Monday, March 19, 2018

Charles Manson - Open Casket Funeral followed by Cremation


Charles Manson had his final hurrah Saturday during a memorial service that ended in fire.

Manson's body was front and center at a service held in Porterville, CA. We're told the body was decomposing badly, and needed heavy makeup and gloves to cover the deterioration. He died 4 months ago but his body was put on ice until a judge decided who would take control of it.

Approximately 30 people showed up at the funeral home. His grandson, Jason Freeman -- the man who won control over the body -- spoke at the service, as did a Manson follower.
 
Manson's service didn't end with a burial. His body was cremated and his ashes were spread along a nearby creek bed in a forest. Apparently it was a windy day, because the ashes blew back on the guests.  

We're told the attendees included Manson's former fiancee, Afton Burton, and former Manson Family member Sandra Good.

As TMZ first reported ... Manson -- the mastermind behind one of the most heinous murder sprees in American history -- died of natural causes back in November 2017. He was 83.

57 comments:

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Story submitted by Mr Stormsurge.

Thank You Stormsurge.

Full story here:
http://www.tmz.com/2018/03/19/charles-manson-open-casket-funeral-body-cremation/

katie8753 said...

It was a windy day and the ashes blew back on them! HA HA! Charlie always gets the last word, even when he's been on ice for months! You can't make this stuff up!!

katie8753 said...

Greater Love Hath No Man Than This, That a Man Lay Down His Life for His Friends.

They should have used these quotes:

If I wanted to kill somebody, I'd take this book and beat you to death with it, and I wouldn't feel a thing. It'd be like walking to the drug store."

“You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody’s crazy.”

“I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you.”

katie8753 said...

Porterville, CA is between Fres-Burg & Bakersfield, not that far from Lake Isabella, where the LaBiancas spent their last few hours boating & picking up Rosemary's son, before they were slaughtered in their own home!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

What struck me (about this situation), is that, for a guy who had such an unusual life and unorthodox personality, he certainly had a very traditional funeral.

To look at Manson laying there... (with the church pamphlets, etc)... you'd think he was your local neighborhood Grocer... a guy you might know from your Elks Club or VFW Hall.

But then again, how many ways ARE THERE to bury someone, I suppose?

We all seem to come into this world the same way... and by the looks of it... we all go out, the same way too. It's what we do in-between that matters.

That's my take-away...

katie8753 said...

Okay I'm confused.

Manson's service didn't end with a burial. His body was cremated and his ashes were spread along a nearby creek bed in a forest.

Surely they didn't cremate him in front of people. Did they rent that coffin and give it back when they were done with it? I don't know if you can rent a coffin or not. But if he was cremated he wouldn't need the coffin.

william marshall said...

Come on Lynyrd this was really in poor taste publishing this pic regardless of what people thought of the man
I see nobody bothered to mention the gloves were because his body was in such a state of decay whoever sold this pic to TMZ ought to be ashamed of themselves

katie8753 said...

William I wonder, as I said, if the patrons were allowed to see Manson's cremation. That's barbaric! Not since the Viking funerals have we seen that. Except maybe in horror movies.

Who sold that pic to TMZ? That is the person who should be ashamed. Except the liberal news media is never ashamed. They just report stuff to get ratings, which reflects in their paychecks, which keeps their stupid creepy jobs going.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

William said:
"Come on Lynyrd this was really in poor taste publishing this pic regardless of what people thought of the man

I see nobody bothered to mention the gloves were because his body was in such a state of decay whoever sold this pic to TMZ ought to be ashamed of themselves"



Hello William,

Stormsurge sent me a link to the article.
I'm not a fan of TMZ, but regardless of my personal opinion of the show, the fact remains, it airs nationally.
Those photos are easily obtained at this point.

Beyond that, I wasn't privy to the "backstory" (regarding these photos), when I posted the thread.

About 4 days after I posted this thread, I caught wind that Manson supporters were furious about the photo.
Evidently, they wanted Manson's funeral to be completely private, with no photos taken, etc.
Obviously, one individual who attended the funeral, betrayed their trust, took a photo, and sent it to TMZ.
Bear in mind, I knew nothing of this situation, or the family's desire for complete privacy, until days after the TMZ story aired.

Having said all that... I'll give you my honest opinion on the matter, and here it is:

I'm not really sure, why Manson supporters are so upset.
Quite honestly, I think Manson looks great in that photo.
I'm not saying that, just to be an asshole.
I really believe, that it's one of the most flattering pictures, that I've ever seen of Charles Manson.
He's well-groomed and well-dressed, and the casket is gorgeous.
He certainly looks better in that casket photo, than he did in the 1980's, when he would shave his head in crazy styles, to purposely look like a maniac.

Be honest, do you really think Manson looks better in THIS photo?

https://goo.gl/images/ZG3VNT

A person would never know why Manson was wearing those white gloves, unless TMZ specified the reason in writing.
A lot of military guys are buried in white gloves, and personally, I think it looks pretty nice.

I stated on previous threads (more than once), that I think it was wrong to keep a human frozen for months... I even described it as "cruel and unusual" treatment.
I also think it's pretty shitty, that a person would attend a funeral (which they KNEW was private), take a photo, and make it public.
But quite honestly William, I'm not responsible for either situation.
You can blame the first decision on the state of California, and the second situation, on a dude, that I don't even know.

Bottom line:
If the photo of Manson showed any actual "decay", I certainly wouldn't have posted it.
I'm not a morbid person.
There may have been visible signs of decay, to those individuals who viewed the body in-person at the funeral home, but I can't discern any such signs, from the photo alone.

Bear in mind, Manson was a public figure.
There are hundreds of photos of him, pre-and-post incarceration.
I think this drama over one photo, is being a bit overblown... especially since, this photo of Manson is in no way, unflattering.

As for my personal opinion of Manson... I wish him the best in the afterlife.
He served his jail time in-full.
The rest is between him and God.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

If anyone else is offended by this photo, let me know, and I'll take it down.

I have no personal attachment to this photo, and I'm certainly not looking to offend anyone.

Myself, I think Manson looks pretty damn good in this photo... but maybe there's more to this situation, that I'm unaware of...

As I said... let me know.
Offending people, is definitely not my goal.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

If Manson's friends felt so strongly that his body was unfit for viewing, then why did they have an open casket?
That's the question, that keeps coming to my mind.

I've been to all types of funerals.

In recent years, a close friend of mine was cremated before his wake, and the family displayed his urn, with a large framed photo of him (right behind it). They also had a video tape (movie) of him, playing at the wake (in another room). The video was essentially a compilation of home movies and photos from his entire life... including his wife and 3 children. It was actually very nice, and I remember standing there for a good half hour, watching the movie with a couple dozen other people. It was a great feeling of nostalgia and kinship, as everyone commented on the movie, shared memories, etc.

There's several ways to hold a wake/funeral these days.
Personally, I think Manson looks fine, but again, if they felt so strongly about the situation, they should have considered a closed casket, or other options.
Maybe the Funeral Director was unprofessional and lax, when it came to explaining the various options available.

Some have suggested, that it was an employee of the funeral home, who snapped the photo of Manson (before the guests arrived).
That would explain things (to some extent).
It kinda makes sense.
Doesn't it strike anyone else as kinda strange, that there are NO other people in the photo??

With that, I'll shut-up now.
None of this, is any of my personal business.

katie8753 said...

Lynyrd, that's what I was gonna say. They should have cremated Manson before the service, then had him put in an urn for the service. That's the way I've always seen it at a funeral service for someone who was cremated.

I read that someone had already snapped of picture of him when he was still at the morgue. I got Google alerts on it but I never looked. Not something I wanted to see. I don't want to click on a link to any trash mag who would post that kind of thing anyway.

He does look peaceful in that photo. He looks like he's sleeping.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie said:
"He does look peaceful in that photo. He looks like he's sleeping."

I think he looks pretty good in the photo.
His complexion is a bit darker, than normal.
But, after all... he is dead.

I've been to the funerals of many relatives, who looked a lot worse than Manson.
I've seen relatives with a 1/4 inch layer of gross "flesh-colored" dust caked-on their face and hands.
And the skin of their face, was stretched so tight, it looked morbid.
And those relatives, were buried within a week of their death.
I'm sure some "embalmers" are more talented than others.

All in all... I'd say Manson looks pretty damn good comparatively.

Then again, I wasn't at the funeral.
Maybe the guests in attendance were able to see things, that the photo doesn't show.

For myself, I've definitely seen worse sights at funerals.
Then again... I've been attending funerals since the mid-1970's.
The latest techniques are probably far superior.

But, no matter how you slice the pie, you can't expect a dead person to look "amazing" in their casket.
I mean... let's be realistic.

It sucks that someone disrespected the family's wishes for complete privacy, but to say that Manson looks "bad" in this photo, is just not true.
Not in my opinion, anyway.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Assuming the funeral home people didn't take the photo (before the guests arrived)... I'd say they did a very good job.

If you consider the timeline, the embalmer did a fantastic job.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Now, I feel guilty for perpetuating the suspicion that the Funeral Home is responsible for taking the photo.

It seems to me, the Funeral Home did very good job, and such an accusation could ruin their business.

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

What struck me (about this situation), is that, for a guy who had such an unusual life and unorthodox personality, he certainly had a very traditional funeral

Not that he had much choice !

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

LOL

True.

sunset77 said...

There was a story on Yahoo last night that Jason Freeman was selling the programs from the funeral for $100 apiece. Those people do things differently than most people.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

No doubt, Sunset. No doubt...

beauders said...

Katie you and everyone else needs to read the new book "The Manson Women and Me" by Nikki Meredith finally a book that is not a repeat of all the other books. Katie, I doubt you'll agree with the author on much but she makes some interestingpoints. We also learn more the history of the women including Catherine Share.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders.

I saw where that book was coming out and I thought it was just going to be like all the other books of women interviewing Pat & Leslie to try to get into their heads about why they would kill. I'll have to check that out!

beauders said...

Katie it has some of that but it's still a new book that doesn't debate motive or glorify anyone involved, etc.

katie8753 said...

It doesn't debate motive? I thought that was what it was all about! Without motive, what is there?

beauders said...

I mean I liked it because it wasn't a repeat of all the other books. The motive has been done to death as far as I am concerned. This book is more about the psychology behind Krenwinkel and Van Houten then and today.

beauders said...

I'm not saying it's the best book on the subject, I have found many mistakes. The author considers Pat and Leslie friends so she is biased. It just is different. I just finished reading " False Profit" and "Now Is The Only Thing That's Real." Both are motive heavy as well as repeating the same old same old. I guess I'm just bored with that.

katie8753 said...

Okay thanks Beauders.

I read somewhere that Pat got mad at this author because she wouldn't recommend her for parole to the parole board and now she refuses to see her anymore. Do you know if that's true?

beauders said...

That's true it's in the book. Pat comes off as very bitter in general.

katie8753 said...

Well that's very telling. That tells me that Pat is still dangerous to society. She's only chumming up with this author to try and get out of prison.

You know, I'm blown away that Pat or Tex would even try to get parole. They both go on and on about feeling terrible about what they did, blah, blah, blah, but yet expect to get paroled because they are both on good behavior!

When either of them get a parole hearing, they should both just decline the hearing, citing that they need to finish their sentence because what they did was so despicable that they can never repay society for their hideous actions.

But they both just keep trying to get out!

What Pat & Tex did was indescribably hideous. They both proceeded to stab and kill people THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW!!! Stab wounds that add up to 100's!!! Didn't even know them!!!!!!!

These killings are probably the most heinous of any century!!!

And for Tex & Pat to keep trying to get out speaks VOLUMES to me. Neither of them are sorry, and neither of them think they stepped over a very large line!!!

If they can't see that, then they should NEVER get out!

katie8753 said...

She chased Abigail Folger and stabbed her and hit bones until her hand hurt, then she called Tex over to finish her off. Then she stabbed Rosemary in the neck and hit a bone and broke the knife. Again, had to call Tex to finish her off.

Pat's not a good ninja. She was a poor choice by Charlie. Except for the fact that she killed on demand. But she did manage to carve W-A-R in Leno's chest. According to Sandy, she did that so he wouldn't "send his son off to war".

When she was finally caught she was walking down the road in Alabama in a "big floppy hat" with a minor that she had smoked pot with.

Yeah she was really sorry for what she did.

katie8753 said...

Pat should have worn glasses at all of her parole hearings. You know the old saying. "Men don't make passes at girls who wear glasses". HA HA.

Oh well, Jodi Arias tried that and it didn't work. LOL.

beauders said...

Pat has no chance of ever getting out so I don't see the point of ending a friendship over a letter to the parole board. I don't think Pat has many friends.

Bobby said...

Beauders,

Do you think never ? what about at 80 years of age ? and at what age would you guess she could get to the point where she would stop going to parole hearings ? Thanks. Bob.

beauders said...

I don't think she'll ever get out because she was too involved. Van Houten has a chance in her eighties but not Krenwinkel. I do think she has the most remorse of all of them so she is truly being punished for her acts, she get's it. She is as hard on herself as she is hard on others, she knows her life is going to be lived in confinemen Krenwinkel's victims would have died eventually without Watson's participation.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

Pat has no chance of ever getting out so I don't see the point of ending a friendship over a letter to the parole board

If you had Pat's side of the story you might. If this case {and life in general} has demonstrated anything, it's that things are not always as they seem.

katie8753 said...

Well that's very telling. That tells me that Pat is still dangerous to society. She's only chumming up with this author to try and get out of prison

The only way Pat is still dangerous to society is if she upholds the thought process and ideas that she aligned herself with circa '68-'73. Pretty much everything she's done since 1978 and the first set of hearings has been firmly in line with the society that she rejected in those days. Her achievements actually speak a decisive blow to the Manson schtick as little else could.

You know, I'm blown away that Pat or Tex would even try to get parole. They both go on and on about feeling terrible about what they did, blah, blah, blah, but yet expect to get paroled because they are both on good behavior!

I'm not so sure they expect to get parole. After 49 years inside and double figure rejections, I'd say hope was a more realistic thought pattern with those two than expectation.


When either of them get a parole hearing, they should both just decline the hearing, citing that they need to finish their sentence because what they did was so despicable that they can never repay society for their hideous actions.

But they both just keep trying to get out!


We've gone through this many a time, but that notion doesn't lessen in its daftness.
Firstly, neither would try to get out if their sentence had been life without parole. Neither had any influence over the sentence they got. It's quite interesting in a way. One {Pat} did everything to get a death sentence once she'd been found guilty while the other did everything in order to not have to face the consequences of his actions.
Both ended up in the same position.
The very law that you claim to uphold is why they are eligible for parole.
Squeaky never used to apply for parole even though she was eligible for it and in spite of that, she's been out since 2009.
There's an irony in there somewhere.
Most inmates that the law has granted a possibility of parole {not, it must be stressed, a guarantee} will try for it. Why shouldn't they ? It's nothing to do with proving or not proving sorrow. Neither is it about repaying society. Burn someone's house down and it can be rebuilt. Take someone's life and that is it.
The law recognizes that and yet still gives people the possibility of a second chance.
In saying that, back in the day, there were times when Tex cancelled his parole hearing because he didn't think he was ready for parole.

What Pat & Tex did was indescribably hideous. They both proceeded to stab and kill people THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW!!! Stab wounds that add up to 100's!!! Didn't even know them!!!!!!!

These killings are probably the most heinous of any century!!!


Aside from the fact that there are possibly millions of people that would be seriously offended at that, is that not something of an exaggeration ?
Trying to make their murders seem worse than any others actually says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about them. If you actually think about it, it really does.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

And for Tex & Pat to keep trying to get out speaks VOLUMES to me. Neither of them are sorry, and neither of them think they stepped over a very large line!!!

You know, even if you hate Pat and Tex and felt that they should remain in prison for life {a not unreasonable view, by the way}, to state that neither is sorry when most that have been in contact with them for almost half a century say that they are {even if they don't think they should be released} or that they don't know they crossed a large line with everything they have said for over 40 years, is, frankly, nonsensical.

But she did manage to carve W-A-R in Leno's chest. According to Sandy, she did that so he wouldn't "send his son off to war"

Your grasp of facts really needs to be sharper if you're going to publicly comment on them. Everyone and their brother knows it was Tex, not Pat. Even as early as December 1st '69, Susan Atkins told Paul Caruso and Richard Caballero that Tex had done the carving. Pat only took ownership of the act during the calamitous penalty phase of the trial when the 3 women were lying their blaggers off and trying to absolve Charlie. In the same set of testimony, you had Linda cast as the mastermind that was on a revenge move after being burned for $1000 on a MDA scam, Leslie as part of the Hinman crew with Susan doing the actual stabbing and Pat carving WAR on Leno.

When she was finally caught she was walking down the road in Alabama in a "big floppy hat" with a minor that she had smoked pot with

Actually, she was spotted in a car by a police officer. Either way, what has that to do with anything ? Were floppy hats against Alabama state law ?

Yeah she was really sorry for what she did

Again, what has that to do with anything ?
If you must comment on Pat as she was circa 1969, you need to get your angst in the right place. She was definitely sorry for what happened at Cielo, as is characterized by what she said to Leslie later that day, what she said to Linda when it came out she'd told Joe Sage about the murders, what she said to Charlie about getting caught and what she said to Dr Claude Brown about Charlie finding her and killing her.
What makes Pat's crime even worse is the fact she didn't think Cielo was right. Both from the point of view that she didn't do anything about it and from the point of view of participating in the LaBianca murder.

beauders said...

Grim, I mean that Pat doesn't have a lot of friends and this woman offered a real friendship, Pat has to know she's not getting out especially when Davis and Van Houten can't get past the governor, why ruin a friendship with someone who has true compassion for her.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

Pat has to know she's not getting out especially when Davis and Van Houten can't get past the governor

I wonder about this. I do think that when Pat or any of the others come to hearings, it's in hope rather than expectation, but equally, hope militates against despair and although things always look bleak, I don't think Pat thinks she'll never get out. There'd be little point in applying for parole if you never thought you'd get out.
But the other thing is that Ed the Guv'nor won't be there for ever. He could be removed, defeated, he could resign in the wake of an unexpected scandal or he could pass away.

why ruin a friendship with someone who has true compassion for her

I guess we are only able to see it from our vantage point. I have no idea of the dynamics of their relationship so if Pat did end the friendship or cooled off on it, she would have her reasons.

katie8753 said...

Grim said:

The only way Pat is still dangerous to society is if she upholds the thought process and ideas that she aligned herself with circa '68-'73.

What world did you wake up in today? Great Britain?? Let me bring you back to the USA back in 1969. Pat Krenwinkle is still dangerous. I'll say it louder, in case you didn't understand it the first time. SHE'S STILL TRYING TO GET OUT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE KILLED PEOPLE SHE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW!!!

And I would EXPECT they think they're going to get paroled, BECAUSE THEY KEEP GOING TO PAROLE HEARINGS!!! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!! Is anyone there?? Is there any other reason they would attend parole hearings???

Trying to make their murders seem worse than any others actually says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about them. If you actually think about it, it really does.

WHAT DOES THAT FUCKING EVEN MEAN????? Can you cite lots of murders back in 1969 where people invaded someone's home and inflicted over 100 stab wounds FOR NO REASON AT ALL????

And regarding carving W-A-R on Leno...

Your grasp of facts really needs to be sharper if you're going to publicly comment on them. Everyone and their brother knows it was Tex, not Pat.

Pat said she did it. Tex said he did it. They're both liars!!!

WERE YOU THERE???? The answer is NO! NEITHER OF US KNOW WHO REALLY DID IT!!! Although Pat did make a comment later about making sure Leno's children didn't go off to war. Sandy just parroted what Pat said.

katie8753 said...

The only thing you can do to make sure Tex carved W-A-R on Leno is to have a séance. Because Leno is dead. He can't tell you who did it. Rosemary is dead too. She can't tell you. Leslie doesn't seem to know.

For you to tell the World that YOU KNOW it was Tex is kinda silly. Don't you think?

katie8753 said...

The only description we have of the HTLBS killings (Hinman, Cielo Drive, Waverly Drive, Shorty) is from the killers. The victims have NEVER commented on what really happened.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T. We can only surmise what really happened, based on the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the crimes, and yes, based on the killers' testimony, which is a JUST A PACK OF LIES!!!

katie8753 said...

These killers are a pack of LIARS! The jury found them GUILTY! They got out of it. Now they have more time to KEEP LYING!! I don't feel sorry for them at all!!!

They made their beds, now they can LIE IN THEM!!!

katie8753 said...

Tex said at his trial that Susan killed Sharon Tate. He said he just did it because Susan already confessed.

THAT WAS A LIE!!!

Marliese said...

Hi Katie, tell me a little about PK said something about Leno’s children didn’t go off to war...I’m drawing a blank on that...have probably known and forgotten. Have forgotten a lot of the details I used to know about all this . :)

Anyway...couldn’t agree more...it can’t be emphasized enough that these killers are LIARS, and yes, i understand we are not privy to what may presently be in their heart of hearts...regardless, we’ve known for decades now (except for observers hellbent in playing two ends against the middle) these killers are all extraordinary LIARS.

I don’t care which one of them carved up Leno...they’re all, legally, equally responsible...even Susan, and she was busy leaving shit on a sidewalk at the beach when Leno was carved up. I do recall pk saying in a parole hearing probably at least ten years ago, that she had no memory of it, but she did recall watching the fork twang back and forth in Leno as it was flicked. How nice.

But there is no disputing the unspeakable horror PK remembers personally inflicting on Abigail...chasing her down and attacking her like a wild animal, viciously ripping and stabbing her over and over...hearing Abigail say I’m already dead, and continuing to stab deep into her...even Abigail’s beautiful face was sliced nearly in half.

They’re liars, they’re killers, and they’re serving life because California law allows the “exceptional brutality” of the murders they committed, and their callous disregard for human suffering against MULTIPLE victims for inexplicable reasons be considered against whether they’re currently remorseful and/or currently dangerous to society. It is what it is, and it’s why LVH’s appeals always fail.

Now...I’m interested in the EAR/ONS/Golden State Killer.

katie8753 said...

Hi Marliese!!

I think Pat said that about Leno not being able to send his children off to war to someone at the ranch. I remember she also said something about how their children (regarding the LaBiancas) will probably come for dinner on Sunday night and be shocked, or something similar. I'd have to read back in my books to find out exactly when she said it and who she said it to.

Dianne Lake says in her book that Pat, Susan & Leslie talked about the murders when she was around. She said it scared her, but she acted like she didn't care about it. So I know they talked at the ranch about the murders at some point.

Yeah Pat viciously chased Abigail down and stabbed her again and again. Then she had the nerve to say "her hand hurt". I just think there's something terribly wrong with Pat that she could heinously just kill people for no reason just because some guy told her she's pretty.

I don't know much about the Golden State Killer. I saw on the news that it was some guy that was a cop or something that had been killing for years and they used DNA to identify him.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Marliese.
It's nice seeing you.
I hope you've been well.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello to Beauders, Bobby and Grim too.

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello to......Grim too

Hiya !

katie8753 said...

What world did you wake up in today?

Hello Katie, nice to converse with you again. This is just like old times !

Great Britain?? Let me bring you back to the USA back in 1969. Pat Krenwinkle is still dangerous

My little brother was born in '69 and is just about to turn 49. That's almost half of 100 years.
Meditate on that equation.


Pat isn't dangerous though. Just incoherent when the pressure is on.

I'll say it louder, in case you didn't understand it the first time. SHE'S STILL TRYING TO GET OUT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE KILLED PEOPLE SHE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW!!!

And I'll whisper it to you very lovingly. The law you supposedly uphold gives her the freedom to do that. Don't blame Pat for operating according to the law. She's in the position she's in because there was a time when when she didn't.
Shhhh !

And I would EXPECT they think they're going to get paroled, BECAUSE THEY KEEP GOING TO PAROLE HEARINGS!!! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!! Is anyone there?? Is there any other reason they would attend parole hearings???

As I said a few posts up, I think it's more in hope than expectation. Expectation means you think it will happen as opposed to may happen.

grimtraveller said...


katie8753 said...

WHAT DOES THAT FUCKING EVEN MEAN?????

What world did you wake up in ? 😉


Murder is murder. Whether it was in revenge, in the commission of a robbery or rape, whether with a gun, rope, knives or fists or flinging out the window, tying up, in jealousy or rage or whatever. So often, you apply a kind of league table to modes of murder but the friends and loved ones don't feel better because their loved one was shot dead in the commission of a bank robbery as opposed to being strangled in a sex crime.
You frequently go out of your way to try to make the TLB killers worse than any other killers and that you do that by emphasizing things that, at the end of the day, don't matter. So they killed people they don't know ? A huge number of murderers do that. Hit men do that. Terrorists do that. Armed robbers do that. Gang members do that.
By trying to make their crime seem worse than others
{example, your quote These killings are probably the most heinous of any century!!!}, it shows that you cannot apply any objectivity to the matter at hand and as a result, severely weakens whatever you go on to say. And when you then hit back by capitalizing your words, it gives the appearance of someone that can't actually cogently debate or say what needs to be said, as though by screeching out loud you can bludgeon anyone into submission.
You give the impression {to me at least} that your biases against the TLB killers are so strong that a shutter comes down over you whenever any comment is made that opposes your rants and the truth is, the way you characterize this particular set of killings {and by extension, the killers} says a lot more about you than it does about them. The way you refuse to acknowledge that they could have remorse or regret after 49 years, says a lot more about you than it does about them. The fact that you decry any effort any of them have made for well over 40 years to sort themselves out says a heck of a lot about you. And the funny thing is, one can easily acknowledge lots of these things and still believe that they should remain in jail. Lots of people do. Bugliosi did and Kay still does.
What we say or type out speaks volumes about us. We were able to gauge SAG purely on the basis of his words. When we deal on a regular/semi regular basis with people we don't know, that's all we have.

Although Pat did make a comment later about making sure Leno's children didn't go off to war. Sandy just parroted what Pat said

Yeah, Pat did say that. She said it during the penalty phase. She lied so badly during it that it's actually embarrassing. Even Bugliosi was pushed in "Helter Skelter" to comment on how she was an even more improbable liar than Atkins.
Pat stuck the fork in Leno. One doesn't need to pin the carving on her.The fork incident is far worse. The carving of WAR is at least consistent with the notion of them being in a war. The fork incident is simply gratuitous.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Can you cite lots of murders back in 1969 where people invaded someone's home and inflicted over 100 stab wounds FOR NO REASON AT ALL????

Not off the top of my head.
And what does that prove ? That this particular set of victims met a worse end than someone else that was murdered and never got to live their life or see their children grow up and have their own kids or not graduate or whatever else a person whose life is ended prematurely by a murderer would have gone on to do ?

And regarding carving W-A-R on Leno...
Pat said she did it. Tex said he did it. They're both liars!!!


Ho hum.
You know, one of the glorious benefits of being able to think and process information is that one can have a go at trying to work out situations presented instead of simply absorbing what one has been told then regurgitating it, parrot fashion.
The only time Pat has ever said that she carved WAR on Leno is during the one time it has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that she was lying, ie the penalty phase.
On the other hand, Tex has gone on the record repeatedly since 1978 saying he did it. Yes, he explains that he let Pat take the fall for it because she admitted to it during the time she was lying and he wanted to be found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' so he was happy to let the penalty phase lies stand if they made him look better.
The first time it ever came up in questioning was before the Grand Jury when Susan Atkins named Tex as the carver in her interview with Caballero and Caruso.
So I ask myself, why would Tex spend 40 years admitting to it if he hadn't done it ? Remember, he admits to it in '78 in his book. It was unprompted. He had nothing to gain from it. He also had nothing to lose by keeping the status quo. He was already doing life.
Why, on December 1st 1969 did Susan Atkins, in private communication with her lawyers, say Tex did it ?
We know why Pat said she did it in court. But in her first parole hearing she said it was Tex and has said it since. For 40 years.
Using my head to work it out, it's clear to me that Pat did not do it, that Tex did.

WERE YOU THERE???? The answer is NO! NEITHER OF US KNOW WHO REALLY DID IT!!!

If you are going to use that as a criteria, then the truth of life is that virtually every conversation on the face of the planet, ever, is or has been, worthless, unless we are only going to talk about things we've seen with our own eyes or heard with our own ears. That means that until you see me, everything you have to say about anything is worth less than manure and I can't believe it because I wasn't there.
Exactly. It's ridiculous.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Pat said she did it. Tex said he did it. They're both liars!!!

You once said you hated Leslie. Then you said you didn't when I said you did. Then I showed you where you'd said it.
But I never called you a liar.
Context is everything.
There isn't one of the TLB killers that didn't lie. At some point.
Criminals do that !
Then some of them, for whatever reason, tell the truth.
The discrepancy between Pat and Tex and WAR is so easily solvable that I'm led to believe anyone that doesn't see it once it's pointed out has their own reasons for doing so.

For you to tell the World that YOU KNOW it was Tex is kinda silly. Don't you think?

For you to still declare it was Pat forces me to hope that if you're ever on a jury, you like the look of the person if they are actually innocent and hate the look of the person if they're actually guilty because you sure as planes are metal aren't going to fairly and courageously sift the evidence.

The only description we have of the HTLBS killings is from the killers. We can only surmise what really happened, based on the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the crimes, and yes, based on the killers' testimony, which is a JUST A PACK OF LIES!!!

Naturally.
But going back to the point about context, it's a question of the entire sequence from 1969 to now and where the lies fall and why. It's crucial to never leave aside that they were convicted and there is not really any doubt about their guilt {other than Charlie & Linda}.
We know Leslie was at Waverley, not because of physical evidence to start with, but because Susan said she was there. That wasn't a lie. It wasn't much, it was uncorroborated but it was sufficient for an indictment. And then it gave the Police the wherewithal to look at LVH and when Dianne Lake appeared and said LVH had stabbed a body that was already dead and there was something written in blood on the fridge, then the physical evidence lined up with what someone said. It was actually pretty strong because Dianne hadn't been present.
Tex was able to lie with impunity because all of the things that he actually did, like climbing the pole or driving the car, there was no evidence of. We know he did these things because of the killers and what they've said and what he subsequently said. Susan Atkins gave so much shape to the events and really, the investigation never departed from that shape once it arrived. That Linda corroborated much of it without having to be steered tells you just how much of Atkins' original statements was actually true. You can discount all of their court testimony when it comes to the actual murders. It's really what they say outside of that that is worth paying attention to because in trial itself, they were lying to get off as mad or not have Charlie sent to the gas chamber.
The physical evidence simply tells us certain people were there. It doesn't tell us who did what or even that any of them were guilty of murder. It's them that have done that.
But are you saying that you don't believe the killers' version ?







grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I don't feel sorry for them at all!!!

I don't recall that being on anyone's agenda.
I'm sure I've come across you saying that about Pat, although to be fair, not in terms of parole.

Tex said at his trial that Susan killed Sharon Tate. He said he just did it because Susan already confessed. THAT WAS A LIE!!!

Are you sure about that ? From the Watson trial:

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI:

Q: Mr. Watson, I show you some photographs here: People's 87, a photograph of Sharon Tate; People's 107, a photograph of Jay Sebring; people's 102, a photograph of Abigail Folger; people's 89, a photograph of Wojiciech Frykowski; people's 42, a photograph of Steven Parent, people's 91, a photograph of Leno LaBianca; and people's 93, a photograph of Rosemary LaBianca.
Now, just for the record, did you kill all seven of these people?

A: Yes.

Q: So you also killed Sharon Tate, then; is that correct, the female Caucasian depicted in people's 87?

A: As far as I know, yes.

Marliese said...

we’ve known for decades now these killers are all extraordinary LIARS

Ah, but when ? And how do we determine what is a lapse of memory, what is a lie and what is trying to fill in/trying too hard ?

that she had no memory of it, but she did recall watching the fork twang back and forth in Leno as it was flicked

She had no memory of it because she never did it. But Pat who actually appears to remember very little, remembered sticking a fork in Leno. Sometimes, it's those little things that give one a pointer as to what is actually true and not.

hearing Abigail say I’m already dead, and continuing to stab deep into her...

Susan told the Grand Jury that. And interestingly, 9 years later, Tex said Leno said the same thing the next night.

California law allows the “exceptional brutality” of the murders they committed, and their callous disregard for human suffering against MULTIPLE victims for inexplicable reasons be considered against whether they’re currently remorseful and/or currently dangerous to society

I think every law should do that.
But not as a cheap back door mechanism for keeping someone in jail with no intent to ever release them if the sentence has left provision for the possibility of their parole. But, as your final line says so eloquently, "be considered against whether they’re currently remorseful and/or currently dangerous to society."
You see, by including that sentence, you are in effect forcing matters to the present, not the past. That is, are they a current threat or are they remorseful.
I'd say 49 years and more is ample time to monitor that, especially when 40 years of that have had many kick backs to the applicant for parole. The point, the very point of being able to consider the brutality of 1969's acts is to determine suitabilitynow and that's where Guv'nor Brown continually shoots himself in the foot where LVH is concerned. He's even pretty borderline where Bruce is concerned, but it's at least understandable in Bruce's case.
Of course, every case is different. I wouldn't dream of paroling Ed Kemper !

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Then she had the nerve to say "her hand hurt"

It's callous....yet logical. An inexperienced stabber would likely really hurt their hand, kind of how an inexperienced sawer or hammerer might . It brought home to me just how vicious Pat's attempts were. She was trying to stick that knife as far as it would go and with as much force as she could muster and that would really hurt if she kept hitting bone.
I wonder if that had anything to do with Manson's lessons on how the females were to stab. He seemed to go out of his way to emphasize how they were to do it.
Ironically, Pat hitting bone would have served as further corroboration for Atkins if they had been able to x~ray the corpses and seen the knife marks on bone. Because Atkins recanted, her Grand jury testimony could be used against them if there was independent corroboration.

I just think there's something terribly wrong with Pat that she could heinously just kill people for no reason just because some guy told her she's pretty

I think there's something wrong with every single one of us and we're fooling ourselves if we think we're above some of the unsavoury things that make us sick in others. I'm thankful to God that I've never been in a situation that escalated to a point where killing was on the agenda. Although I came relatively close to it once. Some revolutionary friends of mine back in '83 or '84 were trying to cajole me into blowing up South Africa house during the days of the anti apartheid struggle. I thought 'forget that !'
I distinctly recall the moment when I dropped the revolutionary rhetoric. I even recall the road we were crossing. My close mate {we played in 3 bands together} told me that he had reached the point where he was now prepared to kill to help in the struggle. It was summer but I wen cold.
Most of us never really find ourselves in that situation where killing is a real possibility but having known 4 murderers {and 2 strongly suspected murderers, one who apparently confessed though was never brought to book}, the paths that get a person to that point are not always so easy to work out or walk away from. I hate the saying "there but for the grace of God go I" but I kind of get it on this particular subject.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

We can only surmise what really happened, based on the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the crimes and yes, based on the killers' testimony, which is a JUST A PACK OF LIES!!!

Do you think Linda was lying ?
If so, which parts do you think she was lying on ?

GreenWhite said...

I finished that book the other night. It was definitely better than I expected. I liked reading Pat's side of the story where the other inmate got her wet and she just smiled.

beauders said...

Hey Grim speaking of Kemper, he is a nurse for the terminal patients at Vacaville. Small world Kemper was one of my nightmares as a child. I grew up in Half Moon Bay, Ca. which is about forty miles up the coast from Santa Cruz. A body was dumped on Higgins Creek Rd. that is believed to be one of Kemper's that he was never convicted of. This woman I believe is still a Jane Doe and she was basically decapitated and then dumped. I grew up on Higgins Canyon Rd. which is a little dirt and gravel side rd. about five miles up from where the body was dumped. I was driven by that dump site thousands of times. I believe they found her on a Brussel Sprout farm at the beginning of the road. Some people think it was the Zodiac but it wasn't it was Kemper I would bet a hundred dollars on it. I was in grade school at the time Kemper was roaming on that part of the coast and went to school a little ways away from where some remains of his victims washed up out of the tide.

grimtraveller said...

You know Beauders, when I read that he was a nurse at the place where terminally ill criminals wait to die, I didn't know whether to shiver, laugh or see the irony of it all.
Reading his case made me feel sick but I was amazed that after killing his Grandparents, he was out on the streets again after only 6 or so years.
That seems to me to have been taking one heck of a chance, even given the liberal nature of the times.

beauders said...

Grim, California was especially crazy at that time.