Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Well, I had some questions regarding Gary Hinman's house and I've searched until I'm tired of it, so I guess I'll just make a thread, give my opinion on a few things, and see if anyone out there knows the answers...

Photo Courtesy of Cielodrive.com
We all know that Gary Hinman was a music teacher/UCLA student, living at 964 Old Topanga Canyon Rd.  

And we all know that there are two theories about this murder:  (1) Charlie thought Gary had money because of an inheritance, or because he owned property, i.e., his house & cars & (2) Gary had sold Bobby some bad dope that he made in his basement and Bobby wanted his money back.

I tend to believe the first theory.  I think Bobby made the second theory up when his other lies ran out.






BUT...

Did Gary actually OWN that house, or was he just renting it??

Ed Sanders says in "The Family" that on July 26, 1969, a young man came over to Gary's house with the intention of asking if he could rent the first floor.  I love Ed Sanders, but I have to say, I'm not quite sure if everything in his book is accurate.  

But why would that guy want to "rent" part of Gary's "rent house"?  That doesn't make sense.

I personally tend to think that Gary was renting that house.  I can't see him having enough income as a music teacher to purchase a 2600+ square foot home.  But I could be wrong.  Does anyone know if Gary owned this home?

I've read where this house is in Topanga, CA and also in Malibu, CA.   A wiki search shows it's in Los Angeles County, but I couldn't find a record of it in property searches.

Now I read somewhere (I know that's lame that I can't say where, but I can't) that Gary's house didn't have a basement, that in fact, the living area of Gary's house was on the 2nd floor, and the 1st floor was considered "a basement/storage area".  You can see in the picture that the steps lead to a door on the 2nd floor.  

If so, the supposed "dope lab" would have to have been on the 1st floor.  But there is no mention in the police report of any dope making contraptions in Gary's house, so I tend to believe he wasn't making any.

The house has since been extensively renovated.  In fact, it's not even recognizable anymore.  Even the landscaping looks incredibly different.  Maude provided me this link showing what this property looks like now.  Thanks Maude!  BTW, it doesn't mention a basement.  It also says it has 2 bedrooms, and then 3 bedrooms???

964 Old Topanga Canyon Rd Topanga, CA 90290


Property Details

Property details for 964 Old Topanga Canyon Rd, Topanga, CA 90290. This Single Family Home is located at Old Topanga Canyon in Topanga, California. The home provides approximately 2609 square feet of living space. This property features 2 bedrooms. There are 2 bathrooms. 964 Old Topanga Canyon Rd, Topanga, CA 90290 falls within the Los Angeles county lines. This home sold for $775,000 on Mar 4, 2013. Similar homes in the area are priced around $949,896.

Public Records Property Information from local public records.

  • Beds 3 Bed
  • House Size 2,609 Sq Ft
  • Year Built 1934
  • Property Type Single Family Home
  • Style Not Available
  • Units 1
  • Pool -
  • Heating Central
  • Rooms -
  • Fireplace -
  • Baths -
  • Lot Size 0.3 Acres
  • Price -
  • Stories -
  • Garage -
  • Cooling Central
  • Construction Unknown
  • Year Renovated 1989
  • Roofing -
Does anyone know more about this house, if Gary owned it and what happened to it after his murder??  Thanks!

63 comments:

katie8753 said...

I wonder if Gary's house was 2600+ square feet when he was living there, or was it built bigger later.

In this video you can see there was quite a few steps to go up the cliff to get to Gary's house. Now it's pretty much on the street. Did they do away with the cliff?

Maybe Gary did own this house. I've never read anywhere that he did or didn't.

http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/c0007843/66066668bc7ce4939877a3a39d059196?query=Gary+Hinman&current=4&orderBy=Relevance&hits=4&referrer=search&search=%2fsearch%3fstartd%3d%26endd%3d%26allFilters%3d%26query%3dGary%2bHinman%26advsearchStartDateFilter%3d%26advsearchEndDateFilter%3d%26searchFilterHdSDFormat%3dAll%26searchFilterDigitized%3dAll%26searchFiltercolorFormat%3dAll%26searchFilteraspectratioFormat%3dAll&allFilters=&productType=IncludedProducts&page=1&b=059196#

katie8753 said...

The house had a "make-shift" stove pipe fireplace with brick built around it. The last selling listing didn't mention a fireplace.

I think that whole house was torn down and rebuilt.

beauders said...

Katie I think the house was much smaller when Hinman lived, I remember reading somewhere that it was even considered small by 1969 standards. Beausoleil likes to say he and Hinman where just associates not really friends, which is another one of his lies as Hinman let Beausoleil and a girlfriend live there with him I think for two weeks or longer sometime in 1968.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders. It looked pretty small back then. Hinman was a good friend to Bobby & Mary, and probably Susan. I can't imagine Bobby driving around in Gary's car knowing that he murdered him. That's unfathomable.

That's why I think none of them should ever get out of prison. They thought it was so fun to kill people back then, but I guess it's not so funny now.

Do you know if Gary owned that house or was he renting it?

katie8753 said...

What's a "pink slip" anyway? I thought that's what you get when you're gonna lose your job.

maudes harold said...

Katie,

I checked my stuff and didn't find anything more about the house, but I'm pretty sure he was renting.

A pink slip is the proof of ownership of a car.

beauders said...

I don't know if Hinman owned the house or not. He has an ex-wife who would know but I don't know how to contact her, does anyone else?

leary7 said...

Anyone else have a Manson related item on their bucket list? I still dream of talking to Mary Brunner. I've little doubt that Mary engineered Gary's last moments and yet she was never tried for the murder. Do you think she has any sense of her good fortune? I've always thought Mary would be the most interesting former Family member to talk to, followed closely by Nancy Pittman and Ruth Ann.

grimtraveller said...

leary7 said...

Anyone else have a Manson related item on their bucket list? I still dream of talking to Mary Brunner


I would have liked to have talked to Susan Atkins, Lotsapoppa, Nuel Emmons, Winifred Chapman, Gregg Jakobson, Vince Bugliosi {if I could get a word in}, Aaron Stovitz, Dean Moorehouse, Marcus Arneson, members of the initial TLB jury, Shorty's and Gary's wives, Kathleen Maddox and various wardens at the various boys homes and correctional facilities that Charlie was in in the 40s and 50s. One thing I'd certainly ask them is if they have ever borne even a tiny bit of responsibility for the way Manson and other boys in their care may have turned out. I'd like to talk to Steve Grogan, Bill Vance, Pat, Linda, Catherine Share, Diane Lake, Bruce Davis, Brooks Poston, Juanita Wildebush, Ella Jo bailey, Squeaky and believe it or not, Sandy.
I'd like to talk to Zeso, Pooh and Tanya too.
Fortunately, it won't alter my existence if I never do.
I have to say though, I find the idea of bucket lists rather morbid. I'd do things out of curiosity and because I'm a nosy grim traveller !

leary7 said...

Bucket lists are indeed morbid, Mr. Grim, but then so is a terminal sentence.
Vance, Ella Jo and Juanita would be an interesting trio to get some reflections from.
Does anyone know if prisoner visiting lists are a matter of public record? I am curious if Tex's kids visit him and who still comes to see Leslie and Pat. And just for the hell of it, I would love to know what core Family members, if any, have ever indicated they could be cajoled into talking for compensation. Does anyone know if Gypsy or Linda were paid for their talking on those TV shows they did for the History channel?

katie8753 said...

Thanks Maude, thanks Beauders! I don't know how to contact his ex wife. I'm going to assume he rented it. I wonder if the person who owned it sued his family for damages like Rudy...

Leary I would imagine that Gypsy and Linda were paid for any interviews they've done. More drug money for Linda. LOL.

Saw this today: http://www.contactmusic.com/lily-tomlin/news/lily-tomlin-hung-out-with-manson-killer-in-jail_5051719

It doesn't say who it is.

sunset77 said...

I don't know if Hinman owned or rented the house. I suppose it's possible he may have had a mortgage, I don't know. There is a decent picture of the place as it probably looked in 1969 on CieloDrive.com-->HERE.

There was a story published in a tabloid called "National Tattler" that was purportedly by Gary Hinmans wife. It can be found online. That story describes the house as 2 story and containing 6 rooms.

I read the Lily Tomlin article about being escorted by a "young girl" around the prison by a "Manson family killer". This must have taken place many years ago as I don't think any of the Manson women could be described as a "young girl" currently.

I also ran across another article about Tomlin that said this: "Tomlin is full of stories. She moved to Los Angeles to co-host Music Scene, a proto-MTV that broadcast Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix concerts and counted down the week's top hits. To take the gig, she turned down Laugh-In. "I wanted to go on a hip show," she cracks.

She arrived in L.A. on Aug. 9, 1969 — the Saturday that Sharon Tate's body was found. "The night after the Manson murders!" Tomlin exclaims. "I went to a party that night at some house, and all of my friends, who were writers working on different shows, they were making parodies of what had happened — or what had been reported as happening — the night before. It was kind of eerie."

Tomlin went on to say that when her "Music Scene" show was canceled, she moved on to "Laugh In". If you want to know why the show "Music Scene" was canceled, I might have found the reason-->Moms Mabley Sings " It's Your Thing " / with Lily Tomlin / Live 1969

beauders said...

Katie I do think that Manson and the Family did believe Hinman owned the house.

katie8753 said...

Sunset do you have a link to that story you mentioned by Hinman's ex-wife?

Beauders, I think Manson thought he owned it too. That may have been one of the reasons he thought Gary had a lot of money.

grimtraveller said...

From a very interesting interview by Ear Candy magazine with the author John Gilmour, who wrote a rather interesting book on Charles Manson back in the day that came out in 1971 called "The Garbage People,"

E.C.: Also, there were some accounts in your book that I haven't read of before. Like that Gary Hinman was promising, or at least Charlie thought, he was promising money for recording expenses

John Gilmore: Yeah, he was doing a con job on Hinman. Gary knew a lot of people and he wanted to get a little involved in a hipper scene than he was. He was very locked into that whole Buddhist scene. I think he was uncertain and drifting back and forth. And he had a lot of his own personal problems. From a couple of people that I knew that knew him ~ he was a pretty nice guy. But…terrible…I would hate to go through that.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Grim. I never heard that before. I can't imagine that Gary was going to bankroll Charlie's recording expenses. What does that have to do with Buddhism?

Manson Family Archives said...

So that is yet another new reason given for why Hinman was murdered:

1. Robbery, they needed money to prepare for Helter Skelter
2. They thought Hinman inherited money
3. Hinman wanted to join the Family, but didn't want to give up his bank account, so Charlie killed him (Paul Watkins, who Bugliosi actually used as a witness, despite his not being in the Family at the time of the murders)
4. Manson wanted Hinman to join the Family
5. Manson wanted Hinman to join a band
6. They thought he had stocks and bonds
7. He promised to pay for Charlie's recording.

Funny how nearly every reason given came later, after Charlie the boogyman was the go to guy to blame and get off from murder charges.

Hinman was over drug disputes. Sorry, but deal with it. As for evidence, everyone was covering up drug crimes back then. That kept the cops from snooping around drug circles. Cops themselves back then I think prefered to avoid drug angles, as it was just more bullshit. Not to mention some were on payrolls and I don't think the establishment wanted it to be known just what a mess the drug laws were creating with violent crime. This was before the term "War on Drugs" was even uttered.

Not to mention, prosecutors like to avoid drug angles, because when they can make the defense look at nasty and cold blood, it works. To get into drug disputes, then it creates an excuse as for what went down. I doubt it was easy to get a jury to feel sympathy for somebody involved in drug peddling.

There was hardly even an investigation into Hinman, Beausoleil was caught so fast. Then it's not WHY you did it. It's IF you did it. With the Straight Satans and Charlie and others involved, why would he say what happened?

Try viewing this case from a real world perspective.

maudes harold said...

In digging around awhile back, I found a drug case involving one of the guys that found Gary, Michael Burke Erwin. He was indicted in 1975.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19771074550F2d524_1993.xml/UNITED%20STATES%20v.%20PERRY

maudes harold said...

Leary,

I'd like to talk to them all.......But if I had to choose just one, it'd be Squeaky. I have a soft spot for her.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

So that is yet another new reason given for why Hinman was murdered

No.
The thing to understand with all of the dominant theories, be it the drug deal, the robbery attempt or thinking Gary had money to pay for the recording session is that none of these are the reason he got killed. Whichever theory you ascribe to, that theory is simply the mitigating circumstance for why Bobby, Susan & Mary were there in the first place. Saying Gary Hinman died because of drugs is like saying JFK was killed because he was in Dallas.
According to Gilmour's book, Bobby had already determined that Hinman didn't have the money. As bad as things had got, it was Charlie's entry into matters and the sword whack that forced matters along and brought about a situation where Hinman wanted proper medical attention which in turn would have brought in the cops which would have meant trouble for Manson.
None of the "reasons" put forth for Hinman's death leave that conclusion out. Whatever had happened, whatever reason the three of them were there, once that sword whack had been administered, there was always going to be one reality that had to be faced; what do we do about Hinman ?

2 They thought Hinman inherited money

The last time Susan Atkins roamed the earth a free citizen were the early hours of October 10th 1969. While still in custody after the Barker raid, on October 13th she was questioned by 2 LASO officers. She told them that her and Bobby Beausoleil were sent to Hinman's to to get some money he had supposedly inherited. The reason the two cops questioned her was because the day before, October 12th, they'd questioned Kitty Lutesinger and lo and behold, she had told them exactly the same thing, adding that she'd heard Manson had sent them. This is long before Charlie was ever connected with this or any other murderous crime. Atkins didn't even implicate Manson in the Hinman crime ~ but she mentioned being sent and she said it was due to collect on this inheritance they heard Hinman had got.
You want to know a funny thing ? Susan Atkins changed her stories multiple times over the years. One of the only ones that did not change was about being sent to Hinman's and the inheritance. Even when she was lying her blaggers off during the penalty phase, that part of the story never changed.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Paul Watkins, who Bugliosi actually used as a witness, despite his not being in the Family at the time of the murders

I think the time has come in TLB blogsville to get real about Paul Watkins and his role in these prosecutions. His testimony pointed to matters that were circumstantial at best. He outlined and explained {along with Brooks Poston and Gregg Jakobson} Helter Skelter in more detail than others. His testimony didn't condemn or convict Manson. He couldn't testify that Charlie was behind the TLB killings because as you point out, he wasn't even around. He gets far more air time and credit than he's worthy of. Bugliosi stated to the jury on day one that they were going to have to hear strange things from lots of people because they would never believe it if they only heard these things from one. That was Paul Watkins' role. He was one voice bolstering something that needed many voices to bolster.

Funny how nearly every reason given came later, after Charlie the boogyman was the go to guy to blame and get off from murder charges

That is as true as it is not true ! Everyone of the TLB killers described Charlies role in the crimes. None of them were not charged. None of them got off.
As for every reason coming later, that depends on who you're talking about. Bobby fingered Manson as Hinman's killer only when he was facing the gas chamber in his 2nd trial. The only one that played the 'blame Charlie' gig was Tex and he also blamed Susan, Pat, Linda & Leslie where he could. Clem, Bruce and the ladies didn't. It was only when they woke up some years later and reviewed their lives and tried to make sense of what had happened that they were able to see Manson's destructive role and they thought "hang on a minute !"
But here's an interesting one; when separated from Charlie back in 1969, Susan, Leslie, Linda and Pat all told other people, outsiders, that Charlie was the fulcrum for the TLB killings, that it was his gig. Susan told Howard, Graham, Jordon, Bugliosi, Caballero, Caruso & the grand jury, Leslie told Marvin Part, Pat told Dr Claude Brown, Linda told two hitch hikers, Jeffrey Jacobs, Joe Sage and her husband. Then his co~defendants played their games during the trial. Then what happens when they wake up years later ? They revert to what was going on when they were separated from him in 1969. Long before he was the 'bogeyman'.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Hinman was over drug disputes. Sorry, but deal with it

Actually, it makes no difference. Let's say for the sake of argument that Gary sold bad drugs. Every person prosecuted for that murder would still be in exactly the same position. Mary Brunner got lucky and really was the lesser of two evils there. And she soon got her comeuppance.



Cops themselves back then I think prefered to avoid drug angles, as it was just more bullshit

Are you kidding ? While the Tate autopsies were happening the day after and while the LaBiancas lay dead but as yet unfound, those two aforementioned LASO officers told LAPD about Bobby Beausoleil and mentioned that some of his hippie mates may be involved and the LAPD officer cut him off and said the case wasn't about hippies, but about drugs. "We know what's behind these murders. They're part of a big dope transaction." Most of the initial investigation of the Cielo killings centered around drugs. Four of the first five suspects were dealers and the fifth was suspected to be on drugs. The main theories were drug based.


I don't think the establishment wanted it to be known just what a mess the drug laws were creating with violent crime

The establishment did not consider the mess to be because of the drug laws. And even though we've seen quite a lot of states in America and in countries round the world seriously relax drug laws, for the most part, they still don't.

I doubt it was easy to get a jury to feel sympathy for somebody involved in drug peddling

Of course, that didn't stop the prosecution from using Lotsapoppa in the penalty phase. The idea was precisely to engender sympathy for the man with the bullet lodged next to his spine, drug dealer or not and in doing so, show that Charlie was a man that didn't shy away from violence that ended in death.


There was hardly even an investigation into Hinman, Beausoleil was caught so fast. Then it's not WHY you did it. It's IF you did it

Why a crime is committed is never important if you know who did it and have the evidence to prove it. Read the testimony transcripts in regards to Tex's trial. Helter Skelter barely gets a mention. It's offhand at best. The fingerprint and Linda's testimony meant the why was unimportant there. It's not always unimportant but it was with Tex and it was with Bobby.

With the Straight Satans and Charlie and others involved, why would he say what happened?

He fingered Charlie as the murderer when he wasn't !
The Satans didn't kill Hinman. What was there to tell ?


Try viewing this case from a real world perspective

The real world perspective is the same as any other you care to name. In all scenarios, the result is the same. Bobby killed a man. It wasn't in self defence. He meant to do it even if it was only 5 minutes before he did it. End of story.

katie8753 said...

Grim, those are EXCELLENT points!

Whichever theory you ascribe to, that theory is simply the mitigating circumstance for why Bobby, Susan & Mary were there in the first place. Saying Gary Hinman died because of drugs is like saying JFK was killed because he was in Dallas.

That's so true. I personally believe that they went there simply because Charlie thought Gary had money and he wanted Bobby to get it. I think that because that's what Mary & Susan both said. They never mentioned going there because of a bad drug deal.

katie8753 said...

Maude sent me this link to a newspaper article on Gary's murder. I was going to add this article to the thread, but couldn't figure out how to do it. LOL.

I think it's from Cat's site. Thanks Maude!!

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1979&dat=19700107&id=OYQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4akFAAAAIBAJ&pg=732,716564&hl=en

katie8753 said...

Maude also sent me some info that Gary's Dad had given him $1,050 in checks and cash to pay for his trip to Japan. Also a family friend mentioned that Gary borrowed money from his Dad now and then.

That's very interesting. It makes perfect sense because I can't see how a part time music teacher would make enough to live on.

I'm wondering if Gary had any contact with any Manson Family members shortly before his death. Maybe he mentioned getting money from his Dad to someone, and it's like the telephone game, by the time the info got to Manson, it had ballooned into Gary inheriting $5000???

maudes harold said...

The article Katie is referring to is at Cats, part 1 and 2. The link Katie posted here is to the same article I found in a google search, but it only has part 1. It is by Dallas Crabstreet.

In the info I gave Katie, it was Mr. Krell, Gary's employer that said he sometimes borrowed money from him. It's quite reasonable to believe that Gary borrowed money from his father as well, but that info was about Mr. Krell.

Gary had given his money to his Buddhist temple, I wonder if Charlie knew and thought he should have given it to him?? It's a possibility, especially in the telephone-call like reality Katie mentioned. You can see where the threads could be interwoven and/or obscured, whatever the true facts ultimately are.

katie8753 said...

Oh thanks Maude. I misunderstood, I thought he was borrowing from his Dad.

It also mentions that Mr. Krell said the last time he saw Gary he was nervous & distraught. I wonder what that was about.

Sanders says that someone overheard Gary on the phone with Manson a few days before his death and that Manson was demanding that Gary "sell all his stuff", join the family and give them all his money, but Gary refused. Don't know if that really happened though...

CarolMR said...

Thanks, Katie. I always found Gary Hinman one of the most interesting of the victims. Maybe because so little is known about him. I didn't even realize he had been married.

katie8753 said...

Hi Carol! Yes Gary was an interesting guy. He must have been very intelligent. He had a degree in Chemistry, and if you've ever had a course in that subject you know it's very hard.

From everything I've read, he was a very nice, giving guy, who offered his home to lots of folks who had nowhere to go. Bobby was one of those people.

And he repaid him by stabbing him and stealing his cars.

katie8753 said...

The sad thing is they just left Gary to rot in his own home. His Sanctum Sanctorum.

Bobby knew he was still there lying on his floor several days later when he went back. He laughed because the maggots were eating him. It was very hot that summer and decomposition occurs very quickly in high heat.

At least the other victims were found quickly and removed before they started to rot as well.

And they all thought it was so funny. They don't think it's so funny now.

CarolMR said...

"And he repaid him by stabbing him and stealing his cars." - Katie

There are no words. They were (are) horrible people.

katie8753 said...

I think he stole his bagpipes too. Like he knows how to play them.

What a LOSER!

beauders said...

Yes he did steal the bagpipes, I remember reading they were playing them at Spahn.

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

Yes.

Susan played the bagpipes, Gypsy played the skin flute, and Brenda played the trombona.

Lol!

katie8753 said...

HA HA HA.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

And from what I'm told, they were quite accomplished. LOL

Jody Welch said...

What's going on with bobby's parole hearing? Has it been postponed again? I don't see his name on the schedule for dec or 2016. Does anyone know what's going on?

katie8753 said...

Jody, this is from Cielodrive.com:

http://www.cielodrive.com/updates/bobby-beausoleils-parole-hearing-postponed-for-third-time/

leary7 said...

Lynyrd's levity is missed and much needed this time of year - the holidays, of course, being the best time for good old sex jokes, damn those cheerful Christmas carolers.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Happy Holidays Leary!

Love You Brother!

katie8753 said...

Leary love ya buddy!!! Have a nice Christmas!!! :)

Venus said...

Katie, I don't know if Gary did or didn't own the house. As far as being able to afford it, remember that houses were a LOT cheaper then (even tho incomes were a lot less too)

katie8753 said...

Hi Venus, that's true. Beauders mentioned that the house was small when Gary lived there. Maybe he did own it. If he did, I'd be curious to know what happened to it after his death...

leary7 said...

It is one of those sleepless nights and I've been pondering some of the many absurdities of my life. I have never been able to hunt or fish because I detest and revile the killing of animals. And yes, I am a hypocrite because I eat them. But my version of hell would be watching endless episodes of Wild Kingdom where the lions run down their prey like a zebra and kill and devour it. I even hate the image of animals fighting. It makes me ill. My first job out of high school was on the Mass Turnpike road crew and as low man on the totem pole my job was to pick up the roadkill. I threw up everyday. Many times. Decades later, I still get an involuntary shudder every time I come across roadkill.

But I love the UFC and many a Tarantino film. Why is it that I hate animal violence but enjoy human violence?

What got me thinking about this was a comment Mr Grim made in another post where he referenced arguing with his sister over whether a person had to be "mad" to kill. We all know there are people commonly referred to as sociopaths who basically have no conscious or guilt with regard to human suffering. Our man Manson is probably the icon of sociopathic behavior. So we argue whether he is just a garden variety sociopath or someone seriously deranged. I gather most of the folk on this blog come down on the side of the former.I know that I do. I have always felt that Charlie was basically just a con man/performance artist who got caught in the perfect storm of the late 60's, California, drugs, sex and rock and roll. And the more subtle influence of nihilism on the counter-culture as a whole.

I'm obviously sleep deprived and rambling but I do wonder if others stay interested in TLB, as I do, because of a curiosity of sociopathic inclinations in all of us and why they are more pronounced in some than in others. I know that I share some of Charlie's nihilistic inclinations - I guess I will always wonder if they could be twisted, if I were subjected to a 'perfect storm', to the point where I would have as little regard for human life as Manson obviously did/does.

Not exactly a Christmas thought, sorry guys. Chemo seems to have thoroughly Grinched me.
Luckily there is always Spring and baseball. That's what I'll do, plop in Fever Pitch to the DVD.

leary7 said...

Katie is going to hate what I just wrote because on re-reading it I realized it seems like I was making an excuse for Manson or absolving him. No, he is pure evil. But for some reason I have never been able to bring myself to equate him with Bundy, Dahmer, Ramariez and other serial killers. For whatever delusional reasons I have been more inclined to see Manson in the same light with Geronimo and Quantrill and Bloody Bill Anderson - guys who probably were sociopaths from birth but also were greatly influenced by the circumstances of their lives.

I've got to put a time lock on this computer - late night ramblings are always dangerous.
Ah, the morning light, such as it is in Minnesota.

katie8753 said...

Leary I love it when you "ramble". You're so funny. I hope you get some sleep tonight and feel better!

Booby said...

Leary,

The DNA didn't match Hitler. Google it for details.

Bobby

Bobby said...

Leary,

The DNA didn't match Hitler. Google it for details.

Bobby

katie8753 said...

Wow, that was random Bobby. I'm the King of the Swing! :)

Bobby said...

Hi, Miss you all. Ever since my email address changed when I want to post something blogger gets mean to me. By the time I figure out a new password I don't feel like posting anymore. LOL. And my avatar is gone too ! WTF.

Bobby said...

Hey , This time I remembered my freaking password !

katie8753 said...

Bobby we miss you too! Write your password down Bro!!

grimtraveller said...

leary7 said...

I've got to put a time lock on this computer - late night ramblings are always dangerous

Au contraire, that's when some of the best and uncensored stuff comes out. That's when one's critical faculties are switched off and the mind can improvise and try out zingy thoughts.

katie8753 said...

Wow, that was random Bobby

In a roundabout way....
{Go to Leary7's comments towards the end}.

leary7 said...

I have never been able to hunt or fish because I detest and revile the killing of animals. And yes, I am a hypocrite because I eat them

Is that hypocritical ?
I think not. Not everyone that hunts or fishes does so to acquire food. Many do it for the 'sport' or the thrill and may not even eat meat. I don't like seeing human beings kill animals although I don't have a problem with animals being killed for food. I have seen many animals being killed for food and it was never something I revelled in. Sometimes, visual ignorance is bliss. But I have no problem with seeing one animal kill another and I have no problem with spraying flykiller on flies or swatting hornets with a badminton racquet and find it fascinating that certain plants kill small flies. I hate human violence on human beings though. It's one thing to watch Luke Skywalker zap someone with his lightsabre or see the stormtroopers cut down their enemies with those laser guns, but bring blood and direct violence into it and I'm out. I won't let my kids get certain fighting games unless they have a content filter that enables you to turn off the blood, guts and gore.

I know that I share some of Charlie's nihilistic inclinations - I guess I will always wonder if they could be twisted, if I were subjected to a 'perfect storm', to the point where I would have as little regard for human life as Manson obviously did/does

Some years ago when Sadaam Hussein's sons were killed, I spent quite a long time reflecting on how, had the circumstances of my life been different, I could have found myself doing what they are purported to have done. If your Dad was the murderous dictator of a nation and you could literally get away with anything, it may not be difficult to fall into committing heinous acts.....just out of sheer curiosity and because you can. I mean, at various points in our lives, I suspect certain thoughts run through our minds that we'd never openly admit to.....

Some soldiers in war have committed atrocities that they may never have done outside of that pressure cooker environment. As a Christian I simply don't believe that there are good people and bad people, no matter how much people may feel insulted by that. I believe we are all flawed and certain situations can bring out the worst aspects of even the nicest folk. It's a bit like the way being married can bring out of one things that may not have been apparent before, things one just didn't know were there.
And we rarely know what will be the event or set of circumstances coming together that lead to the start of us going down a particularly negative road.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Happy Holidays Bob!

You ROCK Brother!

Bobby said...

Thank you LSB ! You to Happy Holidays and to all your great members posters & bloggers. Love you Katie !

Bobby

katie8753 said...

Bobby Happy Holidays to you too!!! SMOOCH!!! :)

leary7 said...

you're right bobby. I did google after I posted and read the articles. But there have been none since 2009. And the notion that Hitler escaped the Bunker is still thought of as total nonsense by 95% of academia despite the DNA misgivings. The notion that the most hated figure in history could have escaped and lived a life of comfort - complete with an attractive young black girlfriend as depicted in a photo in one of the articles - is really just to fantastical to comprehend. As the sainted Saint would say, show me the hard evidence. I confess to not liking the shows just because I have a low tolerance for supposition.

leary7 said...

Grim...ah, the path that leads us...
I confess to having gotten close several times...with regards to Catholic priests, 9/11 (the planes came out of my hometown and I knew several folk), Margaret Thatcher (required of a Boston Irishman) and the cast of How I Met Your Mother.

But for all our ramblings about Charles Manson, I still find myself frequently asking the same basic questions...
1. Was he "born to kill", i.e. with some neurotransmittor malfunction or such.
2. Did he arrive in Haight in '67 with murder in his heart, i.e., pre-programmed by all his years and experience with incarcerated.
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is no, then what exactly was the tipping point during his Family years that caused the evil in him to coalesce and erupt.

Is the Christian teaching really that there is a tiny Charlie in all of us screaming to be released.
Grim, did you see that great quote on the other blog from Stephan Wright about "if God dropped acid would He see people?" You need to add that one to your brilliant compilation of quotes on the effects of acid.

grimtraveller said...

leary7 said...

But for all our ramblings about Charles Manson, I still find myself frequently asking the same basic questions...
1. Was he "born to kill", i.e. with some neurotransmittor malfunction or such.
2. Did he arrive in Haight in '67 with murder in his heart, i.e., pre-programmed by all his years and experience with incarcerated.
3. If the answer to 1 and 2 is no, then what exactly was the tipping point during his Family years that caused the evil in him to coalesce and erupt


I don't believe anyone is born to kill, nor do I think he arrived in the Haight with murder in his heart but I do think that the cumulative effect of life {and all that goes with it} brought him to a place where he was in the wrong frame at the wrong time and Tex wasn't the only one he felt that owed him !

Is the Christian teaching really that there is a tiny Charlie in all of us screaming to be released

I wouldn't put it that way, rather, we're naturally flawed so our good and bad is well and truly fused. And as such, it means that what's negative about any of us can show itself at any time, even if we're generally law abiding.

Grim, did you see that great quote on the other blog from Stephan Wright about "if God dropped acid would He see people?"


Yeah !
When you read the accounts of some of the prophets like Daniel and Ezekiel, the kind of visions they saw sound remarkably akin to acid trips. I think it was Daniel that had to go and lie down for three days after his visions, it took so much out of him !

katie8753 said...

Grim I don't think that I would say that Daniel and Ezekiel were on acid. I have to disagree.

Grim, did you see that great quote on the other blog from Stephan Wright about "if God dropped acid would He see people?"

Who is Stephan Wright and WTF does that mean????

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I don't think that I would say that Daniel and Ezekiel were on acid. I have to disagree

I wasn't suggesting that Israeli prophets of old found LSD and were tripping on it ! The drug didn't even exist until the 20th century {although there were lots of hallucinogenic substances that occurred naturally}. What I was saying is that when God got a hold of them and started communicating with them through visions, they were taken into a realm that they'd never been in before and described what they were seeing in terms that carried no frame of reference for them at that time. Just like acid trippers of the 40s, 50s and 60s. The descriptions of their visions sometimes sound biblical and the descriptions of some of those visions from biblical times sound acid trippy. Which, I suppose, is why so many trippers viewd their trips as religious experiences.

did you see that great quote on the other blog from Stephan Wright about "if God dropped acid would He see people?"

Who is Stephan Wright and WTF does that mean????


I've no idea who Stephan Wright is but his comment is a play on concepts. Many people that take acid feel that they see God or are God so Wright's comment is a play on that.

Minh Minimum said...


Stephen Wright is an American comic, known for his dead pan delivery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ciHpT4WuM