Monday, October 19, 2015

Lynyrd responds to Grim Traveller, talks "motive", and cuts through the bullshit.


Grim said:

“Obviously we're talking TLB as opposed to Hinman/Shea/{Crowe} but it seems that a consensus seems to lean towards HS being the thing that ties Charlie to TLB and if HS is discredited, the link is severed and thusly, the guilt. 

The Emmons book has been discredited by Manson as bullshit which has left him free to state that he didn't know about the copycat {even though Bugliosi says in HS that he admits he knew the murders were going to happen}. 

I find few people genuinely push the anger towards society or lack of a record contract angle, I've not heard anyone other than Bugliosi push the bloodlust angle and the drug hits or Frykowski raping Linda K scene tend to emphasize Tex rather than Charlie as does the Suzan LaBerge wanting her Mum dead scenario. The Mafia hit for the black book seems more a supposition than a bona fide theory that many are prepared to hang their hats on.

If you take George Stimson's line to it's logical conclusion, Charles Manson had nothing to do with anything regarding TLB. I can understand why so many seem to take that line.”

Lynyrd Responds:

There may be plenty of people who believe that successfully refuting Helter Skelter (i.e., "proving" another motive) equates to clearing Charlie of all culpability and guilt.

I don't believe it's quite that easy.

By the time the Cielo/Waverly murders rolled around, the kids were puppets and Manson was pulling the strings.

Regardless of the reason these numbskulls were at Cielo and Waverly, Manson was "directing traffic".

Even without the "HS" story, there are plenty of signposts which strongly suggest that Manson was in-charge of this murderous group.

When Manson shaved his head, the kids followed suit.
When Manson carved an "X", the kids followed suit.
The girls literally crawled across town, on their hands and knees.
The kids were willing to die in the gas chamber for Manson.
Lawyers and psychologists alike, have described the kids feverish devotion to Manson as extreme.
Lynn and Sandy devoted decades of their lives to Manson.

Manson told the girls to get a change of clothes.
Manson told them to do whatever Tex instructed.
Manson told them to leave something witchy.
Manson tied-up Leno Labianca.
Several people from the "Family" described Manson as the ringleader.
One of them stated (I believe it was Paul Watkins), that "nothing happened without Charlie's approval".

The list goes on and on...

It's obvious, that "Helter Skelter" was a great tool for Bugliosi.
There's no denying that fact.
Bugliosi's job of implicating Manson, would have been MUCH more difficult without "Helter Skelter" at his disposal.
In the end, without "HS", Bugliosi may have failed at proving Manson's guilt. (and yes, he was guilty)
I agree with all that.

But...
To believe that Manson is "by default" innocent (without HS as the "proven motive") is a stretch.

And might I add:
No one has EVER "proven" an alternate motive (to everyone's satisfaction) anyway.
And believe me,  no one ever will.

The "consensus" means little to me.
And polls regarding “motive“ are worthless (beyond entertainment) , because “the majority” is often dead wrong.
And truth be told, I don't put a whole lot of stock into most of the "experts" and "authors" on this topic either.

A LONG time ago, TomG said:
"Think long, think wrong."

He was spot-on with that statement.

People have over-analyzed this shit to death.
The books just keep getting thicker... and they simply contain more loopholes to overcome.

Let me break it down in simple terms:

By the time the TLB murders took place, Charlie was a bitter motherfucker.
He was angry with society and life itself.

He manipulated these kids with several methods (one of them being HS), and when he had them thoroughly wrapped around his finger, he set them loose to do his bidding.

Not being a lawyer, Charlie believed he could never be charged with murder (without physically killing someone). He figured he could exact his revenge on society, and then, walk-away scot-free.

That's the whole fucking story in a nutshell.

There's nothing else to know. 

And yes, for those who don't think so, Manson was bitter.

Manson tells everyone out of the right side of his mouth, that he's happy and content.
But out of the left side of his mouth, he never lets anyone forget that he "never had a so-called life", as he always says.
He "never had a so-called childhood".
He tells society: "watch tv and drink your beer”. (as his song lyrics go)

Folks like to research (and entertain) elaborate motive theories for four reasons:

#1) It sells books and movies.

#2) It makes the researcher(s) feel important. 
      (I know, I was there myself for years)

#3) It makes the case, the study, and the discussion (of TLB) more interesting. If you take things at face value, there's really not much to talk about. 
      (And, we're back to #2).

#4) And finally, the folks who support Charles Manson invest their lives searching for a theory to exonerate him. (And, that's never going to happen). This is pretty much Katie's original point, and the discussion has come full circle.
Note:
This entire post is not directed at Grim Traveller personally or specifically. Grim’s comment was the catalyst that got me thinking (and writing) on this subject, and that’s why I chose to include his commentary as my jump-off point.

214 comments:

1 – 200 of 214   Newer›   Newest»
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

After many years of study, I've come full circle.

I began this chapter of my life, believing that Manson was simply a "quack" with a chip on his shoulder.

From there, I studied EVERY motive theory at great length.

And now, after years of study, I'm back to square one.

If you look at the mass-murder scenes of current times, we really have no logical explanation(s) for those events.

In essence, all we have, is perpetrators with mental problems, who perceive "society" as the enemy.
(i.e., mentally sick people, who feel they were "done wrong" by society).

In many of these modern cases, the perpetrators killed "casual acquaintances", or even total strangers.

Does any of this sound familiar???

Sure, in TLB, we have many more "players" and "circumstances".

But at it's root, maybe we're just dealing with another mentally ill person, who perceived society as his enemy.

That scenario is actually much more likely, than some of the overly-elaborate motive theories we have floating around today. (And, I've studied them all)

Leary has suggested many times, that we're all "over-thinking" this.
And at this point, I think Leary (and TomG) are correct.

As Leary has said before (I'm paraphrasing):
"Maybe Manson just got up with a hair across his ass on those days".

katie8753 said...

Good point Lynyrd!

grimtraveller said...

By and large Lynyrd, I agree with what you've written.
I personally don't believe any of the alternate theories. I had some sympatico with the idea of the copycat being an addition to HS but having done much thinking about it, I don't think it was.
The more I've listened to what people have said in their exploration of the alternative theories and really examined them, the more it strikes me that the prosecution got it right. I think I said somewhere recently that they got it right in basis and where they may have slipped up is in the minutiae ~ minutiae that actually doesn't really matter in the long run, minutiae that doesn't really matter when one takes into account California's conspiracy laws back then.
While it's true that there have been criminals that have gotten away with murder over the course of human history {sometimes literally !}, it's equally true that criminals talk and that discretion isn't always the better part of their valour. I also think the no snitching aspect has been so greatly overstated that many people take it as an absolute, whereas in actuality, many criminals sing in ways that could make a choir envious. Some of the main alternative theories aren't even new; they were around long before the Manson crew were even caught and the police got nowhere with them. I've never believed there's people hiding somewhere for 40+ years with all this information that's going to make this big difference. This isn't the case of the Birmingham 6 !
The only part where I'd disagree with you is in the part where you say that if you take the case at face value, there's not much to talk about. I find there's loads to talk about. Even in something ridiculous like VB's book trying to prove Susan Atkins was an actual as opposed to a legal murderer and yet actually proving the opposite. That said, I do think it's a goldmine that will one day no longer have any nuggets left in it.

katie8753 said...

I agree Lynyrd & Grim. The alternate theories are so full of holes.

If Jay did a drug burn on Tex, then why not just kill Jay at his house? Why kill everyone? If Tex was that familiar with Jay, surely he knew he had a house.

The theory that Linda was raped by Frykowski, I don't know where that came from. Linda didn't even know him that I know of. I'm not sure what that was based on, except that Tex & Linda said something about a "connection" when they had sex, which is ridiculous, and purely based on drugs. The only other thing they had to do with each other after that inital meeting was murder.

But again, if Tex had a problem with Frykowski, why not just kill him? Why kill everyone? Surely he could have caught him out and about.

And the copy cat killings? It's my understanding that if you do a "copy cat killing" you're going to make sure it's exactly the same. Which of course none of them were. I've gone into detail about that and I won't waste everyone's time doing it again. Anyone with any knowledge of this case knows they were NOT identical.

I think Charlie wanted to get to the desert after he thought he killed Crowe, and he wanted money. He didn't get it from Hinman, because he didn't have any. Then he got back to the ranch on August 8th and found out that Bobby, Mary & Sandy had been arrested. I don't think he cared about them as much as he cared about his plans to get away, and that was a kink he had to fix.

I think it was just his anger that caused TLB. Anger against record producers who failed him, anger against his upbringing, anger against society in general.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Grim said:
"The more I've listened to what people have said in their exploration of the alternative theories and really examined them, the more it strikes me that the prosecution got it right. I think I said somewhere recently that they got it right in basis and where they may have slipped up is in the minutiae ~ minutiae that actually doesn't really matter in the long run, minutiae that doesn't really matter when one takes into account California's conspiracy laws back then."

I agree.
And, the jury got it right too.

For years, if you so much as suggested that the prosecution "got it right" (on these blogs), you were burned at the stake.

There was always a very small minority of folks who, despite tremendous "intimidation tactics" (for lack of a better description), stuck to their guns and continued to believe that HS was a bona-fide piece of this puzzle.
And quite honestly, no matter how one slices the pie, HS really IS a bonafide piece.

To his credit, Leary was one such person who, despite overwhelming odds, continued to maintain that HS was a viable theory.

Leary (just as you) has also stated, that the "finer details" are probably "moot" after 40+ years.

I hate to speak for Leary while he's not here, but hey, "credit where credit is due" as they say...


Grim said:
"While it's true that there have been criminals that have gotten away with murder over the course of human history {sometimes literally !}, it's equally true that criminals talk and that discretion isn't always the better part of their valour. I also think the no snitching aspect has been so greatly overstated that many people take it as an absolute, whereas in actuality, many criminals sing in ways that could make a choir envious."

I agree.

Even "Henry Hill" of the famous "Goodfellas" movie, sang like a bird in the end.
And yes, that's a true crime story.


Grim said:
"Some of the main alternative theories aren't even new; they were around long before the Manson crew were even caught and the police got nowhere with them. I've never believed there's people hiding somewhere for 40+ years with all this information that's going to make this big difference."

True.

The police looked into Leno's gambling debts, his affiliation with the "hoodlum money" bank... etc., etc... all the way down to his coin collection... and ultimately, they found squat.

The drug angle has been around for years too.
Initially, Ed Sanders was convinced of a drug connection, and he ultimately dismissed the theory as a dead-end.
Ed Sanders takes a lot of flack on these boards, but he DID attend the entire trial, so he must know something...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie said:
"It's my understanding that if you do a "copy cat killing" you're going to make sure it's exactly the same."

Lmao.
That sentence literally made me "laugh out loud".

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

LOL

katie8753 said...

The alternative theories are a SHANDA!!! LOL.

katie8753 said...

Hey I just got a signal from Charlie:

Hey y'all don't get insane. It comes from your brain. When the weather gets bad, don't y'all get sad. Yo mama say yo, and ho ho.

Charlie's the man. He's the growin' groin. He say what be. Until it's a tree. Then you cut it down if it offend. SAY WHAT?

Say no slack Jack, unless it's a hymn Jim. The universe just talked to me, and we said grow a tree. Don't be a'spewin' unless you be a'brewin'.

Walk don't talk, just sit and wiggle. And the brain will signal.

Parents don't matter, they just talk pratter. What matters is the U.

Dig it. Dig it.

Let go of all, and just dig the small. There is no death, just muff.

Happens to some, but not to all. Just don't take the fall. Live until you die.

KETCHUP!! WHERE'S THE KETCHUP?

*Snap, snap, snap, whistle, burp, sing*


(Second verse, same as the first)

Mrstormsurge said...

katie, that tune is very catchy

but then again so is the clap

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Ahahahahaha!

Stormsurge!

Now, Stormsurge has me laughing out loud! LOL

katie8753 said...

STORMY!!! HA HA HA!

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


I doubt there would be any debate over the HS motive if Bug had named his best selling book something besides "Helter Skelter". In Bug's opening statement he told the jury there were many complicated motives. It is only the book's title that says it was all about HS. The title gives the Manson apologists a loophole to enable them to mainstream Charlie by just saying "he wasn't at the Tate house". Apologists further use Environmentalism to legitimize Charlie but environmentalism is always used as a smokescreen to hide deeper more sinister agendas like the destruction of both Capitalism and the United States by subversives who believe in the teachings of Karl Marx. What better way to weaken America than to deny the citizens the use of their own natural resoures. America in the minds of Environmentalists is evil and racist so it must be destroyed and rebuilt in Marx's image. Environmentalism is the home of present day Marxists who have found that Environmentalism is a perfect costume to cover their tail and horns. The goal of Environmentalism isn't clean air and water. The goal is for Marxists to gain political control of the US. Environmentalism is a Trojan Horse.
Obama and Manson have identical Environmental goals. They both preach an end of times prophecy. Charlie preaches Helter Skelter and Obama preaches Global Warming.

BTW Charlie was at the Tate house that night. He went back and left the black glasses. The Emmon's book was never denied by Charlie. He even said in a taped interview the story was true.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"BTW Charlie was at the Tate house that night. He went back and left the black glasses. The Emmon's book was never denied by Charlie. He even said in a taped interview the story was true"


I'd very much like to hear him say this in that interview because in the latest book in which the author had umlimited access to him "Goodbye, Helter Skelter", he denies it.
Charlie's verdict on the Emmons book was that it was bullshit {I recently saw a photo where he had scrawled that across the inside page of Emmons' book but I can't recall where}, written in Emmons' words, not his. But Emmons said that from the start because Charlie spoke in ways that the common person finds hard to get a handle on. He had to put it into a form that we could understand. It's almost like a biblical translation !
Mr P, where is the interview ? Was it the Tom Snyder one ?

MrPoirot said...

Grim I forget the name but a lady journalist asked Charlie if the story in Emmon's book were true as Charlie held Emmon's book in his own hands and he replied yes. Robert Stimson I'm sure has seen this interview.
Note also that Squeaky did an interview from her WV prison cell and basically said the book was honest. Squeaky was at Spahn's the night of the murders.

Why would Stimson say anything that wasn't what Sandra Good allowed him to say?
When Stimson speaks whose words and thoughts are you really hearing? Sandra Good was not at Spahn's during the murders that night.

Stimson is a revisionist with an agenda whose goal is to convince you that it is ok to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree and that the king wears clothes made from very fine golden threads. Be careful what you do with info from Stimson's book because Stimson had originally planned on naming his book, "Murder Conspiracy Laws Suck".


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

BTW while we are discussing motives: the arrest of Sandra and Mary was the actual straw that broke Charlie's mind and caused Charlie to send troops to Cielo in response to The Man arresting his Loves. Eye for an eye Charlie figured. It gets really complicated if you try to pick just one motive for the murders. How far do you go back? Do you go back to Charlie's childhood? Do you go back to Dec 68 when Charlie heard the White Album? Do you go back to Melcher turning down Charlie? Do you go back three days to Easelen Institute to Charlie's failed audition?

The day of the murders Charlie hears Beausoleil is under arrest for murder and a few minutes later Charlie hears Mary and Sandra are arrested for CC fraud. Charlie starts punching an Oak tree in anger. He then sent Tex out with three girls to Cielo.
If you had showed up yourself at Spahn Ranch the morning of the Tate murders and seen everything with your own eyes that day you would have thought the motive was the arrest of Bobby, Mary and Sandra. You would have thought the TLB murders were simple retribution.
If you had arrived in Summer 68 and seen everything you may have thought that Helter Skelter was the motive because prior to Charlie preaching about HS the Family was Ghandi-like. Arriving Summer 68 you would have seen with your own eyes that there was a dramatic shift from peace to violence which occurred from Dec 68-Aug 69. You would have seen Charlie preaching every night about a race war and Armageddon. You would have seen then practicing with knives in early 69 that you didn't see in 68 at all.
It wouldn't take you long to figure out exactly why these people became violent if you had arrived in Summer 68 and stayed through Aug 69.
But if you arrived the day of the Tate killings you would know for sure that the murders were motivated because Sandra and Mary were arrested.

leary7 said...

It was, as has been said before, TLB was a clusterfuck of delisional idiocy and the times.
I happened upon Susan Atkin's 1986 book on Kindle and in it she did argue for a lessening of HS's importance and a better understanding of the 'clusterfuck events' that led up to TLB.
By the way, I've never read Guinn's book but I saw in a review of it the claim that Jakkobson and Melcher were so infatuated with Ruth Ann that they drove out to Barker to boink her a few times. But it was unclear if these visits were before or after TLB. If they were after that would be mind-boggling since Melcher, Wilson et all had to at least suspect Manson and his zombies were involved in Cielo. If they thought that there was even a slim chance of the Family being involved than Ouisch must have been one helluva lay to entice them out to Barker. Or do I have this backwards? Did they go out there before TLB? I gotta read the book.

Personally, I love it when my pal Lynyrd gets his fierce up. Don't take it personal, Grim. Lynyrd's just got some serious Archie in him. Maybe we could do an episode of All In The Family with Lynyrd of course as Archie and Katie as Edith and Mr Grim as George Jefferson. Who would play the Meathead?

MrPoirot said...

Leary it may have been Sadie who was the craziest of the entire Family. Even crazier than Sandra and Charlie. She had APD Antisocial Personality Disorder which is basically means she was crazy. Sadie's explanations of why and what happened changed many times right up until she died. Her view of reality forever changed. Either she had almost nothing at all to do with any murder or she killed Sharon herself and planned on killing Elizabeth Taylor. It just depends on which statement of hers you believe. She was probably the only Family member who would have killed somebody even if she had never met Charlie.
Sadie most likely hated Bugliosi because he got her sentenced to death and switched immunity to Linda from her. James Whitehouse also hated Helter Skelter because it so completely demonized all the killers to the point that no atty stood any chance of getting any of them free.
I'm not at all surprised Sadie says there were other reasons for the murders.

My three most favorite pics of Sadie are:
1 Her half nude Vampiress look.
2 Her hanging on the cross, standing by the mailbox pic.
3 Her super babe pic with the tight fitting pullover white blouse.
She virtually covered the entire humanoid spectrum of identities with just those three personalities. I don't know how a woman could be more psychologically diverse than that.
Don't forget Sadie pretended to be British when she answered the phone at Gary's house while he was tied up. She could be anyone or anything on any day.

MrPoirot said...

Also don't forget she was going to cut out Sharon's unborn baby. I doubt if Sadie ever realized just how truly awful and crazy a person she really was though I think she honestly tried to atone but she was probably never sane in her life. She stabbed her 1st husband she married in prison which was years after the murders and after she found God. She total bamboozified James Whitehouse and got him to dedicate his life to her. She was one of the most notorious sociopaths in American history.
It doesn't mean much if Sadie says HS was not a motive.

katie8753 said...

Hey Mr. P, let me ask you a question. Do you think Susan went bonkers BEFORE OR AFTER her mother died of cancer and her Dad abandoned her?

I don't know how many of you have had that experience. I know I haven't. It must be unpleasant.

I would think that experience would make you a little nuts! Don't you?

I think maybe she was doing a "death wish".

Leary, you are so funny as usual. You crack me up! Meathead could be Circumstance.

MrPoirot said...

I've lost a Father and Sister to cancer. The loss of a Mother by a young girl would be an even greater emotional jolt but Susan's mental health was probably always bad.
Humans don't acquire Bipolar or Schizophrenia from shock. Susan's mental health issues preexisted.. Just add her Mother's death on top of her bad mental health.
Remember Susan also chose to travel with two escaped convicts and ended up in jail prior to Charlie.

Family members like Tex, Susan, Paul Watkins and Nancy Pitman could have gone back home at any time. Robert Hendrickson said Nancy's Mother would drive to Spahn's to see her. Manson mentioned this strange choice those young people made of choosing not to go home. Susan's Dad asked her to come home.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, thanks. But I want to expound on Susan losing her mother. I know she was nuttier than a fruitcake. She said all that stuff about killing Sharon, and making a death list out of celebrities, which she probably made up. I don't think anyone else confirmed all that crap.

But when she lost her mother, and also her father abandoned her, don't you think that contributed to her sanity loss? I'm sorry you lost your father and sister to cancer. I would say Shalom, but you might not like that.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is maybe Susan lost the rest of her marbles after her tragic loss of family?

Not trying to defend her. I'm appalled at her lack of empathy when she's talking about Gary's death, but Mary was just as UN-empathetic, which leads me to believe there was a Manson influence there.

I think that all those kids were influenced by Charlie to not even feel empathy or pain for someone who was killed, i.e. Gary Hinman. And of course at Cielo "Do You Feel Remorse"?

What do you think?

MrPoirot said...

Susan left her Father not the other way around. Nancy Pitman, Tex, Paul, Stephanie, Krenny, Mary and others left their relatives. Many of the Manson Family had family within a half hours drive of Spahn's. Clem could literally walk to his parent's home.

katie8753 said...

No, Mr. P, Susan's father was a drunk and he left her and her brothers to fend for themselves, because he didn't want to pay medical bills.

katie8753 said...

Surely you know that.

MrPoirot said...

The Father did not geographically change addresses. He withdrew emotionally just like Susan did. Susan ended up taking care of what was left of the family. She was forced into the Mother's role. The only person who changed addresses was Susan who hit the road. The Father asked her to the broken home at least once. I really don't blame her for leaving an alcoholic home but she ended up a murderer within 5 years of leaving. She left a bad situation for an even worse one.
There is a taped interview of the Father at the LA court house during the trial but the Father would not face the camera while telling about Susan leaving the home in both body and soul. I think he left the part out about his drinking as drunks typically do. It actually is a chilling interview in the way he talked about the way her spirit left Susan as if Susan abandoned herself too. It was a shame the Father was never interviewed further about what happened to Susan. I think if he cared about Susan he would have faced the camera which he never did. I'll post the Utube link if I can find that interview.
Even if the Mother had lived Susan would have probably moved out a couple of years later than she did. The Mother is a strict, hard, cold looking woman hiding behind dark glasses in pics I've seen but as bad as things were the Mother was definitely the glue that held that family together both body and soul.
I know from my own experience with family members dying of Cancer that family dynamics always change for the worse after a death occurs. There is a vacuum left behind where the deceased existed that is typically filled in with disorder which destroys the family dynamics and the family never recovers. Families are fragile entities in most situations so early deaths will surely destroy what is left of the home environment. How functional is a car with only three wheels left? You might as well just leave it up on a block and walk away from it which is basically what Susan did with her family. She's only one of many millions who did that yet Susan put her own bizarre touch into her leaving-home story. She left home to become an acid taking Vampiress whore. Her diseased brain led her into a real Hell with real Satans like Anton Levay and Charlie Manson.

MrPoirot said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-fJGxTfeqI&list=PL78939410324F7E8C

Grim listen to Squeaky in this short interview say the story in Emmon's book is basically true. She's saying Charlie did go back. She does not refute that.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UgQSgzMoFk

Oops. 11:25 Charlie says Emmon's book true.

Josh Bratt said...

You seem quite bitter Poirot.. Why focus on something that seems to make you so bitter and negatively effected? Does this place just give you a place to vent nastiness and call people names?

Josh Bratt said...

Susan is an idiot for talking herself up like she did. People are responsible for their own actions. In Katie's world, it seems CM is responsible for her cold coffee and warm milk too. Damn You Manson!!!! lol

MrPoirot said...

Josh you just vented two posts where you attacked me then you attacked Katie. Neither of us have said a word to you. Fuck off.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, please post that You Tube link to Susan's father's interview if you can. I haven't seen it.

It's funny how Susan's voice is so soft. You'd think she would sound a lot tougher...

MrPoirot said...

I couldn't find that video but ive seen it this year. Dunno where I got the link. May have been on Brian's site. The video is filmed from behind her father's head to block his identity. I don't think any other parent did that. Krenny's parents faced the camera and answered the press as well as took the stand.
Charlie's mother showed up at the trials. Beausoleil's mom was at his trial.
I've wondered if Susan's strange voice was symptomatic of her mental illness. It is exaggerated or sounds fake like she's acting that voice.

Anybody know if any of Linda's parents showed at the trial?
Did Tex's parents show?

Surgio said...

In "Child of Satan..." Susan said she moved out of an apartment where she lived with her brother and father. In her book "Shattered Myth..." she says: "...around my sixteenth birthday he (father) ran away from home leaving me and my younger brother to fiend for ourselves."

In one version she leaves home. In the other version her father abandons her and her brother.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, you're right. Susan's voice sounds really funny, like she's acting. Which wouldn't surprise me, given, as you said, she pretended she was English at Gary's house when she answered the phone.

I would almost think that Susan is Schizophrenic the way she can just go back and forth between personalities. Of course, I'm no psychiatrist, but she was a good actress.

Tex's mom was at his trial. I've got a pic of her. I think I still have it.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Surgio. I thought I had read that Susan's father left Susan and her brothers. Who knows what the truth is.

MrPoirot said...

I have never studied anything on multiple personalities. I never even watched "the Three Faces of eve" but I've wondered too if Susan was a multiple personality. Her voice was why I wondered if she was. In interviews from the 70s she sounds so fake it is hard to stand listening to her. I think she was scarred long before her mom got cancer. Very little is known of her adolescence prior to age 14. Her book doesn't say much of her early life.

Having herself fotod as both a vampiress and Jesus on the cross is certainly both ends of the human spectrum and seems too wide a reach for one person unless they have a severe and unusual mental illness. Drinking blood and defecating in public could qualify you for many mental illnesses I'd bet. If Squeaky thinks Susan was fucked up then she had to be very fucked up because Squeaky gave glimpses of two personalities as well. Squeaky had Grand Mal Seisures and was severely OCD and God only knows what else. I think the seisures are what socially ostracized her and caused her to end up homeless and finding herself living at Spahn Ranch. To go from The Lariots to a presidential assassin seems a very wide range for one personality.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Surgio,

Thanks for your participation, and welcome to the blog.

MrPoirot said...

Surgio thanks for the info.
Susan's Dad asked her to come back home at least once possibly more.
In order for the Father to ask Susan to come home he has to be home.
I get the distinct impression that her Dad emotionally withdrew from the family most likely from a nervous breakdown. Susan says she was the one who had to cook and clean for them. In order to cook and clean for them they have to be home.
We know for certain Susan left home and I don't blame her for doing so. Everyone in Susan's family was obviously severely distraught over the mother's death from cancer.
Here is what cancer does: it causes the patient to suffer and it extolls great emotional torture on family members and stresses them past their limits. Then the cancer kills the patient leaving the family in a state of shock and immense grief which then renders the family dysfunctional. At least that has been my experience with cancer in a family.

MrPoirot said...

BTW in the interview of Susan's Father he said somebody had control of her mind. He didn't say she was Crazy.
I can't believe nobody can find this video. I'm sure most of you had seen it as I had previously as well but I didn't retain memory of it because you don't have the Father's face to attach it too.

grimtraveller said...

Susan Atkins' younger brother said this in 2005:
“Then our mother passed on. We were all young. Susan was 15, I was nine and our older brother, Mike, was 18 and went right into the service....Our father ended up having to sell both houses and all of our furniture to pay for our mother's hospital bills. My mother's death was very hard on all of us. Our father turned to alcohol, which left my sister, Susan and I home alone a lot. We were very close and became dependent upon each other. One day our father left us. Susan was going to school and working full time to keep a roof over our head. The landlord would not accept our rent money from Susan as she was not of age to be my legal guardian, which led us to look for somewhere to live. Susan reached our brother, Mike, in the service and even though Mike had just recently married, Mike took me in. That left Susan alone to fend for herself.”
Susan stated in one of her books that both her parents were constantly drunk and rowing even before this, while she was sexually abused by friends of her Dad and worse, by her older brother and his friends. She also admits to having gone through a teenage alcoholic phase herself and by 2005 her husband and lawyer James Whitehouse was telling the parole board that at the time of the murders she was both drug dependent and suffering from mental illness.
One of the first things that stuck in my head when I first read "Helter Skelter" was that VB had said that unlike the parents of Pat & Leslie who stuck by them, Susan's Dad wanted nothing to do with her. The comment was something like "all he wanted to do was get his hands on Manson."
Charlie may have felt the same way about him !

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"Do you think Susan went bonkers BEFORE OR AFTER her mother died of cancer and her Dad abandoned her?

I don't know how many of you have had that experience. I know I haven't. It must be unpleasant.

I would think that experience would make you a little nuts! Don't you?

I think maybe she was doing a 'death wish'"


When you add up all the things Susan says she went through prior to meeting Charlie, Pat, Mary & Lynn, they are more than enough to tilt one over the edge if the mind of that person is hanging by a thread. But in her case, I don't think that was the case. I think she developed an "I just don't care anymore" type of attitude. I think she felt that she'd been dealt a raw deal and she was a believer in God before and while all this was happening so I can see where she may have felt that "well he ain't making life nice for me, my Mum's died, my drunken Dad has absconded, we can't pay the rent, I've been messed about with sexually, I'm looking after my brother with no help, my Grandparents can't have both of us, school is a major downer, my boss won't pay me......"
I don't think she had a death wish then. When she "tried" to commit suicide, she was pretty clear that it was a cry for help....and attention.
While Pat was dangerously in love with Charlie to the extent she'd murder, I don't see Susan as having been dangerously in love with Charlie; just dangerous and in love with Charlie. She was dangerous because her willingness to do things with scant regard for the consequences, allied to her desire for attention was a catalyst in enabling things to happen, even where she never killed.
In her Spahn raidmug shot, she sure "looks" crazy. But photos can be deceptive and we need to be careful not to read too much into what could have been innocuous moments frozen in time. The pic of her in the cross pose looks to me like just a bit of fun, larking about.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Grim. That's sad that they lost their mother and then they basically all got separated. I think you're right, Susan just developed an "I don't care" attitude. But I do think she had some mental health issues. I can't imagine going through all that she did and coming out without a scratch.

Mr. P, go ask Chats in the chatroom to find that interview. He can find anything if it's out there....

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"Very little is known of her adolescence prior to age 14. Her book doesn't say much of her early life"


Read "Child of Satan, child of God." For all it's flaws you get a good insight into her young life from the best possible source.


MrPoirot said...

"Drinking blood and defecating in public could qualify you for many mental illnesses I'd bet"


It certainly could....but did she actually drink blood ? She told a cellmate she'd tasted Sharon Tate's blood but later on, she said that all that stuff she told them was bravado and it wasn't true. You can see much of her post 1977 words as coming from someone who profoundly regretted some of the things she'd said and done. I think she seemed particularly keen to not be known as Sharon's stabber or the vampira that licked a dying woman's blood and I think she also deeply regretted not playing a role in her son's life.
As for shitting on the stairs at Ocean Walk, it was pretty gross. But I think VB threw that one in in his attempt {understandably} to make all the defendants look as animalistic as was humanly possible. I think there's a simple explanation for the legendary crap. She didn't want to do the LaBiancas. She says that she was pleading with her eyes to Charlie not to be sent into that house. So when he didn't send her but then told her, Linda & Clem to kill Saladin Nader, she must have been, as we used to say here, "bricking her load !" So I'm theorizing that when Linda "got" the wrong apartment, her, Linda and Clem were only too willing to not go through with any more action that night. They just went off and did what druggie hippies did in 1969 in the dead of night ~ smoked weed at a crash pad !
Susan's relief ~literally~ at not having to be involved in another Hinman/Cielo was palpable and a reminder that she was, underneath all the agro girl posturings, scared and human.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"But I do think she had some mental health issues. I can't imagine going through all that she did and coming out without a scratch"


For sure. She didn't come out without a scratch. The next ten years showed that. I think it was key in the way she developed. But mental illness wasn't necessarily present. I think a number of people {if not possibly all of us given the right circumstances and the wrong moments} can go on to do horrendous things but not be mentally ill.
An old friend of mine that was a cop for most of his life used to say of people that had been hurt in life that "hurt people hurt people."

MrPoirot said...

Thanks Grim that clears a lot up. It makes her Dad look like a total crudbag. Your description of her being sexually abused by the older brother and Father's friends and having two drunk parents seems to more accurately explain the bizarre nature of her later antisocial behavior, drug addiction, promiscuity and violence. She was treated as badly as Charlie as a kid, which is pretty damn bad. Gruesome I'd call it.
The Father may have asked Susan back but at what point? After she was arrested? Was he just covering his ass by claiming that? Is the Father to be believed at all? The Father never mentioned a word about his dereliction of his obligation to provide civilized treatment to Susan. In his one filmed interview and no doubt refused to show his face because he couldn't face society since he was the one person who knew what a shit he really was.

But keep in mind: Squeaky said in about 1969 that her father sexually abused her but recanted her own abuse claims in the 80s. However I am inclined to believe Susan was treated worse than Squeaky by her family. Squeaky wasn't depraved whereas Susan surely was and something terrible had to have gone on to make her that way.

Susan's last book under her name was not written by her but by James Whitehouse and is 95% his own fabricated bio of Susan. Susan comes off as one step below Mother Teresa in that book; her only crimes being jaywalking and littering. That book is fiction. People made fun of Whitehouse for his caring about Susan. That book was designed to win Susan a release from prison. I don't know how anyone could have made a better effort to free a person from prison than James Whitehouse did in that book but it was fiction. You have to admire the guy for his work to help her. He may have been the only person to ever care about Susan. I'd hire him as my atty in a second.
The man fought like a wounded bear to help her.

.

grimtraveller said...

Surgio said...

"In one version she leaves home. In the other version her father abandons her and her brother"


It is possible that both could have happened. The latter could have happened first. Her brother Steve certainly confirms the second while she confirms the first in the story she tells of her Dad coming to her pad drunk and crying, asking her to come home.
But in reality this is the problem that almost everyone seemed to have with Susan Atkins. Charlie certainly had that problem with her. Vince Bugliosi had that problem with her. Her stories change and convolute so much that you use her words to back your theories at your peril ! And hindsight, far from making matters clearer, does the opposite too often....

I kept having this dream
That our gloriously royal Queen
Was an internet troll !
She'd be sitting at her keyboard
And every written word
Was dripping vitriol ~ LOL
And when she couldn't get her way
She'd change up the stories just like Sadie Mae {Glutz}
And Bobby Beausoleil
That's often the way
The stomach pumps !

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"I forget the name but a lady journalist asked Charlie if the story in Emmon's book were true as Charlie held Emmon's book in his own hands and he replied yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UgQSgzMoFk
Oops. 11:25 Charlie says Emmon's book true"


He doesn't exactly say that. He says it's true from Emmon's reality but before this, when asked if Emmons lied, he says "there's discrepancies !"


MrPoirot said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-fJGxTfeqI&list=PL78939410324F7E8C
"listen to Squeaky in this short interview say the story in Emmon's book is basically true. She's saying Charlie did go back. She does not refute that"


That's a mighty stretch Mr P. She doesn't say that at all. She doesn't mention Manson going back to the scene of Cielo. She doesn't say the Emmons book is true. She starts off by saying she was angry as she saw it as a lie then with time, she saw bits of truth. She never specifies what's true. The best we get from her is that there's "a thread of Manson running through it" which could mean forty five hundred different things.
It's a great interview though. She looks so animated and relaxed.
I wonder what she's like now, 28 years on......


MrPoirot said...

Grim the most dominant factoid revealed in Emmon's book is that Charlie went back. It further claims Charlie planted the black rimmed glasses. This is a monumental claim. It is shocking and I still remember how shocked I was when I read it.

Neither Squeaky nor Charlie make any effort to refute such a chilling claim.

Do you really think BOTH Charlie and Squeaky would let a stunning claim like that go undisputed? The story of Charlie going back is the most chilling story I've ever read about concerning TLB. If it were false they both would have called BS on it.
It is too profound to let pass by undisputed. It would be too big a lie to let stand.

Even today Charlie has not disputed Emmon's story of Charlie going back nor has Squeaky.

MrPoirot said...

Grim, Charlie even went back to the Labiancas after the police left that week. Leno's sister or aunt or something reported coming home to find firewood arranged in a structured pile on the living room floor in front of the fireplace.

Charlie may even have gone back to Gary's house after the murder before cops found the body.

Charlie goes back. He is a spooky, creepy dude. He returns to the scene of the rime because he can't resist seeing his handywork. This is common among sociopaths.

Ted Bundy would not only go visit the corpses where he tossed them in the woods but he would have sex with them too. So the creepy award would have to go to Ted. Charlie only gets an honorable mention award.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P, I think Charlie absolutely did go back to Cielo Drive and leave those glasses as a false clue. And I think he and "his protege" probably dragged Sharon's and Jay's bodies to the porch to hang them, then decided not to. That probably accounts for the yelling at 4:00am on Saturday.

Why he would drag them back in I don't know, except to just mess up the crime scene more.

And he's probably the one who went back to Waverly Drive as well. He IS creepy....

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"the most dominant factoid revealed in Emmon's book is that Charlie went back"


Hugely debatable. There's much stuff in there that could boggle the mind if true.


MrPoirot said...

"It further claims Charlie planted the black rimmed glasses. This is a monumental claim. It is shocking"


Well that would be monumental.
In "Goodbye Helter Skelter" referring to before the killing quartet left for Cielo, Stimson says "Finally, Manson remembers giving the people in the car an old pair of glasses to leave wherever they went in order to create confusion. 'When they was leaving to do what they did, I told 'em 'Here, take and drop these glasses'." Later in the book Manson says "The only reality I had in any of that was I gave Tex a pair of glasses and told him 'drop these somewhere'."


MrPoirot said...

"Neither Squeaky nor Charlie make any effort to refute such a chilling claim"


They answer the questions that were put to them. It doesn't really matter how monumental something may be deemed to be by a particular reader. If they're not asked about it, they can't be said to have commented on it if they said nothing about it.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"Do you really think BOTH Charlie and Squeaky would let a stunning claim like that go undisputed?"


The book makes a number of stunning claims. What happened in the LaBianca house initially, certain matters regarding Shorty's murder, Charlie's sex with a Hollywood film star and his wife etc. There are so many. In the clips you linked to, neither discuss anything specifically. They both comment very generally on the book. Neither deals with any particular part of it.



MrPoirot said...

"The story of Charlie going back is the most chilling story I've ever read about concerning TLB. If it were false they both would have called BS on it"


It's the most chilling story you've read concerning TLB. I don't feel that way.
Besides, Squeaky categorically says that Charlie didn't read the manuscript and that they're not his words.


MrPoirot said...

"It is too profound to let pass by undisputed. It would be too big a lie to let stand"


At this point in time, I don't know if he went to Cielo afterwards. What I'm disputing with you is that according to the two clips you link to, Charlie & Squeaky admit it. What you're claiming is like saying that all pregnant women have smelly feet because Sandra Good never came out and flatly denied it and because she never called BS on it, she believes it to be a fact.



MrPoirot said...

"Even today Charlie has not disputed Emmon's story of Charlie going back nor has Squeaky"


As far as Squeaky goes, have you any source that shows her being asked the question specifically and actually answering it ?
And what you say about Charlie is patently untrue. In "Goodbye Helter Skelter" on page 36 Stimson writes in reference to Nuel Emmons' book "Emmons has Manson claiming that he went back to Cielo Drive after the murders there to check out the scene. (He did not)." Stimson draws on 12 years of taped conversation with Manson for his book and quotes him extensively so denials or admissions of that type without a specific quote, you know have come from Manson. There's another one where Stimson says Charlie says he may well have said "Now is the time for HS."
On page 37 he quotes Charlie in regards to Emmons' book as saying "don't believe that book that they wrote. That's not my words. That's nothing that I said. I didn't say anything like that." He's talking about the entire contents of the book which, by your logic, covers the claim that he went to Cielo after the murders. So there's your disputation.
I don't believe he went back to the LaBianca house. The place would have been teeming with eyes and forensic police. And when would he have gone ? Six days after the killings, they were raided at Spahn and spent three days in jail.

katie8753 said...

Grim said: In "Goodbye Helter Skelter" referring to before the killing quartet left for Cielo, Stimson says "Finally, Manson remembers giving the people in the car an old pair of glasses to leave wherever they went in order to create confusion. 'When they was leaving to do what they did, I told 'em 'Here, take and drop these glasses'." Later in the book Manson says "The only reality I had in any of that was I gave Tex a pair of glasses and told him 'drop these somewhere'."

Grim, I'm surprised at you. I know you are a very intelligent guy. And you're believing this stuff that George Stimson said? A book he wrote based on what Manson said?

No one else involved in these murders has EVER mentioned Manson giving them glasses to plant. NO ONE! That's just plain ridiculous!

katie8753 said...

Stimson draws on 12 years of taped conversation with Manson for his book...

Cased closed!!!

katie8753 said...

'When they was leaving to do what they did, I told 'em 'Here, take and drop these glasses'." Later in the book Manson says "The only reality I had in any of that was I gave Tex a pair of glasses and told him 'drop these somewhere'."

This is the STUPIDEST part of all! Charlie claims that he had no idea that they were going to Cielo Drive, no idea that they were gonna kill people. But he says that he "gave them glasses to drop"??????

WHY WOULD HE DO THAT IF HE HAD NO IDEA WHERE THEY WERE GOING? That makes no sense at all. He's just a big, fat liar!

What if they were going to Dairy Queen to get a malt? What if they were going to K-Mart to shop? What if they were going to visit a sick friend? What if they were going to the racetrack? What if they were going to the laundromat?

Drop the glasses? WHY? WTF???? That is the stupidest thing I've ever read regarding this case! Charles Manson knew exactly where they were going that night, because HE TOLD THEM TO! He can lie about it all he wants, doesn't make any difference.

MrPoirot said...

Stimson was never at Spahn Ranch. Sandra Good who is an unnamed source for his book was in jail when TLB took place.

Stimson's goal was to erase Helter Skelter as a motive in the public's mind. The reason Stimson hates HS is because Sandra hates HS. Stimson thinks only what Sandra thinks and Sandra thinks only what Charlie thinks. Charlie hates the HS motive because he hates bug and Bug is why Charlie rots in prison.

Sandra is still sitting around trying to figure out why all her friends aren't beloved American super heroes.

katie8753 said...

And I don't care if he FINALLY remembered "giving the people in the car an old pair of glasses to leave wherever they went in order to create confusion.

FINALLY remembered? HA HA HA. that's rich!

katie8753 said...

Sandra Good is a nutjob. She's a serious mental patient. More than Susan. She spent decades threatening people for Charlie, all for nothing. If she had gotten the death penalty, she might have wised up, but since she didn't, she wasted her whole life on this clown.

She's WHACKED!!!

katie8753 said...

Plus she doesn't blink. Ever. Like a snake. Or some other evil reptile.

MrPoirot said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iJfwjMJekM

Trump was taunted at a rally by a girl who showed him her Sandra Good eyes.

beauders said...

Nelson was the 'author' who wrote about the LaBianca stack of wood incident. It was Leno LaBianca's first wife who told him about it, supposedly it really spooked her. It happened when she was cleaning the Waverly house. I believe she had to clean it just like Col. Tate had to at Cielo.
As far as Manson going to the Tate house the night of the murders, I think it's true--if not him someone from Spahn Ranch did because voices were heard by various people in that canyon most the night.
Atkins was the product of two alcoholics, so I think she was predisposed to addictive and risky behavior. If she was sexually abused, and she claimed she was, then her personality could have splintered.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

"As far as Manson going to the Tate house the night of the murders, I think it's true--if not him someone from Spahn Ranch did because voices were heard by various people in that canyon most the night"


Could be. On the other hand, hundreds of people lived in the canyons and it could've been any of them. I would bet that voices have been heard zillions of times during the night since August '69. But it's only because the Tate murders happened on one particular night that canyon voices arguing take on any kind of significance. It's a bit of a stretch to conclude that those voices had to come from someone that resided at Spahn Ranch.
Also, who is say it was an argument ? One 15 year old. If you listen to Nigerians or Jamaicans or even kids talking, they sound like there's an almighty rumpus going on. It's just the way they express themselves, unlike say, Kenyans or Swedes who come over very quietly. So a Kenyan or Swede could be threatening mayhem but it would sound like they were asking for a cup of sugar whereas a Jamaican or Nigerian could be asking for some sugar but it could sound like they were threatening mayhem !
In England, the impression we have of Americans is one of brash loudness.


beauders said...

"Atkins was the product of two alcoholics, so I think she was predisposed to addictive and risky behavior. If she was sexually abused, and she claimed she was, then her personality could have splintered"


I think that's what happened. Sexual abuse can splinter a person with devastating effect. But it doesn't necessarily bring about mental illness immediately.


katie8753 said...


"Grim, I'm surprised at you"


Sometimes, I surprise myself !


katie8753 said...

"I know you are a very intelligent guy. And you're believing this stuff that George Stimson said? A book he wrote based on what Manson said?"


Firstly Katie, I never said I believed it. For the record, I don't believe it, at all, at all. Many of the conclusions you reached in three of your posts, I too have reached. In fact, in a roundabout way, if that statement that Charlie makes is true, he sinks his own boat because then it becomes clear that he knew a crime was going to be committed, especially with the need to create confusion.
I've pointed out a few times where I see Charlie as being caught in lies. There are lots of things he says that are true too, but on these murders, to me it's clear he's lying.
However, Mr Poirot was basing an entire thesis on the flimsiest of evidence, part of which was the assertion that Charlie Manson has, even to this day, never refuted Emmons' story. I was showing him, actually through Manson's own words {ironic, eh ?} that what he asserted was incorrect. It may be bullshit but Manson has refuted Emmons' story.


MrPoirot said...

Grim if you have good evidence Charlie refuted "going back" you need to let the world hear it.
You stated earlier the MSNBC interview doesn't show Charlie stating Emmon's book is true. He not only says it's true but he clarifies in multiple ways that it is true.
It is only in small philosophical ways Charlie has beefs with Emmon's book.
Emmon's visited Manson even after the book was released many times and remained friends with Charlie. If Emmon's had told the world a horrifying lie about the night of the Tate murders and placed Charlie personally at the scene of the murders which Charlie has denied being involved in; would Charlie calmly allow that? Would Charlie continue his long prison friendship with Emmon's up until Emmon's died?
Grim also should watch the vids with Emmon's and Charlie at the prison and note their compadre'ness. Charlie had a lot of respect for Emmons.

Grim there is also multiple convergent stories which heavily point to somebody going back after the midnight murders. I think you are casually dismissing all the stories about loud voices late in the night. Those voices heard weren't the typical Saturday night drunken hoopla voices. They were the screams of a type you may only hear once in a lifetime.
Ask yourself also why Garretson was scared shitless ALL NIGHT. The murders ended around 12:00-12:30. Why was Garretson up all night waiting on daylight to reassure him? Garretson's himself details from his own shattered mind a bizarre, surreal, night time visitors at his door in the middle of the night. WTF led to that story?

Who killed and dismembered the cats in the Tate yard? None of the 4 killers describes killing any cats that night. Garretson's friend Patricia describes the cat pieces in her one hour podcast which can be heard over at Brian Davis' blog. Patricia was taken back to the Tate house by police where she saw not dead cats but dead cat pieces all over the yard.

Grim there is also the fact that Charlie was not just concerned but rather he was hyper paranoid and angry about how messy the crime scene ended up. On night two Charlie continually restated his orders to keep the Labianca home in a neater condition than the Tate house. If he hadn't seen the sloppiness with his own eyes it is unlikely Charlie would have given the killers low marks in crime scene etiquette. This is why Charlie tied up Leno and Rosemary. He wanted to contain the crime scene to inside the house sine the Labianca house lacked the seclusion of the Tate house.

Grim I could go on and on with bizarre circumstantial indicators that exist which point to Charlie doing exactly what Emmon's revealed in his book. In fact it really doesn't fit the evidence if you say he didn't go back. It doesn't fit in many ways.
You have to insert a second recon party into the night of the murder to make everything fit because there are too many extra curriculars that are known to exist which no one has ever suggested was done by the killers in their 20 minute midnight house call. Well who committed the extra curriculars? Are you just going to ignore these evidentiary oddities exist and let them hang forever flapping in the wind?

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"if you have good evidence Charlie refuted going back you need to let the world hear it"


Actually I have done that already. Truth be told, the onus is on you to bring evidence that he has admitted going to the house. You keep asserting it but present no evidence worthy of the name.
Let me state in no uncertain terms, clear as day ~ the Emmons book will not do. Manson has called it bullshit. In the evidence you presented, he does not do what you claim. I don't really care if he remained friends with Emmons. He kept on writing to Pat, Susan and Leslie {check here for your evidence} even though they'd disowned him up to at least 14 years previously so his track record there blows your point about his friendships out of the waters.
Incidentally, I don't have a dog in the fight of Charlie's night time sojourn to Cielo. But before I repeat anything as a fact, I need proof of it. I'm happy to agree with you. I don't mind if he went back and I don't care if he didn't. I'm not going to bomb Syria because of it either way. But I would like to see where he said it and thus far you haven't presented that. Whereas Stimson's book is packed with statements of Manson's or things Stimson says that you know had to have come from him as they support Manson's other statements.
If there's something somewhere where he says he went there, let me know where I can find it. I'm ready to hear/read it and possibly believe it.


MrPoirot said...

"I think you are casually dismissing all the stories about loud voices late in the night. Those voices heard weren't the typical Saturday night drunken hoopla voices. They were the screams of a type you may only hear once in a lifetime"


I wasn't dismissing those voices. I was commenting about the ones that the 15 year old heard from the direction of Cielo but around a mile away at 4 in the morning or the reports of screaming to the police close to that time. We know the killers were long gone by then and for your point of Charlie going to the house have any credence, those particular reports cannot relate to 10050 Cielo Drive.

MrPoirot said...

Grim I think you want video of Charlie at Cielo after 12:30am and as long as that doesn't exist then you can safely say Charlie never went back.
I also think you are using a few examples to refute Charlie ever went back when there are dozens of circumstantial pointers that can support his going back.

For instance: Charlie was gone from Spahn Ranch after the killers arrived back at the Ranch until he got in bed with Stephanie Schram at dawn.

Grim do you have any knowledge of anyone seeing Charlie at the Ranch after 2am? He was not in bed. None of the four killers have ever placed Charlie at the ranch after 2am but all 4 killers were at the ranch.

Simply saying he didn't go back and I don't believe he went back is not evidence of anything. You don't even have circumstantial evidence that Charlie was at the ranch after 2am.

Where was he Grim? Why did nobody place Charlie anywhere at the ranch after 2am until dawn?

Forget about the question "did he go back". Drop that matter entirely and answer this question: where was Charlie between 2am and dawn??

Do you see what I mean about there being many circumstantial pointers that back up the Emmon's claim that he went back.

There is not any evidence or accusation that puts Charlie at Spahn Ranch between 2am and dawn. There are many things that support he was at Cielo during that time.

katie8753 said...

Didn't Charlie say on that Diane Sawyer interview in 1994, when she asked why he went back to Cielo Drive, he said "I went back to see what my children had done".

I really think that Charlie did go back to Cielo Drive after the killers arrived home. As Mr. P points out, Charlie was upset about how "sloppy the crime scene was". How would he even know the carnage involved if he didn't see it for himself? And how many people knew that they went to Cielo Drive that night? Only 5 that I know of. The 4 killers in the car, and Charlie.

MrPoirot said...

Example of circumstantial proof Charlie went back:

None of the killers mentions the black rimmed glasses yet they were found next to the two steamer trunks which arrived that day. The delivery guy did not see the glasses when he deposited the trunks so the glasses arrived on the property after the Friday delivery date.
Nobody has said the glasses belonged to the victims or friends of the victims.
Police were never able to connect the glasses to the victims even by checking the prescription with local.eye doctors. Extensive effort was put into finding who made the eye glass prescription.

Emmon's book says quite a bit about the glasses and stated Charlie told him he left them there as a diverson.

One of the Manson girls said, "people would flip if they ever found out who those glasses actually belonged to". Sorry but I don't remember which girl said that.

Charlie told Emmon's the glasses were just an old pair left at the ranch that had been used as a magnifying glass to start camp fires.

NOBODY except Charlie took credit for the black rimmed glasses.

If Charlie had not gone back: WHO LEFT THOSE BLACK RIMMED GLASSES OTHER THAN CHARLIE?

Has anyone ever produced a shred of evidence that Emmon's book was a fraud?

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"Didn't Charlie say on that Diane Sawyer interview in 1994, when she asked why he went back to Cielo Drive, he said "I went back to see what my children had done".


I've just gone through the 44 minute documentary and about 30 minutes of interviews that didn't make the documentary and he never says that and she never asks him. I've heard/read many people repeat that he says this but no one ever gives the source. I can't find it among the 1994 Sawyer stuff. If I'm missing it, can you show me where it is ?


katie8753 said...

"How would he even know the carnage involved if he didn't see it for himself?"


How did any of the other Family members know of it ?


MrPoirot said...

"Grim I think you want video of Charlie at Cielo after 12:30am and as long as that doesn't exist then you can safely say Charlie never went back"


I'm not safely saying anything. I'm simply saying this --> you say Manson went to Cielo that night. Show me where that is verified, either from his own mouth or from a source that is supportive of Manson. Tex says "I also believe that Manson and another family member went to the house afterward and disturbed the crime scene" but that's problematic. Not only because by his own admission he went to bed and slept until the next evening, but because he says two sentences before, that it's believed Manson was at Cielo the night before looking for Terry Melcher. So that's not solid at all.


MrPoirot said...

"I also think you are using a few examples to refute Charlie ever went back"


I'm not refuting anything. Show me a verifiable source, that's all.

MrPoirot said...

"Charlie was gone from Spahn Ranch after the killers arrived back at the Ranch until he got in bed with Stephanie Schram at dawn"


Ah, no. He got back into bed with Stephanie around dawn. That doesn't mean he left the ranch. He was obviously away from Stephanie for hours. He must've been to be able to meet the returning killers.

MrPoirot said...

"do you have any knowledge of anyone seeing Charlie at the Ranch after 2am? He was not in bed"


Do you have knowledge of anyone seeing Danny DeCarlo at the same time ? Of course you don't. Was he at Cielo too ?





MrPoirot said...

"None of the four killers have ever placed Charlie at the ranch after 2am but all 4 killers were at the ranch"


Come to think of it, none of them could place one another at the ranch after 2am. Why ? Because they were asleep !


MrPoirot said...

"Simply saying he didn't go back and I don't believe he went back is not evidence of anything. You don't even have circumstantial evidence that Charlie was at the ranch after 2am"


Well of course I don't ! I'm not trying to prove he was at the ranch. I'm asking you to back up your assertion that he wasn't.


grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"Forget about the question 'did he go back'. Drop that matter entirely and answer this question: where was Charlie between 2am and dawn??"


I was 6 years old and in Birmingham, England, and probably fast asleep. How do I know ?



MrPoirot said...

"Do you see what I mean about there being many circumstantial pointers that back up the Emmon's claim that he went back"


Actually, no. And even if I could see such, that does not mean that he did.


MrPoirot said...

"There is not any evidence or accusation that puts Charlie at Spahn Ranch between 2am and dawn"


And vice versa. Who has definitively said he went out between 2am and dawn ? Who ? The killers went to bed and stayed there. Stephanie knows when he got into bed not what he did or where he went before he got into bed.


MrPoirot said...

"There are many things that support he was at Cielo during that time"


You got nothing. You have a claim in a book that Manson for over 20 years has been critical of, saying he never said those words. You have Tex who obviously has no first hand knowledge hence his "I believe...". You have voices in the night in and around the canyons that don't point to Manson, you have easily explainable blood spatters; think about it, Tex stabbed everyone in the house and moved all over the premises. Blood moves with the perp. It's internet conspiracies gone wild to assume the blood moved with Jay & Sharon, not least because in your timeline, by the time Charlie would've got there, rigor mortis would have well and truly set in.

katie8753 said...

Grim that 1994 interview with Diane Sawyer has been gravely edited and cut. I know Charlie said that because I saw that interview in 1994 on TV. His statement was there then. Where it is now, I don't know. He does make other comments in that interview about "do you have remorse" (in part 3) and also about Charlie saying "don't scare them like you did last time" (in part 4). I will listen again and post the time and place tomorrow.

Also, one more thing. The blood on the porch was made by blood "seeping", not "blood spatters off the perp". Way too much blood. And it was Jay's and Sharon's blood type. And I'm not an expert in hematology, but I do believe the blood does still seep, even after rigor mortis sets in, if the body is tilted in a such a way that the blood will still seep out.

MrPoirot said...

Grim in astronomy there exists no fotos of a star with planets orbiting it except our Sun. Yet we know they exist elsewhere because as planets pass in front of a star it dims the little bright dot we see in telescopes because it blocks the star's light momentarily.
Nobody has ever seen these planets. All we have actually seen is the star varying in brightness.
This is verifiable evidence that planets are orbiting a distant star.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"None of the killers mentions the black rimmed glasses yet they were found next to the two steamer trunks which arrived that day.
NOBODY except Charlie took credit for the black rimmed glasses.

If Charlie had not gone back: WHO LEFT THOSE BLACK RIMMED GLASSES OTHER THAN CHARLIE?"


By far your strongest point. It's weakened somewhat by saying the guy that delivered the trunks didn't see them {why would he ? Since when do delivery guys take note of everything in a person's hall ?} and also by saying what Charlie said to Emmons. Disregard what he said to Emmons if you're going for hard evidence. And then observe the quote that I included previously that Katie commented on about what Charlie, with his own mouth actually does say about the glasses.

Now I'm going to surprise you with something. I think Charlie is bullshitting about the glasses and a whole lot more. I also think that Emmons' book gets a bad press, unfairly. Even though Charlie calls it bullshit and even in the YouTube you linked to obviously doesn't feel it represented him, I think that Manson did tell Emmons the stuff contained within it. Now, George Stimson says he was in a meeting with Emmons where Emmons admits fabricating the story of Charlie being raped but in his own book, quotes Charlie as saying things that sound very much like he was raped. But I can't prove it so I wouldn't state outright that he'd been raped. Much of what is said in Stimson's book is actually prefigured in Emmons' book which, because I believe both accounts {as opposed to the stories or truth of some of Charlie's quotes}, leads me to suspect that Manson told Emmons lots of stuff and Emmons wrote it down when visiting time was over, as much as he could remember. He also put things into plain, understandable English, which many Charlie supporters have great problems with. Another rather interesting thing is the similarity of the account in Emmons' book and Tex's first book about what happened with Leno LaBianca but Tex's book was published a couple of years before Emmons began his. His views of Gary Hinman and mescaline shadow those of Stimson.....lots of things do, actually.

So there you go.
But I'm still waiting for where I can find Charlie admitting he went to Cielo. Emmons' book won't do it, no matter how good I think it is because I think Stimson's is really good too and he categorically states Manson never went and it's a lot more recent and thus far Charlie hasn't decried it.

If the info exists Mr P, give it to me !

katie8753 said...

Well Grim, my friend, if you're going to just believe Stimpy's book, good luck! LOL.

Just kidding. Hey Charlie did say that in Diane Sawyer's interview. It was cut out. Maybe I can get the original recording of the Diane Sawyer interview from NBC. So many people have confiscated it and chopped it up.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"that 1994 interview with Diane Sawyer has been gravely edited and cut. I know Charlie said that because I saw that interview in 1994 on TV. His statement was there then. Where it is now, I don't know"


I'll keep looking !



katie8753 said...

"He does make other comments in that interview about "do you have remorse" (in part 3) and also about Charlie saying "don't scare them like you did last time" (in part 4)"



Yeah, they were there. They were interesting too, as was Pat's saying that they were scripted to lie and perform during the trial by Charlie.


MrPoirot said...

"in astronomy there exists no fotos of a star with planets orbiting it except our Sun. Yet we know they exist elsewhere because as planets pass in front of a star it dims the little bright dot we see in telescopes because it blocks the star's light momentarily.
Nobody has ever seen these planets. All we have actually seen is the star varying in brightness.
This is verifiable evidence that planets are orbiting a distant star"



Ah yes, but this is a fixed situation that doesn't change. It can be studied, calculated and all the rest.
Nice example, but it doesn't help your assertion.

MrPoirot said...

grimtraveller said...
MrPoirot said...

"Forget about the question 'did he go back'. Drop that matter entirely and answer this question: where was Charlie between 2am and dawn??"

I was 6 years old and in Birmingham, England, and probably fast asleep. How do I know ?
.................................................................................




You're copping out. You are deflecting. Where was he Grim? Go after the answer in reverse.
Take a few months and you will notice there is plenty of verifiable proof he went back but you are going to have to see it for yourself.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"Well Grim, my friend, if you're going to just believe Stimpy's book, good luck!"


When I say I believe both accounts, I'm saying that I don't feel either writer is lying. I certainly don't mean I accept everything they write. In George's case, I particularly do not. In some ways, he makes it worse for Manson. But at least he presents a voice that Manson has rarely been able to have and in my opinion, it adds to the case.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...


"You're copping out. You are deflecting. Where was he Grim?"


How can it be a cop out to say I don't know ?
It may not seem so but that's actually funny.


MrPoirot said...

"Take a few months and you will notice there is plenty of verifiable proof he went back but you are going to have to see it for yourself"


If there is verifiable proof, you've yet to show it. That's all I ask. I don't want beliefs. I don't want theories and supposition. I don't want the flimsy evidence you've so far attempted to use as hard fact. I don't want a few months. Many people say he admitted it. And they don't use Emmons' book because they know it's tainted {unfairly, perhaps}. So one would think that evidence is readily out there. For many people, it's pretty major. I will have no problem seeing it and adjusting my current views to accommodate it. I'm hunting for it myself with what Katie says about having heard it herself. But I am not going to assert as fact before all of cyberspace something that I do not know to be true. I may even believe something's true and I'll say that. For instance, I suspect Manson was raped when young. I don't know he was.
You & I have gone around the houses on this one and I don't think our dance has any more moves left. Except this: give me the "plenty of verifiable proof" that you speak of. Because you haven't thus far.

MrPoirot said...

Stimson's book is derived from living with Sandra Good for years not from visiting Charlie Manson. Sandra is his primary source. There is a taped interview with Stimson over at MansonBlog but you never see Sandra with Stimson yet she is in the room the whole time. She lives there. Stimson deliberately kept her out of the interview video because if she were seen it would invalidate Stimson. I thought it was a wise move on Stimson's part as far as sales but it was disingenuous to omit your main source and claim your secondary source as your primary.

MrPoirot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josh Bratt said...

How do you know that's why she wasn't involved? You know an awful lot that it seems only Mr. Stimson would know. Funny how you discredit those who disagree with your view of things while lauding those that go along with you. How do you know the book is derived from Sandra and not Charlie. George visited CM at least weekly, for years.... He visited more than Star has, I would say. How would you be aware that his source material came from his life partner rather than the guy he's visiting weekly? Just wondering.
You're so definitive while also being so self assured. It's great for reading!!!
;)

MrPoirot said...

Josh you have no idea what you are talking about. You are as crazy as Sandra. You are as dishonest and subversive as Sandra. Go roll a joint and stop this phony attempt of yours to make people think you live in reality.

Marliese said...

Hi Katie and Mr Poirot....like many, I've forgotten half of what I used to know and research through the years, though I do remember being in a great discussion several years ago at KTS about the cielo crime scene the killers left behind not being the same as the crime scene the police found, the position of Sharon on the floor, and, most importantly, the blood map of Cielo. And the glasses etc etc.
Mr P, was it Stephanie that said she didn't see Charlie from after midnight till dawn when he got into bed with her at the back ranch? Can't remember where she said that though. And I think one of the books....either Bugliosi's or Sander's, tells about a note passed to Charlie in court through the attorneys (Paul Fitzgerald?) asking if he went to cielo after the murders that night, and he replied that he had 'to see what my children had done.' If I have time later, I'll try to find it...before anyone flips and says its bs hearsay, not factual or substantiated evidence, we know that, but it's still interesting hearsay and I'm not passing it off as fact, especially if it was from Sanders. :). Later maybe.

MrPoirot said...

Marliese yea it was Stephanie who is the one who said Charlie came to bed at dawn.

Charlie went back to Gary's, Cielo and Labianca
If Charlie got outta jail hed go back to Spahn Ranch
The guy always goes back. A fricken yoyo

katie8753 said...

Hi Marliese! Good to see you!!

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"It is only in small philosophical ways Charlie has beefs with Emmon's book....watch the vids with Emmon's and Charlie at the prison and note their compadre'ness. Charlie had a lot of respect for Emmons"


Mr P {may I call you Hercule, pronounced air cool ?}, what's your take on this ? I'm fairly certain it will be pretty inimitable and wholly memorable.....

MrPoirot said...

What do I think of it?

I think that article is an attempt to cast doubt on Emmon's veracity.
It really doesn't have anything at all to do with anything even remotely connected to what went on the night of the Tate murder. It is what I would call misdirection.
For eample I can prove that Ted Bundy helped troubled people on a suicide hotline. Does that mean he was incapable of hurting people? Does that prove he was a nice guy? No. It proves exactly nothing unless you are trying to display his Jekyll and Hyde ways.

The article attacks Emmon's credibility yet his credibility isn't even needed because Charlie never refuted Emmon's claims. This is yet another example of circumstantial evidence of Charlie's return trip. Nowhere has Charlie ever said, "I never went back".

Charlie and Squeaky were at Spahn Ranch the night of the murders and both are aware of everything that went on. They are both filmed in long interviews exclusively about Emmon's book and neither one of them came out and even so little as hinted that Charlie never went back. Neither made the slightest attempt to refute Emmon's claim that Charlie told him he went back. Both Charlie and Squeaky even till this day, have never refuted that Charlie went back. Squeaky has never said, "Charlie was at Spahn's all night".

Grim show me any evidence that Charlie was at Spahn Ranh between 2am and dawn. There isn't even indirect or circumstantial evidence to place him at Spahn's that night after 2am.

There is a whole bunch of evidence that Charlie drove over to Cielo with one other person whom I suspect was either Clem or Bruce but I really don't know which it was. For years I've pondered who was with Charlie with no luck identifying that person specifically. Some think Nancy Pitman went with him but I seriously doubt a woman was with him. I do know Charlie didn't go alone.

Grim we do know Charlie was not in bed asleep between 2am and dawn so where was he? There were thirty people at Spahn's that night. If he were there he would have been seen by multiple people.

MrPoirot said...

Grim why have none of the many people who were at Spahn's all night ever said they saw Charlie after 2am. Why have none come forward to show Emmon's is lying? It has been 45 years and still nobody has ever come forward to place Charlie at the Ranch all night. Nobody!
Charlie went back.

MrPoirot said...

Grim here is another brain bender for you. Where was Squeaky between 2am and dawn? There is no witness or evidence that places her at Cielo or Spahn's after 2am?

grimtraveller said...

I got what I suspected I would. Something inimitable and memorable yet predictable and somewhat debatable !

katie8753 said...

Brian Davis with Star City Radio interviewed Stephanie Schram in October of 2011. At around 10:58 Brian mentions the speculation that Manson went back to Cielo Drive after the murders and asks her if she knows anything about that.

Stephanie says that Manson went to bed with her that night but when she woke up, he wasn't there. He finally got back shortly before dawn.

This doesn't prove that Manson went to Cielo Drive, BUT it does prove that Manson most likely was awake all night, and there is a very good probability that he went to Cielo Drive.

https://archive.org/details/TheTateLabiancaRadioProgramPodcastPage

katie8753 said...

BTW, if somebody says "Charlie told me this" or "Charlie told me that", it's just considered hearsay.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...
"if somebody says 'Charlie told me this' or 'Charlie told me that', it's just considered hearsay"


You see, I don't mind hearsay. Unless someone else is present or every conversation is taped, the overwhelming majority of human recollections of something said will be hearsay and while it's true that we can lie, there has to be some modicum of trust, somewhere. There are tons of things that I believe were said and tons of things I don't believe. But it's rare that I'll ever reject the latter because it's hearsay. Every reported conversation is hearsay in a roundabout way. No one heard Charlie tell Tex to go to Cielo and kill the occupants. But I believe he did even though on other occasions I doubt certain things Tex said were said. Mr Poirot keeps going on about how no one came forward in 46 years to place Charlie at Spahn all night on the fateful night. I'm waiting for him to come up with that someone that actually says he wasn't there all night or that he went to Cielo. I'm not trying to prove he stayed at Spahn all night.
It certainly is nothing unusual to stay up all night. I've been doing it for three decades and more !

MrPoirot said...

Grim said "You see, I don't mind hearsay. Unless someone else is present or every conversation is taped".


.................................................................................
There probably is no video of you being born yet you exist. There are millions of ways to prove a point without a video.
We can't see gravity yet we are bound to Earth.

There was plenty of evidence the Earth was round prior to space flight and prior to sailing around the world. Ships sailing away dropped bit by bit below the horizon proving the curvature. People had long suspected the Earth was round because of indirect proof available to everyone. Magellan already knew the Earth was round.
Video isn't needed to prove a statement.

katie8753 said...

Well Grim, that's where you and I differ. If someone spits out hearsay, I weigh it against the FACTS of the case. If that statement has nothing to do with the facts, I disregard it. If it does seem to agree with the facts of the case, I give it merit and shelve for later thought.

As far as Tex Watson saying that Manson told him to go to Cielo and kill everyone, I do believe that statement, and here's why: Manson told the girls to go with Tex and do what Tex said (he admits that), he did ask them when they got back if they had remorse (he admits that too), and he did drive them to the murder scene the next night because they were too sloppy the first time (he admits that too). That's why I think that Manson did tell Tex to murder, and told the girls to do it too. He was very aware of where they went and why they went there.

If Tex and the gang drove up to Spahn's that early morning and Charlie said "hey where've y'all been?" or if Charlie was nowhere near the LaBiancas the next night, I would just think Tex was "dookie talking" and making all that up.

MrPoirot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
louis365 said...

There are still people around who are apart of the Flat Earth Society...Believe me Mr. P., they do exist.

MrPoirot said...


Grim has become smitten with Stimpson's revisionism. Helter Skelter and "Charlie going back" are to Stimpson like Kryptonite is to Superman. If Stimpson were to say anything Sandra disagreed with she would blast him with her Kryptonite eye beams and turn him to an inert gas.

katie8753 said...

On that Schram interview she says that the "dumpster food" was disgusting (gag a maggot), the ranch was dirty, and Squeaky played that dumb role for the cameras. Big shock!

I can't figure out Grim. I know he's a smart guy, but to be sucked into Stimpey's "Once Upon a Time on the Ranch" book that says that Charlie "Finally remembered he gave the glasses to Tex to drop" is a bit much.

He says he doesn't believe it, but yet he does. It's a SHANDA!

Ah, go figya! To each his own....

katie8753 said...

Oh well, Boxing's on. Night!

MrPoirot said...

http://www.cielodrive.com/photo-archive/blood-stained-steamer-trunks-01.php

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Back when country music still had a pair of balls:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sbBD96_31M


If that ain't country, it'll hairlip the Pope

If that ain't country, it's a damn good joke

I've been on the Grand Ol Opry, and I know Johnny Cash

And if that ain't country, I'll kiss your Ass

Genies Alan said...

According to me, this site is not bad. i loved its content. and i can know too, that you (writing) is profesional. cara mengobati penyakit kuning
cara tradisional mengobati osteoarthritis
cara menyembuhkan jantung bengkak

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

A great song by "Foghat", that never really got it's proper due:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj1O2KtH4kE

Studio version from the "Boogie Motel" album...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arh5hiASBPc

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRavC8CjRL0

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"Grim said 'You see, I don't mind hearsay. Unless someone else is present or every conversation is taped'"


Now, that's interesting. Talk about revisionism. That's not what I said and it says a lot about you, "Air cool", that you should cut my sentence to misrepresent what I'm saying. That's only half the quote. What I said was "You see, I don't mind hearsay. Unless someone else is present or every conversation is taped, the overwhelming majority of human recollections of something said will be hearsay and while it's true that we can lie, there has to be some modicum of trust, somewhere." Very different. You're very much like those sensationalist journalists that 50 years on still go around saying "John Lennon said the Beatles are bigger than Jesus !"
Ho hum.....

MrPoirot said...


"Grim has become smitten with Stimpson's revisionism"


It's at this point that you demonstrate in print for all the world to see that you don't really engage in debate or conversation, both of which imply an ability and willingness to listen and understand points being made, especially the ones you disagree with. I already said

"When I say I believe both accounts, I'm saying that I don't feel either writer {Stimson & Emmons} is lying. I certainly don't mean I accept everything they write. In George's case, I particularly do not. In some ways, he makes it worse for Manson. But at least he presents a voice that Manson has rarely been able to have and in my opinion, it adds to the case."

Had you been on the Tate/LaBianca jury, it wouldn't be a surprise had they all gotten acquitted.
You funny being ! You semi redeem yourself with this one though,

"Grim here is another brain bender for you. Where was Squeaky between 2am and dawn?"

Even in the midst of whatever one would describe this exchange to be, that is priceless. You got some serious cackles out of me on that one !

Josh Bratt said...

Lynyrd, You're an amazing guy and I love this site you got going, but Poirot and Katie are RUINING it. They're nasty and mean spirited, they refuse to discuss anything they don't agree with and are just generally obnoxious. This comes from more than just me. I, honestly, could care less what bitter, angry people have to say about anything. Their opinions are obviously tainted, whether by liquor or life, who really knows, but they really do bog things down with their personalities. Other blogs are really doing good with substance and content where as here it seems to be mud slinging and KAtie trying to rule the roost with her little pet Poirot along for the Jack Daniels train. Temper the people who slam people for having opinions and maybe ban the people that are banned everywhere else :)
Just my two cents. I think Grim is a welcome breath of fresh air within this little world we have.
Oh yeah, before Poirot can get me with his witty response......fuck you too buddy
PEACE

katie8753 said...

THE GREAT AND POWERFUL JOSH HAS SPOKEN!! HA HA.

Hey Bratt, you used to come around here a long time ago and basically all you did was try to start fights and cause trouble. Then you disappeared, and now for some reason, you're back. In looking at your recent comments, you have the same desire, to cause trouble.

Basically all you've done is make fun of the victims or the members of this blog. Your comments are sarcastic and snarky for the most part. This time around I've pretty much been ignoring your comments and you haven't been able to start fights.

And Grim is a breath of fresh air and we’ve basically been discussing this case for over 100 comments now. You haven’t tried to join in the conversation that I know of except to insult people.

If you want to join in the conversation and state your opinions you're welcome to. Don't expect everyone to agree with you, but it's the nature of the beast. Or you can go to other blogs that are "good with substance and content". It's your choice.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"Well Grim, that's where you and I differ. If someone spits out hearsay, I weigh it against the FACTS of the case. If that statement has nothing to do with the facts, I disregard it. If it does seem to agree with the facts of the case, I give it merit and shelve for later thought"


Are you saying that I don't ?
Every statement I hear in life, let alone a case or a situation I wasn't observing, I weigh up the statement with the available facts. That's just common sense. However, in many things you'll hear about, you won't have the facts. So in those cases you have to go on something other than what the facts may be. Besides which, "the facts" aren't always accurate or indisputable. Let me give you an example. Pat initially says she carved "WAR" on LLB's body. She said it in her trial, it's a matter of public record. As far as the record is concerned, it's a fact. Then some years later, Tex admits he did it but because Pat had said she did it, he saw no reason to contradict it in his quest for self preservation so he went with her version. In later years she says she never carved it. Now, what are the facts ? The only real fact that's not in dispute is that LLB had "WAR" carved on his body. So how do you assess who is telling the truth ? The "facts" don't help here. Both of them have been economical with the truth at various points.
It's in this kind of context that I say "I don't mind hearsay." If your close friend tells you that another friend said X,Y and Z about you, it's hearsay. But in the absence of witnesses or facts, do you disregard it or possibly believe it ? Each to their own.
I think we were talking at slight cross purposes because we were talking about somewhat different things.

MrPoirot said...

Grim I've looked at the "Charlie Goes Back" from several angles. One thing I have looked at was who went with Charlie to Cielo that night. I noticed that some of the possible side kicks Charlie may have returned to Cielo with made statements that logically removed them from the narrative. One thing that removes from suspicion is that they would say "I crashed here or I crashed there". Thus they literally took themselves out the narrative by simply going to sleep.

But there are a few people who are not accounted for that night. For instance we know where Nancy Pitman is up until about 1am. She is dancing naked with Charlie on the boardwalk. She then leaves the narrative. She never says "I went up on the hill and passed out on a rock" or something like that. We never have Nancy sleeping that night. Where was Nancy all night? This is why she is suspected of going back with Charlie. She very well could have gone back to Cielo with Charlie but I thought Charlie would have chosen a guy since Nancy is a tiny gal. But maybe he did take Nancy.
Grim where was Nancy after 1am? Or where was Gypsy all night? Where was Squeaky? Where was Clem and Bruce after 1am? We don't have any of them saying they went to sleep that night. We have some players remove themselves from the narrative by saying they slept that night. Barbara Hoyt went to bed on the back ranch. It has always interesting to me that Squeaky's whereabouts aren't known that night. She's a big time Manson Family star yet hardly mentioned the night of the Tate murder.
Grim I have never been sure who went back with Charlie but there are several people he would very likely have chosen.

MrPoirot said...

Grim there is nothing ever said about Charlie giving any of the killers false evidence to plant at Cielo until 40 years later when Stimson makes a stand alone claim that Tex left the black rimmed glasses. Nowhere else does anyone even hint at Tex doing that. There is nothing that even hints at Stimson's blurt is true. Nothing even indirectly substantiates Stimson's claim,
Stimson fabricated his claim to revise the story.

MrPoirot said...

Josh you made four comments in this thread. ALL FOUR COMMENTS ARE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"and he did drive them to the murder scene the next night because they were too sloppy the first time (he admits that too)"


That's a little ambiguous --> which bit did you say he admits to, the driving them to the LaBiancas' place or them being sloppy/too messy the first time ? The first I'm aware of. I've never read or heard Charlie admit they were too sloppy {which would be quite an admission}. If that's what you mean, can you recall where you read/heard it ?


katie8753 said...

"I can't figure out Grim.....to be sucked into Stimpey's "Once Upon a Time on the Ranch" book that says that Charlie "Finally remembered he gave the glasses to Tex to drop" is a bit much.

He says he doesn't believe it, but yet he does. It's a SHANDA!"


That's also a little ambiguous. "He says he doesn't believe it, but yet he does."
What exactly does that mean ? What don't I believe yet do believe ?
I'm not even sure what your thing is with that statement, particularly since I agreed with you about it a number of posts back. Do I believe Manson said it in George's book ? Yeah. It is there for all to see.
Do I believe it to be a truthful statement ? No. I don't believe him. Regarding the glasses comment and it's wider implications, I already replied to your point about my being the sucker:

"Firstly Katie, I never said I believed it. For the record, I don't believe it, at all, at all. Many of the conclusions you reached in three of your posts, I too have reached. In fact, in a roundabout way, if that statement that Charlie makes is true, he sinks his own boat because then it becomes clear that he knew a crime was going to be committed, especially with the need to create confusion."

Sometimes, you give the impression that you don't really read/listen to a point and absorb it then think about how it fits or if it doesn't. It seems that you assume that because I quote someone, that I automatically believe them or their quote. That's fatal with me. I often quote people because they happen to have said things that may have some bearing on what's being discussed. The "Charlie going to Cielo by night" set of exchanges have been a case in point. Mr Poirot threw in a lot of opinion and supposition and much of it is actually pretty interesting. It loses it's potency however, when I asked for quotes or actual, even semi reliable verification and none was provided. I only threw in the Manson quote about the glasses because it is a verifiable statement. Whether it was the truth wasn't actually the point. The point was that whether or not it was bull, Manson has quotes anyone can check about those glasses. That simple point wasn't picked up. You were firing questions at me left right and centre with big capitals as though I'd written the book or as though I was Charles Manson's mouthpiece.
I was just showing what he'd said.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

"And you're believing this stuff that George Stimson said? A book he wrote based on what Manson said ?"


My position on "Goodbye Helter Skelter" by George Stimson is this. I think it's a damn good book. It's brilliantly written, it's accessible and easily read, it's unashamedly pro Manson and as such is slanted very much in his favour. I really like the book and it was money well spent that I don't regret for a moment. He fills in many gaps that other writers or Family members haven't been able to fill or interested in filling or conscious enough to fill and my understanding of Manson, his life and journey and that period have increased a little as a result. I disagree with many of the things he says in the book and I find that Manson's explanations of the murders, far from exonerating him as the book is meant to, if you study some of the points on the document the Judge gave to the TLB jury explaining conspiracy, he sinks his own ship in my opinion as regards Crowe, Hinman {well, the autopsy does for him there}, Tate/LaBianca and Shea. He does it with his own mouth. He doesn't require Bugliosi to do it, he doesn't require Atkins or Kasabian, he doesn't require HS, he doesn't require anyone renouncing him, he doesn't need debates about whether he went to Cielo in the wee hours of Aug 9th.......his own words from his own mouth scuttle his ship.
So you know Katie, maybe it has paid to be "suckered" by George's book. In the same way that Bugliosi's "Helter skelter", another great book, sets out to show Susan Atkins as a deranged bloodsucking murderer but actually ends up unwittingly showing she didn't kill anyone {by her own hand}, the book you denounce actually gives me the proof I need and ironically, from the horse's mouth.

MrPoirot said...

Grim it was Sadie who stabbed at Voytek with her Buck knife as she fought with him. 4 stab wounds resulted from this stabbing. At one point she has Voytek tied with a towel. Sadie held Sharon as Tex bayonetted her. Sadie was integral with both Sharon and Voytek being held captive unable to escape and causing them to be murdered.
Sadie did more than anyone to paint herself as a blood drinker. Her first book paints her as even worse than Bug does. Sadie was connected to Satanism and Wiccan long before Charlie or Bugliosi appeared in her life. Sadie's first book is macabre story of the Devil, blood and mayhem.
Probably Lizzie Borden and Sadie are the two most infamous female killers in US history.
Sadie's 1st book is the most terrifying female autobiography ever written in world history.
She definitely is a killer. She isn't just linked to murder by conspiracy laws. There are two different sizes of stab wounds on Sharon coming from both a large bayonette and a smaller blade like the Buck knife has. Who administered the Buck knife stabs to Sharon? Krenwinkle was occupied with Gibby. Sadie was the girl with Sharon. Sadie had a Buck knife. In fact Sadie used two Buck knives that night.

katie8753 said...

Grim, Charlie didn't use the word "sloppy", that was my interpretation. Basically he said you're not supposed to scare people before you kill them. And he admitted to going into the LaBianca house, according to him, he went in and shook Mr. Labianca's hand and said "how ya doin?" and then split. He told this to Diane Sawyer.

I took this to mean that he wanted to "show them how to do it" the second night.

I haven't read Stimson's book, I've just read quotes from it that different people have quoted. The biggest problem I have with that book is that it seems he's trying to say the motive was "copy cat". And I don't agree.

katie8753 said...

To me it makes perfect sense that Manson went back to Cielo Drive. How could he not want to see what happened, since he ordered it? Plus he probably wanted to make sure there wasn't evidence of who the killers were, which would fall back in his lap.

And it would be so easy to do. Drive over there, park a ways away, walk to the gate and listen to make sure no one was around, go on the property and see the carnage, plant the glasses, wipe down for prints, and possibly move Jay's and Sharon's bodies to the porch for a while.

Whether or not people want to believe that Charlie went back, it's awfully hard to explain the glasses and the pools of blood on the porch.

MrPoirot said...

There is a funny video of Bugliosi being told about Charlie going back. His eyes got real big and he profusely denied it was possible yet I believe Bug knew Charlie had pulled yet another fast one over on him and was Bug was flabberghasted. I think Bug was so sure he had Charlie figured out to the very core of Charlie's soul only to realize Charlie had fooled him as easily as he fooled everyone else. I don't know why Bug was too proud to admit Charlie could fool him. Charlie fooled everyone. All Charlie ever did was fool people. There was no one Charlie couldn't fool. This is why those who really knew tiny Charlie truly feared him.

MrPoirot said...

Katie I have always been shocked how Charlie's mom got rid of him where her BF demanded she get rid of "that sneaky kid". For a long time I knew a woman with three kids from previous marriage. One of the kids was always causing problems but I never once thought about asking she get rid of this kid. If I had asked her to get rid of that kid and she had done so; I would have lost respect for her.
But Charlie was so incredibly diabolical I can understand why she dumped Charlie.
I think Bug never sat down and talked with Charlie because he was afraid Charlie would outsmart him. Bug was in awe of Charlie as evidenced by the words Bug used to tell about Charlie stopping his watch in court. Those words are worth a thousand pictures.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P I get the feeling that Manson's mom wasn't interested in caring for a kid that was always in trouble. Plus she doesn't strike me as the "motherly type". I think she did try in later years to make up for it, but that's like shutting the gate after the horse got out.

I think Bugliosi, the judge, the jury and all the attorneys were afraid of Manson and his family. And for good reason. LOL.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"If I had asked her to get rid of that kid and she had done so; I would have lost respect for her"


I doubt it. I doubt there is a man on earth that would ask a woman to get rid of her kid and then lose respect for her when she complies. Think about what that means. You ask the woman to ditch the kid because you don't want the kid around. Whether or not she complies, that you ask her {Ask ! Really !?} to do it shows you have no respect for her but you do wish to control her....

MrPoirot said...

"But Charlie was so incredibly diabolical I can understand why she dumped Charlie"


As a baby ? A toddler ? A kid ?

Hmmmm....


MrPoirot said..."

I think Bug never sat down and talked with Charlie because he was afraid Charlie would outsmart him"



So all the conversations they had that he tells the readers of HS about were figments of his imagination ?


MrPoirot said...

"Bug was in awe of Charlie as evidenced by the words Bug used to tell about Charlie stopping his watch in court"


Soooo....when he says "It was, I told myself, simply a coincidence" he means what ?

Where does he say Charlie stopped his watch ?

In awe of him ? Sooooo....when he says he stared Charlie down and Charlie's hands started shaking, it was just his roundabout way of saying how scared he was ?
Right, got that.

MrPoirot said...

"I think Bug was so sure he had Charlie figured out to the very core of Charlie's soul only to realize Charlie had fooled him as easily as he fooled everyone else"


When do you think the realization hit him ? Before or after his gullibility and intellectual inferiority got the defendants the death penalty verdicts ?

katie8753 said...

"I get the feeling that Manson's mom wasn't interested in caring for a kid that was always in trouble."


If true, that would be one of one history's most striking examples of the pot calling the kettle black. That would be like Hitler smacking his kid for playground bullying and making anti semitic remarks !


katie8753 said...

"I think Bugliosi, the judge, the jury and all the attorneys were afraid of Manson and his family"


The Judge's hidden gun quelled his fears !
William Zamora in his book doesn't give any indications of being scared of the Family. But maybe other jurors were. I'd not be surprised to find that more than one of the defence lawyers were.


katie8753 said...

"And it would be so easy to do. Drive over there, park a ways away, walk to the gate and listen to make sure no one was around, go on the property and see the carnage, plant the glasses, wipe down for prints..."


The mechanics of how are not the problem. I keep saying it, I've never said he didn't go. I just require some back up from him or one of his associates that he did. I'm told the evidence is not hidden, that it's out there and people have seen it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask where I can find this evidence.
There will come a point though, where it cannot help but become kind of odd that no one can put their finger on it. And I'm not even a conspiracy theorist.

MrPoirot said...

Grim said:

The mechanics of how are not the problem. I keep saying it, I've never said he didn't go. I just require some back up from him or one of his associates that he did. I'm told the evidence is not hidden, that it's out there and people have seen it. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask where I can find this evidence.
There will come a point though, where it cannot help but become kind of odd that no one can put their finger on it. And I'm not even a conspiracy theorist.

................................................................................

I've given you many examples. Go do your own research if you are interested. We don't have a video for you.

katie8753 said...

Grim I did a thread on the jury a while back. I'll see if I can find it. I don't know how scared the jury was during the trial because they were guarded, but after the trial some of them were under police guard at their homes for a while.

I'll see if I can find that thread.

grimtraveller said...

MrPoirot said...

"Grim it was Sadie who stabbed at Voytek with her Buck knife as she fought with him. 4 stab wounds resulted from this stabbing"


Do you know that any of them were fatal ?
Note, when referring to Susan's death exploits, I did, very consciously and deliberately, add "by her own hand."
In reading about the number of stab wounds in the 7 murders, I'm surprised by how few of the 169 were actually fatal.
Going back to Susan, I've long held the opinion that she was dangerous. So was Hitler and I don't recall him killing anyone by his own hand.
Without a doubt, Susan was legally a murderer. But so was Bruce of Gary Hinman and he wasn't even there nor had any inkling that he was going to die.


MrPoirot said...

"Sadie did more than anyone to paint herself as a blood drinker"


Without a doubt, she was one of her worst enemies. Bravado can come back to bite a person. But that doesn't make the boasts true. She told one of the women at the jail that she'd tasted Sharon's blood; I don't recall her repeating it again.




MrPoirot said...

"Sadie's 1st book is the most terrifying female autobiography ever written in world history"


You mate, are a hoot ! I can't wait to read your autobiography.
I have several other books that I want to read first, though.

katie8753 said...

Grim here's the thread about the TLB jurors if you haven't seen it. If you click to read the Life Magazine article, I think you have to log in now. You used to could just read it. It's worth reading.

http://www.lsb3.com/search/label/TLB%20Jurors%20Interviewed

grimtraveller said...

Interesting and enjoyable. I added a comment to the thread. I'm a big fan of Zamora's book. It's the lick. The swerving lick, even.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Josh said:
"Lynyrd, You're an amazing guy and I love this site you got going, but Poirot and Katie are RUINING it. They're nasty and mean spirited, they refuse to discuss anything they don't agree with and are just generally obnoxious. This comes from more than just me. I, honestly, could care less what bitter, angry people have to say about anything. Their opinions are obviously tainted, whether by liquor or life, who really knows, but they really do bog things down with their personalities. Other blogs are really doing good with substance and content where as here it seems to be mud slinging and KAtie trying to rule the roost with her little pet Poirot along for the Jack Daniels train. Temper the people who slam people for having opinions and maybe ban the people that are banned everywhere else :)
Just my two cents. I think Grim is a welcome breath of fresh air within this little world we have.
Oh yeah, before Poirot can get me with his witty response......fuck you too buddy
PEACE"


Hi Josh.

Katie has a hard time blogging with anyone who sympathizes with Charles Manson.

And you're right, she tries to run-off anyone who doesn't share her opinions.

Here's the thing:
I really DON'T want to blog with ONLY the people, who agree with Katie on all counts.
That's just ridiculous, and yes, it's been that way here for a LONG time.
For a conversation to be interesting, it must be two-sided.

BUT... bear in mind:
When you allow Katie (or anyone) to run you off, you perpetuate the problem.
The best thing you can do for yourself and the blog, is to stay around and participate!

I repeat... by quitting and leaving, you perpetuate the problem.

As the official owner of LSB3, I'm telling you directly, that your opinion is welcome and appreciated.

Stick to the subject, make your points, and ignore the side show.

EVENTUALLY, (and it may take a very long time) the drama will finally end.

When Katie finally realizes that you're here to stay... she'll give-up.

And maybe THEN, we can FINALLY have a diverse group on this blog.

It's really up to you, my friend.

Think about it.

OR...
You can simply leave, and let Katie have her way AGAIN... (like all the other "Pro-Manson" visitors have done).

BUT, as I said...
When you leave, the blog loses.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie, you're an administrator here.

Poirot, you're a "regular" here.

It's our job to make visitors feel welcome.

If folks don't feel welcome to participate, then we're doing something wrong.

Think about it.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'm telling everyone:

Stick to the subject, make your points, and ignore the side show.

Discuss the subject of "TLB"... not other bloggers.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Grim,

Thanks for your help.
You ARE a breath of fresh air.

MrPoirot said...

Josh please feel free to come in here and attack me anytime you please. Shalom.

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd, I'm so angry right now I'm not sure what to say!

You're protecting a guy that basically called you a pussy. A guy that has hurled insults over and over again to me and Mr. P, because he doesn't like what we say. A guy that hasn't bothered to get involved in the comments about Susan Atkins' childhood or Charles Manson's activities. A guy who hasn't bothered to consider anyone else's feelings, including Venus, about her heartfelt feelings about Jay Sebring. A guy who laughs at the victims, a guy that only came on here to start trouble from DAY 1, a guy that continues to try and start trouble, a guy that doesn't really have any knowledge of the case except to hurl epitaphs.

I told him in my comment, just like you did, to contribute to the conversation. He never has. He only hurls insults. I guess he doesn't know the case. Either that, or he just wants to hurt people. Either way, what good is he?

I know that I can be blunt. I make jokes that are blunt. But they're jokes. If I really wanted to tear someone a new asshole, believe me, THEY WOULD KNOW IT!

If I've made a joke about something that someone took offense to, I'm sorry. I really was discussing the case, something Josh doesn't know anything about.

You say I'm an administrator of this blog and I should make everyone feel welcome. I think I've done my part. But I'll be damned if I'll welcome someone who calls me names.

That's just not done! Not on this blog, or any other blog. I don't think you'd welcome anyone who called you names. Do you?

Do you think for a minute, FOR ONE MINUTE that any other blog would WELCOME someone who is calling people names????

I DON'T THINK SO! I can't think of ONE!

If you like this joker, that's your prerogative. There's nothing I can do about that.

And BTW Josh....I'm the one who posts all your comments. Yeah, it was me. I could have deleted them, but I posted them. And I ignored them all, except for this last one. It was unbearable.

Lynyrd this guy is nothing but trouble. If this guy really wanted to vent a problem, he would he e-mailed you privately and said this. But no, he put a comment on the blog for the world to see. Because he's the pussy.

Grim IS a breath of fresh air, like I already said. I've enjoyed discussing the case with him. Let's see if Josh, who is a big NOTHING, can win.

So let it be said...so let it be done...

katie8753 said...

I think that me and Mr. P are the last of the Mahicans who believe that Charlie is guilty as sin. Well actually, there are others. The world is turning. I don't care anymore if they think he's guilty or not. He'll be dead soon. It's called Karma.

I think that he probably did go back to the LaBianca's house to check it out. He had all day Sunday to do that. But whether he did or not, who cares?

He's guilty.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie,

I've communicated with Josh off-blog in the past.

In my experience, he's a pretty easy-going guy (IF you treat him with mutual respect).

There's been mudslinging on both sides... and truth be told Katie, you threw the first mud pie.

Kimchi came in here, and said to Josh:
"The Valley awaits us".

The conversation had nothing to do with you.

BUT...
You felt the need to say: "What? The Valley of the Dolls?".

And, THAT'S where it all started THIS time.

You tease people, and when they react, you call "foul".
It's bullshit.

#1)
Your main problem with Josh, is that he defends Manson.
That's an absolute fact.
You know it, and I know it.

#2)
You've ALWAYS run-off anyone who is "Pro-Manson".
That's been your MO from the very beginning... and it's NOT what I want.
I dare ANYONE who has been with this blog over a year, to dispute that fact. Anyone?

At any rate... I haven't taken sides here.
I've told EVERYONE:
Stick to the subject, make your points, and ignore the side show.

If you continue to perpetuate this problem, you're not doing me OR the blog any favors by doing so.

If you treated Josh respectfully (on an ongoing basis), he would reciprocate.
Take my word for it.

And lastly...
I read Josh's comment on Venus' thread, and I AGREED with it 100%.
Grim Traveller AGREED with it too!
I was going to comment on Josh's point PERSONALLY, until you DELETED THE ENTIRE THREAD.

Why the fuck are we posting threads, if no one can enter their opinion on it except you??

If this fighting continues, I'll go back to moderating ALL comments MYSELF, and the bullshit from ALL participants will be deleted on-sight.

And until such time, you better not delete any more comments or threads without MY expressed approval.

Lynyrd hath fucking spoken.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie,

I believe Manson is guilty, and he's where he belongs.

But, if someone disagrees with me, I don't view their opinion as a personal affront.

That's the BIG difference between you and I.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

People don't have to agree with me on all counts, to be a "decent person".
If they treat me respectfully, I can treat them respectfully, and we can be friends.
And who knows, maybe we can LEARN something from each other... about TLB or even OTHER subjects.

Manson is in jail, and he will die there.
I don't feel the need to argue with people to the death, over this shit.
It's 2015.
Who fucking cares?

There's more to me and the visitors who come here, than our opinion(s) on "Charles Manson's guilt".

katie8753 said...

Yeah I said "Valley of the Dolls". I was kidding. Then Josh said he was going to take me to the desert and leave me there.

Yeah, he's an easy going guy. All I said was "Valley of the Dolls". He was threatening to kill me.

Yeah, he's an easy going guy!

katie8753 said...

Okay, Lynyrd, you say that Josh is an easy going guy (if you treat him with respect).

So Josh, let's pretend to go back years ago, and I'm asking you a question.

Do you think that Charlie ever took advantage of a woman after 1967? Or let me make it easier. What do you think Charlie was thinking in 1967?

katie8753 said...

Well I guess that was a hard question. Let me ask another question.

Josh, let's pretend we just met. What question would you ask me about this case?

katie8753 said...

Well I guess Josh is tongue tied for once. HA HA. He can't answer my question.

Lynyrd I thought you said he was nice. So much for that. He's 2 hours behind me. He's not asleep.

katie8753 said...

I asked a nice question. What's the problem now????

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie,

Josh is under no obligation to answer stupid questions from you.

If you don't like the guy, just ignore him.

Stormsurge and Starship had an issue with Poirot on a previous thread.
Both Stormsurge and Starship said they'd simply ignore Poirot's posts going forward.
Those guys have class.

Josh has a life, and he's probably nowhere near his computer right now.
You're just making an ass of yourself, quite frankly.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Josh,

Seriously Bro, just ignore her... and continue to participate.

She wants to get rid of you, but don't give her the satisfaction.

BELIEVE ME, your presence ALONE will drive her completely batshit.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Truth be told, I really hope Josh stays-on.

Katie has to learn, that she can't "handpick" our participants just by acting crazy and obnoxious... and there's plenty of people on here for Josh to chat with, besides Katie.

In fact, if Josh holds-out long enough, Katie will throw a tantrum and leave herself...

Mark my words.

Maybe "Josh" is the "Chosen One". LOL!

katie8753 said...

Wow wouldn't you be lucky if Josh was your real "boy". HA HA HA.

katie8753 said...

Josh didn't answer because he doesn't know the answers. But Lynyrd, hold onto your dream. Maybe it will come true!

katie8753 said...

Maybe Stormy and Starship will comment on your next thread.

Cheers!

katie8753 said...

Wow is Lynyrd serious? He wants Josh in charge? He hasn't even answered my question because he doesn't know how.

Josh in charge. HA HA. I can't wait to see that.

I've endured Josh's insults for several comments now and I've ignored them, but I knew when I finally faced Josh this was gonna cause a problem. So be it.

He's Lynyrd's "boy" because Kimchi likes him. Nothing I can do about that.

Hey Josh, what should we name the new blog? Josh's butthole?

Hail Josh, he's the new king. I wonder what his first thread will be.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I have a question for you Katie:

You say Josh is a "pussy".
You say he's stupid.
You say he knows absolutely nothing about the case... etc, etc.

Well...
If those things are true, then why do you perceive him as such a threat?

A person so completely ineffectual, should be very easy to ignore.

katie8753 said...

Hey Josh, where's your new thread? Kimchi what are you waiting for? Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We're Waiting!!!

Blow us out of the water!!!!!!!!!!!! You both are so magnetic and magnanimous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just make sure you don't interrupt a current thread.

And make sure you aren't being a douchebag.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

The blog needs more diversity.
I've been saying that for years.

If Josh wanted to write threads for the blog, that would be fine with me.

katie8753 said...

We'll see Lynyrd...we'll just see!! HA HA HA HA

katie8753 said...

Get it on Josh! HA HA

katie8753 said...

I can't wait to see his first thread. HA HA HA.

katie8753 said...

In the meantime, we'll rename this blog Josh's asshole.

katie8753 said...

Just a thought, or maybe Josh has a better idea. Maybe we should ask him.

katie8753 said...

He is the King now. He used to be your "boy" but he bought you. Now he owns you.

katie8753 said...

Dig it.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Kimchi is a very good friend of mine, and she always will be.

She's contributed dozens of quality threads, and she's been with LSB3 since day ONE.

She's one of the finest people I know... both online and off.

She's a top-shelf, completely loyal, trustworthy person... and I've appreciated her warm friendship for many years.

I make absolutely NO apologies for my friendship with Kimchi... none whatsoever.

And yes, because Kimchi is friends with Josh, that carries a lot of weight with me.

katie8753 said...

I can't wait to see the new thread tomorrow by "Jason". HA HA. I hope you spell check it.

Let's see, it will be about how Charlie is innocent. BLAH.

Hey Lynrd make sure your commode works.

katie8753 said...

Oh Jason Josh, same thing. HA HA.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'm going to bed.

The only person more pathetic than a fool, is the person arguing with one.
(I don't want to be that person).

I've asked you to cool the jets with Josh and ignore him, instead you've decided to antagonize and taunt him even further.

Good for you.

You're demonstrating the type of person you are for everyone.

G'Night.

katie8753 said...

OH Kimchi is more of a friend than I am? That's rich!

This is so lame, more lame than the Manson family. Pick those people Lynyrd, I knew that if I said anything about that lame comment that "your boy" made that you would get mad.

I'm sick of your misogynistic ways. It doesn't matter what I do, you always choose them.

Well you got 'em. I'm sick of arguing with you about this crap. I've talked with you for HOURS longer than Kimchi has, but since she knows more about this case, you chose her. So be it.

Have a nice life with Kimchi and her dog boy.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

When you're finished diarrhea-ring all over my blog, shut the lights off.

I'm sure you'll wake-up tomorrow and realize that none of your posts make any fucking sense, and delete them all.

Then, it will appear as though I'm conversing with myself, just like old times!

katie8753 said...

You WISH!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

"OH Kimchi is more of a friend than I am? That's rich!"

I never said that, or even compared the two of you.

But yes, Kimchi is a very good friend of mine.

If that bothers you, then that's your own personal issue, and it's beyond my control.

I'm supposed to let you shit all over Kimchi now, just because you can't get along with Josh?

That's just fucking stupid.

Get ahold of yourself.

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd I want to tell you something. I was there with you LONG before Kimchi, LONG before Josh, long ago it was me and you.

You asked Kimchi to help you out with the blog and she said she couldn't. You asked me to do it, and I DID. I've been working with you, publishing comments, welcoming people, talking on the blog, A LOT MORE THAN KIMCHI DID!!!!

But you chose her over me. You always have. And her monkey boy Josh.

I'm sick of it. I deserve a little respect. But I never get it.

I understand you wanting Kimchi on the blog. I like Kimchi. And I respect her knowledge of this case. But that monkey boy has to go. He does nothing but disrespect people. AND YOU KNOW THAT!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie... you've got issues.

I like You, Kimchi, Josh AND Poirot.

It's not my fault, that you people can't get along.

I'm not gonna BAN someone, just because you don't like their philosophy (and can't get along with them).

Over the years, you've treated Josh just as bad as he's treated you... and that's the God's-Honest truth.

Yes, I'm sure Josh doesn't like you at this point, but can you blame the dude?

You've been busting his balls since day one.

And now, I ask you to cool it with him, and you write 25 MORE insulting posts!??

What the fuck is wrong with you?

You're forcing me into a corner, and I'm gonna have to delete you as an administrator and delete any further inappropriate comments.

Is that what you want?

It's your choice.

I asked you to IGNORE the guy.
You'd think I'd asked you to suck 1000 cocks or something.
WTF???

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Your choice.

Josh is welcome.

Are you IN or OUT?

I've gotta get some sleep

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I'm dog tired.
You've got 10 minutes to reply.

And, if I wake-up to any more bullshit comments, you're being dropped as an administrator, and ALL this crap is being deleted.

katie8753 said...

When I saw that nasty comment by Josh in the moderation I thought about deleting it. But I knew you would get mad. So I posted it and commented on it.

I'm sick and tired of this back and forth about this stupid Josh fucker.

Make him whatever you want. I don't care anymore. I'm sick and tired of thinking you'll get mad at me.

Let someone else worry about that shit. Life is too short. I lived thru one horrible relationship that I had to worry about everything. No more.

Let Kimchi and Josh carry the blog. I'm done.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

So be it, and as you wish...

If you can't co-exist with Josh as fellow bloggers, then you're done.

katie8753 said...

So be it. Maybe in another life...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

As per Katie's decision, going forward, I'm the sole administrator and moderator.

If you're not a "member" of the blog, please be patient when posting comments.
I'm very busy, and it may take me a while to "approve" your comment.

Josh Bratt said...

Wow!!!
All for little old me Katie?
I honestly don't get why people take all this shit so seriously.
My comment was coming from someone who reads these blogs. It's hard to read when he you have fish through all the venom and hatred. All that and it was only my opinion. I think CM took advantage of situations and people but also gave back to those people in his own way. I think trying to rationalize someone who was raised in confinement and probably not by the best role models is a never ending process with no finish.
I think CM is not guilty as tried. That is MY OPINION. :) I respect and understand other opinions. I think there were a lot, if not all, of shady witnesses with a lot to gain. I think there were multiple instances where a mistrial could've been had. I think the defense attorneys were shit and that an umbrella defense was not in CM's best interests. I think things would have turned out much much different had Tex been tried with the others. I think MANSON has been turned into something completely counterproductive to society, and not by his doing. If you look at CM he is doing his best for the world, in his own way. He pushes the environment and helps out his friends. He is most definitely not a "good" dude, but I don't think he is necessarily a terrible person either. I think Ramirez and Bundy and those types are sick and terrible people but I don't CM is part of all that. I think that there is much unknown within this saga that we will never really know the things we wish we could. My interest lies in the last of the old time prisoners. CM was around before drugs and Reagan and all that. His mind is interesting and on top of it all that trial was ridonkulous!!!
Now notice......I said "I THINK" These are my opinions and reasonings. I would've answered Katie but I was busy with my kids and such. She asked if I thought CM took advantage of women post '67. My short answer is Yes I do. I think a lot of women took advantage of CM too. I think they still are.
She also asked something about what I would ask her if I met her..... I'm not sure I would ask anything. I'm pretty quiet and don't really get involved with many people. I guess, ultimately, I want to ask people like Katie why they come around all this stuff when it seems to make them so angry and full of negativity. That's an honest and not a snarky comment. I've always wondered that. Why involve yourselves in something when it seems to create such angst and negativity within you?
It's certainly not just Katie. There are tons and tons.
Along with CM, this whole subject has the wackiest people revolving around it. SO ENTERTAINING!!!!
Thanks for being kind Lynyrd. You're good people bro. I don't know about butt boy though lol

Josh Bratt said...

I don't dislike many people, just to add on.
I don't dislike Katie or Mr. P or anyone else on here.
The people I dislike in life have done something to me personally or burned me pretty bad in some way.
I dislike very few people in life. It creates bad energy to have that within you.
PEACE

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Josh.

I probably won't have time to respond to your post properly for a while, due to "real-life" responsibilities.

But suffice it to say, I agree with about 50% of what you said.
Some of the things you said were somewhat predictable and expected, but you also raise some excellent points, and that's the value of blogging with folks who have different perspectives.
I will respond to your points, as soons as my time allows.

There's no reason we can't all get along and have fun with this... because ultimately, blogging is really just a discussion group.

Please refrain from calling Poirot names.

More to come later...

Peace!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

For the record:
It wasn't my intent to get rid of Katie.
My HOPE was that we could ALL coexist as friends... and as a blog, be open to new people.

It's not a negative thing, and I really can't understand how anyone could view that goal as such.

Go figure..

katie8753 said...

I'm not gone, I'm still here. Just laying low for a while.

My apologies to everyone for last night's eruption. I guess it just hit me wrong. I shouldn't have gone off like that.

Peaceout!

Mrstormsurge said...

We got good people here

We all need to forgive and be forgiven

Let's have a group hug

louis365 said...

I'm partial to a Bud and a Spliff.

stoner van houten said...

hey now ....everyone getting along here...

stoner van houten said...

i think a lot of people who kill are a ''quack''...i agree yes..

katie8753 said...

Stormy! Hugs!!!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Stoner VH!!

Mrstormsurge said...

See!!! Not so hard.

grimtraveller said...

Josh Bratt said...

"I guess, ultimately, I want to ask people why they come around all this stuff when it seems to make them so angry.....I honestly don't get why people take all this shit so seriously"


I think part of it is that it's an interest and even though it's become kind of fashionable to be dismissive of "the internet" or things that have no direct bearing on one's life that one encounters online, I suspect that for most people, their thoughts, feelings and opinions are actually important. Few like to admit it because it seems so naff but I think it's true. Even the most battle hardened has an achilles heel.
A person's thoughts, feelings and opinions are not distinct from them, they're part of what makes up that person at that moment in time so if one feels that their thoughts, feelings or opinions are being rubbished, it's tantamount to rubbishing the person. Few people are going to smile and kiss you when they feel they are being rubbished, especially in "public" which cyberspace is.
You know, I see that in Charles Manson almost all the time. Whether he's being lucid and factual or mystical and "crazy" there nearly always comes a moment where I just read this huge exasperation in him. Actually, at some point, I catch it in pretty much everyone. Few people enjoy the feeling of being rubbished, even if they're not actually being.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


"For a conversation to be interesting, it must be two-sided"


At least.
I guess for a long time with TLB, there was pretty much just HS and not much else. Then there was this explosion / re~ emergence of alternative motives and as with anything, there'll be various supporters of the various theories and even a mixing and matching like what that guy did with "The Manson myth" book.
One thing's for sure, this is multi headed beast of a conversation now !

Josh Bratt said...

"trying to rationalize someone who was raised in confinement and probably not by the best role models is a never ending process with no finish"


Some societies seem to operate a curious double standard. On the one hand there will be major criticism of parents that don't raise their children "right" yet virtually no understanding, let alone sympathy or mercy afforded to those children not raised "right" when they take the wrong path. On the one hand, there often is this "lock up the scum, treat them harshly and teach 'em a lesson" kind of view towards offenders yet no appreciation of the reality that most of those offenders will one day be out on the streets again..... and if they've been treated like shit, most will not appear on national TV and say "thank you society, for teaching me this lesson. I appreciate it !"









grimtraveller said...

Josh Bratt said...

"I think CM is not guilty as tried"


In every one of the cases he was involved in, if you take on board his own words post 1970, and particularly recently in the Stimson book, it's hard to sustain that view.
I do think that the conspiracy laws that California operated by were a bit of a minefield because they don't distinguish between someone who had venomous intent and someone like a Bruce who got caught up in something like Hinman and probably got the shock of his life when he heard he had died.
But under those laws.....

It would make for an interesting debate, how guilty is one that doesn't actually administer the killing blow/shot/thrust of the knife ? For example, should Susan Atkins have received the same punishment {morally, not legally} for holding Sharon Tate as Charles Watson who admits he did all the stabbing ? Are Pat & Linda equally accountable for Steve Parent's death though it's rather obvious they didn't know, when they saw the car lights suddenly shine that he would be dead in less than a minute ?

Josh Bratt said...

"I think there were a lot, if not all, of shady witnesses with a lot to gain"


I think that in trials where many of the witnesses live on the wrong side of the law, that's inevitable. If you put yourself in the position of a Danny DeCarlo or an Ella Jo Bailey, can you imagine if you had a pending charge like an engine that's been stolen {and you've been charged but not tried} or a check forgery thing and you had information that could help the prosecution, wouldn't you try to get them to make it go away ? Or to put it another way, say you risked your neck to testify against some pretty dangerous people that had some serious reach and you were in the position of DeCarlo or Bailey, would you think "oh well, it's a fair cop !" if they went ahead afterwards and prosecuted you ? That's like stopping your car in a no stopping zone and getting out to save someone's life that collapses on the street and getting your car towed away and crushed and having to pay the hefty fine and towing & crush fee !

Josh Bratt said...

"I think there were multiple instances where a mistrial could've been had"


Going through the trial testimony of both LK and DDC, Irving Kanarek made so many motions for a mistrial. He even did so when Charlie jumped at the judge. I suspect that this was part of his armory. William Zamora in "Trial by your peers" made an interesting point. He says he asked himself what the point would be if a new trial had been granted given that they would still have to go through all he rigmarole again. And if they came to matters they didn't like in the new trial, they could move for a mistrial and on and on. So one could look at it that the judge had to be kind of strong to keep a lid on things.











grimtraveller said...

Josh Bratt said...

"I think the defense attorneys were shit and that an umbrella defense was not in CM's best interests"


If some of the information Robert Hendrickson provides in "Death to pigs" is true, it seems that Daye Shinn was on the make or at best, dodgy and that Ronald Hughes was supposed to marry Brenda or one of the girls but was uncomfortable with this and it was pulled at the last minute. There's so much stuff that was going on behind the scenes with the defence, it's a pity none of them ever wrote a book about it, even 40 years after the events.
I'm not so generous about how the umbrella defence hurt Charlie though. George Stimson contends in his book that Manson would have been better off being tried alone but chose not to do so because he wanted to stick by his friends. I don't buy that. He'd already got wind that Sadie was blabbing and had gone to the grand jury, he knew Pat was afraid {he'd had to tell her no one could touch them to calm her fears}, he knew Linda had talked and wanted her back in the Family, he was confident that if Tex was left with him, he'd bring him back from whatever weird state he was in and I suspect he knew that Leslie had been telling Marvin Part all kinds of things for Part to want to go down the insanity route for her. I noticed a fascinating pattern emerge with the female co~defendants, namely, when each one was separate from the Family, they told outsiders {Joe Sage, Robert Kasabian, Jeffrey Jacobs, Ronnie Howard, Virginia Graham, Nancy Jordon, Marvin Part, Claude Brown, Richard Caballero, Paul Caruso} about the murders and/or Charlie's part in them. Once the trials were over and they came to their senses some years later, they all began telling about the murders and Charlie's part in them.....
Interesting, that.
I suspect he calculated if they were isolated, they'd blab. After all, that's what happened with each of them before the trials and some of them have since said that they were getting visits from Gypsy and Squeaky bringing messages from Charlie and it's a matter of record that after these visits that lawyers would be fired. The only person that stood to benefit from an umbrella defence was Charlie but he badly miscalculated. None of the other defendants had the court room savvy to know which way to proceed and at that point, I don't think any of them had envisaged the witnesses that ended up testifying against them. That must have hurt.
But in reality, whose fault was the umbrella defence ?
I think having gotten away with so much between '67 & '69, he may have thought initially that he was going to beat this rap.








Josh Bratt said...

I think the Helter Skelter Manson is less a reality than it is fiction. I think it's as some of the girls said. He had that magnetic charisma. It just didn't draw the best of people. Take the types he tended to draw to him and then factor in the environment he'd spent his entire life in and you have the recipe for disaster. I would say that the get brother out of jail makes as much sense, or more, than helter skelter. CM was gone more than a week prior to the crimes and has said that he only said do what you will and do your best. All of this behavior is morally reprehensible, I agree. In mine eyes, he's more guilty of conspiracy and of not telling authorities than he is for killing anyone. He is callous, but that comes from the environment. CM's influence stemming from being in prison so long was a terrible mix with the volatile times into which he was released. None of these excuse condoning terrible behavior, but I really don't see much that warrants the attention CM got specifically through all this. It's been blown way out of proportion to sell books and tv spots. The attorneys were a joke and I'm not too trusting of any stuff that comes from the book Helter Skelter, that whole aura of witchiness and mind control and such....Who knows what the truth is though...? Not I
All of this is off the top of my head and has not been edited or proofed :)
It's sloppy and probably doesn't make sense. I got to get back to work.
PEACE

Josh Bratt said...

You're very thorough Grim, lol
I'm always so rushed for time that I can't really get into anything for any real length of time.
Such is Life.
I appreciate the thorough aspect you have.

grimtraveller said...

Josh Bratt said...

"He is most definitely not a 'good' dude, but I don't think he is necessarily a terrible person either. I think Ramirez and Bundy and those types are sick and terrible people but I don't think CM is part of all that"


I'd go along with that. He's not in the same kind of category as those two. For one thing, he's not a serial killer. You couldn't even describe Tex as that. He killed seven people but he didn't kill seven times.
I couldn't say Charlie is or was a terrible person. He did some awful things but I get pretty short with all this "most dangerous man alive" stuff. Most of the time, the most dangerous man alive isn't known to the masses !

Josh Bratt said...

"I think MANSON has been turned into something completely counterproductive to society, and not by his doing"


I think it's partly his own doing. One of the most touching things I've read is in Stimson's book {that book again !} when he observes that sometimes Charlie may have been his own worst enemy in the way he's been perceived or words to that effect. He says in response to this notion, Manson once asked him "well, how would you have played it ?"
That spoke 1000 words to me.
Many writers within the media are sensationalist and lazy and tend to score cheap and easy points with Manson. They do it with pretty much every public figure that's been around a bit. Over here when Prince William got married the press had a field day about his wife's sister's bum. I don't know a damn thing about her but the nation knows all about her bum ! It was the same with Bugliosi. Wherever he went, whatever he wrote, even when he spent 20 years on a project, he was paraded as the "man that prosecuted Manson."
But Charlie hasn't always helped himself has he ? He's not like the lions in the African proverb "until the lions have their own storytellers, history will always glorify the hunter." The fact that there are those that sympathize or have an affinity with him shows that the picture presented of him over the last half century hasn't been all encompassing.


grimtraveller said...

Josh Bratt said...

"It's sloppy and probably doesn't make sense"


It made perfect sense and was some good slop !
I think he was charismatic then and still is. I think he's pissed at getting caught, and this time, for the big one. But that doesn't take away from the fact that, as Zamora noted, he had a way of making unconfident people feel ten feet tall. He may have unleashed the worst in some people, but for a while there, I'd argue he gave people a solid ground within themselves on which to stand. For whatever reason, no one had managed to do so before him.
The person that can bring out the best in a person is also positioned to bring out the worst.

MrPoirot said...

Let me explain what just happened. Josh has been made blog administrator.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Poirot,

Josh is a fellow blogger and a friend of mine.

I really don't need any more drama right now.

I'm asking you politely (and as a friend), to hit the "reset button" on this situation.

This blog needs more open dialogue with differing opinions, and if you're opposed to advancing that concept, then you're standing in the way of my goals.

If you feel you were wronged, then be the bigger person, and let it go.

I've given YOU second chances before, and you know that.

Just recently, you offended both Starship and Stormsurge with your "illuminati propoganda" theories, and I let it completely slide.
(Bear in mind, Starship and Stormsurge are both longstanding members and good friends)

You also took things too far with your "Travis Alexander deserved what he got" speel... but, I let that slide too.

This concludes my appeal for peace on this subject.

If this nonsense continues, we'll see who the blog administrator is...

I really, REALLY don't wanna go there.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

My time is limited.

I'm trying to prepare new threads for the blog, and this drama just bogs things down.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 214   Newer› Newest»