Thursday, August 27, 2015

UPDATE:

Manson family member Bruce Davis found eligible for parole




The finding is now subject to a 120-day review and could still be blocked by Gov. Jerry Brown, according to a statement released by the state corrections department.

Sitting governors have stopped three previous attempts to grant parole to Davis, 72. In 2013, Brown said Davis is "still dodging responsibility" for his role in the Manson family's gruesome actions in 1969.

Though he wasn't involved in the Tate-LaBianca killings, Davis was convicted in 1972 for the murders of Gary Hinman, an aspiring musician, and Donald "Shorty" Shea, a stuntman and employee at the Chatsworth ranch where Manson and his followers lived.

Davis claims he did not participate in the killings of actress Sharon Tate, who was married to director Roman Polanski and pregnant at the time, or Los Feliz residents Leno and Rosemary LaBianca.

In the 40 years he has spent in prison, Davis has married, fathered a child and earned a doctoral degree in religion.

Manson remains incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, where he is serving a life sentence. His next parole hearing is scheduled for 2027.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-manson-bruce-davis-20150827-story.html


 ***********************************************************

 Parole Considered For Manson Follower Bruce Davis


 
Bruce Davis
SAN LUIS OBISPO (AP) — After 43 years in prison and 29 parole hearings, parole officials are again considering whether it is safe to free Charles Manson follower Bruce Davis.

The Board of Parole Hearings has recommended three times that the 72-year-old Davis be released from prison. Each time the parole has been blocked, once by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and twice by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Brown most recently rejected Davis’ parole a year ago, saying he remains dangerous despite his age.
Davis remains at California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo.

On Thursday, for the 30th time, parole commissioners will consider if Davis should be paroled in the 1969 slayings of musician Gary Hinman and stuntman Donald “Shorty” Shea.

Davis was not involved in the notorious killings of actress Sharon Tate and six others.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/08/27/parole-considered-for-manson-follower-bruce-davis/

135 comments:

sunset77 said...

Off topic comment:

There was apparently a shooting a couple of days ago near Roanoke VA. It seems to me that the Brian Davis radio show came from Roanoke VA. Apparently, Vester Lee Flanagan II had a Glock pistol in one hand and a cellphone or some type of camera in the other. He walked up to a female news reporter and her cameraman that were interviewing another woman on what looks like some type of balcony. He begins shooting but apparently drops the camera face down. Screams and gunshots are audible. He then apparently posted the video online. Flanagan fled in a vehicle on Interstate 66 pursued by police, he crashed, police found him in the car with a gunshot, the hospital said he died around 1:25 p.m.

The video was removed from many sites, but it can be found online easily. I'm not going to post a link as it is almost certainly video/audio of people being murdered. I haven't found any connection between any possible drugs this dude might have been taking, but this has all the signs. He apparently sent a 24 page "manifesto" to ABC news where he apparently praised the VA Tech shooter and the Carolina chuch shooter, both of whom were taking drugs before their murder sprees. Flanagan was from CA orignally.

katie8753 said...

Bruce might get out this time. Bugliosi is dead now. I don't know if that would be a factor or not, but he just might get out. And if he does, Leslie's attorney is gonna jump on that at her parole hearing.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Sunset. That shooting was horrific. This country has just gone nuts. Any little thing happens and people shoot people.

It makes people scared to even go to work anymore. Some crazed ex employee might be carrying a grudge.

I don't believe in gun control, but I certainly do believe in a "waiting period" to do a background check and this guy's behavior was absurd. Surely someone knew he was mentally ill.

MrPoirot said...

Davis ain't goig nowhere. Moonbeam may run fer prez and freeing Bruce wouldn't help that. He'd be seen as soft on crime. Remember Gov Micheal Dukakis.

Marliese said...

You're a couple decades too late for that argument, Poirot. Governor Brown has said several times that he'd need a time machine to revisit running for president. I don't believe his legacy will be affected one way or another with respect to Bruce Davis' parole circumstances... remember, Governor Brown was in the first of his original two terms as governor of California when the nonsense with Grogan and Donald Shea's remains was initiated, along with his longstanding history of opposing the death penalty, and legendary appointment of Rose Bird in the late 70's...etc etc etc so I think releasing or blocking Bruce Davis' parole will have little effect on his well established legacy.

Brown will continue to block parole for Bruce Davis until Davis responds to the issues the Governor brought up in his two previous denials.

MrPoirot said...

Marliese you better look again. Moonbeam is the perfect age to be the Democratic nominee. Look at Hillary and Bernie Sanders: they are both a couple of geriatrics that regularly fall down in the bath tub.

katie8753 said...

Hillary got her hand slapped for calling some Rebublicans "Terrorists". LOL.

Marliese said...

Oh please poirot, I know it's your way or the highway most of the time, but I don't need to look again..I know what I'm talking about and your argument doesnt hold up.

First, Jerry Brown is ten years older than Hillary, and older by at least a four year term than Biden, and close to that with Sanders. If Jerry Brown were to run, be nominated, and win the election, he'd be close to 80 years old when he takes office. Secondly, he has personally said he'd need "a time machine' to even consider it...his last attempt was more than 20 years ago with the '92 cycle.

Secondly, he has stated he supports Biden as the democratic nominee in 2016.

Thirdly, he doesn't give a rat's ass about appearing soft on crime if he were to approve parole for Bruce Davis, and considering that the parole date would be set into the future, possibly years...only a moron would consider the go ahead to release an inmate that served 50 years in prison for murder "soft on crime." No one cares about Bruce Davis.

Lastly, like I said earlier, Jerry Brown's substantial legacy on crime is well established, with or without the likes of Bruce Davis.

MrPoirot said...

Hillary is stupid , dishonest, a con artist and incompetent but she will be the next prez because there aren't enough Americans left in the United States to save it. We have been conquered by a demographic coupe. The enemy didn't storm our shores or drop bombs on us: they simply moved here. The enemy lives here now.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, the commies put something in the water that turned everybody gay. The Supreme Court drank it. It's called Agent a l'Orange

katie8753 said...

Hillary is a dyke-ish bully that was embarrassed for the last time by her philandering hubby during the Monica scandal and has reduced him to her "lap boy".

She won't be elected. Gay people don't like dyke-ish bullies.

katie8753 said...

Marliese I think you're right. I think Gov. Brown will address those same issues to Bruce in deciding his parole. I have no idea what the outcome will be.

It appears that Bobby has moved to a cell back in CA. How does that guy have access to e-mail?

Anyway, he's whining about not having his recording studio.

Where does he get off? He's lucky he's not six foot under, where he should be as we speak. His music and art STINKS! And he is, as Napoleon Dynamite would say, "A decrepit piece of crap!"

TomG said...

Welp, to nobodies surprise I guess, me and Ms Katie don't see eye to eye on Bruce Davis.
I don't understand why Amuricans, no matter how much they have, are constantly in fear and resentful of ' the other ' and relish in punishment of folks who aren't as perfect as they, Ashley Madison.com notwithstanding.
Jesus Christ. Let these poor people walk out of prison and die in the free world. They aren't. really the boogie man anymore.

TomG said...

But if that's your thang, to make the miserable even more miserable for even longer, then that's your thang. That isn't the forgiveness and redemption that they use to teach, however.

katie8753 said...

Hi Tom. Well maybe you'll get your wish, and Bruce can move in next door to you. He might can still fix your dune buggy. :)

TomG said...

Come on Ms. Katie. None of them are dangerous any longer. In my opinion, they never were. They got caught up in a mix up, mostly due to your country's reach for empire, which didn't work out, isn't working out now,either.

They can all move in next door to me. We'd love to have them. Just root for the Phillies, Flyers, Eagles and the Sixers and we good!

katie8753 said...

Tom that sounds Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious!!!!

They never were dangerous? Well, somebody got killed by them. So those people might not agree with you.

Leslie, Bruce, Pat, Tex, Bobby & Chuckie, all living next door. Wow! Make sure you have plenty of popcorn and LSD. And if Charlie tries to teach you how to use a knife and pull up on it when you stab it in, just show him the TV guide on the latest sports shows!

And make sure you have plenty of beds and bathrooms. I don't think they'll do any more love-ins, but they might want to have somewhere to lay their heads after they remove their dentures.

katie8753 said...

BTW, American Pharaoh lost today in the Travers Stakes. He was going to be touted as the greatest horse in history, but he lost to Keen Ice at the end. Secretariat also lost that race, after winning the Triple Crown.

Frosty was bumping him, but I don't think that's why he lost. I think he was just tired and gave up.

TomG said...

Here is my argument, listen to me carefully, because I don't want you to misunderstand me, in the words of one of my few heros, Jimmy Carter said.

Grief is grief. A peasant in Saigon, a Muslim in Fallujah, a millionaire in Beverly Hills. It's loss and in some manner we all should relate to it.

But that shouldn't mean we should hold that feeling for the rest of our life, become hard and bitter, block our minds. Everyone experiences loss. Hate is always the wrong way to go.

TomG said...

Yeah, I think the horse crowding him and bumping him all along, took something out of the horse, than the horse flying on the outside......hey, your not going to win them all. He's still a great horse!

katie8753 said...

Yeah Tom he is a GREAT horse. He should have won today, but I think he was just a little tired or thrown off for whatever reason.

But he'll have a nice life now....

beauders said...

One of the main reasons Davis is not getting out-no he's most likely not dangerous but it does set a precedent for the others-is because he was approached in the mid 70's after leaving the Family and Manson, and told he would be given complete immunity if he talked about the Gaul/Sharp murders. He said no, out of concern for his crime partners. Now I have a set of the crime scene/autopsy photo's for these murders and they are worse that the Tate/LaBianca murders. Gaul was raped and the photo's tend to concentrate on her crotch. She was completely nude and stabbed all over her body. Nelson supposedly stole these from Deemer and I got them from Nelson. I'm not putting them up online out of respect for Gaul's privacy, that is how disturbing they are. You can get them from Aes-Nihil if you must have them. That girl suffered horribly and the fact that a man of religion won't tell the truth of those crimes is unforgivable. Tex is a sociopath but I have never heard that he raped anyone, so Davis if they committed these murders is also a rapist. If Davis was not involved why wouldn't he just say, "I'd like to help, but I don't know anything." If Davis had talked he would have most likely got the same deal as Grogan and been released in the 80's. What a fool.

katie8753 said...

Wow, thanks Beauders! So you think he was involved in the Gaul/Sharp murders? I always thought he was involved in the Pugh/Zero murders as well.

beauders said...

Believe me Brown saw the pictures as well and heard the history of the Gaul/Sharp murders. I don't know anything other then the basics with Pugh/Zero. My instincts tell he was involved with Zero's death but I really don't know about Pugh.

MrPoirot said...

Beauders aren't you describing two completely dissimilar types of killing methods? The excessive stabbing and raping the victim don't jibe with the other murders we know he was involved in?

beauders said...

Yes I am but Davis never killed on his own, that is that we know of. And no I don't think he was the Zodiac.

beauders said...

Also Davis has had a lot of time to come forward with information and just say I was young, stupid, and arrogant. Geez he could come forward with information at his parole hearings. A true man of God would want the truth to come out. Again he said he was protecting people in the Family. My theory is Tex did the stabbing and Bruce did the raping.

Marliese said...

Beauders, interesting, as always. So then are you thinking Tex didn't go home to Texas in late October or early November, rather after the Darlene Gaul and James Sharp murders? Or that he did go home in late Oct but returned to LA briefly in mid to late November at the time of the murders and then back again to Texas?

Like so many, I used to study Zodiac from time to time, and would need a quick refresher for all the details, but do remember feeling that Bruce Davis couldn't possibly be zodiac because he's just too dumb to have been the zodiac...that doesn't mean anything regarding the Darlene Gaul and James Sharp murders though.

So can you tell us more about your Tex did the stabbing and Bruce the raping theory? And what is your opinion on their other injuries....their eyes slashed, the after death chain beatings etc etc

Marliese said...

I wonder what the retention period was in California in 1969 for autopsy tissue samples from murder victims. DNA testing was still a long way into the future, and record keeping and records retention policies and code have probably been revised many times since then, still...I wonder...

MrPoirot said...

I have never been able to think up a motive to make me think Bruce killed Pugh or Gaul/Sharp. Helter Skelter motive doesn't fit. Robbery doesn't fit. I gotta have a motive to link somebody to a murder. Proximity alone is not very good proof of who killed somebody.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, I think he killed Pugh because he was gonna squeal. Think about it. December 2nd?

MrPoirot said...

Pugh may have committed suicide because Sandra left him and he began suffering from depression. He pined away.

There is a famous pic of Pugh and Sandra sitting on a couch. Pugh appears to be trying to reach out to hold her in the pic while she has her arms crossed and is leaning away from him. Pugh smiles but Sandra doesn't.

Marliese said...

Other than Davis supposedly saying he had sex with some of the girls at the Bonnie Brae Ave Scientology house, and his whereabouts being 'unknown' (according to Bugliosi) in November 1969, what is the evidence for a theory linking Bruce Davis to the rape and murder of Doreen Gaul, and murder of James Sharp? And Tex, too?

beauders said...

When Deemer saw the Gaul/Sharp crime scene he said "Whoever did this did Tate." Deemer had seen hundreds of crime scene, including Tate, and I believe in his experience. I have no evidence except deducing Tex was really good at stabbing people and Davis was emotionally, physically, and sexually abused as a child. Men with those types of abuse tend to repeat what was done to them if they don't get help. Sorry Marliese I have no real evidence, I said it was a theory. It's just been knocking about in my head.

Marliese said...

Beauders, your theory, and I understood it was a theory, but I was wondering what led you to come up with it, got me thinking again about these young people murdered so viciously, but it's hard to find much on them. I read, I'm sure you've seen it all and so this is very familiar to you, but I read where one researcher talked to Deemer after he retired, and Deemer told him he was convinced beyond any doubt whatsoever that Davis did these murders, saying also that everyone that worked on the case with him was also convinced, and that he tried to get the DA's office to file charges, but they wouldn't...for lack of evidence...they got as far as trying to interview BD in prison but he wouldn't talk. I just find it frustrating that they offer nothing to support why.

Davis lived at the Bonnie Brae house, admitted to having sex with nine women there...but denied dating Darlene. No one knows where he was in November 1969.

I know that Bruce Davis was/is a murderer, he was a lazy sob that came from a neglectful, mean, abusive upbringing. But murderer that he is, was he capable of kidnapping, rape, and inflicting such brutal injuries? Darlene was stabbed 50 times...you think by Tex, but if they were together, BD would have have participated in the kidnapping and beating and restraining and dumping them. And was it Tex who slashed their eyes? (Didn't Susan once say the plan had been to gouge out eyes?)

So I know you said you don't believe Bruce was zodiac...I don't know how anyone with half a brain could, but do you think there is anything to the idea some have that Darlene and James were killed by the zodiac...? They cite the Albany connection, and the so called chain markings in the note found in Darlene's things with the evidence Darlene and James Had been beaten with a chain, likely after death. And was it a real Z note?? 'You're too beautiful to live, time is short, I have to kill you now...(similar to the words Zodiac used in the Berryessa attack).

I can't remember the details, but I found something about Darlene having been attacked Irving assaulted six months before her murder.

I hate that these two teenagers are all but forgotten, rarely even referred to by their full names. They were kids, James was only 15, they suffered horribly, and there has been no justice.

Thanks for replying earlier.

Marliese said...

My settings on Mac won't let me edit. Meant to say *attacked/assaulted living in LA six months earlier...'

MrPoirot said...

Was Deemer one of the cops who failed to link Tate to Labianca?

beauders said...

No

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"I think he killed Pugh because he was gonna squeal. Think about it. December 2nd?"


But squeal on what ? Not a single family member places Joel Pugh anywhere close to Spahn Ranch in 1969. In fact, no one places him in Manson's company ever.
Have a look at my last two entries here{http://www.lsb3.com/2015/06/manson-and-bugliosi-had-even-more-in.html} for the reasons I don't think Pugh was murdered.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Grim!

Manson didn't like squealers and he may have thought Pugh was gonna talk about anything he knew.

You're right, Pugh was not involved in the family. They sickened him and he left Sandy because he thought she was nuts to be involved in this nonsense. But that doesn't mean he never talked to Sandy again, that he wasn't being informed of their murderous ways.

He quotes a phrase from a friend in a letter saying something like "I would not want what happened to Joel to happen to me" to add weight to the supposition that Pugh was murdered.

Actually, the quote is "I would not want what happened to ZERO to happen to me".

I definitely think Zero was murdered. Way too much circumstantial stuff going on. And I still think Pugh was murdered as well.

Way too much weird stuff going on in his apartment. The fact that his body was in front of the door is still strange to me. I know you mentioned that your mother-in-law fell in front of the door, but she didn't kill herself.

Who cuts their own throat to kill themselves? Doesn't make sense to me.

Evidently Pugh was depressed, but that doesn't mean he killed himself. In fact, Charlie may have been banking on the fact that Pugh was depressed so the police would think he killed himself.

Have you seen the documentary "Scientology: Going Clear". It's absolutely horrifying what Scientology would stoop to to keep things quiet. And Bruce and Charlie were involved in that cult as well.

katie8753 said...

Marliese, good thoughts. I agree.

Mr. P, I'm sorry to hear about your mother. Our thoughts and prayers are with you!

katie8753 said...

I think I'll join that Scientology cult and see what happens. Saddle up!

Wow, that would be a trip! HA HA HA.

I cain't wait to get started!!! Hoo hoo!

katie8753 said...

I can't wait 'til they "cleanse" me. Hooooh-doogies. HA HA.

katie8753 said...

Don't they have a local branch here? WTF?

katie8753 said...

There's a lot of things I could tell that cleansing department. Once I stole a pencil from a teacher. She was mean and wanted me to do arithmetic for no reason.

Another time I lied about being sick at school and went to the local hamburger joint and got fries.

I also told an ugly guy he was cute because I wanted to get in front of him in line.

Wow, that cleansing department is gonna work overtime on me. HA HA.

katie8753 said...

Gotta go y'all! Bye!

Marliese said...

Well Beauders, I made the mistake of trying to find details on the murder of Darlene and James...very, very frustrating, and keep coming back to your comment that you'd think as a "man of God" Bruce Davis would want truth.

I've always been indifferent about his parole situation, leaning toward agreeing with Davis being paroled, primarily for the sake of his daughter, and because he has served many, many years, discipline free. On the other hand, have always found his continual minimizing of his personal involvement, especially with Shorty's death, so irresponsible, and incredibly stupid.

Now I understand why it's always said that he needs to come clean with what he knows about other "activities." I don't know if he participated in killing Darlene and James, or if he raped Darlene, but I'm convinced he knows more, probably quite a bit more, than he's ever said, after all, he's said nothing, doesn't even admit to having dated Darlene. He's lying. And a 'true' man of God would not say that an immunity offer means nothing to me since I'm already serving life for two murders.

I'm done with this.

Hi Katie :)

katie8753 said...

Thanks Marliese. I don't think of Bruce or Tex as "true men of God". I think that's a scam they're both running to (1) get out of prison or (2) have a more lenient life in prison.

Once a scammer...always a scammer!!

FrankM said...

I'm not posting these days, but was spurred on in response to what Katie posted - the actual text of Joanne's letter to Sandy (so often misquoted) has no reference to Zero but does contain the following words:

"Pugh! Sandy, I’m changing and changed so much since. I’m pulled, twisted-my body and my mind have gone through so many changes in the last two weeks, feeling one part of me pulling towards Joel- so strongly I took (A)* to attempt to reach him, and even thought of killing my own self- all these- or some sort of experience and things replaced by a high of feeling his presence- his nearness- a new strength because I have a friend, a lover, who knows- and he told me the day before he left that he’d either come back or send for me if he were in a good place. I’ve got to find out what to do, and yet I can’t let happen to me what happened to Joel- or should I ?…I’m not sure if its help I need or a lover, or a purpose or new friends. I’m not so sure anything will help, but I’m ready to try anything- first off a move- a move- far away- maybe Europe- anonymity- God, sounds like Joel. Jesus what can I say".

"I can’t let happen to me what happened to Joel". Not quite what is often misquoted. See facsimiles of letter at http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7aS3Q_ChowA/TCDofM9DNlI/AAAAAAAAAGA/PAQ1BbvB1Hw/s1600/Letter-1%5B1%5D.jpg and http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7aS3Q_ChowA/TCDofg3mGpI/AAAAAAAAAGI/sMGfBTafNJ8/s1600/Letter-2%5B2%5D.jpg

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Frank!

It's great to see you!
I hope you're doing well my friend!

beauders said...

For those interested-Jane Doe#59 was also stabbed in the eyes. Gaul had 35 stab wounds to the chest, 6 stab wounds to the neck, 9 stab wounds to the head (including the eyes), and 5 to the chest. This sounds so much like what Tex did to Frykowski, and no I do not believe Watson was telling the truth about where he was on the date of these murders. Gaul most likely knew her murderers as she had no defense wounds. She was taken by surprise or was in shock from being raped. The police originally thought because of the amount of blood and the murders so brutal that the victim's were shot gunned. The motive the police believed was that Davis brought Gaul to Spahn to have sex with Manson and she was repulsed by him (same motive they came up for Family members to kill Marina Habe). Victor Wild and his girlfriend, members of the Process and The Gypsy Jokers, were questioned. Does this explain the marks on Gaul's body that looked like motorcycle chains? Of course I'm sure there tons of motorcycle chains at Spahn. Deemer also thought there might be a Scientology or Process angle.
On Pugh his neck was slashed to almost the point of decapitation and his wrists were slashed. There was also backwards writing in the victims blood and Bruce Davis was in London at the time of Pugh's death. My question is can a person almost decapitate himself without passing out after the first artery was sliced?

katie8753 said...

FRANK!!! Good to see you my friend!!!

There is also a quote in Helter Skelter that Leslie Van Houten said "I don't want what happened to Zero to happen to me".

Zero & Pugh? Interesting.

Frank, so good to see you friend! I too hope you are doing well!!!

katie8753 said...

Beauders, right on!! I don't know much about the Gaul/Sharp murders, but I do know about Pugh. And this is something I've always said. The wounds on Pugh were so significant that how could someone inflict those on oneself?

Who tries to decapitate oneself to die? Who writes backward on the mirror? Who makes sure that he falls right in front of the door?

People that are so desperate to kill themselves find a quick way to die, not a slow painful way. That just doesn't make any sense to me. I think Joel Pugh was murdered.

katie8753 said...

Bruce Davis was VERY involved in Scientology in the fall of 1969. Charlie did order him back to Scientology in England, and I'm not discounting Charlie in these murders, but I do think that Scientology was an important decision in these murders.

As Marliese pointed out, Bruce was dating Gaul who was also into Scientology and it's interesting that she ended up dead. And he's pretty much incognito in the fall of 1969, although I don't believe that. His passport shows he went to England in the fall of 1969 so why can't we trace his whereabouts?

Marliese said...

Beauders, more interesting information. Thanks. Yes, I'm sure there were several motorcycle chains at Spahn's Ranch. When you said she may have been taken to Spahn's, the first thing that came to mind was the notation on the police report that there was a "foxtail" under Doreen's body, dumped as she was in the alley. I doubt there were random foxtails in that asphalt alley, but there are lots and lots of foxtail grasses in the Chatsworth hills and the land Spahn's Movie Ranch once occupied.

Marliese said...

i have some of those same questions, Katie...tracking the whereabouts of Tex and Bruce in November 1969. You'd think the timeline of their whereabouts could be discovered. I wonder if there is anything about the Gaul/Sharp murders on the Tex Tapes.

beauders said...

Also Katie people always point out that Pugh's father came to London and determined that his son took his own life but could the father been scared of repercussion's from Manson and the Family, and just wanted to bury his son's connection to Sandra Good and thus the Family? Pugh was found December 2, 1969 the same day the police announced the arrests of Manson and the other for Tate/LaBianca. Pugh was found with cuts and bruises all over his body, the largest being a bruise on his forehead.
Motive: Manson did not want Good to leave the Family to have a boyfriend or get married because she was his largest source of income. She brought in $2,000.00 a month!
Also an informant told the police that Family members were bragging they had struck in England.
Scotland Yard had no interest in the case, so there was no real investigation, and to add insult to injury, the current coroner claims Pugh's coroner report is missing/lost.
There really is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence that Pugh did not take his own life, and Davis is the first in line as a suspect.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"I don't think of Bruce or Tex as "true men of God". I think that's a scam they're both running to (1) get out of prison or (2) have a more lenient life in prison"


Given that Bruce came to Christ in 1974 and Watson in 1975 we're talking 40 years at least. God's family consists of many, many people that have done awful, horrendous things in their time, some far worse than Bruce & even Tex. It's a journey that lasts a lifetime that is filled with pitfalls and God uses whatever circumstances a person is in for his own purposes. Sure, loads of people have faked it {those supposedly 'good', 'bad' & ugly}, and all believers fall, some more frequently than others. Those that really trust God get back up and carry on and don't wallow {for too long if at all} in self pity or self recrimination. Forty years is no small period. That's more than possibly half the world currently living has been alive. It's not hard to fake being a Christian for a period. It's damn hard to do so for 40 years. Far easier to have been deceived for 40 years than to actually fake a relationship with Christ ~ especially to oneself. And let's be frank here ~ if the idea was to fake it so as to appear as cleaned up by God to get out of jail, it didn't work for Susan Atkins who was believer for 35 years, even as she lay dying, and thus far it hasn't worked for Charles Watson which, however much one detests him, would tend to indicate that he's not been faking it.
As for a more lenient life in prison, how does that even work ? After 40 years, someone, somewhere is going to call you out.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"There is also a quote in Helter Skelter that Leslie Van Houten said 'I don't want what happened to Zero to happen to me.'"


That's not exactly what she said. She said "Because if Zero was suddenly found playing Russian roulette, I could be found playing Russian roulette." This was in response to the the cop, Mike MGann, asking her why she was refusing to answer any more questions. Like Danny DeCarlo, she didn't buy that Zero was playing RR. I think she was already aware that she'd talked too much. She'd already landed Pat & Susan in it by stating that 'a girl by the name of Linda' was the one 'girl' that didn't murder anyone.
Interestingly, Leslie never saw herself as a snitch, even though she told officer McGann that three girls went to the Tate house.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

"There was also backwards writing in the victims blood and Bruce Davis was in London at the time of Pugh's death"


Has that ever been verified ? Scotland Yard back in '69 said that there was a record of Davis leaving the UK for America in April of that year but none of him ever entering the country again.
There's an interesting Daily Mail article from 2009 {http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1163573/Did-Charles-Mansons-murder-gang-strike-Britain.html} about it but while there's much supposition, there's nothing concrete or verifiable {"it is believed...."} about Davis' movements. Detective Paul Whiteley says "we know he was in London at the same time...." but actually, he didn't know that for a fact. Davis was recorded entering and leaving the UK but not re~entering the country in November. So how could Whiteley "know ?"
Bugliosi in "Helter Skelter" says that it was an 'unidentified former family member' that wrote the letter that gave rise to the phrase "I would not want what happened to Joel to happen to me." But the same question must apply ~ how could he know ? If the person that wrote the letter was unidentified, how could anyone know who it was, let alone if they were a former family member ?
As it happens, the letter has been found & is reprinted for all to see, written by someone called "Joanne." If it's a forgery, then the suspicion that Bugliosi, Steven Kay, Curt Gentry and Paul Whiteley have falls apart because Bugliosi quotes from it. If it's genuine, the result is the same because you see the context in which the misquote appears and it's clear that "Joanne", having taken acid and travelled further than she could have imagined did not want to go where Joel went or end up like him.
As I stated elsewhere, it's understandable why there was suspicion over his death. After all, while the autopsies were in progress in the aftermath of the Tate murders, LAPD was given info by LASO about Charlie, the family, his domination and the Hinman murder. And they ignored it, thinking it was some big drug thaing that was behind the murders. Later, when it emerged that that same crowd that LASO had told LAPD about were, in fact, involved, LAPD went the other way and suddenly the family were thought to be responsible for the death of anything that moved and then died in the area in '69/70.
As gory as it is, look into ways that people mutilate and kill themselves, especially the former. When people are desperate enough to end it, they're not always neat and tidy, a bottle of wine, 200 paracetamols and a deep explanatory note.
As for Bruce getting in through the window, that would mean being in full view of everyone on the Talgarth Road. I know the road well, you can't do it. If he was murdered and Bruce left him across the door {and it was locked from the inside}, how did he get out other than by the window ? But how would Bruce know what room he was in ?
The backwards writing was something Pugh could do apparently. The son of the hotel manager used to be thrilled by it. But the writing that the police found wasn't in blood.
For me, the biggest minus against Pugh's death being a murder is that there is no record anywhere, even apocryphal, that he knew Bruce Davis, no record at all that he was in contact at that point with Sandy; she was at isolated Spahn, then isolated Barkers, then prison, then that hotel in Independence ¬> he was in England with his current love affair. How in the world could Charlie send Bruce to find him ?
There were murderers within the family, pure and simple. But they weren't super sleuthing criminal masterminds of the underworld. Their impulsive murders were crap, their planned murders were crap.

FrankM said...

Sorry to post twice in succession, but I think a voice of common sense is required here. I too know the Talgarth Hotel and I have made something of a study of this particular case as an example of how something can be built about nothing. Joel had a psychological history, well documented. There was no writing in blood or otherwise on the mirror - but Joel amused the hotel manager's son by writing da Vinci style on paper. There are coroner's records. The police in Britain, generally considered to be competent (and way ahead of the LAPD at the time) were so sure there were no suspicious circumstances (bizarre, yes - suspicious, no) that they closed the case. It's not that the evidence was only circumstantial for him to have been murdered - there was no evidence to suggest this at all. It is not uncommon for closed case records to be destroyed after a certain lapse of time. Joel's father, a Medical Practitioner, knew of his son's condition and was in full agreement with the coroner's report. The only reason that anyone is still interested in this is because of the Sandy Goode/Charles Manson connection. I urge you all to drop this one - this dog does not hunt. And if interested, do read Simon Wells' book on this (Coming Down Fast), which covers Joel's death in very close detail and is written by an Englishmen with good access to the facts and records.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Grim. I couldn't remember exactly what Leslie said, but it generally meant she didn't want to end up like Zero. Which to me pretty well sums it up that Zero was murdered, his death was mistakenly ruled a suicide, and Bruce Davis was right there.

And that's exactly the way I feel about Pugh. There are soooo many things that Charlie knew and I can't figure out how he knew, but he did. So him knowing where Pugh was isn't hard to fathom. And I'll bet Bruce could get out that window under the cover of darkness if he wanted to.

I agree with Beauders, Pugh's father probably wanted to cover his son's murder up and just get the case closed. The story that Atkins blabbed to the Grand Jury ran in the paper on December 1st, Pugh was found on December 2nd, so I'd bet my last dollar Pugh's Dad put 2 and 2 together and didn't want his son's good name muddled in the media like all the rest of Charlie's victims.

And I guess I would believe that Tex & Bruce were both real "men of God" if they acted like it. But they don't. They're both arrogant and haughty at the parole hearings. If Tex was truly repentant about killing Sharon he should have begged Doris' forgiveness, but instead his apology was basically about himself. How HE was in such pain, blah, blah. And that scam he tried to run with Suzanne LaBerge? Get outta here!

katie8753 said...

Hi Frank! You can post as many times as you want.

I thought the police report said there was backward writing on the mirror. Is that not the case?

FrankM said...

No, Katie. The story did appear in one or two UK newspapers (as I said, it was a little bizarre) and one of these - the Fulham Chronicle ran a story with the headline "Death Notes in Mirror", based on garbled second hand reports. The police had found handwritten copies of an English child's song, Jack and Jill went up the Hill, written in 'mirror writing', hence the confusion. As has been stated, Joel seemed to get on well with the young boy who was the son of the 'hotel' manager.

katie8753 said...

OK thanks Frank!!

katie8753 said...

Why is there no record of Bruce re-entering this country in 1969? Doesn't that sound suspicious to anyone?

katie8753 said...

Tex, in his rambling book, says after the murders he went to the desert, then he felt "guilty" and went back to Texas. Then he went to Mexico, then he went to Hawaii, at some point he went back to CA and WALKED to Barker's Ranch, suddenly decided that Charlie would kill him, then he went back to Texas.

There's no evidence of any of that. Back then, you don't need a passport to get to Mexico, and certainly not Hawaii.

That's probably another pack of lies. Marliese I'm with you. Where are those Tex tapes???

FrankM said...

Not really, Katie. Remember there were no computers in that era. The Scientology SeaOrg yacht used to sail in and out of countries, often without going through customs formalities. I was on their boat in 1967 in Gibraltar and offered a ride to the UK - I disliked Scientologists then [and do now] and rejected the offer. I think you're going about this the wrong way round, trying to find ways to link Bruce to Joel's death when there really is no compelling reason to support it.

katie8753 said...

But Frank, didn't people need passports back then to enter and re-enter countries? Even without computers, wasn't there some type of journal entry that would document people coming and going? If not, why use passports?

This is what Simon Wells had to say about Bruce being in the UK: According to the Talgarth’s records, Joel moved in on October 27th 1969, a month before Manson follower Bruce Davis reportedly made his second trip to the UK.

Evidently they have a record of Bruce being in the UK in November of 1969. Why? I don't know. Was he just sight seeing? Or was there another reason?

I think that's a really strange coincidence, that Bruce was in the UK in November of 1969, and Pugh ends up dead in December of 1969.

katie8753 said...

So we have evidence of Bruce being in the UK in November of 1969, we have no evidence of when he returned, but we do know he went into hiding in the sewers in CA until December of 1970, when CHARLIE told him to return, as per his admission.

Doesn't that sound strange to anyone?

katie8753 said...

And BTW, I don't think Bruce was the Zodiac killer. He's way too stupid for that.

katie8753 said...

Well, the Gov of California may have some goods on Bruce and that's why he says Bruce hasn't come clean. Maybe from the Tex tapes, maybe from other sources.

If Bruce was truly a man of God, he would have confessed all of his sins against man and God, because that's what a man of God would do. But if he's leaving lots of holes in his story, that's what keeps him behind bars. I think Bruce is hiding the truth, so he can get out. And that's not what a man of God would do.

I know that in one parole hearing, Bruce said he was afraid of Tex. I don't believe that for a minute, and I don't think Bruce fooled anyone else with that bunk. I think that Bruce thought he was Charlie's #1 killer, Tex was out, and I don't think he was afraid at all.

katie8753 said...

There are 3 women who married these creeps. I don't know why women seek out convicted killers to marry. I just don't know.

But they all divorced them. For some reason.

There's more to the story than we know....

MrPoirot said...

Why do these women marry famous murderers? How many women voted for Obama? Why would a woman vote a Muslim into the presidency of their country? Yet more than half of American females did just that. Clearly there is an evil force manipulating the minds of women in this country.

Marliese said...

Hi Poirot, Many of us have wondered for years why women marry murderers. I think with men like Tex, Bruce, Scott Petersen, Jeffrey MacDonald etc women marry them because, especially with the really infamous ones, they want the attention. Look at The woman who worked at the Dannemora prison...threw her life away to have sex in a prison closet with two violent killers, helping them escape, plotting her husband's murder...because she liked how they made her feel...they made her feel 'special.' Dumb woman. Imagine being the mother of a son, and your son seeing this behavior...she's a selfish, needy, stupid mess.

Some of them, like that one note dingbat that married Jeff Peterson, think they can "save" them probably. That woman can't put a sentence together without uttering the words 'a wrongfully convicted man.' Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, guilty as sin. Is she stupid? I don't think so. I think she's been conned, by a psychotic. In the case of the menendez beothers, they mother them, Leslie Abramson, his attorney, openly mothered Eric during the trial. They want to be notable...narcissists love to grab the spotlight...even bad lighting, or they want to protect them, fight for them etc etc. and I'm sure some of them, Barbara Beausoleil comes to mind, actually love them. And some of them just get conned...women, and men, fall victim to psychopaths, incarcerated or not. I don't think it has anything to do with right or left leaning politics. But what do I know...

katie8753 said...

Somebody actually married Richard Ramirez. How gross is that?

Marliese said...

I said Jeff Peterson...Jeff MacDonald. Transposed the two baby killers' names.

Macdonald will never get out, but with his sentence, he's had it pretty easy compared to Peterson, though it'll be decades before Peterson is dead. I wonder if they dream about their dead children, or if their psychosis affects their subconscious mind to the point they don't? Scott will have to be content with all the proposals he gets every month, I don't think Calif death row inmates can get married. He has lots of adoring fans.

Karla Faye Tucker got married while on death row in Texas, didn't she, Katie? Always hoped her appeals would succeed and she'd do life instead. She had some remarkable accomplishments in prison.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

"could the father been scared of repercussion's from Manson and the Family, and just wanted to bury his son's connection to Sandra Good and thus the Family?"


It was a connection that could never be buried, just like that of all the people that had any connection with family members prior to the murders. It wasn't even until 1974 when "Helter skelter" came out that the Pugh family even had any inkling that there was a suspicion that Joel's death was linked to the Manson family.


beauders said...

"Motive: Manson did not want Good to leave the Family to have a boyfriend or get married because she was his largest source of income"


Of course, this presupposes that Sandy was going to leave the family to join up with a guy and a life that she'd left 18 months previously. Vincent Bugliosi's conversation with Sandy & Squeaky in Independence that he records in "Helter Skelter" kind of shows Sandy's mindset was as far removed from leaving Charlie as it was possible to be.


beauders said...

"Also an informant told the police that Family members were bragging they had struck in England"


The same way family members bragged that Shorty was cut into 9 pieces and beheaded ?

katie8753 said...

"I couldn't remember exactly what Leslie said, but it generally meant she didn't want to end up like Zero. Which to me pretty well sums it up that Zero was murdered"


You could read it that way.
There's one reason I don't think it was a suicide. When you play Russian roulette, there's one bullet in the gun, you spin the thing the bullets are in around because the point of the game is the risk you take. That's why they used to bet big money on the outcome. The key is that the shooter checks the one bullet then spins the bullet holder. Risk city.




katie8753 said...

"There are soooo many things that Charlie knew and I can't figure out how he knew, but he did. So him knowing where Pugh was isn't hard to fathom"


He was a pretty amazing guy in many ways but he wasn't that amazing that he could figure out a man was in another country and where when he'd not met the guy !
I think Frank is right when he says that the murder case is built on nothing.
I think LA law enforcement were in over~reaction mode, the same way they were with Randy Starr, Ronald Hughes, Paul Watkins {the camper fire}, the brother of Colonel Scott........


grimtraveller said...


katie8753 said...

"And I'll bet Bruce could get out that window under the cover of darkness if he wanted to"


You are in full view of a street lit 6 lane "highway" that is packed with houses all the way along. If someone had committed a murder at that hotel and wanted to escape, believe me, the window is the last place you'd leave by. Even in 1969. That would be beyond the stupidity that you feel Bruce has that disqualifies him from being Zodiac.


katie8753 said...

"If Tex was truly repentant about killing Sharon he should have begged Doris' forgiveness"


A repentant Christian murderer is {no pun intended} damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they say they're sorry, few believe them and think it's a scam. If they don't, people say "they're not at all sorry."
Doris Tate made it abundantly clear that she was not interested in anything Charles Watson had to say. She made some rather sarcastic remarks about how interesting it was that these murderers find God ~ and she didn't believe it. Tex stated that he's tried to reach out to the families and you can't blame them for not wanting anything to do with him.
As for it being all about him, let's face it, look at the general reaction he gets when he talks about the pain he's put the families through.


katie8753 said...

"And that scam he tried to run with Suzanne LaBerge?"


Well, if she felt as part of her relationship with Christ that she should forgive him, more power to her.


katie8753 said...

"Why is there no record of Bruce re-entering this country in 1969?"


Do you mean in December or even in April ?
The April one is mitigated by the fact that his departure from the UK to the USA was recorded in April and it was a one way flight.


katie8753 said...

"I think that's a really strange coincidence, that Bruce was in the UK in November of 1969, and Pugh ends up dead in December of 1969.
So we have evidence of Bruce being in the UK in November of 1969, we have no evidence of when he returned"


There has never been evidence that Bruce was in the UK in November. As Bugliosi stated in HS, "a belief is not evidence." The reason there's no evidence of him re~entering the USA after December '69 is because he never left it to re~enter it.
In my opinion, Joel Pugh's death in relation to the Manson family is one great red herring, an attempt to show that they were as bloodthirsty and nasty as could be ~ when in reality, the 9 murders we know about already tell us what we need to know.

katie8753 said...

Marliese I think Karla Faye got married in prison, but I'm not that familiar with her case.

katie8753 said...

Jeff MacDonald is guilty as sin. He killed his family and has been lying about it ever since.

And the Mendenez Bros. make me sick. Screaming, crying and rolling around on the grass and tearing their clothes off after calling 911? What actors!

As the DA said, they were both adults. They could have just left if life was that hard. But instead, they gunned down their OWN PARENTS! And if that wasn't enough, they re-loaded to finish the mother off because she didn't die quick enough for them. There wasn't enough left of her to even identify. Why? Because they WANTED THEIR MONEY!!!

Any woman who would marry any of that crap has a hole in her head.

katie8753 said...

Grim said: You could read it that way.
There's one reason I don't think it was a suicide. When you play Russian roulette, there's one bullet in the gun, you spin the thing the bullets are in around because the point of the game is the risk you take. That's why they used to bet big money on the outcome. The key is that the shooter checks the one bullet then spins the bullet holder. Risk city.


But there wasn't "one" bullet in the chamber. It was filled with bullets. That's not Russian Roulette. That's just murder.

katie8753 said...

Do you mean in December or even in April ?
The April one is mitigated by the fact that his departure from the UK to the USA was recorded in April and it was a one way flight.


No I'm talking about the November 1969 entry in the UK, as per Simon Wells.

There has never been evidence that Bruce was in the UK in November.

Well that's what Simon Wells said. Are you saying that's incorrect?

Regarding Suzanne: Well, if she felt as part of her relationship with Christ that she should forgive him, more power to her.

Hmmm, well then, why didn't she forgive Leslie or Pat? Why didn't she go to Leslie's or Pat's hearings and trying to get them out??? Why just Tex? Leslie and Pat were just as involved as Tex. That was a SCAM, believe you me.

I'm sorry Grim, but I don't believe that Tex or Bruce are truly repentant or sorry about killing people because they're "men of the cloth" now. I know that Bruce got a degree in "Divinity", but that means nothing to me.

If Tex or Bruce were TRULY repentant, they would stop trying to get out of prison.

Tex killed not only innocent adults for no reason at all, he also killed an unborn child. I would think that he would just tell the parole board he'll just stay there until he's dead for his punishment, but instead, he has parole hearings and REFUSES TO TALK ABOUT WHAT HE DID, because he doesn't want that to affect his getting out.

2 plus 2 doesn't equal 5.

If these 2 guys were truly "men of God" they would spill their guts about everything that happened, and I'm sure that you know Grim, Tex has certainly not done that. Nor has Bruce Davis!

Tex has tried to stop the "Tex tapes", which we have yet to examine, and if he's so innocent, why stop them? If he's so innocent, and if everyone in this case has said everything there is to say about this case, why stop them? Why not release them with glee to support all of their claims about this case?

Huh??? Why?

katie8753 said...

As far as Doris Tate goes accepting Tex's FAKE apology, this woman went to bed one night and all was right with the world, then the next day she woke up and her world ended. Because someone decided to slash her daughter and unborn grandson to death.

She went into a deep depression for 7 years. That's a long time to be depressed. And she came out of it when she learned that her daughter's killers might be released on parole.

My hat is off to Doris Tate to sit thru Tex Watson's parole hearing....to sit in the same room with him...to breathe the same air as him...to be that close to him...to hear him breathing.. and to listen to his stupid nonsense and not jump across the table and slit his throat.

My hat is off to her!

beauders said...

I think all inmates in California are allowed to get married but ones convicted of violent crimes are not allowed to have conjugal visits. If Ramirez's wife was lucky she didn't get to have sex with him, I mean he raped children and if that is not horrific enough he had green teeth and his breath smelled like it, according to one of his living victims. She also said his body smelled like a sewer. He died from cancer so at least he suffered some.

beauders said...

Doris and Patty Tate are the real hero's in this tale.

MrPoirot said...

Jack Benny Update:

I met a 28 yr old male pre med student at a cigar store football game Saturday. I gave him the Jack Benny test. I asked him if he had ever heard of Jack Benny. He said no. Folks this country is in a lot more trouble than just a few crazy women marrying serial killers. We have become a nation of idiots who don't see anything wrong with putting a Muslim in the white house 7 years after 9/11. Americans have become a profoundly ignorant people. This country has no future.

MrPoirot said...

Update on America's future:

I'm standing in line at a cash register Saturday at a Dollar Store and I see
a People Magazine cover with a man's pic on it dressed as a woman. This man claims his name is Caitlyn. Do you really think this country can continue to exist if this is the type of propaganda being
disseminated to its' people?

TomG said...




Well, be it what it may. I sort of understand hatred and retaliation, but on the other hand, I sort of reject it. Human Beings are what they are.....gratifying seeking individuals. At our best, we are very good. At our worse, we aren't so good.
What says urine?












































































Marliese said...

Tex doesn't want the information on the tapes revealed for the same reason people spend millions to seal all kinds of records...school records, criminal records, identity and background records etc etc. Or...use private technology to avoid official communications becoming historic documentation. Hide, conceal, deceive.

There is damning information, straight out of his own mouth, that he needs concealed...information he believed was protected by attorney/client privilege.

Marliese said...

I wouldn't offer forgiveness to the killer of my child or husband or parent or any family member, personal friend or significant other. I think forgiveness belongs to the murdered, and our maker. My own healing, and peace, would not be dependent on forgiving a killer. And I think expecting survivors to forgive just adds one more burden to their suffering. I believe the emphasis, rather than forgiving the killer, needs to be on the killer offering sorrow for their monstrous acts to the survivors...apologizing and accounting for their acts. Something I don't know that Bruce and Tex have been capable of accomplishing. Karla Faye did though. Forgiveness was extended to the tlb killers when their death sentences were lifted. Divine forgiveness is another matter. And it may be that their acts are unpardonable. I don't know.

No debate, just my opinion.

katie8753 said...

Marliese I was going to say that as well. You offer an apology if you backed into someone's car or borrowed their lawn mower and didn't return it. There is no verbal apology that has any value for ripping someone's loved one to pieces for no reason at all. There are no words that could EVER make that right again.

I think that if these killers were as remorseful and repentant as they claim to be, the best thing they could offer the families of the victims is to just stop coming to parole hearings.

"I know that mere words will not erase the complete destruction of your family due to my stupid actions, but I promise that I will no longer attend parole hearings. I will accept the fact that I took lives and now must give mine. You will no longer have to drive here every year, every two years, etc. and waste your whole day at my parole hearing. You will no longer have to endure my telling the parole board how I massacred your loved one. You never have to see my face again. I accept the fact that I look lives, mine included."

That's the least the killers could do...

katie8753 said...

Boy Tom, you left a big space after your comment. What's up with that?

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, Bruce Jenner thought if he got some fake titties, got his face all carved up, took hormones, wore a wig, wore pink lipstick, wore fake eyelashes and put on a dress that would make him a woman.

It didn't. Most women don't wear all that junk. It takes a whole lot more than THAT to be a woman.

All it made him into was a guy that wears size 13 high heels, lurching around like Herman Munster in drag. And yes, he has "man hands".

America is fascinated with bizarre crap like that. This too shall pass.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"I'm talking about the Nov'69 entry in the UK, as per Simon Wells......

[There has never been evidence that Bruce was in the UK in November]

Well that's what Simon Wells said. Are you saying that's incorrect?"



These are the references to Bruce being in England in that Nov'69 period;

"a month before Manson follower Bruce Davis reportedly made his 2nd trip to the UK"

"or with Bruce Davis, one of Charles Manson’s closest associates, who it was alleged happened to be in the London area at the time Joel died"

"Initially, Fowles went to Interpol to confirm whether Davis was in the UK at the time of Pugh’s demise. The enquiry was soon disseminated to police over at Scotland Yard. British police confirmed that Davis’ movements in the UK had been tracked earlier in 69, but couldn't confirm his whereabouts in Dec 69. However, local police believed that Davis had made a return trip to England later that year"

"Stephen Kay, recalled an atmosphere of deep suspicion once news of Joel’s death made its way back to LA. With Pugh’s past association with Sandra Good; the likelihood of Bruce Davis being in UK at the time.."

Not once is there a definitive or even affirmative statement that Bruce Davis was in the UK after Apr'69 when there is definitive proof he was over here. He may have snuck in on a fake passport. But that's not, as far as I'm aware, being or been alleged. Those phrases, "reportedly", "it was alleged", "but couldn't confirm", "local police believed" and "the likelihood of" are very patchy phrases that would get thrown out if you went to a Judge seeking a warrant for his arrest. The Judge would say "give me proof, some evidence." As yet, there has been none. As Vincent Bugliosi put it so well, "a belief is not evidence."
I don't hide my stance ¬> I think the right people ended up behind bars eventually {because there were some spurious charges, such as Susan being done for LaBianca but not Clem when their roles were identical} so I'm not carrying a torch for the innocence of various convicted killers though I think some were dealt a harsher deal than others. However, even if someone has acted like a scumbag, if there's no proof they were somewhere that others believe they were, I'm not going to stake my life on their guilt. Would you ? On a related note, I feel for LVH but I wouldn't be staking my life on Mrs LaBianca having been dead before Leslie waded in. Which is why Leslie has always been guilty and not the lesser killer she's often been portrayed.

MrPoirot said...

In the early 70s there was great fear and hatred of the Manson Family. So much so that the way Americans felt about their personal safety was forever changed. It would have been easy for anyone alive at that time to suspect the Manson's of committing other murders. I was alive then and I personally believed the Family murdered 35 people as Bug claimed up until 10 years ago. The number of murders is more likely around 12.
However I do not think it was unfair or unreasonable to heap such infamy, fear and hatred upon the Manson Family because they deliberately and methodically worked to create that panic. They succeeded in producing the effect on the Americsn people that they wanted. Today Bruce and Leslie try equally hard to erase that fear.

Watch how the millions of muslims pouring into Europe will be doing the same thing Bruce and Leslie are having to do now. They are having to counter all those fears they themselves created. All those Muslims will have to face the very fear and panic from Europeans that the Muslims themselves deliberately sought to create. Today those same Muslims are having to ask for our help. At least so far the European women haven't been stupid enough to elect a Muslim to any of the EU countries but it won't take very long to brainwash Euro women so severely that they elect a Muslim president under the guise of simple left right politics.
Thus Europe will fall just like America will fall.
Just look back in history. Americans didn't elect a Nazi president 7 years after WW2 but 7 years after 9/11 our modern PC America did exactly that. American females elected a Muslim president in the US. Women simply can not see through the con of PC. It totally devours their minds.
We could send Katie Couric, Jon Stewart and Rosie Odonnel to Europe and completely brainwash European women in two weeks. It would take no longer than that to turn every woman in Europe into blithering idiots. In a month they'd all be wearing the latest Burqa fashions.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"But there wasn't "one" bullet in the chamber. It was filled with bullets. That's not Russian Roulette. That's just murder"


Yeah, that was my point. If it had been the game, Zero would have seen the gun was fully loaded. If he saw it was fully loaded and pulled the trigger, it would be suicide. I don't believe it was suicide.

katie8753 said...

"Regarding Suzanne: Hmmm, well then, why didn't she forgive Leslie or Pat? Why didn't she go to Leslie's or Pat's hearings and trying to get them out??? Why just Tex? Leslie and Pat were just as involved as Tex"


We don't know that she hadn't forgiven Leslie and/or Pat. To forgive essentially means "to no longer hold it against." I've forgiven people of things that they were never aware of. Matters such as forgiveness probably had never crossed their minds. But it more than crossed mine regularly and before God I had to do it. It was never easy and sometimes it took years.
I don't know why Susan sought Tex out but I think her becoming a Christian had a lot to do with it.

katie8753 said...

"I don't believe that Tex or Bruce are truly repentant or sorry about killing people because they're "men of the cloth" now. I know that Bruce got a degree in "Divinity", but that means nothing to me"


Me neither. "Qualifications" mean nothing when you're talking about a journey with God. It's a matter of knowing God and the accumulative experience, not studying and getting certificates.
That said, I respect any inmate that spends years studying to try to better themselves because it's not easy, despite having all the time necessary.

katie8753 said...

"If Tex or Bruce were TRULY repentant, they would stop trying to get out of prison"


A lot of people say that. But I heartily disagree.
The essential component of repentance is a turning around. If one is recognizing God's way as being the way to go and giving God the control in one's life, then true repentance needs to be worked out as one lives in real life. If an inmate is truly repentant, in time, they'll realize the gravity of what they've done and it won't leave them. Because the more God takes the scales off one's eyes, the clearer one sees and when we look at ourselves through a mind that's been got at by God, it often ain't a pretty picture. But that inmate may well want to make good back in the society they so maligned. Hope that one day they may be free on the outside becomes part of the air they breathe.
That said, parole will always be a risk because every believer, whether criminal or not, is prone to temptation and has to consciously fight against the impulse to slip back into the kind of behaviour they've gotten away from, even more so if you're coming from a criminal situation.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, I didn't vote for Obama. In fact I cried bitter tears when he was elected. I knew it was the end of everything I'd ever known. Which it has been. Everything that has been precious to me has been RIPPED from my hands by that big-earred galoot with his fat wife that tries to preach to everyone what to eat, even though she has a big waist and looks like she raids the fridge every night for ice cream and cookies after eating the "right stuff" during the day.

That guy is a LOSER with a capital "L". He was elected by dead people and illegal aliens. That's why he tried to give them amnesty. Because he promised them that. Just like LBJ.

I HATE DEMOCRATS!!! They all suck!

katie8753 said...

And Grim, as for you, I appreciate that you are suddenly the "Mary Poppins" of TLB land, and believe every stinking lie that has ever been presented, but I think you need a wake up call.

Charles Manson is a psychopath. His followers are psychopaths.

What that means is, THEY DON'T CARE IF PEOPLE ARE DEAD. I'LL REPEAT, THEY DON'T CARE!

They can whine at the offering plate all they want, makes no difference to me. They are all psychopaths and need to stay in prison.

Listen to me: They aren't SORRY for what they did. They're not! No evidence of that. They can do "good deeds" while in prison but that doesn't mean a thing.

As I said earlier, if they REALLY wanted to take a stand and say I'm sorry, they'd stop trying to get out of prison.

End of that story!

katie8753 said...

If one of these killers was just down on his/her luck and went to a liquor store or a convenience store and just said "give me your money", and someone got killed, I would understand that. I understand desperation.

But that's not what happened. They were told to kill people by Charles Manson, and that's what they did. Bobby went to Gary's house to get money, as per Manson. This was a "friend" of Bobby's, who had helped him many times. He kept him prisoner, tortured and killed him. Then they tried to smother him, and when that didn't work, Bobby went into the window and finished him off.

The others climbed the fence and killed not only a high school student who was bound for college, but 4 human beings that were just sitting in the house. They tied ropes around their necks, made it taut, terrorized them, and then just massacred them.

The next night they killed 2 more innocent people, carving words in the man's stomach, leaving a knife in his neck, and stabbing a woman who was screaming and crawling on the floor.

There is no excuse for that. I found God, I'm sorry, I made a mistake, I was following orders, etc. etc.

NO EXCUSE. Those killers should just stay where they are.

And BTW, you say there is no proof that Davis was in the UK, but I say there isn't any proof that he WASN'T in the UK!

katie8753 said...

These murders were very significant. They're not trivial. They were horrific and accordingly to LVH, they were meant to scare the world.

And they did.

But now, they're back-tracking and trying to make it trivial. You can't have it both ways. Either you want to shock and scare the whole world with these murders, or you were just acting out on Charlie's orders and drugs, which is what they now want you to believe, because they think they can get out.

Back when they got the death penalty, Leslie, Pat, Susan & Charlie all laughed and threatened the jury.

Now it's a different story. What's different? What do you believe?

FrankM said...

Katie writes: " ... you say there is no proof that Davis was in the UK, but I say there isn't any proof that he WASN'T in the UK!".

Sorry, Katie, but it doesn't work like that. Absence of evidence is not and never can be evidence of absence.

For the record, there is a concept called the 'Burden of Proof'. It can be expounded legalistically or philosophically. I will interpret it philosophically.

If two parties are in an argument about something and one party makes an assertion that the other party disputes, the one who affirms has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim. If I make the assertion that Davies was not in the UK at a given time the burden is on me to provide substantiating evidence (this is not actually doable as I can't prove that something didn't happen). If you make the assertion that he was the burden is then on you, and your task is in fact easier than mine, in principle at least.

There's no way out of this. If a proposition (affirmation) is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or if a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true then we have what is known as an argumentum ad ignorantiam (an 'argument from ignorance'), no offence intended. This does appear to transfer the burden of proof to the person who criticizes the proposition, but is not valid reasoning as it does not allow a third option, that not enough investigation has been carried out and for this reason there is not enough information to satisfactorily prove the proposition true or false. There is actually a fourth option here: that the 'truth' may even be unknowable, and given the time elapsed this choice can perhaps not de discarded.

Personally I think Grim Traveller speaks a lot of good sense in what he has posted, but this is of course my take. For some his words may smack too much of Matthew 7:6.

MrPoirot said...

Who is on first base.

katie8753 said...

Well Frank, it seems we're at a "pass". Which means no one can prove anything. Which also means we're both 50% right. Which also means neither is more wrong or right than the other. But the fact that no one seems to know when this clown re-entered the states tends to prove my fact that he could have gone to the UK unrealized because someone is obviously asleep at the wheel!!!

And if Grim is "throwing his pearls before swine" about believing these killers, I object to being called swine because I don't believe pathological liars. I tend to not believe blood-thirsty killers who have been lying most of their lives and suddenly decide they're "saved", are magically telling the truth for the first time in their pathetic lives, and are ready to get out of prison.

But hey!! What can I say? That's just me!

katie8753 said...

I don't base my feelings for these killers on their current words. No siree!

I base my feelings on what they said and did initially. Because that's what they were and still are. They're animals. They laughed and danced and sang during a murder trial. A horrific murder trial. They thought it was soooo funny so hear all the details about murder. They're less than animals. And I see no reason why that changed.

Charlie was bullish, pigheaded and unrelenting during his trials. The other men told lavish lie after lie during their trials!

All of the men have been sanctimonious and arrogant in their parole hearings. ALL OF THEM! Not one of them has ever been pious or sorrowful.

That's what they were, and still are!

Marliese said...

Hi Katie! I agree with your "apology."

An apology is separate from forgiveness. For many years, family members said they'd never heard an apology from the killers, no letter, nothing. (I don't know if that's still the case.) An apology expressing sincere sorrow for their acts. But an apology isn't forgiveness. As you were saying, you can apologize for an accident, or hurtful behavior etc etc, and that apology might include a 'will you forgive me' ...along with some defense (but it wouldn't surprise me if Tex were to apologize to Doris Tate if his apology was filled with a defensiveness...sort of like Bruce Davis...when asked during a parole hearing several years ago why he sliced Shorty's shoulder during the murder, he replied that he 'had to'...he was forced to, not that he was apologizing, but he could have used that opportunity to show sorrow) but I can't see these people ever apologizing to family and survivors and in the next breath asking for forgiveness and I don't think asking survivors of the murdered for forgiveness is appropriate. If I was Doris Tate, I'd like to think I could acknowledge an apology from these killers, but it wouldnt be to me that they should confess and seek forgiveness...as in pardoning, for their sins.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"And if Grim is "throwing his pearls before swine" about believing these killers, I object to being called swine"


That's not my style. I've been taking part in internet discussions/debates for what feels like a long time. You're free to check on the various sites I've traversed. I don't insult people. I respect people and I try to understand and get something from their views, even where I passionately disagree with them. I try to harmonize differing views and do you know why ? Because I believe in paradoxes. I believe that two apparently opposing views can both actually be true and personally, I've found life to be far more paradoxical than black & white {no pun intended}, either/or.

katie8753 said...

"And Grim, as for you, I appreciate that you are suddenly the "Mary Poppins" of TLB land, and believe every stinking lie that has ever been presented, but I think you need a wake up call"


In certain areas, I do need a wake up call. Since I started getting acquainted with some of the TLB blogs and grappling with what various characters have to say and making points and having many of those points answered or disagreed with, it's pushed me to expand my horizons. And I'm glad I have. In the last few months I've read and absorbed William Zamora's "Trial by your peers", George Stimson's "Goodbye Helter skelter" and Robert Hendrickson's "Death to pigs," all excellent books in their own way. There's been much to learn and much to disagree with.
I thought the "Mary Poppins" was a bit harsh. "Mary Popkins" I can live with !
If by "every stinking lie that's ever been presented" you mean the words of the killers, I can only conclude that you've not really read most of the posts I've made here. I make no bones about the fact that I most certainly do believe certain things that have come from Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, Van Houten, Grogan, Davis, Watson, Beausoleil, Kasabian....and for that matter Bugliosi and others. And there are also things I most certainly do not believe from all of them.

MrPoirot said...

A Paradoxical belief system? Sounds like moral relativism where there is no right or wrong. This is very Manson-like. There is no good and there is no evil. It's all good.
You can pretty much absolve any type of behavior with moral relativism. You can murder millions of babies simply by declaring the babies to be a fetus. You can allow slavery which was against the bill of rights, "All men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights". All you have to do is say the black man is not a man.
In Eastern Europe in the 1940s it was politically correct to kill Jews by the million.

A paradoxical belief system is devoid of any God and it denies the existence of evil.

katie8753 said...

Sorry Grim I didn't mean to be so hard on your accepting way of thinking. You seem to be a person who looks for the good in everyone. And there's nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't recommend it for these folks.

If you saw one of them in quicksand and reached your hand down to help them out, they'd drag you in, step on your back to get out and never look back to help you. That's how I feel about them.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"These murders were very significant. They're not trivial. They were horrific You can't have it both ways. Either you want to shock and scare the whole world with these murders, or you were just acting out on Charlie's orders and drugs"


Why actually can't it be all three.....and more ? TLB, at least in my head, is pretty unique because it wasn't a straight down the line 'routine' murder. The end result may be the same but a number of things went into the whys and wherefores. Shocking the world, your mind bent out of shape by psychedelic drugs and the heavy personality of Charles Manson were all major factors in this crime ~ among a number of other things. Stating that has nothing to do with saying they should be paroled or that they should have been leniently dealt with.
I may not like certain facts but I'm no longer afraid of said facts.

katie8753 said...

"I don't base my feelings for these killers on their current words. No siree!
I base my feelings on what they said and did initially. Because that's what they were and still are. They're animals"


From 1968 when I was 5 right through till I was 22, I was a thief and a pretty heartless one at that. Didn't give a damn who was affected by my escapades. I ceased to be that person 30 years ago and while I never committed bank robberies or murdered anyone, I'd be pretty pissed if someone was to gauge now me by what I was about then. If I was still that way inclined, I could understand that.
If Van Houten, Watson, Krenwinkel and Davis and even Beausoleil were unrepentant Charlies, then fair enough. But part of getting parole involves some heavyweight introspection on their parts. And when you get refusal after refusal, especially if they're like three, five and seven year refusals, there comes a point when you have to seriously consider whether or not someone is just conning the system or whether some degree of change has taken and continues to take place. Because as I've said a few times, playing the system hasn't done any of them any good. And going with Einstein's definition of an insane person being someone who engages in the same action but expects a different result each time, you'd have to conclude they were all insane, at least colloquially.
I cannot in all good conscience keep a person stuck in 1969 when they were 21, 23 or whatever and not recognize that people change. Of course, some people don't change and some get worse. But that does not apply to everyone.

FrankM said...

If by "every stinking lie that's ever been presented" you mean the words of the killers, I can only conclude that you've not really read most of the posts I've made here

Posters on Manson blogs spend a lot of time discussing ‘the words of the killers’, ascribing motivations, forming interpretations, reaching judgments, etc. The truth is that we do not know what the exact ‘words of the killers’ are/were, other than those that appear in transcripts, and even these are frequently contradictory or demonstrably inaccurate.

Much time is spent –wasted even– in trying to interpret the significance of what the killers said when our record of this comes from colorful hearsay or imaginative chroniclers. We should perhaps accept that we can not ‘know’ with any certainty exactly what many of these people said to each other on random occasions forty years ago and use our time more profitably.

katie8753 said...

Marliese it's amazing that Bruce has just recently admitted to more involvement in Shorty's murder. Up until then, he swore up and down that all he did was poke Shorty with a knife tip AFTER he was dead. And then he said he only did that out of FEAR of Charlie & Tex.

I agree with the Gov, he hasn't been truthful about his involvement. And I'm sure that God didn't tell him to lie about his involvement so he could get out. That was something Mr. Bruce dreamed up on his own.

MrPoirot said...

BS Frank. There are long recorded interviews of most of the killers at the time of the murders. You are trying to claim all we have is unreliable 2nd hand reports.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"A Paradoxical belief system? Sounds like moral relativism where there is no right or wrong. This is very Manson-like. There is no good and there is no evil. It's all good.
You can pretty much absolve any type of behavior with moral relativism.
A paradoxical belief system is devoid of any God and it denies the existence of evil"


My belief system, if you want to call following Christ that, is not paradoxical. But that doesn't mean I can't see and understand paradoxes. For instance, it seems to be a contradiction that Manson's 3 co~defendants could be under his domination, acting as extensions of him, yet independently responsible enough to be guilty of murder. To me, it's a paradox. I don't believe those murders would have happened without Charles Manson, his mind, his direction, his unleashing. But by the same token Tex and the women were independently responsible for their actions even though they had no real reason to engage in them independent of Charlie.
Naw mate, I'm not interested in moral relativism. I have a clear demarcation in my head of what's right and what's wrong and I do not confuse the two.
You will not find me absolving murder.
That doesn't mean I can't, or at least won't try, to understand how a person may come to that point though.

katie8753 said...

"You seem to be a person who looks for the good in everyone"


I'm not, you know. I believe in a God that says we're all warped and in need of divine straightening out. Part of that warping is that we are degrees of what is good and what isn't. The degree differs in different people in different circumstances at different times.
I've said a few times, I have real problems with Charles Watson. I think that he has been impacted by God but when I say that, I'm not saying he's wonderful and perfect. As a Christian myself, I know how easy it can be to stray or fall completely from what one believes. And someone like him, if he's going to make mistakes or even wilfully do wrong, is pretty much always going to have the glare of someone's watchful eye on him, amplifying things in ways that most believers don't have to deal with {yet}. And I'm no great moral judge so I have to be careful how I think of and write about him. But he gives me problems {not least where Shorty is concerned} the same way Susan sometimes did. I've not come across one person anywhere that has a good thing to say about him.
But he's still a human being.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"If you saw one of them in quicksand and reached your hand down to help them out, they'd drag you in, step on your back to get out and never look back to help you"


In desperate times, I might do that ! {I would look back though, in guilt}.

grimtraveller said...

FrankM said...

"We should perhaps accept that we can not ‘know’ with any certainty exactly what many of these people said to each other on random occasions forty years ago"


Well, that's true insofar as [a we weren't there and [b few people remember every exact word of a conversation last week, much less during a stressful time half a century ago.
Most conversations that are recorded in writing from memory are the gist of what was said as opposed to exhaustive detail. That said, if you hear something often enough, you may well remember it. My kids do that to me from time to time, they'll finish off what they think I'm going to say. That they may be wrong isn't the point ¬> that they recall something I've said before, almost verbatim is.
But back in '69, the police and law enforcement agencies often taped their interviews so other than the odd typo in a transcript, you do have some accurate and therefore valuable words from various members of the cast.
How valuable is anyone's guess and everyone's opinion.

FrankM said...

There are long recorded interviews of most of the killers at the time of the murders. You are trying to claim all we have is unreliable 2nd hand reports.

Not really. We also have plenty of unreliable first hand reports. Contradictory and often demonstrably false. But I was really talking about the words the killers are alleged to have said while committing their mayhem - all the stuff Ed sanders comes up with as if it was fact.

MrPoirot said...

Grim I have noticed over the decades that juries don't buy into believing defendants stories claiming their innocence because they were brainwashed into committing murder. Even when it is obvious the defendant is clearly brainwashed. Apparently juries feel you are responsible for letting yourself be brainwashed in the first place.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"Apparently juries feel you are responsible for letting yourself be brainwashed in the first place"


That in itself is.....paradoxical !

MrPoirot said...

Sort of a catch22.
My fav paradox is a logical inconsistency. If God is all powerful can he make a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?
Academics loved that one back in the 80s.

Here is one by Voltaire: if there were no God it would be necessary to invent one.
This is the kind of atheist stuff freshmen are pounded with when they get to collage

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"My fav paradox is a logical inconsistency. If God is all powerful can he make a rock so heavy that he himself can't lift it?"


The answer to that is....yes !
That's power.

MrPoirot said...

"I have noticed over the decades that juries don't buy into believing defendants stories claiming their innocence because they were brainwashed into committing murder. Even when it is obvious the defendant is clearly brainwashed. Apparently juries feel you are responsible for letting yourself be brainwashed in the first place"


That sort of black & white either/or approach, to me at least, shows a startling ignorance of the range of human dynamics and interaction. Even with little kids, you can see how some can dominate others into doing things they would not ordinarily, or on their own, do.

katie8753 said...

"it's amazing that Bruce has just recently admitted to more involvement in Shorty's murder. Up until then, he swore up and down that all he did was poke Shorty with a knife tip AFTER he was dead"


This does raise an interesting conundrum though. The official version is not always the right one and if the inmate wants parole they're stuck in a catch 22 where they risk being denied if they tell the truth. So do they go with the official version and cop to that, even though, having not gone with it for so long, it now looks like they've been lying for all that time ?
In TLB there's a real live example of this; Pat, when trying to absolve Charlie during the penalty phase says that she looked at Leno LaBianca, thought 'well, here's one father that won't be sending his son off to war' and carved WAR on his torso. Susan Atkins, when interviewed by Richard Caballero in Dec '69, said she got the impression it was Tex that did it. And sure enough, Tex has, since '78, come clean about this, saying it was him. But every time Pat comes up for a parole hearing, this is brought up because in the official record, she is the one that did it. Tex's admission of it has been known for eons. But the record says Pat did it. And when she tries to correct it, she comes over as not accepting responsibility for her actions by minimizing what she did.

katie8753 said...

Grim, I think Pat said that to someone at the ranch shortly after the murders.

You raise an interesting point though. If these people hadn't been so gung ho to make things up to claim responsibility for vicious murders because of getting attention, pleasing Charlie or whatever the reason was, they wouldn't be dealing with it now. You can't go in saying you did this and that, and then later say you were making it up, you really didn't do anything THAT bad. It doesn't work that way. And I have to say, if it's going against them in parole hearings, that's their own fault.

starship said...

Read this carefully and you'll discover the real reason Davis will never be granted parole...

http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20150908/gov-brown-must-halt-manson-followers-parole-thomas-elias

katie8753 said...

Starship I saw that a couple of days ago. It has mistakes on it. But I guess you're being facetious??

grimtraveller said...

Thomas Elias said...

"Shea’s carved-up body was later found in small pieces spread around the former Spahn Movie Ranch"


"Hinman’s dead body was later found in Davis’ home, with the word’s “political piggy” scrawled in blood on a wall"

"the Manson killers cut power and telephone lines in an era long before cellphones. Their impending victims could not call for help or even see much as their executioners approached in the dark"

Why would Bruce Davis leave Gary Hinman's body in his own home with stuff written on his own walls ?
A little basic research would show that Shorty was found intact in one piece.
Even if Tex hadn't cut the phone lines, at what point would anyone in the house have had a chance to call anyone ?
This is the kind of wilfully sensationalist, innaccurate bilge that so muddies the waters and gives the "Charlie was framed" supporters ample ammunition with which to claim that he was framed and is an innocent man in jail.

katie8753 said...

Right Grim. Davis didn't even HAVE a house. LOL.

And Tex only cut the phone lines, not the power lines. The garage light was still on, the gate still worked and according to Garretson, he was listening to music all night.

And I don't know why Tex even cut the phone lines. Nobody mentioned anybody reaching for the phone. There wasn't any time for that.

Yes this is an example of someone who hasn't studied this case at all and that disseminates false information. I don't know if it gives more fodder to Charlie supporters, perhaps so, but it does muddy the waters in studying this case.

katie8753 said...

It's curious why they didn't cut the phone lines at Waverly Drive. Nobody even mentioned it.

I think the LaBianca phones were bugged. Maybe Charlie knew that and didn't want them cut because that would alert authorities? Hmmmm....

katie8753 said...

Back then, there was only one phone company, Southwestern Bell. It might have been called Mountain Bell in CA I don't know. But you couldn't have access to a phone line without a phone jack. Normally, they would install one phone jack in a house, usually in a common area like a kitchen or living room, and if you wanted additional phone jacks for other rooms, you had to pay extra. I wonder how many phone jacks were in Cielo Drive.

We know there was one in the guest house because Parent called his friend from there. And we also know that Parent made that call before Tex cut the phone lines, otherwise, the line would have been dead. Parent made that call approx a little after 12 midnight, because his clock radio showed 12:15, the time he unplugged the clock after he finished his beer and went to his car.

And we know that Tex DID cut the phone lines, because Mrs. Chapman picked up the phone Saturday morning upon her arrival at Cielo Drive and it was dead.

starship said...

I emailed the dude from the LA Daily News and pointed out his mistakes. He emailed me back basically saying that was his memory and it didn't change his basic premise so it was no big deal.

But it sensationalized already sensational crimes, just like Statman did and so your average reader will just go along with it. And it's precisely because all these years later only a few of us actually know ALL the details of the case that it's so easy to keep denying parole to prisoners who have done everything in their power to earn it.

katie8753 said...

Starship, that's sad. The guy said it wasn't important about facts? That's the kind of slovenly journalism that's gone on for years now.

And yes, Statman made up stories to sell her book. I love the part where she made up a conversation between Sharon and Tex during the killings regarding Jay. That's a sad state of affairs when someone reaches down that low...

grimtraveller said...

A few days ago, I went around the back of the Talgarth hotel because the article I linked to Katie said that Joel Pugh's room was at the back of the hotel, overlooking the train line. Although it has been there for years, obviously some changes have taken place since 1969, like an entire extension at the back and a metal fence on what might have been the original wall. A little alley {which is now gated but probably wasn't there in 1969} runs alongside the train line wall and leads to the main street {North end Road}.
Looking at the way foliage has overgrown, it's impossible to tell if it was like that all those years ago. If a murder did take place there, escape is as easy as it's not. Everything at the back of the hotel is plainly and clearly visible from the road that runs parallel to the back of the hotel, alley and train line {Barons Court Road} though whether it would be at dark is anyone's guess.
Vincent Bugliosi was somewhat surprised that none of the windows were checked but this was in relation to a proposed escape out. Any assailant couldn't have gone through the front due to the reception and glaring view of the front of the hotel. But in order to get into what would have been Pugh's room, one would either have to rely on the window being open {unlikely in December}, break the window or be let in through the window. To be let in presupposes Pugh would have known Bruce or known he was coming and it just wouldn't make sense to let a visitor to your hotel room in through the window. Bruce would also have to have known which room Joel was in and where the room was located ~ from the back.
Not impossible, just unlikely.

grimtraveller said...

TomG said...

"Come on Ms. Katie. None of them are dangerous any longer. In my opinion, they never were. They got caught up in a mix up"


When trying to save her from the death penalty, Paul Fitzgerald said that the crimes took at best 3 hours and was Pat to be judged solely on those 3 hours.
Um, yeah.
They were all pretty dangerous during those three hours. And those three hours didn't appear from nowhere and then disappear to nowhere. It took some very deliberate, thought out planning and action to move the three women on in their thoughts and it says a lot for the teachers they had in jail that they eventually began to see just how they'd not only been short changed in the family, but how they'd, to some extent, allowed their thinking to be overtaken. Pat killed because she wanted Charlie to love her. That's what you call being dangerously in love. Susan, though I believe she didn't actually kill by her own hand, was in one way or another involved in every murder that took place that summer involving the family. Her desperation to be at the centre of every storm made her dangerous, arguably the most dangerous of the three. And Leslie who many feel was the mildest of the three is actually the only member of the killers that actually professed not only a desire to kill, but actively wanted in on the action. If that didn't make her dangerous, then you have an interesting view of what's dangerous !
I don't think any of them have been dangerous for close to 35 year though.

grimtraveller said...

Over at CieloDrive.com is the transcript of Bruce's August 27th parole hearing {http://www.cielodrive.com/bruce-davis-parole-hearing-2015.php.}. It's a real eye opener and touches on a few of the things that we've discussed in this thread.

Sime's World said...

Hi there,

All the current research I have regarding the Joel Pugh/Manson etc connection is contained in the below blog. I am more than happy to receive any new pieces of information to keep everything up to date.

http://joelpughcharlesmanson.blogspot.co.uk/

Regards

Simon Wells

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

Hillary is stupid , dishonest, a con artist and incompetent but she will be the next prez because there aren't enough Americans left in the United States to save it. We have been conquered by a demographic coupe. The enemy didn't storm our shores or drop bombs on us: they simply moved here. The enemy lives here now

Ha ha ha ha ha ha !