of his victims. In February 1994, Bartlomiej “Bartek” Frykowski, the only son of Wojciech Frykowski, received partial satisfaction of judgment in the amount of $72,608.26 from Geffen Records. This was partial settlement of a judgment he obtained in 1971 against Charles Manson. In 1995, the Attorney General of California issued a subpoena for payment of royalties for music released by Geffen Records to be used for the benefit of family members who had been victims of Charles Manson. Both of these documents were signed by Charles Manson'.

matt prokes said...

and saint not mentioning me ain't worth taking a poke up the ass under any circumstances.
just glad you returned to blogville after your absense awhile back.

katie8753 said...

Leary I'd have to think of a name for the Manson dating site, but to make things interesting, we can pair an "I think Manson is innocent" person to an "I think Manson is the devil" person. Then sit back with a stopwatch and see how long it takes for the feathers to start flying. LOL.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Matt! Leary was asking about the civil suits and if there were any transcripts of testimony to see what was discussed. I didn't know if those were actual suits, which would have testimony in a courtroom, or just judgments levied against the killers, making sure any monies they collected would be sent to victims' family members.

I believe Bartek is the only one who collected anything. Although I think Susan Atkins said she gave some of the victims' families some money that she got, I guess off her book.

Leary...does this answer your question?

matt prokes said...

heres an excerpt of an article from the l.a. times 1994

For the relatives of Manson's victims, the past has proved difficult to forget. Some have devoted their lives to keeping Manson behind bars. Another has found God and forgiven her mother's killer.

One even has won reparations from Manson.

Bartek Frykowski was 9 years old and living in Poland when his father, Voytek Frykowski, a friend of Polanski's, was stabbed 51 times and shot at the Benedict Canyon estate.

"Manson destroyed my life really," Frykowski said from the German village where he lives. "Always this case was with me. I became a different man without a father."

Finally seeing results from a lawsuit filed more than two decades ago, Frykowski has received $75,000 in royalties for a song Manson wrote before the murders. "Look at Your Game Girl" was used by Manson to lure young hippie women into his fold.

Last year, Guns N' Roses recorded it on an album that has sold more than 2 million copies worldwide--with Manson's share of the profits going to Frykowski.

Frykowski said he is using the money to help give his two children the sense of security he never had, and he is writing a book about his father and Manson. He wonders how Manson's music could become popular--and how a mass murderer could become a cult celebrity among young people in Europe and the United States.

ST. Circumstance said...

Matt P- lol very good

matt prokes said...

you know the folks over at the helterskelter forum might have a line on the actual transcripts.
their site is very focused on the victims rather than the killers.
and they're pretty cool people from what i recall so you might want to reach out to them.
john aes-nihil might have them as well but you'd have to buy a copy

matt prokes said...

heres a link to the susan atkins restitution project.
http://www.susanatkins.org/08-restitutionproject.html

katie8753 said...

Thanks so much Matt! I'll check at helterskelterforum to see what they have.

Here is a link to one of our threads about Bartek's daughter if anyone is interested. Guys: pull your tongues back in. LOL.

http://www.lsb3.com/search/label/Agnieszka%20Frykowski

matt prokes said...

the link is worth checking out if only for the picture of sadie mae and the terminator looking all chummy with each other.

katie8753 said...

Thanks for that link about Susan Matt!! :)

revatron said...

Thanks Matt, I've heard the trinkets story. I also remember reading (not sure where) that they were buying supplies to bust Bobby out of jail.
I would love to see that police report.
Would the murders have happened if the girls hadn't been arrested?

matt prokes said...

i think the murders would have happened anyway.
but there might be different people in prison today.

CarolMR said...

Wasn't Bartek Frykowski stabbed to death like his father?

matt prokes said...

i think he killed himself

matt prokes said...

he died june 9,1999 from knife wounds,he was living in poland at the time.
According to a statement made by a state prosector he committed suicide. some think he was murdered.

katie8753 said...

Matt, they said Joel Pugh killed himself too.

Yeah right.

A suicide victim cuts his own throat.....

I don't think so....

He was a victim of the Manson Family.

Was Bartek????

matt prokes said...

the rumor was that he was murdered by his girlfriend i think

katie8753 said...

I didn't know he had a girlfriend...

In London?

From what I've read, he was aloof and despondent about Sandy rejecting him.

Did he have a girlfriend??? And she killed him?

katie8753 said...

Oh wait...are you talking about Bartek?? His girlfriend killed him? I thought you were talking about Joel.

matt prokes said...

i'm talking about bartek,to be honest i don't know that much about joel pugh.
theres not much info on barteks death i just found a date of death and the fact that it was considered a suicide.
i'll admit thats a pretty strange way of killing yourself but i don't think its unheard of.

katie8753 said...

Well Matt, I'm not sure how Bartek died, but I do know how Joel died, and it's pretty strange to declare it a suicide.

His throat and wrists were cut, his body was put against the door and there was backward writing on his mirror.

I would find that very suspect.

And I still do.

Thanks for all your research Matt. I hope we can get to the bottom of all this...

Night, night!!! :)

matt prokes said...

sometimes i don't theres a bottom to any of this stuff.

katie8753 said...

That is so true Matt. I've tried for so many years to "get to the bottom" and there seems to be no bottom. It's an abyss.

sigh.

Thanks for your help!!! :)

MrPoirot said...

Joel Pugh's father was an MD. The father travelled to London and investigated his son's death and agreed that it was suicide. Stephen Kay was way off base claiming Pugh died from his throat being cut. The throat cuts were not the cause of death. No one dies from superficial cuts to their neck. Even the dates of Bruce Davis' time in England don't match with Joel Pugh's death.

bobby said...

Lynyrd said "Geraldo interview... and if all the important points weren't edited-out... we may have gotten somewhere."

That is very interesting. I always got frustrated with Geraldo's interviews. He would seem to getting good info & then BAM the subject would change. It never dawned on me that editing was the reason, i thought it was Geraldo's ego or something.

Is it relly possible that there is tape of Manson admitting to much more or at least providing more detail ?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Bob.

I don't know for sure that there is more "never before seen" Geraldo interview footage, which was edited-out... but, I've always had strong suspicions.

It's really uncanny how the film is spliced, or Geraldo immediately changes the subject, every time things are leading somewhere...

My only guess, is that they intentionally removed (and avoided) those segments, which may have been damaging to Manson legally.

Maybe there were "pre-conditions" for the interview, which were ironed-out legally beforehand?

Dilligaf...
Do such "per-interview agreements" exist, to protect clients?

I'm just guessing here.
But, it seems unlikely to me, that all the good parts would end so abruptly... time and again... out of sheer coincidence and bad luck.

Either I'm right... or, we TLB enthusiasts have the worst luck, and Geraldo is simply the worst interviewer on the planet.
Geraldo steered things away from the "meat" every time, without fail.
Could he really be THAT inept?

Makes you wonder...

This has been a moment with Andy Rooney... err, I mean, Lynyrd Skynyrd. LOL

leary7 said...

yes Katie, thanks to you and Matt. I suspect the awards were more 'judgements' than civil suits, we'll have to ask Mr. Dill the difference. But it seems unlikely there was any testimony from Family members involved.
I always thought Geraldo was a cartoon character, Lynyrd. His ego made him a really shitty interviewer.
It would have been nice to have seen Manson interviewed by someone with an edge he might relate to. I love the Chelsea Handler broad. And Howard Stern might have been interesting. Just someone from Manson's side of the tracks in terms of wise ass flipancy.

leary7 said...

a really interesting poster I had never heard or seen before named Dinggo has a couple of smart posts in the independance day thread over there. He/she gets a bit carried away with the Last Samuri Sword thing and calling everyone St. something, but still, my kind of poster.

leary7 said...

by 'over there' I of course mean the Col's site.

CarolMR said...

Katie, I was talking about Bartek.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., how do you know where Davis was in December of 1969?

katie8753 said...

Hi Leary. I saw the posts you're talking about. Interesting stuff! :)

katie8753 said...

Hi Carol. I knew you were talking about Bartek, I just got confused who Matt was talking about for a minute there. LOL.

It's strange that no one seems to know exactly how Bartek died. I think I've read 3 different ways so far.

How ironic though for a father AND son to die from stab wounds. What are the odds???

CarolMR said...

Very ironic that both father and son were killed in the same manner. How sad.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Leary.
Yeah... Geraldo is definitely "tabloid".
He's got an element of "Maury" and "Springer" running through him, no doubt.
He's certainly not Tom Brokaw or Ed Bradley.

That's a good point.

Still...
Wouldn't he be smart enough to know, that breakthrough information could be valuable?

Eh... who knows...

Maybe he really IS, just pain stupid. LOL

CarolMR said...

Leary, yes, dinggo actually made some good points on why TLB wasn't necessarily robbery or drugs. Really good points. And yet a few days later there is a new post up which says it HAD to be either robbery or drugs/drug burn.

adam said...

But everything the Family had done up until that point had been as a means to score easy cash/drugs. The whole concept of working for a living was alien to these folk. Just about anyone was allowed into the commune as long as they had a stash of cash given to them from mom and dad before they hit the road and were willing to share it. Plus, Manson's showbiz buddies had been an easy target to leech off for the past two years. But by 1969 - with the prospect of a music career becomming increasingly unlikely and the whole era of flower power ending - these same people were now giving Manson a wide berth. This led to an increasing reliance on drug dealing and thieving to make ends meet.
So maybe the plan WAS just to do over a few rich homes and maybe Manson made a grave error in giving the task to a drugged up Tex who flipped out big time and ended up butchering everyone in the place.

Didn't Manson say he went along on the second night to "show them how to do it right"? Maybe he was just dumb/naive enough to give Tex a second chance to attone himself for the previous night? And with things going swimmingly, Manson leaves only for Tex to go berserk again and kill everyone.

Notice that there were no more home invasions after the second night?
Hmmmmmmm...

ST. Circumstance said...

Excellent Adam... !!!

I just posted the following on another site, and it is in total agreement with you :

what if the motive was that simple...

home robbery ( drugs or money at Cielo and money at Waverly)

it would make the motive so simple and actually not even original. They had already done the same thing to Gary, and to an extent Crowe ( hear me out)

they were trying to get money to go to the desert... they ripped off the dealer ( crowe) and when threatened- Charlie let him have it...

they went to Gary's cause they thought he had money to help them get to the desert- when they didn't get what they wanted and they felt threatened ( he would call the cops)
they let him have it...

we all know there are some connections between Charlie and both houses- but we may never prove to what extent they were or through exactly who...

but maybe we cant ever find them because they were very minor and distant???

if the poeple who knew them and spent time with them wouldn't talk about them after the murders....

Can you imagine being the one who comes forward and says to anyone-

" Yeah I knew them, and told them there was this or that at one of the houses cause I heard it from..."

never happen will it?

what if the connection was as simple as that - he heard through the grapevine for whatever reason in both the Cielo and Waverly houses- for whatever reasons in either case- there was money and or drugs in the homes???? maybe he heard all the same rumors we do about what was going down in the house and figured it had to be a jackpot- rich people who party like animals. wouldn't that be enough reason if he was desperate?

he could have sent people to two separate houses- who had no connection to each other- but some parallel distant connection to him- for the same reasons he sent people to Gary's and had Tex rip off Crowe...

for money/drugs

and that is really going to make this boring- but...

its plausible isn't it?

The rest of it is typical young wasted kid mumbo jumbo that grew over the years around the campfire- and Bugs took the ones who would talk and built their stories into legends.... then sanders came along and connected them to every dark person who ever walked in California in the 60"s.

but we know for sure that almost every single one of them were into a few things and STEALING was a major one of them...

So maybe after all the hocus pocus and black magic- their is no dark revealed secret motive...

they heard through some common associates where some money might be- so they went and tried to get it, and they left such a mess the first time- that Charlie wanted to make sure it didn't get that out of control the second time...

wouldn't that be a bitch...

" What did you assholes do up there last night it is all over the news. I told you to get the money, not cut everybody up. you didnt get shit. tonight we try again, and this time I will go with you and show you how its done"....

he tied them up and left thinking - how could they possibly fuck it up again????

but Tex had them take Rosmarie into another room, and she got free and he had to go back and forth again- and we know how he handles that kind of pressure...

The most Evil man alive who is credited for doing all this- would have actually been pissed off that it happened the way it did, and would have actually not wanted it that way....

it would even make some of his gibberish make a little sense...

This not new-

but the more time that passes- the more I am less likely to learn anything which makes me think I can ever learn anything which proves any of the more wackier/darker theories have merit...

this is at least something I can wrap my arms around...

common petty thiefs and crooks

I can believe that because before and after those two nights- it is exactly what 80% of the family really were....

ST. Circumstance said...

Remember- Tex was panicked and on speed and pumped with adrenaline...

he was running all over the house and trying to stop several people from leaving, running, and screaming and alerting anyone...

He was running in and out and all over the yard trying to get them to stop and be quiet- this can result in a scary amount of blows, and wounds... how can you not understand how he got out of control? he was out of his mind and the situation was out of control... what could he do at that point- keep going until they all stopped.

horrible and terrible

but it explains it...

and again- why Charlie would have went and tied them up himself the second night-

who knows- maybe he even got what he after this time... how would we have ever find out? he would have had a few minutes alone with Leo- but then he leaves either way

And then Tex moves one of them into another room and

and she gets free...

and now he is going back and forth again- trying to keep them both quiet... finish it as quickly as possible- which can only be done by stabbing them until they stop....

and after this one- so much heat comes down all over town...

there cant be any more....

so off to the desert they go

matt prokes said...

i could buy into that happening the first night but not the second.
if the tate thing was supposed to be a simple robbery that went sideways in such a crazy insane way would you EVER trust those same people to do the another robbery again let alone the very next night when the heat was on because of the tate murders.
manson might be nuts but i don't think he was crazy enough not to realize what kind of heat the tate murders would bring down,these were'nt unknown people like hinman and crowe.
anyone who had any(criminal) brains at all would get out of dodge asap and not look back unless they had a reason to stay which plays into there being some kind of motive other than simple robbery.
i don't think they'd round up the same people who fucked it up so bad the night before and just hope that they don't freak out again and stab someone a hundred times.
would'nt you at least sit watson and krenwinkle on the bench the second night if all you're looking for is money and not murder

ST. Circumstance said...

maybe....

good points...

ST. Circumstance said...

you know on Sadies website just before she died she was writing a new essay about this called the myth of H/S...

she says Charlie was trying to get as many people involved as possible to make sure he wasn't the only one with dirty hands after Crowe...

but like you just said- I never got that???

He did use essentially the same people for all the major crimes...

matt prokes said...

he had alot of people on the ranch he could have used the second night bikers,drifters, hardcore family members that could have maybe been trusted not to freak out like watkins atkins and krenwinkle and get cash without butchering a bunch of people.
also just the amount of overkill doesnt seem like a botched home invasion to me.you screw up a robbery sure you want to get rid of all the witnesses but the way the victims were killed makes it seem there was some kind of message being sent to someone as opposed to 'oops we fucked up lets kill everyone and get out of here'
and again would'nt manson say to himself 'these people are insane i sent them out for money and they bring back a bunch of dead celebs maybe i should send nancy and bruce (or vance, decarlo whoever else he thought he could trust)out tonight'.
but the main thing that discounts a messed up robbery to me is the sheer brutality of the murders.
as i said earlier a message was being sent to someone.
at least thats what i think.

ST. Circumstance said...

maybe....

good points lol

:)

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Adam!
Nice to have you on the blog!
Welcome!

revatron said...

At Cielo, they were in the process of tying their victims up when Jay spoke up for Sharon, and was shot.
Was Jay high? Fucking crazy? Or just wanting to impress Sharon that much?
Seems crazy to speak up to STRANGERS with weapons.
It's a little less crazy to speak that way to someone you know. But I'm not a fan of the drug burn theory, and I don't think they knew each other.
My guess is Jay was expecting Robbery. And why expect anything else, I guess.
They hadn't heard the gun shots, or if they did, they didn't think it was coming from their own drive way. A .22 is a relatively quiet gun, compared to others.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I find myself agreeing with everyone here.

For starters... Adam is correct.

Most of the crimes (and cons) perpetrated by these folks, were in one way or another, a means to finance their lifestyle, without traditional employment.

Crowe= drugs and money... which basically means "money"... gone afoul.

Hinman= drugs and/or money... which again, basically means 'money"... regardless of your theory... again, gone afoul.

Why is it so crazy of a notion to believe, that Tate and LaBianca were also (possibly) about money, gone afoul?

Whether it be their association with Wilson.. their credit card stealing and fraud... Manson using the girls as currency... drug dealings... or appeasing Spahn... it was always about making ends meet, one way or another.

I'm with Adam there.

Also...
One would not need much association with the folks at either Cielo or Waverly, to assume there was money at those locations.

I mean...
It doesn't take a genius, to assume that Polanski/Tate/Folger/et al, would have a buck.
And at Waverly... you have a guy with a chain of grocery stores, and enough money to maintain a gambling habit.

My point:
You wouldn't neessarily have to "know" these folks very well, to assume there might be money in their homes.

ON THE OTHER HAND... LOLOL
(Along the lines of what Matt said)...

Not only did Tex go WAY overboard blood-wise... but these idiots made little effort to secure any money or valuables.
They essentially walked out of both houses empty-handed.
That's a pretty f#cked-up robbery.
"Taking shit" is kinda the key to robbery. LOL

So... if it WAS a robbery, they "botched it" BIG TIME in two ways (blood-wise and not taking anything)... two nights in a row!
That's quite a bug-a-boo to ignore.

Also, along the lines of what Matt said:
Wouldn't it make more sense to rob folks who were rich, but NOT famous?
A criminal HAS to know that robbing "high-profile" folks... (like a police officer for instance)... is not a great roll of the dice.

Given all that though:
I still wouldn't rule-out robbery completely because these were...

#1) Young kids
#2) Folks on drugs
#3) Folks who were evidently Dumb as a box of rocks.

Harold True:
"Krenwinkel carried her brains in her lunchbox"
LOLOL

Just thinking out loud.

Great posts Everyone!!!

katie8753 said...

Hi Adam! Welcome.

Well if the motive at Cielo Drive or Waverly Drive was money, how come they didn't get any? Only $72 at Cielo Drive and a bag full of coins at Waverly. There were other valuables at the houses they didn't take. Why?

Adam, you're right in that these people weren't about to work for a living. They chose to steal. After the parental dough wore off, there wasn't much legit income, other than the horse rides at Spahn's.

But if the motive on August 9th & 10th was money, why not knock over a liquor store? How many people keep wads of cash at home? Even if you're filthy rich, you keep it in the bank. I don't recall anyone asking if there was a safe in either house.

And if money was the only motive, why did Manson tell the girls to "leave something witchy"?

katie8753 said...

And I'm with you St....if the 4 Charlie sent to Cielo Drive messed it up so badly and didn't do what he wanted, then why send the same 4 again the next night?

It makes no sense.

katie8753 said...

Revatron, I think that Jay was probably, as you said, expecting a robbery.

Before this "home invasion" life was simple. It was all peace and love, etc., etc. There was no way that the victims at Cielo Drive could have possibly known their fates until they were chased down like animals. But at the time, Jay was probably just assuming they were a bunch of thugs looking for some quick fix.

katie8753 said...

I have wondered over and over again, how 2 lame girls with knives could get not only Gibby out of her bedroom, but Sharon & Jay out of Sharon's bedroom, and herded into the living room.

I have gone over and over about this. Gibby I guess I can understand. Back then they had so many parties with so many people, and maybe she just thought this was some kind of ruse.

But Jay & Sharon....the only thing I can think of when a skinny kid like Susan came in with a knife and said go into the living room, and Jay didn't bash her skull in, was that they were just mystified about why this was even happening.

I mean, nothing like this had ever been done before in their lifetimes. It wasn't like a German invasion to the Jews...this was LA...la la land...home of the peaceniks. Surely they meant no harm.

It wasn't until they all assembled that they learned the hard way when Tex shot Jay. Then it was just too late.

katie8753 said...

I know this is lame, but I've thought it over many times.

Cielo Drive had 4 doors. The front door, the service entrance, the french doors from the master bedroom to the pool, and ALSO a door leading from near the fireplace to the back of the house.

You can see it in many videos.

When Pat chased Gibby outside and Tex was busy with Voytek outside, Sharon could have run for that door near the fireplace.

It was a door that was installed so that the owners could go out for firewood, etc., it was an exit that Sharon could have used.

I've thought about this many times.

I don't know where she could have run, but she could have escaped!

dinggo said...

"a really interesting poster I had never heard or seen before named Dinggo has a couple of smart posts in the independance day thread over there. He/she gets a bit carried away with the Last Samuri Sword thing and calling everyone St. something, but still, my kind of poster.'

Re the Last Samurai meme, to me, that's when things well and truly went south. I think Charles was already on the downward spiral owing to his inner demons, as it were, but the pace rather picked up when he realized that his use of the sword there stood to have him put away for a not insignificant period of time.

And let me correct myself, since over there I used the phrase "aggravated" to describe the offense. Reality is instead:

http://tinyurl.com/75pmufp

Note 211 and 212 which define the offense. 212.5(a) makes it robbery in the first degree (inhabited dwelling). 213(1)(A) means 3, 6, or 9 years. More in a bit, but here consider his prior criminal record. So likely the high end and not the low end.

Then consider:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1/2/s12022.7

That's the "aggravation", and subsection (a) serves to add three years. Presumably, the sword wound is "great bodily injury".

So, potentially, 9 + 3 = 12 years in the hole. Or on low end, 3 + 3 = 6, or a doubling of the time served owing to Last Samurai rendition. Now for that more in a bit, I'm thinking that, rightly or wrongly, in addition his prior criminal record, the Last Samurai rendition is also used to select the 9 years in the 3, 6, or 9, and then used again to add another 3 years, and I think Charlie knew that, and so Hinman had to go (as it were).

And then once Bobby gets arrested, well, what with driving Hinman's car and his palm print on the wall, he's going down for murder with special circumstance, and so the fear on Charlie's end is that maybe Bobby avoids the death penalty and/or saves some time by way of sentencing recommendation owing to his implicating his accomplices. And so now Charlie too goes down for murder with special circumstance and unless Charlie can implicate someone else in some other serious crime, there's no room for him to bargain to avoid the death penalty and/or save some time.

And so if we could liken what happened later to a fire, the Last Samurai rendition and Bobby's being arrested for Hinman's murder are the two accelerants, as it were. More in part 2, owing to the word limitation.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

DINGGO!!
WELCOME TO THE BLOG!!!

katie8753 said...

Hi dinggo!!

Katie doesn't like confrontation.

Katie is going to decipher your code tomorrow.

Katie is saying good night. HA HA

SWEEEEEEET DREAMS!!! LOL

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd told me a long time ago to not respond when people try to draw me in.

I didn't listen for a long time.

I finally listen. He's right.

He's always right.

He said "just ignore and they'll get tired of hassling you".

I grew up being bullied and I always responded. It's hard to not respond.

But he's right...I won't respond.

Thanks Lynyrd. I didn't take "the bait" this time.

Night.

dinggo said...

For part two, re my use of "St.", such is owing to the Colonel's use of "St. Linda" when referencing Kasabian. In other words, why not go whole hog, and so St. Linda, St. Susan, St. Patricia, and so on.

I disagree, by the way, with the Colonel's view of St. Linda. No, she's not really a saint, and no one ever pretended that she was. The "saint" is not in comparison to anyone canonized by the Vatican, but in reference to Charles, Tex, Susan, Patricia and Leslie, and in that sense, she is St. Linda.

Now to answer the Colonel's question, well, his and some others, why did she go back for the second night? Well, what were her options? Saying flee the scene and go the police is easier said than done when, first, this isn't the usual circumstance, and so contact with your own child isn't exactly encouraged, etc. And even for as short a period as she was there, I think she understood the tentacles that her mates had, i.e., she would have to try harder than most when it came to making a truly clean break. She also likely understood, as do I, that the second night likely happens in any event, and so why not go along for the ride, so as to avoid suspicion, while you're figuring out how to get you and your child out of there. That's her end.

On Charlie's end, well, he is the manipulator, trying to break them to his will by destroying their sense of individuality and morality. And he was likely aware of her trauma on the first night, and so as an exercise in further breaking her down and destroying the remaining goodness in her, he has her go along on the second night (just that much more sense of guilt to destroy her).

Lastly re St. Linda, well, two things. Going back to first night, unless she was advised of her having to go on night one in sufficient time, then there's no time to get away that first night. Secondly, some use her post family life as a means to bash her over the head. I don't. I see her as being forever haunted by those murders and so she takes drug after drug after drug to try and make it all go away. In contrast, Leslie's all smiles on the Larry King Show, apparently not understanding that maybe you shouldn't be all smiles when the topic under discussion is the butchery of six plus the fatal shooting of one.

dinggo said...

Katie, believe it or not, I was not responding to anything that you wrote. Hope that doesn't hurt, as that's not my intent, but I was merely trying to clarify leary's comment re my Last Samurai screed.

Now to continue where I left off:

Then there's Patricia, who tells us that she wakes up everyday knowing that she's a destroyer of life, yet there's no emotion in those lifeless eyes when she says that. In contrast, during her one parole hearing, she well and truly broke down, noting that she was there begging the board for her parole knowing all the while that she will never be paroled. So the emotion is all for her and her own fate, and none whatsoever for her victims.

Re Susan, well, read her screed on the HS myth. One long exercise in fobbing off blame on everyone else for everything and the kitchen sink. F'd up childhood all the way on through, with the real gem of the piece being her claim that it is only by the grace of God that we didn't wind up where she is, since according to her, had we had the singular misfortune to meet up with Charles, we too would have been seduced and gone on to tell the one expectant mother that we had no mercy for her.

And don't get me started on Tex, though to say something and keep it short, helps to remember that by time he admitted to killing Sharon Tate, he had already been convicted of her murderer. And so what with his belated admission, he now gets to go before the parole board and tell them how remorseful he is, and witness his admission of killing Sharon Tate. And for the other bird killed by that one stone, Susan also got to say, see, I was only bragging there at Sybil Brand, and was Tex and not me that killed Sharon Tate.

Lastly, the only thing that these miscreants have been honest about are those things that St. Linda can testify too. That's it. And they feed us this nonsense about sparing us the details as that would hurt the victims' survivors, yet during each of their parole hearings, victims' survivors get to hear a recitation of the crime(s). So my thought is, no truth here, because if they told it, would be even more brutal than what we think actually happened, and since that wouldn't exactly tend towards us being inclined to grant their parole, no truth beyond St. Linda for us.

Now to end with St. Linda, another reason why is St. and they are pond scum, is simply and only that compelling moment at trial when Charlie's lawyer was trying to break her by showing her the photos, and so there was St. Linda, crying and sobbing, and she looks up and over at the devils incarnate and says, How could you do that? St. Linda, like Squeaky and Sandra Good, just doesn't have murder in her. That's why, by the way, Charlie merely took her along for some more guilt that second night, and didn't expect her to go in and do any killing.

beauders said...

the only way a robbery theory can work at the tate house, is if parent was murdered last. if it was a robbery killing parent, when you could totally avoid him, doesn't make sense. by killing parent, short of just leaving, they had to kill everyone in the house just to leave no witnesses.

katie8753 said...

Dinggo, Katie will respond tomorrow. Not that there's anything wrong with what you put.

I'll also explain the Katie reference tomorrow.

Sleep tight.

CarolMR said...

"It was a door that was installed so that the owners could go out for firewood, etc., it was an exit that Sharon could have used.

I've thought about this many times.

I don't know where she could have run, but she could have escaped!" - katie

Katie, wasn't there a noose around Sharon's neck or wasn't she tied up in some way?

katie8753 said...

Carol, I think that rope was just wrapped around her neck. Gibby got away pretty easily. I think she could have gotten out of that.

But even if she did go out thru that door, the only option she would have had would be to hide somewhere. I think the only way off that property was back thru the gate, and if she had started running that way, Tex would have caught her.

Not sure where there was to hide though.

katie8753 said...

Dinggo, you make some very good points. But do you really think that Linda cared that much for her child? Didn't she leave her behind when she finally did leave?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

((((((((((BEAUDERS))))))))))

matt prokes said...

katie i think susan atkins was guarding sharon tate so if she had tried to get away she would'nt have got very far.

katie8753 said...

Yeah Matt, Susan was guarding her, but I really think that during that brief time that those two were alone, that Sharon could have gotten away from Susan.

Sharon was, in my opinion, more athletic than Susan. But Sharon only had a matter of minutes to decide what to do, and she was probably just paralyzed with fear, maybe thinking she could gain sympathy from these crazed monsters by pointing out her pregnancy. Of course, that didn't work.

matt prokes said...

maybe she was more athletic but she was nine months pregnant...i don't think she had a chance in hell of escaping.

katie8753 said...

Well that's true. She did have more girth. I guess she did the only thing she could have done.

CarolMR said...

Katie, about the victims following the knife-wielders willingly out of their bedrooms: I don't know what I would have done. If someone with a knife suddenly entered my bedroom, I'd probably do whatever she said for fear that, if I didn't, she would charge at me with the knife. So I guess I could understand what Sharon, Jay, and Gibby did. But Jay had a black belt in karate, didn't he? I always thought he should have tried to get the knife away. But he may have thought, as many of us would, that if they just did as they were told, no one would get hurt.

katie8753 said...

Yeah Carol, if Jay had been aware of what was going to happen, I feel sure that he would have gotten that knife away from Susan and maybe he and Sharon could have escaped out the patio door.

But up until that night, nobody would have ever dreamed that a bunch of hippies they didn't even know was just gonna walk in and massacre them for no reason at all.

I think they all kind of thought if we just cooperate they'll take what they want and go. But after Jay was shot was when it dawned on everyone that wasn't the case.

revatron said...

It's unfortunate. They should have known sooner. If Garretson heard the gun shots, then the three people awake in the main house should have heard them too. The only difference is that they didn't know Parent was there, they didn't know he was leaving, and so they didn't connect the gunshots with their own drive way.

Also, I had always imagined Susan walking PAST Folger's room to get to Sharon's, but after looking at the floor plans I see the rooms were right next to each other.

MrPoirot said...

Sharon did try to run out through the door nearest the garage with Roman's office but she was rounded up by one of the girls. The killers were all in the front yard when they spotted Sharon trying to get out the house.

katie8753 said...

Revatron, Susan did walk past Folger's room to get to Sharon's. It's a short hallway off the living area. If you leave the living area into the hallway, Folger's room is quick left, and continue the short hallway until it ends in Sharon's bedroom.

According to Susan, she stopped at Folger's room and looked in, and Folger smiled and waved "hi". This may or may not be true.

katie8753 said...

>>>Mr. P said: Sharon did try to run out through the door nearest the garage with Roman's office but she was rounded up by one of the girls. The killers were all in the front yard when they spotted Sharon trying to get out the house.>>>

I don't recall that Mr. P. I thought Sharon & Susan were still in the living room.

MrPoirot said...

katie8753 said...
>>>Mr. P said: Sharon did try to run out through the door nearest the garage with Roman's office but she was rounded up by one of the girls. The killers were all in the front yard when they spotted Sharon trying to get out the house.>>>

I don't recall that Mr. P. I thought Sharon & Susan were still in the living room.

July 10, 2012(end quote)

Poirot replies:

No one was alive but Sharon when Sharon bolted. She was believed to have been tied to the rafter but escaped. All of the victims tried to escape the main house except Jay who was killed first.
Susan wasn't much of a guard. She let Hinman get to the gun at Hinman's murder and let park rangers walk up on her lookout post above Barker Ranch.
There was an interesting argument between Squeaky and Charlie during the last days prior to the murders when Squeaky boldly remarked to Charlie how Sadie was always saying she'd do something and then not do it. Basically it was Squeaky telling Charlie that Sadie was a eff-up.
I would desdcribe both Sadie and Leslie as total eff-ups.

Marliese said...

Just my belief...no proof, I don't think Sharon bolted, escaped, got outside and was rounded up back into the house. Not saying she didn't struggle, but i don't think she got outside.

There was a rope around Sharon's neck...not saying she didn't attempt to get it off or attempt to move about the room, but I don't think she got far...certainly not outside and rounded back up again. I think the idea she may have gotten to the door is surmised in The Family.

And while we know the killers are all liars, none of them have ever said that she got outside.

I think it's important to remember there Sharon was anchored by the rope and there was an attempt to suspend her by the rope...Thomas Noguchi, the coroner who performed Sharon's autopsy testified "it is my opinion that the rope contacted quite firmly. It is quite consistent that the decedent was hanged." (and stabbed)

I think part of the problem i have with saying that any of the victims 'should have' heard the gunshots that killed Steven, or that they could have gotten away, or even that Sharon bolted, escaped, got outside and was rounded up again, blames the victims for supposedly not making more of an attempt to save themselves, and it's hard to do that...you know?

And Tex had a gun.

So many times, I've thought if only Jay had kicked Sadie right through her mouth and sent her flying into the wall, but they were caught off guard, they couldn't have imagined the horror they were about to suffer. Same with Leno and Rosemary...

katie8753 said...

Hi Marliese! I agree with you. I don't recall Sharon ever running outside. The only way we would know that is from the killers and they haven't said that to my knowledge.

It's impossible to say what a person will do in that type of situation unless you've been there yourself. I don't have any idea what I would have done. Fear can either paralyze you or give you super power. It depends on the person. I think that Sharon was just so fearful she did the only thing she could think of...beg for mercy.

I like to think of "if onlys"...if only Steve Parent had just run Tex down like roadkill, if only Jay & Voytek had rushed Tex, because without Tex, the girls would have been worthless...

But...it didn't happen that way.

katie8753 said...

I think Leno & Rosemary were probably thinking along the same lines. If we just give them what they want, they'll go away.

Here's a greasy, weasley kinda guy reassuring them they wouldn't be hurt.

Yeah right. Unfortunately, with his hands tied behind him, Leno was pretty much helpless against Tex. Rosemary did her best, but 3 against one just doesn't work.

Marliese said...

Katie said..I like to think of "if onlys"...if only Steve Parent had just run Tex down like roadkill, if only Jay & Voytek had rushed Tex, because without Tex, the girls would have been worthless...<<<<<<


Hi Katie, i've thought the same...so many if onlys...

MrPoirot said...

Marliese said...
Just my belief...no proof, I don't think Sharon bolted, escaped, got outside and was rounded up back into the house. Not saying she didn't struggle, but i don't think she got outside. (end quote)

Poirot replies:

I never said Sharon made it outside because she did not. I did not read this in "The Family". It is not my opinion that Sharon ran for the back door by the Garage side of the house. I learned it from reading interviews from the killers themselves.
I notice a common trend in blogs is for people to try and inject their own home made theories into TLB because research takes effort which is a chame because truth is always stranger than fiction.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., which killer said that? Tex didn't mention it in his book, and Susan didn't say it in her Grand Jury testimony. Pat has always maintained that she didn't have anything to do with Sharon.

Just wonderin'...

MrPoirot said...

katie8753 said...
Mr. P., which killer said that? Tex didn't mention it in his book, and Susan didn't say it in her Grand Jury testimony. Pat has always maintained that she didn't have anything to do with Sharon.

Just wonderin'...(end quote)

Poirot replies:

Try reading. You have the curiosity but lack the desire to exert the effort to read and you make sweeping claims that "most of the books aren't worth the effort". There is one book I read that was nearly worthless but for one single paragragh. So therefore that book isn't totally worthless.

BTW, where is the youtube where Ruby Pearl said Shorty was afraid of the Family as you claimed? Why would a fearful Shorty get in a car loaded with the biggest guys in the Family only days after telling Spahn and Frank Retz that he would rid the ranch of the hippies with Squeaky standing there as witness as Shorty ran off at the mouth. Doesn't sound like a fearful Shorty to me. Shorty was the biggest guy at the ranch since he outweighed Juan quite a bit. Tex, Clem, Charlie and Bruce were runts compared to Shorty. Although Charlie was not in the car, he appeared at the scene of the roadside ambush of Shorty. Simply disputing every word I offer is not condusive to free and open discussion. I do not keep thousands of 3x5 notecards around just waiting in case you haven't read what I have read or emailed who I emailed. I simply offer up to interested members anything I have run across over the past 15 years.
Just to raise your curiosty more I thought I'd let you know that two of the killers have stated in interviews that Linda Kasabian did enter the Cielo house.
You have to remember that SIX Family members AT LEAST entered the Cielo home the night of the murders. Possibly even seven. After the murders there was an extensive debriefing of Tex by Charlie that rivals the professionality of any WWII RAF bombing raid debriefing of Berlin, Dresden or Hamburg.
What is fact beyond a doubt I can't say but what was said by the killers afterwards is volumous.

The book you love to dismiss, "The Family" is quite underestimated by you but since it was written in 1971, FOUR YEARS prior to Helter Skelter, it's importance should not be underestimated. You should quite easily be able to select the accurate from the sensationalized in Sander's first book. There are also parts of his first book that no one can prove or disprove.

Sander's second book recently released was mostly the first book repackaged but included a fabulous anecdote of how Nancy Pitman's mother used to drive out to Spahn's all the time and check on Nancy. Contrary to Nancy Pitman's claim, her family never deserted her at all nor did Paul Watkin's family.
What is true and what is not true takes years and years to discover. Much of this saga will never be known.
Years ago it was easy to email actual Spahn Ranch participants. I knew two women online who served time with Susan and Leslie. I have spoken to three people by phone who were family members or friends of victims and murderers. Susan Atkins was believed to have murdered one cellmate by stabbing her in a stairwell over a money dispute.

I rarely offer my opinion but I commonly state things I have read and been told personally. I really don't need to offer opinion since i've never finished trying to digest what I was told or read from participants. I've often feared that if I offer my opinion that I would only make an incredible episode in historical infamy only less interesting.

7 Years ago at my last house I had a library with approx 2000 books but I eventually boxed them up and stashed them in my garage because I had read them all.

Katie would you rather I didn't comment in here anymore? Many times i have scribbled out things I've read on TLB just hoping someone would add to it but sadly today most bloggers just mock anything they haven't heard before.

Is this a free and open forum or not?

dinggo said...

"But do you really think that Linda cared that much for her child? Didn't she leave her behind when she finally did leave?"

I would like to think so. If we had the answer to one question then we'd probably have a much better idea. The one question is: did she believe that the family would harm her child in her absence? If the answer to that question is, "no", then much easier to see how she could be willingly to leave without her child.

Lastly, the CieloDrive.com site has this to say:

On August 11, 1969, Manson instructed Linda to bring a message to the jailed Sandy Good, Mary Brunner, and Bobby Beausoleil. Kasabian saw it as an opportunity to flee the ranch (without Tanya). She droved straight to New Mexico, where her husband was living with another woman. Linda explained what had happened, and said that she couldn't have brought Tanya because it would've looked too suspicious. Bob Kasabian wanted to go back to Spahn's Ranch to get his daughter, but Linda was too afraid. After making a call to Spahn' Ranch, Linda learned that Tanya had been placed in foster care after the raid on August 16th. After talking to a social worker, Linda returned to Los Angeles and eventually got her daughter back.

If that is true, then would seem that she cared for her daughter.

Lastly, I think that what some have even more trouble with is the fact that she said nothing to law enforcement anywhere until she herself was indicted in early December. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, such is probably owing to her extreme fear of Manson & Co.

Almost forgot, but perhaps the most convincing item of "evidence" for me is the impression of the folks who watched her testify, specifically, all the media folks who present covering the trial. I have yet to read any credible soul among the media who were present conclude anything other than she was a credible/sincere witness.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that you're not welcome to comment here. You are ALWAYS welcome! I was just curious which killer made that comment, because I've never heard it.

As for The Family, I love that book. I've read it many times. I think Sanders did an excellent job on that book. I only said that there are a few things in there that I think are based on rumor and not fact.

The You Tube video of Ruby could be long gone I don't know. You should know as well as I do, they come and go.

>>>You have to remember that SIX Family members AT LEAST entered the Cielo home the night of the murders. Possibly even seven.>>>

Well, the only ones who would have seen what Sharon did were the 3 or 4 that were actually there at the time of the murders.

Mr. P., you and I both know that the killers have said lots of things during the years, changing stories more often than their underwear. If you have had personal conversations with these people or people who know these people, then you're way ahead of me, because I have not.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Dinggo.

I have mixed feelings about Linda. Some people on these blogs like to say that Tex & Linda had a "bond". I don't see that. For some reason, Tex just told her to be a "lookout" the first night. She obviously wasn't an effective killer.

ST. Circumstance said...

Hey I respect all of you, and love the new opinions...

mine is this on the Linda subject...

NO EXCUSE TO LEAVE YOUR CHILD WITH PEOPLE YOU KNOW ARE KILLERS

no room to be flexible for me on this one...

the way she raised her child- and even after all of that mess- leaves very much to be desired...

Linda was no angel in any way shape or form...

Kudos- she didn't kill anyone-

But that is the very nicest thing that deserves to be said about her

in a real Saints opinion

starship said...

No, sorry, Mr. P. I think you are all wet on this one. You have been wet in the past from time to time too. That said, I always like to hear what you have to say.

But I think you better post some real live sources on this one. And if it's Statman, then don't bother.

starship said...

and St....thanks for the nice words.

MrPoirot said...

Starship I have made no more mistakes than you have. I think it is acceptible in the Colonel's blog to gang up on posters but do you really need to ruin all the blogs by smearing anyone you choose?

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I agree Saint.

I have reservations, regarding Kasabian.

She was pretty messed-up before she even got to the ranch.
She was no hapless "Snow White", that's for dang sure.

She was involved in these murders no matter how you slice it, and hence, is a criminal in her own right.

Bugliosi loved to say:
"Linda was cut from a different cloth".

I think her "cloth" was much more similar (to the others), than Bugliosi portrayed.
"Birds of a feather", as it were...

Bugliosi knew, that painting Linda as "a cut above" would make her a more credible witness in the eyes of the jury... and hence, make her more valuable to his prosecution.
Her "squeaky clean persona" was carefully planned and orchestrated.

Folks always hound Bugliosi about "Helter Skelter", but I submit... his portrayal of Kasabian as a hapless victim of circumstance, may have been his greatest distortion and fabrication, of all.

Of all the pieces of shit to choose from... yeah... I probably would have used Kasabiam myself, as a prosecutor.
She was (in a sense) "less guilty" than the others... but c'mon... how far does "less guilty" take ya?
As Marlin said:
"How far can you carry empathy?"

I'm very pleased that Kasabian did, in fact, testify and jail these criminals.
But, one has to ask:
Did she do it "just to be a nice girl"???
OR... did she do it, to save her own skin???
If you look at her track record of decisions before, during, and after the murders... I think the answer to that question, is pretty clear.

It's also worth noting here:
If Kasabian had foolishly NOT "taken the deal"... (and make no mistake folks, it was a deal no matter how you slice it)... Bugliosi would have turned on her immediately, and prosecuted her to the full extent of the law, just like all the others.
You would have seen "Linda" painted in a totally different light by Bugs... and that's worthy of thought and clarification.
Love him or hate him... Bugluiosi was, in fact, a very effective lawyer.. and Kasabian (a criminal in her own right), would have done time.

I'm not a huge "Linda fan" myself.

MrPoirot said...

Lynyrd Skynyrd said,(quote)

It's also worth noting here:
If Kasabian had foolishly NOT "taken the deal"... (and make no mistake folks, it was a deal no matter how you slice it)... Bugliosi would have turned on her immediately, and prosecuted her to the full extent of the law, just like all the others.
You would have seen "Linda" painted in a totally different light by Bugs... and that's worthy of thought and clarification.
Love him or hate him... Bugluiosi was, in fact, a very effective lawyer.. and Kasabian (a criminal in her own right), would have done time.

I'm not a huge "Linda fan" myself.

July 12, 2012 7:13 PM(end quote)

Poirot replies:

Bug was initially overwhelmed at his appointment as Chief Prosecutor after the first Chief Pros was unfairly dismissed(Stovall?sp). Can you imagine what would have happened if Sadie had remained the state's chief witness?(no guilty verdicts that's for sure)Can you imagine a Sadie May Glutz free on the streets of America? It is easy to imagine that Bug is probably still breathing a sigh of relief that Sadie turned back to being loyal to Charlie thus forcing Bug to use Linda as his main witness.
Yes I firmly agree Bug would have viciously attempted to prosecute Linda Kasabian for seven counts of murder one had Sadie not recanted.
I have never been able to fathom what made Linda Kasabian participate in both the Tate and Labianca massacres. In that aspect, yes, she definantly was cut from a different cloth. But Tex and Krenwinkle came off that same loom.

starship said...

Mr. Poirot:

Your comment above is excellent.

I am not attacking and/or calling you names. This is not the Cols blog indeed. I indeed make mistakes, and try to fess up to them...in fact it appears I may have made one on another blog just yesterday.

You challenged Katie about your assertion of Sharon fleeing by stating "Read" I can assure you I have read and studied quite a bit myself. Nothing I have ever read supports your assertion. I distinctly recall, in fact, at least one source which claims that Sharon was left alone in the living room for a few short minutes and that she obviously never even tried to escape. I certainly don't expect anyone to believe that unless I can cite a source. Right now I cannot, but I will do some digging and if I can find it you can be assured that I will post it.

Peace.

MrPoirot said...

Starship I believe Charlie stated in Emmon's book that Sharon tried to make it to the corner livingrom door. Charlie was told this by Tex the night of the murders.

Tex famously stated to a shrink that the victims "were all running around like chickens with their heads cut off". Tex never said "all except Sharon".

I am not certain if it was Linda or Sadie who said Sharon was spotted headed to the back corner. livingroom door. Linda told the story of the night at Cielo to the commune leader in Taos. "IF" I remember correctly I believe it was definantly a female who stated that Sharon made an attempt to exit. There was definantly a point where all the killers were in the Cielo front yard while only Sharon was still alive and unguarded in the livingroom.

leary7 said...

I can't resist the opportunity to make this a 200 count thread.
I just finished a good book called 'American Desperado'. It is about Jon Roberts, nee Riccobono, who was born into the Mafia (father and uncles big shots) then trained as an assassin in Vietnam and then rose to be one of the two top Americans in the Medillin Cartel. Here is a great quote where Roberts refelcts on himself -
"I might be a sociapath. Most of the time I have been on this earth I've had no regard for human life. That's been the key to my success.

But the quote I really love comes from his new wife, thirty years his younger. Her name is Noemi.
"I sdore Jon. But the day I met him, he touched me and my body went numb, because his energy is black. Jon is not human. I love him, but I live as a prisoner. I cannot leave him because his evil is magnetic."

That is one great fucking quote.
We ponder why all those middle class kids became so devoted to Manson. Right there, in that quote, is the answer. Evil is magnetic. It is seductive and bedazzling. I have had the "privlige" of encountering pure evil twice in my life. It will alter your world, believe me.

Is/was Charlie Manson pure evil? Of course he is, he admits it himself dozens of times in interviews. Is he a sociopath? Absolutely. Again, he talks often of there being no difference to him if one person is killed or five hundred. Is Charlie's evilness magnetic? Again, there is no question about it.

The new interesting poster Dinngo had this great quote on a Col thread recently. He wrote...
"There is no motive here other than mere murder."
MERE MURDER!!!
What a great phrase.
And now we have lunatic revisionists arguing that is was robbery and Parent was killed last after he witnessed the robbery.
Pleeeease. It is an insult to the victims to engage in such retared theorizing.
Mere murder. The sociapath Manson with his magnetic evilness and a squad of drugged-out, fucked-out idiots decided it was time to stop play acting at war and kill some pigs. That's it. That's all she wrote.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»