Friday, October 26, 2018

William Weston writes....

Hi,

The following is a suggestion for a thread on the Tate-LaBianca Homicide Research Blog. It involves glasses that were found in the Tate home and did not belong to the victims or the killers. This indicates that at least one other person was in the house that night.

When Charles Manson announced to his followers at Spahn Ranch on August 8, 1969 "Now is the time for Helter Skelter,” he told Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, and Linda Kasabian to get knives and changes of clothes. Shortly after midnight, they entered the home of actress Sharon Tate at 10500 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon and brutally murdered her and four other people.

Originally, the police believed the slaughter at the Tate house was the work of one man. A clue to his identity was a pair of glasses found in the living room. A lieutenant for the Los Angeles Police Department, Robert Helder, showed them to the press on October 23 and said that the killer probably lost them during the struggle with the victims. He further said the owner was extremely near-sighted and could not operate a vehicle without them. An unusual feature was the plastic lenses. Unlike glass lenses, plastic resisted shattering and was the choice of very active people such as athletes. The amber-colored, horn-rimmed frames were of a specific type manufactured by the American Optical Corp. The customized bend of the temple shafts showed that the left ear was about one-fourth to one-half inch higher than the right. Police sent flyers to thousands of eye doctors, hoping that someone might provide information about the man who bought them. 

Glasses found at the Tate house.


What the news media hailed as a major breakthrough in October quickly became an almost forgotten loose end in December after the arrest of Charles Manson, Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Linda Kasabian, none of whom wore glasses.

When the case came to trial, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi feared that defense attorneys might bring up the glasses and make the reasonable assertion that at least one killer was still at large. From that standpoint, they could argue that the wrong people were on trial. As it turned out, the glasses were never mentioned during the Manson trial nor the Tex Watson trial. (Helter Skelter, 1974, pp. 106, 109, 380).

The mystery of the glasses has never been solved. One thing is clear: at least one other person had participated in the slaughter at the Tate house on August 9, 1969.

97 comments:

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Here's 3 posts on the Cielodrive.com website regarding the same subject:

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/glasses-may-be-clue-in-sharon-tate-case/

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/pair-of-glasses-gives-police-solid-clue-in-tate-murders/

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/eyeglasses-left-at-tate-murder-site/

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Again, from the Cielodrive.com website (comments section):


CD writes:

I don’t recall ever hearing about who the glasses belonged to. Here is a mention of the glasses from “Manson In His Own Words.”

“Returning to the scene of any crime is risky business, so instead of turning up Cielo Drive, we drove past and looked up the hill to see if there was any activity that might indicate the police had arrived. Everything was quiet. Still not wanting to be too obvious, we parked the car a short distance away and walked to the premises. We entered the grounds by climbing over the fence, as the kids had done. As Sadie and Tex had said, the first victim’s car was off the driveway a short distance from the gate. Going by Tex’s description of how he had approached the car and how he had pushed it, I carefully wiped the car clean of possible finger prints without disturbing the body of the boy who lay dead inside.

“Approaching a house where you know there are dead bodies has a spine-chilling effect, and I think if I had been alone, I might have forgotten about continuing any farther. My partner probably felt the same way, but neither of us spoke and we did go on to see the whole gory mess. Tex and Sadie’s description had been accurate. What I was seeing was not a scene from a movie or some horrible acid fantasy, but real people who would never see the morning’s sun. I’d had thoughts of creating a scene more in keeping with a black-against-white retaliation, but in looking around, I lost the heart to carry out my plans. The two of us took towels and wiped every place a fingerprint could have been left. I then placed the towel I was using over the head of the man inside the room. My partner had an old pair of eyeglasses which we often used as a magnifying glass or as a device to start a fire when matches weren’t available. We carefully wiped the glasses free of prints and dropped them on the floor, so that, when discovered, they would be a misleading clue for the police. Within an hour and twenty minutes after leaving Spahn, we were back. The sun was already bringing the light of day as I crawled in bed with Stephanie.”

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Starviego,

Please check your email.

Best Regards, LS

katie8753 said...

Who was Charlie's partner?

sunset77 said...

To the best of my knowledge, the owner of those glasses has never been identified to this day. I've never heard of any of the killers being connected to them in that they wore glasses or brought them with them.

There are many ways they may have gotten there, but my guess is they were somehow associated with the victims. Someone might have lost them there days or weeks before the murder. They might have fallen out of someone's pocket, apparently casual acquaintances of the Polanski's came and went through that house all the time.

Maybe one of the victims had them in their pocket for some reason, might have found them somewhere else.

I've worn glasses my whole life, including 1969. If I lose or drop my glasses I have to immediately find them, I can barely see without them. Apparently, the owner of those glasses had pretty bad eye problems as well as they are described as "thick". I'm surprised the owner has never been identified. I doubt those glasses had any connection to the crime.

katie8753 said...

Those glasses were just a prop.

Who wrote this? It sure wasn't Charlie:

“Approaching a house where you know there are dead bodies has a spine-chilling effect, and I think if I had been alone, I might have forgotten about continuing any farther. My partner probably felt the same way, but neither of us spoke and we did go on to see the whole gory mess. Tex and Sadie’s description had been accurate. What I was seeing was not a scene from a movie or some horrible acid fantasy, but real people who would never see the morning’s sun.

Sounds more like something Alyssa Statman would write.

katie8753 said...

Didn't Charles Manson tell his minions that death was good? Isn't that what Susan Atkins told Sharon Tate when she was begging for her life? When Susan told her "you're gonna die bitch, and there's nothing you can do about it."

This language doesn't sound like anything Charlie would espouse. And Susan sure changed her tune when death was looking her in the face in her last days, trying to use that as an excuse to get out of prison.

And the parole board didn't buy it.

katie8753 said...

Maybe Alyssa can tell us who Charlie's "partner" was. I've heard many stories.

grimtraveller said...

The mystery of the glasses has never been solved. One thing is clear: at least one other person had participated in the slaughter at the Tate house on August 9, 1969

This sounds like one of Starviego's murder mysteries !

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Update:
This thread was written by a gentleman named William Weston.

I didn't have his name initially, hence the credit to "Anonymous".

Thanks again William, for your contribution.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Those glasses were just a prop

Like many things associated with TLB, there's more than one story from more than one source and in this particular case, even two different stories from the same source ! In Emmons, "Charlie" says "My partner had an old pair of eyeglasses which we often used as a magnifying glass or as a device to start a fire when matches weren’t available." There's reason to doubt this however, because, as Pax Vobiscum has pointed out, the glasses were for someone with extreme nearsightedness and they are the glasses that don't start fires. It's the ones that correct far sightedness that people out in the wilds of nature can start fires with because such glasses bend the light to a focal point as opposed to disperse the light like the ones for nearsightedness. A tiny detail, but one which already begins to unravel Charlie's attempts to confuse {or to put it his way of 1970, to helter skelter !}
Charlie also told George Stimson that before the killers left Spahn for Cielo, he gave Tex a pair of glasses to drop as a false clue.
Susan Atkins however, told Roseanne Walker, a former prison buddy, that the glasses had nothing to do with the killers. I regard them in the same way I regard the numerous unidentified fingerprints found at both murder scenes ~ unimportant. They were important back in 1969. After the grand jury hearing, they ceased to be.

Who wrote this? It sure wasn't Charlie: "Approaching a house where you know there are dead bodies has a spine-chilling effect, and I think if I had been alone, I might have forgotten about continuing any farther. "

It was Nuel Emmons, author of the controversial "Charles Manson in his own words." When the book first came out, it was called "Without Conscience." Basically, because he wasn't allowed to tape his conversations over the 7 years that he visited and spoke with him, he would write up a précis in the prison car park as it was supposedly fresh in his mind. He did intimate a couple were taped but he never says which times or what they spoke about and as the whole book follows in the same style, we'd never be able to tell without some indication from him. Which isn't going to happen as he is no longer with us.
Most peoples' major complaint with the book is the same as Katie's here ~ nowhere does it sound like the Charles Manson we've come to know. Even Squeaky said so at the time and she'd not spoken to Charlie in well over a decade.
On the other hand, Emmons right at the start tells the reader that he put the book together in a form that people could understand because Charlie often spoke in riddles, code or gobbledegook. The Family generally understood him and in fact, interviews with many members at the time of the trials and in the trial itself show that they spoke the same language. When Richard Caballero was testifying as to how Susan Atkins came to replace him with Daye Shinn, he says that when they eventually met with Manson, he'd be talking straight and then suddenly he'd go into a language that Susan obviously got but which he couldn't fathom. He called it 'pig Latin.'
On the other hand, though he often spoke in gobbledegook, there are a number of interviews over the years where he's every bit as articulate and understandable as that quote from Emmons' book.

CarolMR said...

Katie, I'd like to know who Manson's "partner" was, too. I have read that it may have been Nancy Pitman/Brenda McCann.

katie8753 said...

Grim, I still think those glasses were a "prop" or a false clue left by someone, whether it was one of the killers or Manson himself, regardless of whether or not they started fires. And I'm not basing that on anything Manson said about them, I'm basing it on the fact that those glasses obviously didn't belong to the victims (unless they belonged to Steve Parent and I'm assuming they ruled that out), and if they belonged to some unknown killer that magically disappeared from existence after the murders, that person probably couldn't have seen anything without them. That's like a crippled person leaving a crutch or a wheelchair behind after savagely murdering people. Doesn't make any sense at all.

So...it makes more sense to me that they were dropped to throw the police off.

katie8753 said...

Carol, I've heard that Manson's "partner" was either Pitman, Clem or Bruce Davis. But none of these people have ever admitted that, as far as I know.

William Weston said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
William Weston said...

Mae Brussell has some interesting comments on the glasses on her program Dialogue Conspiracy 7-14-78 side two at 15 minutes into the side. Available at the Worldwatchers Archive website.
According to a letter she received from a woman in Woodland Hills, the glasses belonged to a man named Robert and that they were prescribed by Dr. Ohta (killed in his home with his family on October 19, 1970)

William Weston said...

I mean 7-14-78 side one at 15 minutes into the side, not side two

beauders said...

Ohta was murdered by John Linley Frazier one of the Santa Cruz mass murderers, he has no connection to Manson as far as I know. Frazier was a kook who was trying to stop earthquakes through murdering people. His most brazen murder was a priest in his church. Frazier killed himself in prison a few years ago.

katie8753 said...

Thanks William! Can you post a link to that program? I'd like to listen to it.

Thanks Beauders! This case just gets weirder and weirder!

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I still think those glasses were a "prop" or a false clue left by someone

Could be. But then, you have to ask one question ~ if the idea was to point towards Black people, why leave a pair of glasses that could belong to anyone or more specifically, possibly someone not Black. The reason I raise that point is that Susan's first lawyer, Richard Caballero, testified during the trial that Susan explained why she'd written 'PIG' on the door to him. He was actually a defence witness but calling him was a major error as he was goaded into admitting that Susan told him that the reason PIG was written was to throw suspicion on the Black Panthers and their ilk. Both TLB crimes had in common the notion that Black people were to be blamed.
The thing is, unlesss the killers did something stupid like leave fingerprints or start blabbing, there was no way it was coming back to them.

William Weston said...

Mae Brussell has some interesting comments on the glasses on her program Dialogue Conspiracy........According to a letter she received from a woman in Woodland Hills, the glasses belonged to a man named Robert

Given that once those glasses were found they never left the presence of the Police, how in the world would anyone know they were theirs and if they weren't involved in the crime, why didn't they come forward once the killers were in custody and say, oh yeah, they're mine ?
Mae Brussell thought some high powered lawyers put together the murders well in advance of them happening......so I can't say she's overflowing with credibility, for me.

Bobby said...

Question, the glasses are said to be not able to be used to start fires. What if they were reversed ? Seems to me then they could be used for starting a fire.

William Weston said...

Here is the link to the show

http://www.worldwatchers.info/shows/world-watchers-international-78-07-14/

Relevant information is from 6 minutes into the program to about 18 minutes. Weirder and weirder indeed!

katie8753 said...

Thanks William. I'll watch it when I get a chance.

Bobby! LOL!

katie8753 said...

Grim that's a good point, except I doubt that glasses had any racial meaning to anyone investigating a murder. I see what you're saying about blaming it on the panthers, but maybe they were just a last minute toss down to distract from the real killers???

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Interesting point, Bob.

I'm not an optometrist, but it seems plausible to me...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Whenever this discussion came-up (in the past), I never gave the subject much credence.

I figured that Roman and Sharon probably had plenty of visitors in the house (on a regular basis), and some inconsequential guest probably just left their glasses behind on a book case or coffee table.

From there, I figured the glasses probably just sat unnoticed (in the house) for a long time, and simply got "involved" in the melee' of Tex's rampage that fateful night.

BUT...

Now that I factor the actual prescription of the glasses into the mix, the subject seems much harder to dismiss.

My point:
By all accounts, the individual who owned these glasses had very poor vision (beyond reading distance). And let's face it... "reading distance" is only about one foot from your nose... arm's-length tops.

It seems unlikely, that a casual visitor with such poor eyesight could gather their belongings, say their "good byes" to everyone, walk out to the driveway, and drive-off... WITHOUT ever noticing, that they couldn't see anything 2 feet in front of their face.

That's the bug-a-boo that complicates the "casual visitor" theory.

I wear glasses, and I've driven to work (a few times) before realizing that my glasses weren't on my face. But... my eyesight is not that bad, and my prescription is not that strong. I could survive an entire day without my glasses, without too much trouble.

But, according to the prescription of these glasses, the owner (of these coke bottles) was blind as the proverbial bat.

Moreover...
Folks who have trouble with reading small print ONLY, often keep several pairs of "readers" (or "cheaters", as we call them locally) here and there. They keep them in their pocket, purse, car, desk drawer, etc. This is because "readers" aren't worn 24/7. They're ONLY worn while reading, or while sitting at a computer (nowadays). So, it's convenient to have "extras" on-hand. Also, "readers" are typically dirt cheap... almost disposable.

Again... none of this applies to the individual in question.
The person in question, obviously wore his glasses 24/7 (unless we adhere to Manson's "fire-starting story, or a variation thereof...).

People who wear their glasses 24/7 usually have a back-up or "spare" pair of glasses AT HOME... but, they don't typically travel with extra pairs of glasses, because their glasses are always on their face.

This all makes my dismissive attitude towards the subject (in the past) a bit questionable.

This subject probably DOES deserve more attention than it's been given in the past, although (like everything else in the TLB world), I highly doubt that the "mystery of the glasses" will ever be solved.

My two cents...

sunset77 said...

Can glasses be used to start fires? Yes, I've started a few with mine. They are like a magnifying glass. Maybe not all glasses, but think ones work.

A few days ago "Whitey" Bulger was apparently beaten to death in a federal prison in Hazelton West Virginia. I rode to Moundsville prison on the cycle a few years ago and posted on this blog. On the way I stopped in the welcome center just across the MD line in WV. I could see that Hazelton prison behind the rest area. It's a large prison with guard towers, high wall and lights. It opened in 2004, I didn't know that place was that violent, usually federal prisons aren't, but prisons like many other things in WV are sometimes pretty rough.

Also, I ran across a video of the prison at Moundsville. That guy said Manson wanted to be transferred there because there were "satan worshipers" there. I didn't know that, I had always assumed Manson wanted to go back there because he spent time in the area when he was young and that's what he said in the letter. Also, I don't know if Manson would have known what was going in a WV prison when he was locked up in CA. Also, he was lucky we wasn't sent to Moundsville, he would have probably been killed in about a week, that place was one nasty son of a bitch. Moundsville Prison

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Here are Sunset's 2 threads about "Moundsville Prison" (which he mentions in the post above):

http://www.lsb3.com/2013/08/sunse77t-shares-his-tour-of-west.html

http://www.lsb3.com/2013/08/sunset-77-shares-more-of-his-tour-of.html

As always, 2 great threads from Sunset. I always enjoy reading his posts.

katie8753 said...

Yowsah!!! Thanks Sunset!!!

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Folks who have trouble with reading small print ONLY, often keep several pairs of "readers" (or "cheaters", as we call them locally) here and there. They keep them in their pocket, purse, car, desk drawer, etc. This is because "readers" aren't worn 24/7. They're ONLY worn while reading, or while sitting at a computer (nowadays). So, it's convenient to have "extras" on-hand. Also, "readers" are typically dirt cheap... almost disposable

Yeah, that's me ! I have a pair for work at school, a pair in the car, my good prescription pair for reading and computer stuff at home, I used to have a pair in my van in my delivery days and I have a pair for reading in the loo. Our local Asda sells 2 for £2.50 {$3.24}. My prescription pair cost me 10 times that ! I don't view them as disposable, but in the last 2 or so years, I've broken about 7 or 8 pairs, 3 when I hugged people !! Because they're so cheap, I use them whenever I'm out of the house because you just never know when something will happen in which they end up broken.

according to the prescription of these glasses, the owner (of these coke bottles) was blind as the proverbial bat

You'd be absolutely amazed at the number of children that can barely function without their glasses, but forget to bring them to school. But they manage to get through the day. Even Barbara Hoyt managed when she broke her glasses, though she'd keep bumping into things.

Bobby said...

the glasses are said to be not able to be used to start fires. What if they were reversed ? Seems to me then they could be used for starting a fire

It seems logical, doesn't it ? But if you wear glasses and turn them around it's almost the same strength of vision that you have. You could literally wear your glasses either way, which is why glasses for short sighted people don't start fires, even when reversed.

katie8753 said...

that's a good point, except I doubt that glasses had any racial meaning to anyone investigating a murder

That's the point. Dropping glasses as a false clue is universal. They could {from the point of view of the investigator} belong to anyone. Writing 'PIG' on the door was supposed to be the very opposite of that. It was supposed to say "Blacks were here."

but maybe they were just a last minute toss down to distract from the real killers

If one thinks about it, there would be no reason to try to distract from the real killers. There was absolutely nothing tying Tex, Pat, Susan or Linda to Cielo. If the prints of Pat and Tex had not been found and everyone had kept their mouths closed, it may well have gone down as an unsolved murder, like Reet Jurvetson.

sunset77 said...

A few days ago "Whitey" Bulger was apparently beaten to death in a federal prison in Hazelton West Virginia

I've been following this on the news. It's incredible that he was dead within 12 hours of being transfered. The reaction of some of his victims' family members has been understandably cold and in some instances, almost funny. One could almost feel sorry for him, being in a wheelchair and 89, but then, one starts to read about his victims and how some of them died.
The description of Bulger's remains as they were found makes me shiver whenever I think about it.

katie8753 said...

Grim said:

If one thinks about it, there would be no reason to try to distract from the real killers. There was absolutely nothing tying Tex, Pat, Susan or Linda to Cielo. If the prints of Pat and Tex had not been found and everyone had kept their mouths closed, it may well have gone down as an unsolved murder, like Reet Jurvetson.

Then why try and blame it on the Black Panthers? And why did Charlie go back and wipe off prints? And I do think Charlie went back. Tex & Pat's prints were found. The police eventually would have looked for them and found them.

katie8753 said...

Are you perhaps buying into the whole "Helter Skelter" theory that Charlie was trying to blame the blacks to start a race war? I thought the entire left wing internet debunked Bugliosi's claims!!

sunset77 said...

In the 10th grade I used to sit by the window and use my glasses to burn holes in my papers. The other kids thought that was impressive to see smoke coming up from my desk. I never thought about spare glasses. In 1969 I only had one pair of glasses and usually had to wear them when the frames were broken. Mine were often damaged from playing football and basketball, it would be a long time before I could get new ones. I used many safety pins and scotch tape to hold them together. I never thought about spare glasses, they were expensive. I have 4 or 5 pairs now, when I drove semi truck I was required by law to carry and extra pair of glasses. I don't think the Manson clan would have been "smart" enough to plant a pair of glasses to throw off the police. Plus, after all these years, I've never heard any of them mention taking a pair with them to use for that purpose. There were news reports about those glasses at the time, whoever owned them and dropped them might have seen them and thought, "I'm sure as hell not going to tell the police those are my glasses and get blamed for those murders".

I'm not that familiar with "Whitey" Bulger or that prison in Hazelton. I've seen the prison and I know where it is, but I haven't been up close to it. I can't even find a video of the place on YouTube. It was built in 2004, when I traveled that road in the 1980's to college at WVU it wasn't there. I've read that Bulger was a "snitch". It's possible people were sent to prison because of things Bugler told the cops. Some of those same people might have been in Hazelton.

William Weston said...

If Bugliosi was worried that the defense lawyers could make the claim that the glasses belonged to someone other than the defendants and that someone else did the killings, then there must be some substance to the idea that the glasses belonged to an unknown person involved in the TLB killings. Bugliosi apparently had no way to counter this strategy of defense lawyers. If the false prop idea occurred to him, as it is now occurring to us on this blog, he must have had some compelling reason why he did not use it. I believe the compelling reason was that there were fingerprints on the glasses that belonged to none of those being tried. The presence of fingerprints other than Manson’s and the others would eliminate the false prop theory. The fact that the defense never introduced the glasses as evidence does not remove the significance of them. If the fingerprints were wiped off, then the police would not have thought twice about them. The fact that the police and the media thought it was a major breakthrough in the case could only happen if there were indeed fingerprints on the glasses and that those fingerprints could be traced to someone other than the known suspects or to the victims in the house.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Then why try and blame it on the Black Panthers?

That was the whole point ~ to get this 'prophetic' sequence of events under way. Charlie's vision necessitated Whites wiping each other out. What led to that ? Whites not liking other Whites killing Blacks in retaliation and feeling strongly enough to do something about it. Retaliation for what ? Blacks killing Whites in unprovoked murders. But Blacks didn't commit the TLB murders......enter Charles will is Man's son.

And why did Charlie go back and wipe off prints? And I do think Charlie went back

He told George Stimson he did not. He told Rolling Stone that he did not. Although the jury will always be out on that one, if he did, he did a flaming shitty job !

Tex & Pat's prints were found. The police eventually would have looked for them and found them

Earlier, I stated "unlesss the killers did something stupid like leave fingerprints or start blabbing, there was no way it was coming back to them" but the prints were found. Then again, lots of unidentified prints were found. The fact that both Pat and Tex had their prints in the house doesn't actually mean that they were guilty of murder, only that at some point that week, they had been at Cielo. Though they were in the system, their arrests prior to then had been for truly minor matters. Nothing approaching violence.
If William Garretson had told the Police on August 9th what he told that E channel documentary in 1999, about seeing two women running and hearing some screaming {he didn't know it wasn't a night party}, it wouldn't have guaranteed Pat being picked up because after the Spahn and Barker raids and the Mendocino incident in '68, her prints were in the system but in those computerless days, it could take a while for prints to get flagged up, especially on charges that had been minor. It would possibly have made a difference once Sergeants Whiteley and Guenther told Jess Buckles about the Gary Hinman murder, the hippy friends of Bobby and the fact that many of them were young girls/women that ran barefoot at times.

katie8753 said...

Grim said:

That was the whole point ~ to get this 'prophetic' sequence of events under way. Charlie's vision necessitated Whites wiping each other out. What led to that ? Whites not liking other Whites killing Blacks in retaliation and feeling strongly enough to do something about it. Retaliation for what ? Blacks killing Whites in unprovoked murders. But Blacks didn't commit the TLB murders......enter Charles will is Man's son.

So you believe in the Helter Skelter motive? Sounds like it. Just asking, because I believe that Charlie brainwashed his kids to believe in that motive, although I think he had another agenda in mind, aside from his minions. I think he just wanted money to get away to the desert to hide.

He used those kids relentlessly, even coaching them to take the murder rap so he could go free.

katie8753 said...

William, the fingerprints could have belonged to Charlie's "Partner".

katie8753 said...

And we don't know who that was. Because no one has admitted to it.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Are you perhaps buying into the whole "Helter Skelter" theory that Charlie was trying to blame the blacks to start a race war?

Yes. I think the prosecution had it right in basis and where they may have been less acurate is in the minutiae ~ minutiae that actually doesn't really matter in the long run.
It's important to remember that speaking with "Black Muslim" converts in jail over a number of years, Charlie was appraised of the notion that "Whitey's" day was coming and that the Black man was going to put right centuries of wrongs. When he saw the riots in places like Watts and the civil rights struggles and the anger unleashed in a number of US cities after the murder of Martin Luther King, he felt that "the shit was coming down." Like loads of other people did at the time. I genuinely believe that he thought an Armageddon of sorts was in the air but not hotting up sufficiently and gradually, began to believe that the Family could move it along. He wasn't worried they'd be caught up in the violent fallout as they would have escaped to the desert. Even Squeaky attests to that in her recent book. And what did Charlie say to the officers that had arrested him at Barker as the remnants of the Family were being driven away, about them being in serious danger from the Blacks as they were both cops and White ? A week before those arrests, both Brooks Poston and Paul Crockett told Sheriff Don Ward about HS and what some of it entailed, regarding the Black revolution. And they say this came from Charlie.
I don't think it was the only ingredient in the murders, but it was certainly one of them. And it's always going to be glaring in the face of objectors that in private conversations, designed to go no further, Susan {to Virginia Graham and/or Ronnie Howard} and Leslie {to Marvin Part} said so and Pat's contribution was left on the LaBianca fridge to tell us what she was thinking.

I thought the entire left wing internet debunked Bugliosi's claims!!

I'm neither left wing nor right wing. In my football days, I played centre forward or centre half !
Seriously though, I have yet to come across anyone that has been able to debunk Bugliosi's claims in an overall sense. Without a doubt, I'd say the overwhelming majority position is that "HS was not the motive" but that's an opinion, a belief, that, in my opinion, doesn't stand up well when placed alongside the evidence in HS's favour. HS was never presented as the motive, rather , as one of a few motives.

grimtraveller said...

sunset77 said...

I don't think the Manson clan would have been "smart" enough to plant a pair of glasses to throw off the police

Even if they had, was it a smart move ? It did throw off the police, as did a few things at the crime scene. They checked it out, found it was a false dawn and hey presto, all the perps ended up in jail, are still there or died there.

Plus, after all these years, I've never heard any of them mention taking a pair with them to use for that purpose

Dennis LaCalandra/Manson Family archives/Pheonix Rising/Manson Mythos stated somewhere either on this blog or on another blog, that he had heard {or had} a piece of audio in which Pat had said something about planting the glasses. But he never provided any context to it so we don't know if it was Pat in her awoken phase or her Charlie phase or even if that's what she said. I think your point about none of the killers mentioning it over half a century is key. One would think that possibly by this point Tex would have said something and very close to the time when Susan did say something {to Roseanne Walker}, it was that the glasses weren't brought by the Cielo mob.

William Weston said...

If Bugliosi was worried that the defense lawyers could make the claim that the glasses belonged to someone other than the defendants and that someone else did the killings, then there must be some substance to the idea that the glasses belonged to an unknown person involved in the TLB killings

Well, there is substance to the idea. If specs are found at the scene, it is only logical that the possibility exists that they belong to someone that was there, kind of like the knife that was found hidden in the sofa. However, Bugliosi did run down the possibility that the defence would lean on this, hence him finding importance in the words of Roseanne Walker that she didn't even see the significance of.
An important point is that Linda was on the opposite side of the bank to Susan and Pat. Susan placed Leslie at the Hinman murder and Linda and herself inside the LaBianca house. So she was not averse to lying or presenting alternatives to the prosecution narratives. Yet, neither she, Pat nor Linda make any mention of someone else at Cielo. If there had been some spec wearing person there, all Susan & Pat had to do was say so and Linda's cred would have gone down like a lead zeppelin, not to mention her immunity. Of course, to do this, they would have had to name the person which they didn't do because the person does not exist.

beauders said...

I made a big mistake and no one caught it. Frazier killed the Ohta family because their house was built with redwood. Frazier didn't kill anyone else. It was Herbert Mullen who killed the priest and was trying to prevent earthquakes. Well there was three mass murderers in the tiny town of Santa Cruz California so I got them mixed up. I grew up about forty miles away and remember these murders well. Frazier did kill himself in prison though.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

So you believe in the Helter Skelter motive? Sounds like it

From the very first post I ever posted on this site back in May of 2015, I've been saying that ! I think a series of motives went into the murders and the prosecutions outlined them all at the various trials. HS was simply one of them when it came to TLB. I also suspect that there are and have been many criminals that have wondered what it is like to kill or have someone killed. Most don't follow through on it but I think it runs through the mind of many. Heck, it runs through the mind of many people who never get involved in crime. But I do believe that in combination with an LSD fused Christ complex, being shat upon for much of life and the kind of acid fuelled apocalyptic visions and thinking that were commonplace in the 2nd half of the 60s, Charlie wondered what it was like to kill and having a group of young people around that seemed to accept most of what he said and were ready to crawl around and baaa like sheep when he told them they must erase their societal programming, the ingredients were there for what happened. But I definitely believe he believed in HS and that gave his pronouncements much of their strength.

I believe that Charlie brainwashed his kids to believe in that motive

I don't think he had to. People that do acid together a lot form the kind of bond that many people not of that ilk just don't get. People that live together and do so freely in the kind of living that needs to be done in a situation like the Family, gather strength and support and justification from one another. People that love the same music or have the same visions or goals start to see the same sorts of things. One suggestion leads to another.

I think he had another agenda in mind. I think he just wanted money to get away to the desert to hide

You know, when you combine the Hinman, Shea, Cielo and LaBianca financial haul, it comes to less than $100. Linda brought them 50 times that much when she arrived. And I don't include the Crowe incident because the idea was not to murder him when Tex set out for his cash. The cars they got from Gary netted them nothing {they gave the VW to Marcus Arneson for zilch ~ he made $350 when he sold it !}, the coins from the LaBiancas netted them nothing.
I understand the variety of reasons why most are reluctant to give HS any serious time of day but I come from a very different angle in which people from both the enlightened West and supposedly primitive countries and cultures claiming bona fide revelation/visions/instructions from God or spiritual beings or holy writ are not unusual to me. The first thing I ever said on this blog was that the acid enhanced/religious/spiritual/third world mind that has been impacted by those states of transcendence and belief in the unseen and otherworldliness would find much in HS that mirrors what they accept as real, normal and everyday. I stand by that.

William Weston said...

I fully agree with Grim on the Helter Skelter motive.

I assume the following scenario in how the glasses came into the house.

Charlie’s “partner” was among those in the house that night, along with Tex, Pat, etc. He was extremely near-sighted and needed glasses. He lost his glasses during the struggle with the victims, just as the police said. After the slaughter ended, he could not find his glasses. Knowing that the fingerprints on the glasses could be traced to him, he went back with Charlie to try and find the glasses a second time but failed. Charlie’s story of going into the house with the “partner” is true up to the point of where he said they wiped off the fingerprints and left them as a false prop. The true motive was to help his partner recover his lost glasses.

sunset77 said...

Linda Kasabian turned states evidence and testified against the other murderers. If she had known about a part of the plan to plant a pair of glasses, she would have almost certainly mentioned it, and testified about it. "Tex" Watson described the murders in his book in fairly great detail, he makes no mention of a pair of glasses. Susan Atkins never mentioned a pair of glasses left at the crime scene that I know of. I have no idea where those glasses came from, but as best I can tell, they weren't associated with the murderers.

"Whitey" Bulger was apparently beaten to death with a lock in a sock. When I was in minimum security prison, we were allowed to buy large, heavy, steel "Master" combination locks to put on our lockers, they were very common. Many times I heard inmates threaten to use a lock in a sock on someone, (including me). Those padlocks were large and weighed maybe 2 or 3 pounds. If you put one or two of them in a sock it would be almost like a small sledge hammer. This apparent murder of Bulger is the first time I've heard of it actually happening though.

"The inmates who killed James (Whitey) Bulger, Boston’s notorious crime boss, deliberately moved out of view of surveillance cameras in a West Virginia prison before pummeling him with a padlock that was stuffed inside a sock,. . .Despite the attackers’ efforts to hide, officials said, cameras caught video images of at least two inmates rolling Mr. Bulger, 89, who was in a wheelchair, into a corner where the attack took place. . . A prison official identified one of the suspects as Fotios (Freddy) Geas, 51, a Mafia hit man from West Springfield, Mass."

Bulger was apparently beaten to death in his cell. If one or two large young prison inmates pounded on an almost 90 year old man in a wheelchair with lock/s in a sock, it's no wonder his remains were described as "unrecognizable".

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

I assume the following scenario in how the glasses came into the house. Charlie’s “partner” was among those in the house that night, along with Tex, Pat, etc. He was extremely near-sighted and needed glasses

Three Family members were known to be wearers of glasses at the time of the Cielo murders ~ Mary Brunner {we know this as Danny DeCarlo stated Charlie had broken several pairs of her glasses}, Sandra Good {we know this because she is photographed in her glasses in a mugshot} and Barbara Hoyt {everybody knows this !}. Interestingly, all three have a connection to the murders; Mary and Sandy were arrested and held in custody on the day of the murder, Barbara went to get dark clothes at Susan's request but when she arrived with them, was informed by Charlie that the killers had already gone.

He lost his glasses during the struggle with the victims, just as the police said. After the slaughter ended, he could not find his glasses

The glasses were pretty much in plain sight. But even if they weren't, it's almost incomprehensible that someone involved in the slaughter would have left them there, having dropped them during a struggle. Moreover, if they were almost blind without them, how could they have continued to take part in a murder that required at the very least, a certain precision, if only to catch victims running for their lives ? On a dark night, how would they know where they were going ?

Knowing that the fingerprints on the glasses could be traced to him, he went back with Charlie to try and find the glasses a second time but failed

That's a major assumption, that the "partner" would have left readable prints on the glasses or be in the system so that their prints could be traced to them. Susan said that she was fearful because she'd left her knife but as it turned out, she had left no prints on it. She also said that she didn't take the cops that seriously because she'd left a palm print. The Police never matched any kind of print found to Susan Atkins and she was in the system for quite serious offences for which she was on probation.
The Family contained mainly young people, of whom a number were right blabbermouths. In the Emmons book, when describing the murder of Shorty, "Charlie" states that he was convicted on circumstantial evidence and that a series of people that took part escaped justice. He wouldn't name them and for a while it wasn't known, beyond Gypsy, who of the unconvicted ones took part. But we do now. We have parole testimony from both Clem and Bruce that Tex was involved as well as evidence from Bruce stating that Bill Vance and Larry Jones were involved.
My point ? This was a crowd, Manson included, that couldn't keep their mouths closed. All this baloney about no snitching really doesn't go anywhere. They were primarily young people first, not hardened criminals. Within 2 or 3 days Manson was telling Juan Flynn and Al Springer about the murders. We know who was involved in which murders. If there really had been another assailant at Cielo, especially one that was very short sighted, it almost goes against known laws of science to conclude that, after 49 years of blabbing, alternative explanations, lies and story changing, we would not know this by now.

grimtraveller said...

sunset77 said...

Susan Atkins never mentioned a pair of glasses left at the crime scene that I know of. I have no idea where those glasses came from, but as best I can tell, they weren't associated with the murderers

Here is some testimony from a Roseanne Walker from the TLB trial. She was a dorm mate of Susan's.

WALKER: There was a newscast about a pair of glasses that was found at the scene….Well, I know they hadn‘t found anybody, you know. This was their first lead. That is what the newscasts said.

BUGLIOSI :The first lead was the glasses found at the scene?

A: Yes, uh~huh

Q: And did Sadie say anything when they said that ?

A: Well, we just had a debate whether or not the person that owned the glasses was connected with what happened, and I argued that, well, I know she says that the person that owned the glasses, just because their glasses were there didn't mean that they had anything to do with what went on there, the murders that they were talking about, and she said, "Suppose they found the person. Wouldn't it be too much if they found the person that owned the glasses. The only thing they were guilty of was dropping a pair of glasses there."

Q: Did she say "Wouldn't it be too much if they found the person..

A: And accused them.

Q: "And accused that person" ?

A: Yes. And they get in trouble when the only thing they did was drop a pair of sunglasses or a pair of glasses there.

grimtraveller said...

2/2

Later on, she reiterates:

BUGLIOSI: You had some conversations with Susan regarding the killings at the Tate residence, is that right ?

WALKER: The only thing I can remember ever saying about them is what I testified just a little bit ago, about we had an argument about what came over on the radio, statements she made.

Q: You & Susan had an argument ?

A: Not an argument argument, just a debate.

Q: Alright, and what did you say and what did she say ?

A: Well, the newscast was on and there was something about a pair of glasses that was at the scene of the murder. And I remember stating, I said "Well, they'll catch whoever did it."
And she said "Why, just because they found a pair of glasses ?"
And I said "Yeah, they can find out all kinds of things from those glasses" I said. And I said "When they found that pair of glasses, they are going to find him."
She said "Suppose they found the person that owns those glasses there, supposing they find him and they blame him for it" she said, "wouldn't that be too much if they blamed him for the murders and the only thing he was guilty of was dropping a pair of sunglasses there."
She thought I meant the person that dropped the glasses was the people who caused the murders or whatever, you know, was the same person. All I was trying to get across to her was whoever dropped the glasses had to be on the scene of it or they would never have dropped their glasses.


Incidentally, note on both of Walker's statements, Susan refers to sunglasses being dropped. She obviously knew nothing about the glasses.

Initially, she had to testify out of the presence of the jury to avoid any prejudicial remarks against the defendants. When the Judge said that he was going to exclude some of her testimony there was some interesting to~ing and fro~ing.

JUDGE: She can testify to that statement.....But the glasses ?

BUGLIOSI: It has extreme importance to the prosecution.

J: Of course, that is a comment that anybody can make about anything. It doesn't have any particular relevance as far as I can see.

B: It has a lot of relevance to me and I can tell the Court right now what that relevance is.

J: I am interested.

B: The relevance is this; that the defense is going to argue that, undoubtedly, these glasses belong to the killer or killers, and yet the prosecution has not connected them with these defendants. Who do these glasses belong to ?
Susan, in so many words, is saying that these glasses do not belong to the killer. She is saying wouldn't it be something if they found the guy who owned those glasses and they blamed him for the murders and the only thing he did was drop them there.
Just because the glasses are at the scene doesn't mean that the party had anything to do with the murders.
{He used the opposite argument when it came to the fingerprints, that their presence did mean they had something to do with it ~ but by then, he was working with foreknowledge}.
So with respect to these glasses your Honor, I deem it crucial to the prosecution because the defense argument of course, will be that these glasses belong to the killer, and we are claiming that these defendants are the killers, yet we haven't been able to connect the glasses up with them. It is extremely valuable.
The other statement is, of course, 'That ain't the way it went down', showing knowledge of these murders
.

Later, Walker more or less testifies the same way in front of the jury.

William Weston said...

Thanks, Grim, for posting those testimonies. Very interesting!

According to Mae Brussell’s informant, the glasses lost at the Tate house were prescribed by a Dr. Ohta in Santa Cruz. How convenient for the owner of those glasses that a person who could provide information on his identity would be wiped out along with his wife, two sons, and his secretary on October 19, three days before the glasses would emerge in Walker's courtroom testimony.

By the way, mild-mannered, short-stature John Linley Frazier did not invade the house, bind and blindfold five people, and shoot them in the head using two kinds of pistols all by himself. The first news reports indicated there were three others involved. I believe Frazier’s role that day was to serve as a lookout on the driveway, while a team of killers went inside the house. Afterwards, he became the patsy who took the rap.

Bobby said...

So, That confirms when CM said he dropped those glass's used to start fires the fire starting part was a lie !

























beauders said...

William Weston where did you get the information that Frazier was not acting on his own? I grew up in Half Moon Bay about forty miles north of Santa Cruz and know a lot about the three murderers and have never heard that.

William Weston said...

A good source of information on John Frazier and the Ohta murders, or for lots of other subjects for that matter, is newspapers.com. I highly recommend it for doing research. There are over ten thousand newspapers on it. It also has an excellent search engine.

For example, I found out from the Santa Cruz Sentinel for November 17, 1971 that Calvin Penrod testified at the Frazier trial. He was a sales manager for a mobile home park. He saw Mrs. Ohta at 5 pm on the day she was killed driving her green station wagon on Highway 1 near the Soquel turn-off. Mrs. Ohta had three passengers, young people all with long hair. Behind Mrs. Ohta in the back seat was a man with a moustache; next to him was a woman with straight, long black hair; and a second man sat in the rear compartment behind the back seat. This conflicted with the prosecution’s contention that Frazier was holding her captive at the Ohta’s secluded mansion on a hilltop from 1:30 to 5:00 pm. Penrod’s testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses, who saw the same trio, two men and a woman, in Mrs. Ohta’s car sometime after the murders. (They had used the car to make their getaway.)

Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 21, 1970, said that three people were seen near Mrs. Ohta’s car at a campsite near Bonnie Doon. According to the same article, the following day, Mrs. Ohta’s car was driven into a railroad tunnel and an attempt was made to destroy it by setting it on fire. It was quickly discovered when a switch engine banged into it. The engineer of the switch engine extinguished the flames with a fire extinguisher. There were three sets of footprints leading from the car in the tunnel to a nearby river.

A UPI story, October 23, 1970, said that Peter Chang, district attorney for Santa Cruz, said that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of Frazier and that based on the evidence they were seeking only one person. When Chang was asked how one man could have bound five persons, blindfolded them and then shot them beside the swimming pool, Chang replied: “It sounds ridiculous, but it’s possible that it happened.”

According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 3, 1971, Frazier originally told a psychiatrist that he arrived in a van in the vicinity of the Ohta house at 10:30 in the morning and then met three other people later in the day. He stood at the driveway, while the three others went in the house. Not long afterwards, Frazier changed his story. He told the same psychiatrist that he killed the Ohtas singlehandedly, claiming some crazy environmentalist motive.

Based on the above information, I conclude that three people killed the Ohtas and that circumstances forced Frazier to become the patsy. The true motive for killing the Ohtas was to protect the identity of the man who lost his glasses at the Tate house.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Mr Weston,

I also agree with your conclusion:

"The true motive for killing the Ohtas was to protect the identity of the man who lost his glasses at the Tate house"

I have been trying to get George Christie again to respond to me on my Twitter account.

I have gathered more information regarding what was told to me pertaining to certain situations of what went on at Spahn Ranch when the Charles Manson Family were "residing" there. Recalling, I really didn't pay any attention to what may have been something to do with seeing "Glasses." You got my attention now.....

Mario George Nitrini 111
----------
The OJ Simpson Case & Saga

Bobby said...

Susan seems to use the same term, someone dropped them there. She could have been told that by someone who did or was there when they were dropped.

Hi Mario, I don't think I ever thanked you for the kind words and link to the video of you and your band, Thanks and it was a cool vid. You are a great drummer. Bob

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

You're welcome Bobby, but...lol...I'm the Keyboard player. And how time passes so fast.

The OJ Simpson Case & Saga

Bobby said...

Well you are a better keyboard player then drummer !

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Bobby.

Yes, if you ever heard me play drums, most definitely:
I am a
"better keyboard player then drummer"
Lol......
Thanks again Bobby.


The OJ Simpson Case

William Weston said...

Hi Mario,

Thank you for your comments.

Is there going to be Kindle version of your book "Charles Manson's Secret Construction Site and Me"?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

No, sorry Mr. Weston, no Charles Manson Family book for me. But, perhaps in the future, a person just may discover that there was a "construction site" that Charles Manson took me to. We'll see.

The OJ Simpson Case & Saga

grimtraveller said...

Bobby said...

Susan seems to use the same term, someone dropped them there

She also refers to them as sunglasses. They weren't.

She could have been told that by someone who did

Think on that for a moment. She implicated Charles Manson and Tex, both of whom, she said, had told her they would kill her if she blabbed.
She blabbed.
Now, if you're implying that she was told later by one of the 4 of the Cielo squad that they had dropped the glasses, well, show us something that suggests this. We've heard all kinds of after the event tales {"I stabbed an already dead body"/"I dragged Abigail Folger by her hair"/"Sharon was the last to die" etc} from the killers.
Conspiracies are all very well but their major flaw is that they tend to try to "connect the dots" as it were, rather than work with actual evidence.
If, on the other hand, you're implying that Charlie or his partner told her they dropped them, well, again, show us some evidence. No one in the Family has ever mentioned the glasses, there are contradictory stories from Charlie and Susan and a rumour supposedly that Pat said she placed them. That tends to suggest that those glasses did not emanate from the Family.

or was there when they were dropped

Given that she implicated Charlie and Tex as well as Linda, Pat and later Clem and Leslie {and was clear that neither Linda nor Clem killed anyone}, how in the world would
she not have implicated someone else there that was there ? She later implicated Leslie in a murder that she wasn't even at. Her words to Roseanne Walker show she didn't have a clue about any glasses. Her descriptions of what was left behind {her knife, her palm print} never include glasses.

So, That confirms when CM said he dropped those glass's used to start fires the fire starting part was a lie !

In a word, yes.
He was not beyond spinning yarns. Don't ask me why someone would tape their phone calls with Charlie, but a phone call with Sandy Good, 8 years after Emmons' book came out with Charlie supposedly saying him and his mate dropped the glasses at the scene provides the backdrop to this section from George Stimson's "Goodbye Helter Skelter":
Finally, Manson remembers giving the people in the car an old pair of glasses to leave wherever they went, in order to create confusion. "When they was leaving to do what they did, I told 'em, 'Here, take and drop these glasses.'"

William Weston said...

The true motive for killing the Ohtas was to protect the identity of the man who lost his glasses at the Tate house

That is, the guy whom you conclude took part in the Cielo murders, or was at least present, that could barely see without the glasses ?
Don't you think that if a short sighted individual at the scene of a murder had lost glasses that they could barely function without, that they would say to at least one of the other perps, "Oh, I've lost my glasses" ? Without being funny, how difficult would it have been to locate them ? Atkins losing a knife is one thing, but the wearer of glasses ?



katie8753 said...

Hi Mario!!! :)

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Hello Ms Katie. Hope you're feeling well.

Mario George Nitrini 111
---------
The OJ Simpson Case

beauders said...

Mario how do we get your book?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Hello Ms. beauders.

I have not written a book. There will be no book for me, for several legal reasons.

I do know that you have said that you are writing a book pertaining to The Charles Manson Family. I wish you success with your endeavor with that project. I for sure will buy your book.

Hope you are well Ms. beauders.

Mario.

The OJ Simpson Case

William Weston said...

Detective Helder said it was his opinion was that the glasses were “knocked off” while struggling with the victims. Even though he was extremely near-sighted, he could still help the others by controlling the victims or stabbing them while others held them down.

Perhaps Tex, Pat, etc. did try to help him find his glasses, but the knocked off glasses ended up in a place where they could not find them. They could not have been in plain sight. Furthermore, I suggest that his fellow perps probably did not want to linger around a messy, gory crime scene too long looking for them. Perhaps they told their friend he could come back with Charlie and make a more in-depth search.

According to Bugliosi, the glasses were near the trunks in the living room.

Bobby said...


Grim Quoted me and added replies / rebuttals :

Bobby said...

Susan seems to use the same term, someone dropped them there

She also refers to them as sunglasses. They weren't.

She could have been told that by someone who did

Think on that for a moment. She implicated Charles Manson and Tex, both of whom, she said, had told her they would kill her if she blabbed.
She blabbed.
Now, if you're implying that she was told later by one of the 4 of the Cielo squad that they had dropped the glasses, well, show us something that suggests this. We've heard all kinds of after the event tales {"I stabbed an already dead body"/"I dragged Abigail Folger by her hair"/"Sharon was the last to die" etc} from the killers.
Conspiracies are all very well but their major flaw is that they tend to try to "connect the dots" as it were, rather than work with actual evidence.
If, on the other hand, you're implying that Charlie or his partner told her they dropped them, well, again, show us some evidence. No one in the Family has ever mentioned the glasses, there are contradictory stories from Charlie and Susan and a rumour supposedly that Pat said she placed them. That tends to suggest that those glasses did not emanate from the Family.

or was there when they were dropped

Given that she implicated Charlie and Tex as well as Linda, Pat and later Clem and Leslie {and was clear that neither Linda nor Clem killed anyone}, how in the world would
she not have implicated someone else there that was there ? She later implicated Leslie in a murder that she wasn't even at. Her words to Roseanne Walker show she didn't have a clue about any glasses. Her descriptions of what was left behind {her knife, her palm print} never include glasses.

So, That confirms when CM said he dropped those glass's used to start fires the fire starting part was a lie !

In a word, yes.
He was not beyond spinning yarns. Don't ask me why someone would tape their phone calls with Charlie, but a phone call with Sandy Good, 8 years after Emmons' book came out with Charlie supposedly saying him and his mate dropped the glasses at the scene provides the backdrop to this section from George Stimson's "Goodbye Helter Skelter":
Finally, Manson remembers giving the people in the car an old pair of glasses to leave wherever they went, in order to create confusion. "When they was leaving to do what they did, I told 'em, 'Here, take and drop these glasses.'"

William Weston said...

The true motive for killing the Ohtas was to protect the identity of the man who lost his glasses at the Tate house

That is, the guy whom you conclude took part in the Cielo murders, or was at least present, that could barely see without the glasses ?
Don't you think that if a short sighted individual at the scene of a murder had lost glasses that they could barely function without, that they would say to at least one of the other perps, "Oh, I've lost my glasses" ? Without being funny, how difficult would it have been to locate them ? Atkins losing a knife is one thing, but the wearer of glasses ?

Sorry Grim, I don't know how to reply, My comments were just observations that I had from the discussion that was going on. For instance You said:

Think on that for a moment. She implicated Charles Manson and Tex, both of whom, she said, had told her they would kill her if she blabbed.
She blabbed.
Now, if you're implying that she was told later by one of the 4 of the Cielo squad that they had dropped the glasses, well, show us something that suggests this.

What do you want me to show ? CM said it in his book with Emmons, Maybe she got it from there. Again I was just making observations, This is the first time you ever responded to anything Ive had to say. I'm flattered but I really did have any deep meaning or case breaking input.




Bobby said...

did not have that is

katie8753 said...

Thanks Bobby! I'm going to have to go back and read. I've been distracted from this case for personal reasons. Your input is ALWAYS appreciated!!! Smooch!

katie8753 said...

I personally think that Manson went back to the crime scene at Cielo Drive and threw down those glasses. Whether that was just a jokey whim, or if he was trying to throw the police off, I don't know.

I think he had a "partner" with him. I think it's very possible and plausible that he & his "partner" moved Sharon & Jay to the porch for a time. Maybe trying to hang them I don't know. But the blood evidence on the porch shows that the blood type of Sharon & Jay is deeply embedded on the porch.

Then I guess it didn't work, and they moved them back.

I know, that doesn't make any sense. But...as Charlie says...no sense makes sense!!!

Good Friday Night y'all!!!

Bobby said...

Hi Katie, I hope pray everything is okay with you and your family. Bob.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Bobby!! That means a lot to me! Sweet Goodnight!!

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

Detective Helder said it was his opinion was that the glasses were “knocked off” while struggling with the victims

The Police had to have opinions, based on their experience, in the absence of someone there to tell them what happened. But as future events showed us, their observations and initial thoughts were anything but infallible. Sgt Buckles was given info two days later which, had he acted on it, could have solved the case before the Spahn raid. But, he ignored it because of the direction the Police had decided things were going in. Point being, the initial Police opinions were important but were continents away from what went on to be shown as what had gone down. Therefore, I'm wary of using what many thought in the early days to try to prove something or even throw doubt on something, now.

Even though he was extremely near-sighted, he could still help the others by controlling the victims or stabbing them while others held them down

People didn't wear glasses at the ranch. The stories of Barbara Hoyt blundering around when her glasses broke are quite funny, but they do serve a point, which was that the Family were determined to prove that society's ways {encapsulated in things like the wearing of glasses or having babies in hospital} were inferior to theirs. Silly, I know, but in a matter like this, pretty significant.

Perhaps Tex, Pat, etc. did try to help him find his glasses, but the knocked off glasses ended up in a place where they could not find them. They could not have been in plain sight

Glasses are a very difficult item to drop and lose. You could put them somewhere and forget where you put them and spend an hour looking for them, but in terms of dropping them, they are not like a coin or a pen or clasp knife, which can be dropped and easily lost straight away.

Furthermore, I suggest that his fellow perps probably did not want to linger around a messy, gory crime scene too long looking for them

Is it likely that needing your glasses, that they could be knocked off in a struggle and you would not know or be able to retrace your steps ?

Perhaps they told their friend he could come back with Charlie and make a more in-depth search

If Charlie went back, it wouldn't have been to look for glasses, it would have been to look for Susan's knife. Therein lies one of the contradictions at the heart of the matter ~ he apparently {if one believes he told Emmons the stuff that ended up in his book} told two different people two completely different things in relation to the glasses.

According to Bugliosi, the glasses were near the trunks in the living room

Yeah, in plain sight. Pictures of the inside of the house the day the bodies were found do not reveal a cluttered house.

If Bugliosi was worried that the defense lawyers could make the claim that the glasses belonged to someone other than the defendants and that someone else did the killings, then there must be some substance to the idea that the glasses belonged to an unknown person involved in the TLB killings

For all we know, there could be substance in the idea that Abigail or Wojiciech, both being wearers of glasses, liked the frames and had borrowed them some time previously because they wanted to get an identical pair made and never got around to it.
As I said earlier, of course the glasses could have belonged to an unknown person involved. But such an assertion has to be grounded in real world likelihoods and there are so many that bury such an assertion. Whereas, there are none that support it, other than a certain randomness and dot connecting {though logical}. So, i] murders + ii] found pair of glasses at scene of murders + iii] no one known to have partaken in murders being a wearer of glasses + iv] no owner of glasses ever having been identified = ∴ one of the killers never brought to justice, isn't as logical an equation as it seems on the face of it. Not in real world happenings.

grimtraveller said...

Bobby said...

Sorry Grim, I don't know how to reply, My comments were just observations that I had from the discussion that was going on

And all valid.
In a previous thread, Carlos pointed out that some of what we think of as deep and mysterious in this case is often in reality, quite ordinary and mundane. It's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that someone told Susan that they dropped the glasses at the scene. But I tend to balance that with a whole weight of other stuff and that helps keep the conversations flowing, even if I'm doubting what I'm replying to.

What do you want me to show ?

Whatever you choose. I guess the variety of opinions we hold come from and in the form of speculation, logic, evidence, the history etc. I do speculate on occasion, but I like even my speculations to be based on something back-uppable or something that shows some kind of pattern or previous example.

CM said it in his book with Emmons, Maybe she got it from there

Well, she was talking about the glasses 19 years before the book came out. It's actually by the merest fluke that we even know what she had to say about the glasses as she was reacting to something that came over the radio one day and her friend had an opinion on it that she evidently disagreed with. We don't have any direct words from her on the subject, just what her friend said she said. But in her jail house revelations to Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard and Nancy Jordon, she never mentioned it. She didn't mention it in her private interviews with her lawyer or the grand jury. She doesn't mention it in her books.

katie8753 said...

But the blood evidence on the porch shows that the blood type of Sharon & Jay is deeply embedded on the porch

Yeah, that's one of the great mysteries of the universe ! No one has ever explained that, which makes one wonder whether the Police made a mistake there or whether Sharon {or Jay} was actually killed on the porch. The one thing that I've long wondered about though, is that if someone went back, it would have been quite a while after the death occured which makes it doubtful that, even on a hot night, bleeding would still be continuing a few hours after the stabbing.

I personally think that Manson went back to the crime scene at Cielo Drive and threw down those glasses

I wouldn't be surprised if he did and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't. What I would be surprised about is if what Ed Sanders attributes to him is true. Sanders says that he sent some questions to the defendants during the trial and one of the attorneys sent word back from Manson that he had been to Cielo after the killings. That's where the famous and much used quote about going to see "what my children had done" comes from.
I don't believe that in the midst of a trial in which Charlie was consistent about having nothing to do with the crime, that he'd pass word through his lawyer to a journalist, even a countercultural one, that actually, he had gone to the actual murder premises. Neither do I believe he'd tell any of the lawyers that he'd been there. He saw them all {prosecution, defence, judge, police, DA, Probation services etc} as being on the same side. And having gone to so much trouble to get Leslie to dump Marvin Part after she'd confessed all to him, Pat to waive extradition from Alabama and therefore a separate trial and Susan to recant her GJ testimony {not to mention trying to get Linda to rejoin the Family and trying to get to Tex when he was 'playing veg'}, it just seems ridiculous that he'd put out the word that he was involved, even in that way.
For what's worth, he denied to George Stimson, that he'd been after the murders.


Bobby said...

For what's worth, he denied to George Stimson, that he'd been after the murders.

Talk about years after.CM said it in his book with Emmons, Maybe she got it from there

Well, she was talking about the glasses 19 years before the book came out. It's actually by the merest fluke that we even know what she had to say about the glasses as she was reacting to something that came over the radio one day and her friend had an opinion on it that she evidently disagreed with. We don't have any direct words from her on the subject, just what her friend said she said. But in her jail house revelations to Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard and Nancy Jordon, she never mentioned it. She didn't mention it in her private interviews with her lawyer or the grand jury. She doesn't mention it in her books.

I have to beg out on this one, She either mentions it to soon or to late or to the wrong people. You know way more on this than I do and I should not have commented on it. My very simple thought was that if CM mention dropping Glasses maybe SA heard about. Who, When, why who she repeated it to is far beyond my ability to quantify so In hind sight I should not have joined in the post.


Happy blogging !

katie8753 said...

Grim, Charlie told Diane Sawyer that "he went back to see what his children had done". That's not from Sanders. It's on tape.

The blood evidence on the porch at Cielo Drive is a fact, although I'll agree that it seems more prevalent that Sharon & Jay were killed on the porch, and then moved, instead of the narrative given by Tex, et al, that they were killed in the house.

The human body stops bleeding after the heart stops pumping. That's just a fact. Sometimes we can try to figure this case out with facts! But most times, we have to go to myth and magic to figure it out.

That's what makes this case fascinating to newcomers, and loathsome to oldsters who have tried for years to figure it out.

beauders said...

Grim great point if Manson was truly trying to stay out of prison why would he return to the Tate scene?
Katie every time a song Melanie I think of you. I know you don't care for Sinead O'Connor but I think she must have influenced by her. If you listed to a song written by O'Connor you would hear the similarity. Hope you and your's are good.

beauders said...

Grim and why would Manson confess to anyone during the trial. Now that doesn't mean he didn't go back just why would he tell anyone except maybe someone like Emmons twenty years later. Maybe the glasses were just dropped there to muddy up the scene and the dropper somehow knew we would still be arguing about these glasses coming up on fifty years later.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders! I love Melanie!! I also love this song by Sinead O'Connor. Nothing Compares to You! Reminds me of when my ex-husband left me. www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-EF60neguk

Maybe that's why I don't mention it again!

katie8753 said...

Beauders I hope you and your family are excellent! I love that word excellent. It's better than good! LOL. S.W.A.K. LOL.

beauders said...

That’s sad Katie I’m sorry.

William Weston said...

Grim,

What is your take on Brussell’s information that a man named Robert “lost his glasses” at the Tate house with the killing of the Ohtas as the consequence. This would eliminate the idea that they were dropped there as a fake clue during Charlie's visit with the partner. I think what Brussell said on her program is highly pertinent to any discussion of how the glasses got in the house. It shows how important it was for Charlie and his partner to find the glasses to protect the identity of the owner.

beauders said...

William Weston do you know the name of the owner of the glasses?

William Weston said...

According to Mae Brussell, on her programs of 9-21-80 and 9-28-80, the name of the owner of the glasses lost at the Tate house was Robert Linkletter, son of entertainer and Hollywood celebrity, Art Linkletter. Robert died in a car accident September 12, 1980. His sister Diane, who committed suicide on October 4, 1969, knew Ed Durston, who knew Frokowski. Diane's name was in Abigail Folger's address book.

beauders said...

So are you saying Robert Linkletter was present for the murders or did he participate? Or did Manson just have his glasses, like he spent time at Spahn? Linkletter's are a tragic family to lose two children. It is not surprising that Folger would have Diane's name in her address book, Hollywood is quite small. Same with Durston and Frykowski. Will listen to the Mae Brussell material, she sometimes gets out there but I like to research everything available myself.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Charlie told Diane Sawyer that "he went back to see what his children had done". That's not from Sanders. It's on tape

We went through all that back in 2015, in the last thread Mr Poirot ever took part in. You said you'd seen it in that 1994 Diane Sawyer interview and I remember watching the entire interview and the outtakes that never made it into the interview and even the uncut version and no such statement is there. He does definitely say that he told them to write something witchy and she talks to him about it and he says some interesting things but he does not say he went to the scene. It is as huge a statement as Manson could make and for it not to be in the main interview, let alone the outtakes, is, like a few other things, simply incomprehensible. If Charles Manson said he went to Cielo to see the results and this was on tape, I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way it would not be in the final showing and at this point, all over the internet.
As for Sanders, in my copy of "The family" he writes, when describing blood on the steamer trunks:
It is Sebring's blood, yet the killers claim that he was shot and stabbed and killed in one spot and never moved.
The answer is that Manson and a companion returned to the scene of the crime. "I went back to see what my children did," he told a lawyer at his murder trial.


This is from the 1993 edition which has as its publication date, 01/02/1993. According to the sound man Kenny Kosar, the Sawyer interview was done in December '93 and we know it aired in 1994. So Sanders could not have gotten that from Sawyer as this particular edition was out almost a year before Manson was even interviewed.

The human body stops bleeding after the heart stops pumping. That's just a fact

Yes. It would take around 54 minutes to get back to Spahn without stops and 54 to return. But of course, there were stops and delays {not least for Tex's description of the events} so if someone did return to monkey about with the scene, they would have found Sharon Tate long dead. It's doubtful any of the victims were even alive when the killers were departing.

I love Melanie!!

Same here. I first heard her stuff when I was 16 and she just bowled me over. Funnily enough, I was listening to "Good book" and "Good guys" as I was swimming yesterday {I'm at the Gs on my ipod !}. She's far and away my favourite 60s and early 70s female writer and she was also a tremendous interpreter of other people's stuff. Not many people could get away with a great cover of "Ruby Tuesday" like she did.

William Weston said...

beauders said...

So are you saying Robert Linkletter was present for the murders or did he participate?


He was a participant.

I’m glad you are checking out Mae Brussell. You may find her claims to be outrageous, but she was extremely judicious in the use of her source material. As far as I know, no one had successfully challenged her credibility during her seventeen years on the radio.

katie8753 said...

Grim has an Eidetic memory. LOL. But I do too, and I remember Charlie saying to Diane Sawyer "I went back to see what my children had done".

I don't care who deleted it off You Tube or other places, but he did say it. Because I heard it.

BTW I like Grim. He's kinda bossy, but he'll do.

Anywho, I remember back in 1989 I had a friend whose brother was living in LA, CA and he was studying the Sebring haircut. He came here to stay for a while and he cut my hair. It took about 2 hours from start to finish, but he spent a lot of time explaining what he was doing, and he measured my hair from crown to base, etc. He finally finished cutting my hair and it was the best haircut I've ever had. EVER!!!

Jay Sebring had a talent that would have made him millions if he had lived. Not only that, he had a talent that would have given millions of people throughout the world a new lease on life concerning their hair.

He was brilliant. It's a SHAME that he was stopped early on, because he was truly talented!

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

What is your take on Brussell’s information that a man named Robert “lost his glasses” at the Tate house with the killing of the Ohtas as the consequence

In much American crime {and not only in America}, there was a period when this phenomenon existed whereby people would confess to murders that they had had nothing to do with but in the "Sharon Tate case" as it was thought of at the time, the confessors didn't come forward.....However, something equally curious has happened in the years since, namely, the people that have come forward with some kind of connection to the case, often to show "how close to death they came", either because they were creepy crawled by the Family, upset the Family in some way or were meant to be going to Cielo that night, even though it's well known that Sharon was going to be staying at Shelah Wells' place that night and cancelled almost at the last moment, or were driving their white sports car on Sunset Boulevard one night in August '69. Doesn't matter if it's a Polish "countess" or a Hollywood film star that was on the wane, so many people were "supposed to have been there that night" or had some kind of proximity to to the murders or murderers.
With all this in mind, what we have is a conspiracy theorist's dream scenario with bells on. The slightest mystery now no longer constitutes "something we'll never know."
One thing I've noticed for many a year now is a fascinatingly dogged persistence in pouring plenty of doubt one way or the other on the result of the convictions and that has taken a number of routes. If it isn't the Helter Skelter motive, it's the way the prosecution coached witnesses. If it isn't that, it's Charlie "not being able" to represent himself. If it's not that, it's the jury making off with evidence exhibits. If it's not that, it's Gary Hinman selling drugs. Or it's Bugliosi beating up his mistress or stalking some milkman he thought had knocked up his wife. Or it's Tex being a bigger drug baron than the small timer he actually was, committing drug robberies with Bruce Davis when Bruce wasn't even in the country. Or if it's not that it's Linda Kasabian getting immunity. Or it's the Mafia or Charlie was after a black book or that he was part of a CIA experiment. Or if it isn't that.......it's that all the perps weren't caught and each of the murders has its prime architecht that was untouched, in the LaBianca case it's Rosemary's daughter, Suzan LaBerge and in the Cielo crime, now it's Robert Linkletter. That is actually just a small sample.
So William, my take on Mae Brussel's information about Robert Linkletter and the Ohtas being murdered as a result of him losing his glasses at Cielo while taking part in murder is that the info is the kind of stuff one grows good vegetables in.

grimtraveller said...

William Weston said...

This would eliminate the idea that they were dropped there as a fake clue during Charlie's visit with the partner

True, it would. But personally, I don't believe that fake clue business anyway. On the other hand, if we're going to give creedence to the idea that those glasses belonged to one of the perps, then logically, it makes no sense to conclude that some or all of those unidentified fingerprints found in the areas the victims were found or places they obviously were chased or perps could have gotten in from, didn't, as well.
Yet we don't.
The implications of Robert Linkletter being one of the Cielo murderers are too huge to go into right now but I think we all have some ideas what it would mean. But that's not the reason I don't believe it. If it was the case he was one of them, then it's the case and we'd all have to deal with it. It's not unheard of for a case to take on a sudden and unexpected twist and go a different way 3 or 4 decades later, but not this one ! Not when one takes into account everything {including Mae's info} that makes up the case and its almost as interesting aftermath.

Smill said...

Charlie admitted he told one of the girls to leave the glasses as a false clue so there is no secret person involved. As for the HS theory, Linda’s lawyer plainly stated last year on the Reelz doc that he didn’t know anything about Helter Skelter being a motive and that Linda didn’t either until Bug told it prior to the trial. He said he printed it up, gave it to Linda, and told her to get on the stand and say it and she would walk. He also said, “Whether or not it was true wasn’t my problem. That was Vince’s problem.”

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Grim has an Eidetic memory. LOL. But I do too, and I remember Charlie saying to Diane Sawyer "I went back to see what my children had done"

I think you're conflating what you've read with what you recall from that interview about him saying he told the women to leve some kind of sign.
You know, in the same 2013 Rolling Stone interview that quotes Lynyrd and Marliese, is this:

Did you go over and try to clean up the mess they made, which some books say you did, but never with proof, and, if true, would put you at the scene of the crime?

“Well, yeah, I had to look out for my horses. I look out for what looks out for me,” he says, although later on he will say he misspoke, that he never went to the Tate house that night.


I don't see how you could remember it when it's not on the interview and the interview is the same one as was aired in 1994. It's not on the outtakes. The question everyone has wanted an answer to since 1969.
Sorry Katie ! I'll believe in the Loch Ness monster before I'll believe that Charles Manson admitting he went to the Tate house in the aftermath of the murders is on tape and that it is not on the broadcasts now.
Not only that, Ed Sanders does make the statement almost a year before Charlie is even interviewed by Sawyer. I have the book right here in front of me.
Incidentally, I simply have a good memory, nothing special. I think it's good manners to listen to what people say and the chances are, one will remember some of it.

I don't care who deleted it off You Tube or other places, but he did say it. Because I heard it

I don't know what you heard but I don't think you heard him say that.
However, produce the proof and I'll happily concede. I have no dog in this fight and it makes no difference to any outcome of the case if he did indeed make such a statement, even with him denying it to Rolling Stone and outright to George Stimson.

He's kinda bossy

I prefer "persistent" !

grimtraveller said...

Smill said...

Charlie admitted he told one of the girls to leave the glasses as a false clue so there is no secret person involved

Well, "Charlie admitting" doesn't mean much does it. He "admitted" to Emmons he left the glasses there while he was there. He "admitted" to Sandy Good that he gave the glasses to Tex to leave.
This is one of those instances where I agree with the conclusion but not the argument used to reach it !

As for the HS theory, Linda’s lawyer plainly stated last year on the Reelz doc that he didn’t know anything about Helter Skelter being a motive and that Linda didn’t either until Bug told it prior to the trial

Linda never said that HS was the motive. Other than stating that Charlie said he had to show blackie how to do it as they drove away from the LaBianca house, HS plays no part in Linda's testimony. In fact, in the Watson trial, she actually stated that while she knew there would be violence and deaths during HS, she didn't know that the Family would be actively doing it.

William Weston said...

beauders said...

"It is not surprising that Folger would have Diane's name in her address book, Hollywood is quite small. Same with Durston and Frykowski."



I believe there is a strong connection of Diane Linkletter to what happened at the Tate house, especially in regard to her live-in boyfriend

A UPI story by Vernon Scott on October 10, 1969 consisted of an interview with the lieutenant of detectives who said: “Yes, Diane Linkletter knew Abigail Folger, and was probably an acquaintance of Sharon Tate. He added that Ed Durston – the young man who was with Miss Linkletter when she jumped to her death this week – was a speaking acquaintance of Voityck Frokowski ….

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/diane-abigail-sharon-linked-in-death/

Diane had a boyfriend who might have gone to the Cielo residence hours before the murders.

As seen on this blog under the thread Ed Durston: “Harvey F. Dareff (LA 978 313D) is the boy friend of Dianna LInkletter, and had lived with her for several months and was substantially supported by her. He is presently in New York as of approximately 9-25-69. He has not been eliminated as a suspect. . . . Investigators feel Dareff is a good suspect as some information has been received indicating he may have gone to the Cielo residence on the evening of 8-8-69 to possibly buy or sell some form of narcotics.”

katie8753 said...

Susan is that you??? Don't hide!

beauders said...

A lot of people bought and sold narcotics at Cielo that summer are you saying Durston was involved in the murders or at the least present when they occurred? Do you think Dianne Linkletter's death was related to Tate/LaBianca?

William Weston said...

beauders said...
A lot of people bought and sold narcotics at Cielo that summer are you saying Durston was involved in the murders or at the least present when they occurred? Do you think Dianne Linkletter's death was related to Tate/LaBianca?



Based on the information I have seen I cannot say what Durston's role was, if any, the night of the Tate murders.

I believe Diane knew her brother was involved in the Tate murders, but was not involved herself. I base this opinion on the excerpts read by Mae Brussell from the letter by the Woodland Hills woman.

By the way, for those who have listened to the Mae Brussell programs, what do you think of her assertion that Robert Linkletter, the man who lost his glasses at the Tate house, was also the Zodiac killer?

beauders said...

Why William, I bet you know what I'm going to ask, would Watson, Manson, Krenwinkel, Kasabian, and probably many others cover-up for Linkletter?

William Weston said...

According to Sandra Good, Manson family members killed 35 to 40 people and that Ronald Hughes was among them. I believe she is also referring to the Ohtas. These murders not only eliminated men and women threatening to expose the cover stories but also sent a message to others not to talk. These murders indicate a dangerous secret society that went far beyond the purview of the Manson family people.