Thursday, June 14, 2018

From the Mail Room...

Travis writes:

I’ve always wondered why Watson thought he had to kill Steve Parent? He could have simply laid low in the bushes with the 3 girls and let him pass. It’s doubtful Parent would have noticed them. The only reason I can surmise is that Parent would have noticed their car, parked down the hill, on his exit. He could have provided a description of the car after the murders, and if he were suspicious enough to note the license plate, that would have been a real liability.

But then why use the revolver instead of the knife? They were going to creepy-crawl the house, relying on a stealth approach — and to initiate the whole thing with 4 gunshots in a canyon that would echoed the sound? Watson had to know that the shots might have alerted the occupants, and possibly other inhabitants of the canyon. Someone might have called the police. (I’ve done this before when I heard distinctive gunshots in my neighborhood). Garretson heard the shots and thought they were Parent’s car backfiring. If Garretson heard them from the Guest House, further away, it’s probable that the occupants heard them, too. Only Frykowski was asleep.

I understand that the team had rolled the car back down the hill silently after approaching the gate. But I don’t know how far down the car was, or how exposed it was. Seems Watson was not thinking too clearly here. He could have ordered Parent out of the car at gunpoint, led him to the bushes, and he and the 3 girls could have dispatched him with the knives without making a racket.

But then Watson was not thinking too clearly when he told the victims they were “all going to die,” setting off panic.

Thanks,
Travis

265 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 265 of 265
grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

Ilet me ask you something, does it make any type of rational sense (especially for a lifetime con like Manson).....

Rational sense ? Probably not. But Let's face it, Charlie Manson did not often make rational sense. When one has roamed the universe with acid, 2 things may happen. [a] One may see that what we generally have long seen as 'rational', no longer might be.
[b] That strand of thought that simply goes beyond the rational for everyday people and is taken as ridiculous, can become rational and rather ordinary for the tripper.


If im that angry at someone im either going to beat them to death myself....

As I keep saying, that's you. Some people do their own work. Others get others to do it for them.
I've never shied away from seeing some really hard to accept things in the "official" narrative. And there are things that the prosecution overlooked, in retrospect. I genuinely think an open mind does sort out many of the problems. There are things I don't particularly want to accept and some of those things may come from people whose views are at a variance from mine. They may even come from people that hate my very existence. But I'll examine them. And on a number of occasions, I've had to agree with them.
Also, in my life's experience, I've known many different kinds of people that had/have many different philosophies, outlooks, views, beliefs and done a host of things that lead me, when looking at the various statements pertaining to TLB and all that surrounds it, to see that as it was laid out, it could have happened. I don't just take what people say on any subject because I've long seen life as far more nuanced than that.

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

I think the motive was two fold

It is interesting that Bugliosi came to the conclusion that these murders carried multiple motives, particularly as the prosecution did not even have to supply motive. But why multiple motives came about is far more interesting. That is the way the evidence kept pointing. Much of it circumstantial, yes, but circumstantial evidence is as powerful, if sometimes not more so, than physical or even eyewitness evidence. If one keeps digging, one soon finds that "from circumstantial evidence of one fact we infer the existence of another fact."

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

the MDA I believe Harrigan delivered to Frykowski a couple of days before the murders along with the drugs Rostau admitted to delivering the night of the murders

Your theory stands or falls on this point because for Tex and Linda to be able to target Cielo, there has to be drugs there delivered by these two men. So it is to these two men we must look.
Harrigan never denied that he had supplied Abigail and Wojiciech with MDA, possibly even the MDA that they had ingested at the time of their deaths. Early July had seen Harrigan tell Frykowski that he could get him some MDA, sometime in mid to late July, he'd got it for him. As Wojiciech was running out of that first cache, when Harrigan was at Cielo on 7th August, it was to talk about delivering more. The 1st Tate report makes that clear in eliminating him as a suspect. They had gone at him hard, interviewing him "at great length." He admitted supplying Abigail and Wojiciech with MDA and the Police knew he had done so. Not one of the drug dealers interviewed was ever done for anything they revealed so why, if he'd admitted supplying Frykowski and intended getting him more MDA would Harrigan not say he delivered a large, "supplier" amount on the 7th if he had done so ? Remember, he lived in LA, not Canada. He would go to Toronto to get the stuff.
As for Rostau, his involvement is even more tenuous. Firstly, it is inaccurate to say he admitted delivering drugs to Cielo on the evening of the murder. The only place that ever came out was from his girlfriend. When Rostau was interviewed by Police in the light of that statement, he said he had not been there. I know last year you scoffed at my saying that, with the logic of "what kind of dealer will admit delivering drugs on the day of a murder ?" but the onus is on you to prove he was lying. The evidence says a month, yeah, a full month, after the murders, Sebring's secretary and Rostau's girlfriend, Karlene McCaffrey, had said he'd told her he'd done this, but he says he hadn't been there. And that was the last word we have on that subject. McCaffrey's claims about what Sebring and Rostau said to her could never be further tested because they were both dead by May 1970. Just reading the two sets of Police reports is mind boggling to see the amount of work they did, the amount of leads they followed up.
However, whatever one conjures up is moot because unless there can be found to be a definite tie up between Watson and [a]Frykowski, [b]Harrigan and/or [c]Rostau, then the drug theory has no bath in which to hold the water. To this day, there has never been any connection between Tex and any of those 3. So how could Tex or Linda know there would be drugs worth stealing at Cielo ?
It turns out to be a double negative ¬> Tex nor Linda knew any of these people and there were no drugs to steal. As I've said before, just theorizing is largely having fantasies. There needs to be some kind of real world evidence in there.
You mentioned Eugene Massaro, whom the FBI have on record as having a vending machine scam as a front for drug dealing and Tex mentioning a dealer he got stuff from that did a similar thing.
And ?
There were any number of scams used as fronts for drug dealing {a kind of primitive money laundering} and we have no proof whatsoever, nor even any suggestion that the guy Tex dealt with and Eugene are one and the same. But even if they were and Rostau and him were friends, it does not prove or even suggest that Tex must have known him, much less all the places he might be dropping drugs. Is it actually possible ? Yes, of course it is, as it is possible that it's not true. But the onus is not on me to prove it's not true, but on the person claiming its veracity to show it.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Have to admit youre right on MOHS, very hard to argue with that, probably the over riding theme i noticed from the book was her venom for Manson, almost like shed held it back for years, im assuming it was written or transcribed in the early 2000s

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

to get money to get Bobby, Sandy and Mary out of jail

Hmmm. The Bobby part, no way. Bobby was not going anywhere on bail as a suspect in that murder, with the kind of evidence they had on him, plus his lies, by August 8th. The Sandy and Mary part is more likely, but even that is problematic, given that they were booked really late at night and the timeline of them phoning the ranch and the decision to get moving straight away is really tight. It's possible, but mighty tight.

and Charlie pressured Tex to do something to help out and re pay his favor of handling the Crowe situation

Well, that's what Charlie says. Tex says the same thing. The difference of course being the 'what' .

this DOESNT MEAN Charlie ordered him to kill anyone i think he told Tex to get some money whatever way he could but font tell him how

Based on what ?
George Stimson spent many years visiting and talking with Manson. If George writes in a book that Manson told them to "do something" to get Bobby out, then that could only have come from one source. But nothing about getting money.
But Tex mentions money. Susan way back in the start mentioned getting money. Just reading Charlie's account from possibly his foremost supporter, George, who is a fine, articulate and thought provoking writer, is an education in itself and one that makes him far less believable than the way his friends would put things.

i think Tex and Linda knew about the drugs that would be there and that was their reason for going there

How would they have known about the drugs ? Your assertion requires some serious in depth knowledge on their part plus confidence that it wouldn't already have been distributed. The chances of all the pieces meeting to create the right path are astronomical. If it could be shown that Tex or Linda knew Harrigan, Frykowski or Rostau, then there'd not necessarily be proof, but at least circumstantial evidence that either may have had an inkling which way that particular wind was blowing. But again, it comes back to that double negative. Even if they knew those people, none of them delivered drugs in the week leading up to the murders. If they delivered drugs, there's no evidence they were known to Linda and Tex.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

The reason (in my opinion) that Harrigan wouldnt have admitted to the delivery on the 7th is because a delivery that close would look like a motive for the killings, im not saying police would see it that way only saying that i think Harrigan would see it that way and TO ME im not seeing anyone flying from Toronto to LA to simply discuss an upcoming delivery, sorry im just not buying that, as for Rostau i guess we just disagree

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

The reason (in my opinion) that Harrigan wouldnt have admitted to the delivery on the 7th is because a delivery that close would look like a motive for the killings. im not saying police would see it that way only saying that i think Harrigan would see it that way

How so ? Harrigan was already a suspect. But how does a delivery of drugs make him look a suspect when he's placed himself in every other drug supply scenario going, except an unverified delivery the day before that no one was even asking about ?

and TO ME im not seeing anyone flying from Toronto to LA to simply discuss an upcoming delivery, sorry im just not buying that

Fair do's, but remember, Harrigan didn't live in Canada at the time. He lived in LA. The Police report states that he used to smuggle drugs from Canada to America. He'd come to LA that January with coke so he obviously had Canadian connections and knew what was the happening shit, hence the ability to get MDA. Smuggler dealers come and go from their various sources of supply. But he lived in LA so it's not true to say he flew to LA just to discuss a deal ~ although had he done that and Frykowski was a dealer looking for a big quantity, of course Harrigan could have flown from Toronto. Aeroplane travel like that is easier than driving huge distances or arranging drug deals over the phone.

as for Rostau i guess we just disagree

Yeah. Rostau apparently told LAPD that he told his girlfriend and others what he'd said to impress them. Unwittingly, he became the first of what has become an ever growing troupe of people who have gone on to claim that they were going to be or should have been or were invited to be at Cielo that night. And the funny thing is that it's usually Sharon that had invited them, even though she herself wasn't going to be there till the last minute when she cancelled going to her friend's. Maybe whenever we hear someone say they were meant to be there that night, we should call it a Joel.
One other thing that springs to mind is Karlene McCaffrey herself. What was she thinking, telling the Police her boyfriend had delivered drugs to the house, whether he actually had or hadn't {in either case, she wouldn't know}.

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

Of course they got what they came for, they weren't worried about the small personal amount in Jays car or in the bedrooms on nightstands

I agree with this. They weren't interested in small bits of drugs. If you think about it, they probably wouldn't even have noticed the joint in the bedroom, the coke in the car and a few capsules of MDA. And they did get what they came for ¬> the lives of whoever they found there.
The drug element shouldn't be overlooked though. Atkins, when speaking with her lawyers, said that she knew just by looking at the victims that they were into drugs. I have long found that one of the most interesting things she ever said.

Tex killed everyone because he got freaked about OR had something personal with them, he stabbed up close and personal multiple times

While he did get up close and personal, there's an element of being pushed into that situation. He blew Steve away, he blew Jay away long before he went at him with the knife and he gave orders to Susan to kill Wojiciech & Sharon and to Pat to kill Abigail. Susan's failure to do as instructed led to him shooting Frykowski and the gun then jammed. It's almost as though he was trying to incapacitate his victims before doing anything with the knife. It is really only after that gun jammed that he went psycho with the knife. And even there, he was hitting Frykowski with the gun, trying to stop him from escaping.
I don't think that Tex did freak out. I think he was coldly calculated in his actions after shooting Steve and possibly discovered, like Leslie the following night, that the more you do something previously distasteful to you, the easier it becomes.

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

What purpose is there to cut phone lines is everybody is going to be killed?

I would have thought that was obvious.
They did not know what they would find once inside. They did not know, for example, if someone could lock themselves in one of the bedrooms and quickly get an emergency call in. It wouldn't take a minute to get a phone call through to someone. Someone could dial an emergency number and just leave the phone off the hook so whoever was on the other end could listen in. Killing the phone lines would be the first thing one would do to take care of that set of unforeseen eventualities.

the rope was brought to tie everyone while they searched for the stash of drugs

While that is not beyond the bounds of possibility, holding a gun on them would achieve that. The rope on the other hand, fits the Mansonian narrative of pigs being hung by their feet and it fits it directly.
If the rope was for subduing the victims while a search for drugs took place, then how come they weren't found all tied in a subdued position ?

Unless Tex was using his buddy Eugene Massaros MO which was "injuring phone lines" before robberies and rip offs

Find the connection between Tex & Massaro before stating that they were buddies. Besides which, in a range of crimes, phone lines are cut.

climbing 20 feet up a power pole to cut lines you dont know are phone lines or power lines is a bit much

How do you know Tex didn't know which were the phone lines ?

i think he deserved to be locked up for the things he was doing, were a society of laws/i feel he was railroaded by an opportunistic political climbing DA and people higher than him like Younger and possibly Reagan who pressured the office to nail him any way they could

If that was really the case, the last two words you would have heard in the trial would have been helter and skelter. It was Aaron Stovitz that had the main 'yes' in bringing in Bugliosi, but he was the one that was not at all happy with going the way of HS.
Paradoxically, it isn't at all surprising that people like Younger wanted Manson nailed. Why shouldn't he ? There were people in LE that thought he was guilty. But at the end of the day, unless you believe the jury was got at or ordered to vote a certain way, they are the ones that convicted Manson and whether or not one likes it, trying to stab the judge in front of that jury isn't likely to do your case much good. Especially if you don't even put one on.

and if they could scapegoat him they could do it to anybody

There are those within the Black and poor communities of various US cities that might tell you that was happening long before 1970.
But few listened until Charlie raised a rumpus. And he wasn't even scapegoated !

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

Leno and Rosemarys lives were pretty turbulent leading up to the murders, break ins, Lenos money problems, Rosemarys conflicts with Suzan over Dorgan, Frank jrs troubled friends, etc

They sound like a regular family with older kids to me. I know or have known loads of families for whom that description is almost relaxation. We wouldn't really think that was so out of the ordinary had there not been murders.

i still havent figured out what to think about it, obviously 3301 Waverly was not random so why was it picked? The motives for Labianca is probably the thing about this case that puzzles me the most

Charlie told George Stimson that he first went up to Harold True's house to see him before going next door. Now, although he says he went to see True {also in a Vanity Fair interview from 2011}, we know that this is bullshit because he knew that True had left there around October of '68.
What is generally not known but twice reiterated is that he had wanted to move into the True house. In Harold's interview with Aaron Stovitz in Jan 1970, True says this. He repeats this 20 years later in the famous interview on the phone. Charlie wanted to live in the True house and True said he'd have to check with his house mates as it was no longer up to him, having moved out. So Manson checked with them and they said no.
Also not generally known, according to Manson in that Vanity Fair interview in 2011, he knew the LaBianca house well. He claims he used to go in there and have sex as he knew it was empty in the days True lived next door. So if you put those two pieces of info together with what he tells George Stimson in "Goodbye Helter Skelter", where he tells George that he went into the LaBianca house and actually had a conversation with Leno, then a very precise and interesting picture starts to emerge.
All the other random attempts hadn't worked out that night, why not go with what you know ?
Could he have gone up to the former True house initially, not to see Harold {because he knew he had moved some 10 months previously} but rather, to do some damage to the former True housemates who had not allowed him to move into their pad and finding no one there, directed his attention to the house next door which he also knew ?
It bears thinking about. Knowing now about him having been in the LaBianca house in 1968 and knowing he wanted to live in the house next door and was prevented from doing so, there's no way that I can pretend I don't know this. The conclusion may not be accurate, but the ingredients that make them up are solid, verifiable and fit.
Another interesting thing Manson told Stimson ~ he remembers telling the killers not to let the LaBiancas know they were going to be killed.

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

Even if their murders were completely random the sheer number of problems and conflicts are pretty amazing considering they were murdered, just the law of averages would tell you the motive has to be one of them

Manson more or less stated to George that their murders were random, insofar as there was no planned targeting of the LaBiancas.
Two factors to take into account, every one of the killers, some even when they were in support of Charlie, stated that he said he was going to show them how it should be done. But after a few hours of driving about and attempts nothing had happened. Some face saving is needed here by the one that was supposed to be showing the others how it should be done. In probably less than 45 minutes the night before, there were 5 corpses.
Second factor, the dog and the light. He had always known the LaBianca house as empty ~ as had Harold. So after finding "no one" in at Harold's former house, he saw a light on next door and he saw a dog and went to inquire what was going on. When he saw Leno, it became the perfect opportunity for the random kill that he had been trying to accomplish that night.
I'm struck by Kasabian saying that for hours they drove around aimlessly then suddenly, Charlie became very specific in his directions. Almost as though he was thinking, 'well, I know one place I can get some action....'
If he had been going to slaughter the 3 housemates, he would have done so in the knowledge that the house was isolated enough to not attract attention ~ because he thought the LaBianca house was empty. Given that the former True house was empty but someone was in the house next door, isolation at 2am still applied.....

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

You know of alot of families where the head of the household has been skimming hundreds of thousands of dollars from his business, the daughter has been arrested for credit card fraud, the son has numerous friends in juvenile hall, the father has a gambling addiction and the wife has a history of scamming men? You hang with some interesting folks lol

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Exactly, what reason would she have to make it up? Because she didnt, he told her

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

You know of alot of families where the head of the household has been skimming hundreds of thousands of dollars from his business, the daughter has been arrested for credit card fraud, the son has numerous friends in juvenile hall, the father has a gambling addiction and the wife has a history of scamming men? You hang with some interesting folks

Indeed !
You know, many of the stories we come across of celebs or people achieving their 15 minutes of fame seem fascinating and unique but they're not at all. If you look into pretty much any adult's background, you can find many moments of interest that are worthy of comment and opinion. And some of those moments can be blown out of all proportion to seem far more {or less} than what they are. While those exact things that you mention may not have happened with each member of specific families I've known, these kinds of things happening aren't strange to me at all. They used to be when I'd first hear about them but after half a century of knowing about such things, I barely raise an eyebrow anymore. Some of these things have happened within my own family.

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

Exactly, what reason would she have to make it up? Because she didnt, he told her

If you mean Karlene, I wasn't suggesting she made it up. I don't doubt Joel told her those things. I also don't doubt that he was bullshitting her, never at all thinking she'd go to the police. And it was information she volunteered. It's not like he was on a suspect list or anything. Maybe she was going to leave him and he felt the need to try to show what a big man he was. Rumour on the wire was that he had a big mouth, and discretion wasn't his strong suit.

lurch said...

Hi Katie! There's a vid on YouTube of a gentleman firing a replica of the gun. Surprisingly, it's not very loud at all

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

He never thought shed go to the police after telling her he delivered drugs to a murder scene that was WORLDWIDE news which included a 8 month pregnant movie actress and her boss? Talk about living dangerously and playing the odds

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Dude seriously just stop, youre an intelligent guy and i respect you but you making it sound like a family with those specific problems is a commonplace thing or even a commonplace thing IN YOUR WORLD is just disingenuous

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Also remember I said ALL OF THOSE THINGS not just one here, one there

katie8753 said...

Hi Lurch. Yeah I saw that. Thanks!!

grimtraveller said...

SAG said...

He never thought shed go to the police after telling her he delivered drugs to a murder scene that was WORLDWIDE news which included a 8 month pregnant movie actress and her boss? Talk about living dangerously and playing the odds

Is it ? He was already being done for the drugs that were found in his property when he was robbed back in March or April. Which sort of brings me back to the point I was making; what was Karlene thinking ? I'd be surprised if Joel told her what he did, expecting her to blab to the cops. Kind of like Susan Atkins blabbing to Ronnie Howard, Virginia Graham and Roseanne Walker but not expecting them to go to the cops or Clem and Charlie telling Paul Watkins about Shorty's death and not expecting him to blab to the cops or Charlie telling Al Springer about involvement in murder but not expecting him to blab to the cops {it's interesting that these were all given to the cops voluntarily}. It's not usual to tell someone close to you something incriminating {even if you're bullshitting} with the expectation that they are going to land you in cop trouble.

you making it sound like a family with those specific problems is a commonplace thing or even a commonplace thing IN YOUR WORLD is just disingenuous

I remember back in 1996, my older sister and I were talking about dysfunctional families and we tried hard to come up with those that we'd known that it turned out weren't dysfunctional {including our own} and we could only think of a couple. We were in our early and mid 30s at the time and we sadly concluded that actually, dysfunction was the norm.
You know, when the Queen described 1992, I think it was, as her "annus horribilis" many people looked at what had been going on with her children and couldn't avoid the conclusion that despite being royalty, they were dysfunctional. I've heard many Americans describe the Kennedys back in the day in the same way.
All I'm saying about the LaBiancas is that in 1969, it would not be utterly unique for a businessman to be skimming money from a company, whether it was his own or not, for his wife to have had a somewhat questionable past, and for one of his kids to have gotten into trouble for credit card fraud {that money thing again....} and for the other one to have friends that got into trouble with the law. Now, perhaps I say this because I've worked with kids since 1983 and have seen more families than I care to count going through similar things, but I'm not being disingenuous. I have nothing to lose or gain by my observation. It doesn't change what I think about the LaBianca murders or the killers' role in it.
I appreciate that many people won't have seen such and that it may well be highly unusual for them. But it isn't for me.

Also remember I said ALL OF THOSE THINGS not just one here, one there

Understood. But when one is aware of so many different combinations of problems within a family group, some far worse than any you mentioned, it kind of becomes moot. I mean, one could look at Pat's family and see a Dad that has affairs, a daughter that becomes a junkie and dies of an OD and one that commits murder. It may not be the same 4 things that you mentioned but it's a series of howlers turning up in a family.
What I was really arguing against was your point that the law of averages must point to the motive lying somewhere within the turbulence of the LaBianca family dynamic at that time. Interestingly, Christians and those that believe in karma or the spiritual realm might argue in that direction.

grimtraveller said...

Travis said...

I’ve always wondered why Watson thought he had to kill Steve Parent? He could have simply laid low in the bushes with the 3 girls and let him pass. It’s doubtful Parent would have noticed them

From the way Atkins and Kasabian described it, the way they saw the light from the car as opposed to the actual car, Watson may well have felt that the driver of the car could see them.

The only reason I can surmise is that Parent would have noticed their car, parked down the hill, on his exit. He could have provided a description of the car after the murders, and if he were suspicious enough to note the license plate, that would have been a real liability

The irony of that is that Rudy Weber did that anyway and significantly, well away from the murder scene.

katie8753 said...

Somebody may have already said this, but maybe Parent got unnerved when he saw shadowy figures climbing the fence instead of coming thru the gate, and he backed into the fence.

katie8753 said...

Horse Teeth was denied parole AGAIN!!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-denies-parole-to-former-charles-manson-follower-leslie-van-houten/ar-AAzlVg6

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Good for them, she should never get out

katie8753 said...

Leslie will get out in a pine box. Like Susan.

Horse Teeth thinks she's special because she can put a voodoo spell on men, including her mouthpiece attorneys. But they all fall, one by one, in a pile of vomitus that includes the High School Princesses wails of "I only stabbed her 16 times" and "it's not fair to me".

Well guess what Miss Princess, it wasn't fair to Rosemary and Leno for you to invade their home and make them dead!!

katie8753 said...

Can you imagine these dumb bitches sitting in prison all these years and the man they followed unto death is dead now?

They worshipped him like a god. When they were on trial, they said he would get them out. They believed he was magic.

How stupid they must feel now.

Oh well.....

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Agreed but we seem to be in the minority, 90 percent of people seem to think the psychotic old hag should be released because "so and so got out and they killed 5 thousand people so do should Leslie, all the poor girl did was tie a lampcord around a womans neck, put a hood on her head and carve her like a Thanksgiving turkey"

katie8753 said...

Well I'm not sure what "so and so" they're talking about, but Ted Bundy never got out. Richard Ramirez never got out.

There's something really creepy/scary about a seemingly normal 19 year old girl joining up with a bunch of hippies and being eagerly excited to drive over to a complete stranger's house, getting knives out of drawers, chasing down and stabbing the lady of the house, then helping herself to food out of the fridge and clothes out of her closet.

That's NOT normal. So whatever went haywire in her brain back in 1969, unless she's been re-wired, is still there. If we just let people out of prison because "they've been in there long enough" where's the deterrent to that kind of crime? She's right where she belongs.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I meant whenever this argument comes up someone always brings up an example of a murderer who was released on parole in 5, 10, 15, 20 years, etc as if that somehow means Leslie should get out too, my point is NONE OF THEM should get out, you voluntarily take a life in a pre meditated waybyou sacrifice your freedom forever

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

And Katie I agree with you a million percent on Leslie, when you think about the details of the night and what she did it boggles my mind, she is where she belongs and should stay there

katie8753 said...

Yes she is SAG, and so are the others. Tex Watson is an evil man. And Pat is just plain nuts. Pat has done everything she knows to get out. And it hasn't worked.

Bruce has lied more times than George Constanza and Bobby is a self-made God for some kind of underground following.

They all need to just stay put!

And Clem should never have gotten out, but that's closing the barn door after the cows got out!

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Totally agreed

beauders said...

Yes he did say the Tate and Folger were attractive. Remember he called Tate Polanski’s wife and Folger Polanski’s girlfriend but meaning Frykowski confusing Garrettson.

beauders said...

Pat is not a dyke but I am. Part of Pat’s issues is that men don’t find her attractive and that hurt her that is why she was so loyal to Manson he told her she was beautiful and loved her. She has relationship’s with women in prison because that is all that is available. She is straight.

beauders said...

Roman was suspicious of just about everyone he and Sharon knew. He suspected John Phillips as well.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders. I think Garretson also said something about "the younger Polanski", referring to Voytek, when the police were questioning him.

katie8753 said...

Not being able to distinguish between 2 polish people would be considered "racist" today. LOL.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

In the second Labianca homicide report it looks like Leonard Posella and his mom were livingbat 3267 Waverly at the time of the murders, ive read that report quite a few times and always glanced over the exact address on Waverly where he lived, for me Leonards "he better give it to me or else" statement takes on a bit more meaning considering he lived right next door in the house Harold and his buddies had vacated, i never realized it was the Posellas that Harold and Co were renting from either, i think its also worth noting that Posellas girlfriend Sharon had an ex who was a Satans Slave, anyone else think theres a chance that possibly it was Leonard or Sharon that Manson was coming to see next door and they were gone?

katie8753 said...

From the First LaBianca Homocide Report:

POSELLA, Leonard, LA 189 324P, CII 973193 1-1ale Caucasian, DOB 8-26-34,5-11, 185, brown/brown. *Felony Warrant No. A05 6027, bench warrant for 4390 B & P (Forged Prescription) issued,6-2-69, State Narcotic investigators handling. Subject has resided with his mother, Julia Posella, at 3267 Waverly Drive. 1 This residence is directly east of the LaBianca residence. He has had mental problems in the past and claims he blacks out for periods of time and is not responsible for his actions. He has threatened his ex wife with a knife and has stated that he will cut her head off. He has been convicted of 245 p.C., ADW, and has many Drunk arrests. He is currently being sought on the felony warrant for Forgery of a Prescription, and investigators have been unable to locate him. No make on fingerprints; but need palm prints for elimination.

For a such a nice, upscale neighborhood, there were quite a few bums living on this street. LOL. If Manson had only spilled his gut before he died, he would have saved us a lot of time trying to figure this out. There are so many possibilities of why Manson would chose the LaBianca house.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Yeah, Posella sounds pretty shady to me, obviously there was something going on with the Labiancas for him to be going over there regularly getting free stuff, i think his mom probably had money i just think Leonard was a bad seed, i cant understand how he was an attorney with that criminal record

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Also near the end of the second report they go into more detail on both him and Sharon Ransom

katie8753 said...

Yeah that Posella was a piece of shit. I can't believe he was anything but a bum. So was Harold True.

I mean, that neighborhood really SUCKED!!! On the news back in 1969 they kept calling it an "elite upscale neighborhood in Los Feliz" but that clientele was more like Dogpatch USA.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Well Katy Perry just bought the place next door on the other side of 3301, not the True house but the weird looking place with the huge wall, i doubt shes planning on living there so i dont know what her plans are for it, my impression of Los Feliz is its a decent area with really nice pockets here and there but i think the area gets a better reputation than it deserves since its so close to Hollywood

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

But in 69 i think it was a haven for bikers and hippies with Griffith Park so close, the stories were that even the Straight Satans and Satans Slaves both hung out at the park

katie8753 said...

Katy Perry SUCKS! Maybe she bought it as an old folks home for her hero, Billary Hinton.

It's hard to judge in 2018 in what regard that neighborhood was deemed as in 1969. When neighborhoods get older, they get a lot rougher.

From what I've read, that neighborhood was really pretty exclusive back in 1969. But like you say, it was near Griffith Park, so there probably was some riff raff hanging around, but I would think that the housing costs were more than a bunch of bums could handle. Of course, how did Harold True rent a house there? I'm assuming it was because he had about 20 roommates to help divide up the rental cost. Back then, landlords probably didn't care about checking up to see if the property was being trashed, as long as the monthly rent was being paid.

I wonder what that house looked like when True moved out. It probably had to be gutted and re-vamped. LOL.

katie8753 said...

Speaking of monthly rent, after the Cielo Drive murders, Altobelli sued Polanski for unpaid rent, among other things. Seems that he didn't pay August 1969 rent. I wonder why he didn't pay it. It wasn't paid by the 8th of the month. Usually rent is due by the 1st and past due by the 5th. I'm assuming Roman wrote the rent checks every month. That's usually what men did back then.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I just looked the Katy Perry thing up and that house is WAY bigger than i thought, obviously from following the case i knew it was the Earle C. Anthony estate but after he died the Archdiocese of LA obtained it and used it as a convent, Katy was going to buy it but some woman got in the middle of the transaction (dont ask me why) and it got brought to court and Perry won and bought the estate from the Archdiocese for 14.5 million, the property is really big

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Maybe he planned on just paying it when he got back to LA on the 12th or 13th, didnt he tell Sharon he planned on leaving on Monday?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I saw an old blog post awhile back from a guy who claimed to be a relative of Ernie Baltzell who was one of Harolds roommates and he said Ernie told him that Charlie and some of the girls lived there for about a month and Charlie wanted to move in but even though Harold said ok Ernie said no and Ernie told him he thought thatvwas the reason Charlie came back the night of the Labianca killings to look for them but since they were moved out he thought Charlie possibly tried opening a window or prying open a door and was spotted by Leno or Rosemary

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

I saw an old blog post awhile back from a guy who claimed to be a relative of Ernie Baltzell who was one of Harolds roommates

Can you recall exactly where you saw that ? I'd be interested to read that.

he said Ernie told him that Charlie and some of the girls lived there for about a month

If the guy did say that, it would be the only place where such a notion has ever turned up. One of the interesting things about the Family's wanderings before Spahn is that from fall '67 through to when they hit Gresham in late '68/early '69, their movements are fairly well documented and nowhere does a months at Harold's house ever figure.
For the record, Harold says that Charlie stayed over a couple of times and was over four or five times.

and Charlie wanted to move in but even though Harold said ok Ernie said no

Harold told Aaron Stovitz that Charlie had wanted to move in around Sept '68 when he knew Harold was leaving to go to Africa but it was never Harold's decision and he put it squarely in the court of Ernie Baltzell, Allen Swerdloff and Harry Yost, the three housemates.
The interesting thing is that those 3 moved out not long after Harold ~ but Charlie didn't know this....


Ernie told him he thought that was the reason Charlie came back the night of the Labianca killings to look for them

Once I heard about Charlie wanting to move into the house and the 3 housemates saying no, I've thought that, especially since he was supposed to be showing the others "how to do it" and up to that point had shown them how not to !
It makes sense to me.

but since they were moved out he thought Charlie possibly tried opening a window or prying open a door and was spotted by Leno or Rosemary

That doesn't make sense to me. You see a guy at after 2am trying to pry open a window next door and you don't call the police or at least lock your doors ?
Interestingly, that notion is contradicted by every person that has ever spoken about that murder ~ including Charlie. Manson admits he was "pretty loaded" that night and in such a heightened state, I can easily see why a dog and a light on in a house he'd always known to be empty {and had indeed been if what he told Vanity Fair, George Stimson and Rolling Stone is true} would arouse his curiosity.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

If i saw a guy Charlies size doing it id just yell at him to piss off and get out of there

katie8753 said...

Ernie Baltzell, Allen Swerdloff and Harry Yost

Sounds like Kramer's friends! LOL.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Lol hey Katie i needed a laugh earlier so i looked up Barry Sortero Hussein Obama singing Amazing Grace, have you ever seen that one?

katie8753 said...

No I haven't seen it. Can you post a link?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Not sure how to do that on here from my phone, go on youtube and type "obama amazing grace" into the search box

katie8753 said...

OK thanks!

katie8753 said...

ROFLMAO!!!

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Pretty funny, did you notice how he changed his accent from white to ghetto at the drop of a hat? Lol

katie8753 said...

Yeah he did. He was ready to do some "Can I can a Hallelujah"'s. I put that on my blog.

katie8753 said...

You can tell he didn't really know some of the words of the song. He just kinda mumbled. LOL.

grimtraveller said...

Travis writes:

I’ve always wondered why Watson thought he had to kill Steve Parent? He could have simply laid low in the bushes with the 3 girls and let him pass

I wonder why he actually told the women to lie down in the bushes if he was going to shoot Parent. What did them hiding actually serve ?

grimtraveller said...

sunset77 said...

.22's are about the "quietest" firearm to start with, there is no comparison to large caliber pistols like .357 and .44 magnum

Another thought struck me after reading the transcript of Bernard Crowe during the penalty phase. He says that Manson shot him and it has been established that it was with the .22. Now, they were in Rosina Korner's apartment and Manson stuck around for 4-5 minutes after the shooting. He couldn't have been too worried that all the other apartments in close proximity heard that shot otherwise they'd have been out of there like a shot {no pun intended}.

simon davis said...

There seems to be an assumption that Tex and the other killers cannot be believed on anything becasue they were proved liars. It is tempting to think this, but it is not a correct approach to interpreting evidence.

I won't delve into all of the aspects of this, but rather focus on two features of this case which mean that Tex, Susan and Leslie were almost certainly telling the truth when they were intially interviewed by their lawyers (I'm assuming here that Tex's book represents what he initially told his lawyer - a correct assumption for present purposes I think). First, the things they said were almost entirely AGAINST INTEREST. That is, they were admitting to the killings in the context of the real possibility of litigation against them. The law, and common sense, dictate that no matter how dishonest a person may otherwise be, when s/he says something against interest, it is generally bound to be true. Second, the things said by these people were said to their lawyers. In general, people tell the truth to their lawyers. Not always, but usually. It can be presumed, unless there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, that things said to lawyers are truthful. There is not a smidgeon of evidence in this case to the contrary of that presumption. For these reasons, it is beyond argument that what Watson, Atkins and Van Houten initially told their lawyers was the truth (no matter how much they may have embellished or lied elsewhere in things they have said).

There are other problems with the assumption of "proved liars" but I won't bang on about them right now.

There also seems to be an assumption that without Atkins and Kasabian, there was no evidence to support the prosecution, or something to that effect (my apologies if I have misconstrued what has been said). I think without Kasabian, the prosecution would have stalled, but whether it would have been totally stopped in its tracks is debatable. There was powerful physical evidence implicating, at least, Charles Manson. There were the words of his manifesto written in blood at the crime scenes and there was evidence of the murder weapon (no less !) being his gun. In light of this and other evidence, it was surely only a matter of time before the house of cards tumbled. As it transpired, the usual thing happened - witnesses started rolling over each other beating a path to the DA's door - most notably Kasabian, Watkins and Poston. Armed with the bloody writing, Manson's gun, Kasabian, Poston and Watkins, the DA had an overwhelming case. My memory's a bit dim (along with otehr facets of my cerebellum), but I recall this was about the end of March 1970.

grimtraveller said...

simon davis said...

There seems to be an assumption that Tex and the other killers cannot be believed on anything becasue they were proved liars. It is tempting to think this

The real temptation is to cave in to the assumption because of the weight of opinion in its favour that the perps are simply liars and the backlash or cynicism that often accompanies it. But for me, that has simply never made the slightest bit of sense and in some ways has been the foundation of every one of the attempts to try and re-try the case with all the alternative theories that have made for so much "debate" over the last 30 years.
For me it is a simple matter, that without the words of the perps, we have absolutely no idea of the human reality of what took place in those two houses. Sure, we know, from an evidentiary viewpoint, but few people spend the decades many of us have spent on this case just to reiterate the evidence. And in fact, the evidence is seriously brought to life and given its deserved significance precisely because with the words of the killers, we can apply certain things to a tale, a tale of real people with real foibles that murdered and real people that were murdered. Just one slight example of many ~ Susan Atkins saying that Jay Sebring made a move towards Tex, in protection of Sharon Tate and getting shot as a result. Now, there's a whole world just in that, that the evidence tells us nothing about. Atkins is one of the most unreliable figures in the whole case {matched, I have to say, by Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson} and lied for breakfast, changed stories for lunch and then changed them again for dinner and lied for desert. But that doesn't make everything she said untrue.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 265 of 265   Newer› Newest»