Thursday, January 3, 2019

BOBBY BEAUSOLIEL GRANTED PAROLE









Lynyrd Weighs-in:

I found a document published by the California Department of Corrections (2011) which gives a statistical breakdown of actual prison time served by inmates.

The statistics are broken-down by specific crime... i.e., 1st degree murder, manslaughter, rape, etc.

In short, it states the mean/median time served by an inmate (for a specific crime) before they are first paroled.

According to the document, inmates convicted of first degree murder (pre 11-8-78) serve an average of 408 months in California, before they are released on parole.

408 months = 34 years

Extrapolate what you will from those figures, but statistics are hard to dispute.

Post 11-8-78, the average first degree murderer serves 344 months in California, which translates to 28.5 years.

I'm not a fan of Bobby, and personally, I'd have no problem seeing him die in jail.
He has a smug attitude, which I find repelling.

However, I'm also a firm believer that punishment should be carried-out in a consistent manner. People perpetrating similar crimes, should serve similar sentences.

If we feel that our justice system is being too lenient on crime (in general), we should enact laws which are tougher (across the board) on EVERYONE.

I think it's pretty safe to conclude (at this point) that being associated with "the Manson Family" (and the notoriety that entails), creates obstacles for Bobby, Bruce and Leslie (in terms of parole) that the average (unknown) inmate will never know.

Common sense and statistical data seem to support that conclusion.

I guess, how one feels about this apparent "double standard" situation, depends largely upon one's personal feelings towards Bobby, versus their feelings regarding consistency in punishment.

At any rate, here's the PDF document:

https://cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/TIME6/TIME6d2010.pdf

As I said previously, extrapolate what you will...

Peace!

Yours Truly,

Lynyrd Skynyrd

221 comments:

1 – 200 of 221   Newer›   Newest»
katie8753 said...

I doubt if he will get out. But California has turned so lib-tard. Maybe he will.

Maybe he can live next door to Nancy Pe-low-ski! LOL.

katie8753 said...

Bobby cold-bloodedly killed Gary Hinman, and later blamed it on Charlie, saying he told him to do that.

I think Bobby is lying. I think Bobby came up with that on his own, or maybe because Tex said Charlie told him to kill.

Either way, Bobby is a liar.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Kimchi!

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Bobby cold-bloodedly killed Gary Hinman, and later blamed it on Charlie, saying he told him to do that.

I think Bobby is lying. I think Bobby came up with that on his own, or maybe because Tex said Charlie told him to kill


While it is certainly true that Bobby has been lying and caught in lies since even before the Tate-LaBianca murders {he was lying from even before the officer arrested him on August 6th}, and while it is true that he said that Charlie killed Gary at his second trial, where has he ever said Charlie told him to kill Gary ? That's an interesting part of the story I'm not familiar with.

I doubt if he will get out

That's something I would not stake money on.
Sometimes, it pays to be cogniscant of the way the wind appears to be blowing. If you said that about Tex or Pat, I doubt you'd get many arguments. But that's now one of the killers released {and squeaky clean for 33 years}, 2 dead in prison and 3 granted parole. None of the others like Squeaky, Sandy, Mary or even Gypsy {a little fraud notwithstanding} that served time have been involved with the kind of criminal activity that has had people reaching for their guns and buying guard dogs. The Family has been all but washed up for almost as long as Nixon has been out of office and that's why I was always rather scratching my head when Vincent T and Stephen Kay would go on about how dangerous they still were.
Yeah, Bobby could die in prison, but it seems odd that once a parole board has granted you parole, that they would ever reverse that, unless the parolee went and did something ridiculous in the jail or confessed to 5 other murders or something. So the odds are more in favour of him {and Bruce and Leslie} one day roaming California again, even if not this time around.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks Kimchi!

sunset77 said...

There was a story on Yahoo about this last night. Apparently, California has a new governor, I don't know if that will make a difference or not.--https://news.yahoo.com/charles-manson-follower-murderer-recommended-parole-014506630.html

katie8753 said...

Thanks Sunset. That article you referred to says Bobby is 71. The article on this thread says he's 68. Fake news. LOL.

Grim, wasn't it one of many of Bobby's stories that Manson said to him "you know what to do", and he knew that Manson was telling him to kill Gary?

I think his "drug burn" story is another lie. I don't think Gary sold him bad drugs. I think Manson thought Gary had money and he wanted it, so he sent Bobby over to get it.

I often wonder, if any of these people do get out, what are they gonna do for money? It doesn't matter if you're an ex-con or not, it takes money to live. Other than a few dollars and a new suit, what do they get when they get out?

Clem was young enough to earn a living. These people are too old to learn a trade and earn a living. Plus, who would hire them? Who would want to work with Manson Family members?

Uknown said...

Probably SSI. It's a welfare type of social security for those that don't have there quarters in. At age 70 he more than likely has some disabling conditions

Uknown said...

Although he's his own worst enemy and not down playing he killed a man. His final sentence was 7 to life. Very few get out at 7 year mark but 14 to 20 years and almost all with that sentence are out. Unless the inmate is a real problem. He's more than served his time. Can't stand the man but yea he's paid his debt. 50 years in prison I'd rather be executed. Prison isnt pleasant fun experience like some tv shows portray. It's a shit existence.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

That article you referred to says Bobby is 71. The article on this thread says he's 68. Fake news

In one of those Manson documentaries that was out last year, even Bobby got his age wrong ! He said he was 71 but he wasn't at the time !

wasn't it one of many of Bobby's stories that Manson said to him "you know what to do", and he knew that Manson was telling him to kill Gary?

Yeah, but that's a very nuanced story. Whenever he's asked if Charlie ordered or even told him to kill Gary, he's always adamant that he did not. At the same time, he says that because of Charlie slicing Gary with the sword, it put him in an awkward position and being told "You know what to do" left him to draw his own conclusions, which he concluded meant Gary was going to die. But Manson was pretty much like he had been with the women when he told them to do whatever Tex told them to. Even to this day none of them can say Charlie told them to kill anyone. He did, but he didn't.
Charlie tried to play it smart but the practitioners of the law were smarter. But where Bobby was concerned, he feels he was played and manipulated by Charlie but never told what to do.

I think his "drug burn" story is another lie. I don't think Gary sold him bad drugs

It's a hugely suspect story with enough holes for a squadron of rats to waltz through without much effort and a timeline so tight that one could be wearing jeans from the initial rock'n'roll era. Having said that, there has been enough stuff over the years for it to be at the very least plausible. Neither Ed Sanders or Vincent Bugliosi were fans of the Family but Sanders actually named a guy {Eric}, who, in conjunction with his wife, claim to have been Gary's partner in making mescaline. And in that 2009 documentary, Bugliosi said on camera that Gary Hinman used to furnish the Family with drugs. In the police report about Gary's death, even before the TLB murders, there is information that tells of Gary's drug problems and how he was trying to get away from that life.

I often wonder, if any of these people do get out, what are they gonna do for money?

I think some of them will have sufficient support from friends and family, at least initially.

Plus, who would hire them? Who would want to work with Manson Family members?

On both counts, you might be surprised. I wouldn't mind betting that if Bobby was working at your local car wash, you'd go to get your car cleaned there at least once, just out of sheer human curiosity.

katie8753 said...

Grim said:

In the police report about Gary's death, even before the TLB murders, there is information that tells of Gary's drug problems and how he was trying to get away from that life.

I totally agree that Gary did have a drug problem. But according to a good friend of his, his new found faith gave him the strength to try and kick that life and lead a more healthy life. That's why he was taking that trip to Japan to study the Buddhist religion and get more involved. I believe he borrowed money from his Dad to take the trip. He obviously didn't have any extra money lying around to give to Bobby.

The fact that Bobby stole his 2 cars is a joke. What were those cars worth? About $300 each? If that.

Donna Nelson said...

No need to retry the whole case in this forum. Bobby has served 50 years for a single murder that was not particularly henious compared to other murders, as well most people who have committed similar murders have served far less time. Bobby had nothing to do with Tate/Labianca and this should not be considered as part of the equation simply due to his association with Manson. He has not been charged with any other crimes, despite some questionable behavior vehind bars.

katie8753 said...

Well let's see Donna. Bobby held a "friend" of his captive for a couple of days, demanding money. Then when he didn't get it, he stabbed his "friend" in the chest.

I guess that must have hurt.

Then when his "friend" didn't die fast enough, he told the girls to put pillows on his face.

Then, he claimed he went back a couple of days later and saw maggots crawling on his "friend". And he went back to the ranch and laughed about it.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

Bobby killed his "friend" and got around $500 in stolen goods for his efforts.

I wish I could see Bobby working at a car wash. I would love to see him getting wound up in the car washing machinery. Maybe get his head torn off. Maybe the maggots would eat him. And then maybe Gary could laugh about that.

Anybody who considers themselves "friends" with Bobby should re-think the whole thing if he gets out! You never know what he thinks is "funny".

katie8753 said...

Then Bobby put a "paw print" on the wall to blame it on blacks. Isn't that RACIST???

katie8753 said...

Bobby grew up in Santa Barbara, CA. He was a spoiled, selfish piss-ant.

He used to have a wife. I think she died. Probably out of self defense.

katie8753 said...

Bobby can't even tell the truth about what his age is. What a FUCKING LIAR!!!

katie8753 said...

If any of Bobby's "friends" are planning on supporting his sorry fucking old 71 year old ass if he gets out, they'd be better served if they hide the "cutlery".

You never know what Bobby thinks is "funny"!

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I believe he borrowed money from his Dad to take the trip. He obviously didn't have any extra money lying around to give to Bobby

That has long been one of the things that casts considerable doubt on Bobby's story. He says he picked up the drugs from Gary on the Friday night and handed the money over but by sometime on Saturday afternoon, he says he was at Gary's trying to get the money after the Satans had threatened him. It's such a tight timeline for everything he says to have happened. I would say an almost impossible one.
Of course, if one looks at the timing presented by the prosecution {the perps arriving Friday night and not leaving until Sunday evening} and the witnesses that back that up, then Bobby's tale becomes pretty predictable and follows what the Family always did when an iron clad case came against them; lie their way out of matters ~ and not particularly impressively.

Donna Nelson said...

No need to retry the whole case in this forum

Well, one of the interesting things that comes up on pretty much all the forums are the particulars of the case and the sifting of fact from fiction and various thoughts people carry in connection with those particulars.

Bobby has served 50 years for a single murder that was not particularly henious compared to other murders

He kept a guy prisoner for 3 days, thwacked him about the head numerous times with a gun, stood guard while someone else sliced his face and ear an inch deep and 5 inches long with a sword, beat the guy when he tried to escape at night, wouldn't let him go to hospital even though there was a possibility Gary could bleed to death, stabbed him, let him mulch for a while as it wasn't fatal, then stabbed him to death {remember, Gary had 4 stab wounds aside from the Charlie sword slice} and if that wasn't enough, while the guy was gasping for air, had him smothered with a pillow. I bet if you went through what Gary went through, you'd think it was pretty heinous ! I guess for me "not a particularly heinous murder" is a mass contradiction in terms. Murder by its very nature is heinous.
Now, is 50 years "too long" for a single murder ? Not when you are given 7 to life. Eligibility for parole may be part of the sentence but whether one actually is granted parole is dependent on a combination of factors and I don't think "too long" comes into it.

Bobby had nothing to do with Tate/Labianca and this should not be considered as part of the equation simply due to his association with Manson

Bobby did that to himself. In the 70s and 80s, he gave a series of interviews where he inserted himself into the whole TLB milieu and tried to defend the perps on that, even going as far as to say that those murders happened on his behalf or words to that effect. So when he decided that it was better for him to de-align himself from the whole Manson thing, it was too late because successive members of parole boards and people in the DA's office had longer and better memories than Bobby Beausoleil.

He has not been charged with any other crimes, despite some questionable behavior vehind bars

Questionable is an understatement. The Pats, Leslies, Bruces, Clems and Texs of this world understood very early on that if they were to stand any chance of being considered for parole, they couldn't afford to put a foot wrong and by and large, they've had pretty near exemplary prison records. But Bobby continually fell into things that were really silly and that didn't give the PBs confidence that he had insight and was a changed man. His attitude in the hearings didn't either. Whereas with Leslie one could put forth a cogent argument that her continued incarceration was questionable, that dog doesn't hunt with Bobby. Had his attitude been different, he may actually have been releasd a long time ago. He didn't seem to recall that he was always seen by the Man as the first of the Manson killers.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

He used to have a wife. I think she died. Probably out of self defense

That was below the belt, unnecessary and puts you on a lower level than those you criticize.
One should always maintain one's dignity, especially when heated feelings are in evidence.

katie8753 said...

Grim said:

That was below the belt, unnecessary and puts you on a lower level than those you criticize. One should always maintain one's dignity, especially when heated feelings are in evidence..

Below the belt? Was it "below the belt" to stab Gary because he didn't have any money? Was it "below the belt" to put a pillow on his head because he wasn't "dying fast enough"? Was it "below the belt" to laugh because Gary had maggots on his face after he died in IN OWN HOUSE?

Please define "below the belt".

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I found a document published by the California Department of Corrections (2011) which gives a statistical breakdown of actual prison time served by inmates.

The statistics are broken-down by specific crime... i.e., 1st degree murder, manslaughter, rape, etc.

In short, it states the mean/median time served by an inmate (for a specific crime) before they are first paroled.

According to the document, inmates convicted of first degree murder (pre 11-8-78) serve an average of 408 months in California, before they are released on parole.

408 months = 34 years

Extrapolate what you will from those figures, but statistics are hard to dispute.

Post 11-8-78, the average first degree murderer serves 344 months in California, which translates to 28.5 years.

I'm not a fan of Bobby, and personally, I'd have no problem seeing him die in jail.
He has a smug attitude, which I find repelling.

However, I'm also a firm believer that punishment should be carried-out in a consistent manner.
People perpetrating similar crimes, should serve similar sentences.

If we feel that our justice system is being too lenient on crime (in general), we should enact laws which are tougher (across the board) on EVERYONE.

I think it's pretty safe to conclude (at this point) that being associated with "the Manson Family" (and the notoriety that entails), creates obstacles for Bobby, Bruce and Leslie (in terms of parole) that the average (unknown) inmate will never know.

Common sense and statistical data seem to support that conclusion.

I guess, how one feels about this apparent "double standard" situation, depends largely upon one's personal feelings towards Bobby, versus their feelings regarding consistency in punishment.

At any rate, here's the PDF document:

https://cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/TIME6/TIME6d2010.pdf

As I said previously, extrapolate what you will...

Peace!

katie8753 said...

I still want to know what Grim's definition of "below the belt" is. Is there anything the Manson bunch did that WASN'T "below the belt"?

Targeting & stalking people for money and killing them when they can't produce?

Is that "below the belt"?

Tricking a guy into going into town for "parts" and then hammering his brains out?

Is that "below the belt"?

I'd love to know how the Manson killers were "above the belt".

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

For shit & giggles, I'll give you my personal "prediction" regarding these paroles.

In 5-10 years, Bruce, Leslie and Bobby will be released.
That's my "predicition timeline".
It's not going to happen immediately... but, it will happen soon.

The Boogeyman is now dead (i.e., Manson), and with that, the stigma associated with this case will slowly die as well.

Moreover...
The folks who were directly (and emotionally) effected by these TLB crimes are beginning to quickly disappear.
The folks from that era, who actually experienced the crimes when they were perpetrated, are dying in record numbers.

The average person on the street doesn't even know who Bruce, Bobby and Leslie are (at this point).

That's precisely why, the newspaper headlines for these stories ALWAYS read: "Manson Follower" Bobby Beausoleil. "Manson Follower" Bruce Davis. "Manson Follower" Leslie Van Houten.

Without that prerequisite label "Manson Follower", the average reader wouldn't even know who the author is referring to. Bruce Davis? Seriously?

The TLB stigma is finally dwindling due to the sheer passage of time, and these folks WILL be released... if they live old enough.
Of course, I said that 15 years ago...

Dilligaf said...

LS,

I believe that you are correct regarding the early stigma of a Manson Follower. However, I believe that as time has gone by, that is a term used more heavily by the media, rather than the BPH. Fifty years later, most Americans seem to focus primarily more on the actual crime, and the affiliation secondarily. Chalk it up to time, societal shifts, etc.. There is a philosophical battle being waged to want to hold people more accountable today versus always looking for a mitigating factor to diminish responsibility, and give second chances, From the kitchen table to the halls of government, this battle continues.

In regards to average sentences, the problem with averages is that it does not take the individual aspects of a particular crime into account, which definitely should impact a sentence, as opposed to sentencing via standardized justice. Are the crimes of Tookie Williams of Kevin Cooper worse than Bobby Beausoleil? That is arguable. Yes, with the former killers, multiple people were killed as opposed to a single victim that was tortured for days before being killed. But, both received the DP, and one had their sentence carried out, whereas the latter now faces possible parole. Fair? That is a question that has no single answer, for we all have our opinion of what is fair. Is justice fair? I believe so, as a whole. However, I also believe that many things alter the concept of fairness and justice, including religion, politics, sociological perspectives, and, yes, even naivety.

Donna Nelson said...

This is the sort of response I would expect from someone who uses the term "libtard"

katie8753 said...

Thanks Donna! I appreciate the opportunity! :)

katie8753 said...

The definition of "Lib-Tard".

an individual, whose thinking process has been
rendered impaired by political correctness and the
failure to understand that people are responsible
for their actions and the world does not owe lazy
or stupid people a living.

katie8753 said...

Actually, Lib-Tard is a is a hyphenated shortened def, meaning Liberal Retard.

Repeat after me. Liberal Retard. It gets easier if you say it fast. :)

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Please define "below the belt"

With pleasure. From the Cambridge dictionary: "If a remark is below the belt, it is very insulting and unfair. Unkind, cruel & unfeeling."

Your remark about Barbara Beausoleil was all of those things and more. Whatever Bobby or any of that troupe may have done is irrelevant when it comes to the death of someone, even if they were related to any of the murderers. And it really does speak volumes about you and worst of all, for the purposes of these pages, it undermines whatever you may go on to say. By making jests like that you present yourself as basically being no different in mind to the mindless killers that you spend a great swathe of your posts criticizing.
If I had murdered someone and my child went on to be murdered or died in a plane crash or of cancer and you said something like "well, at least they won't be following in their Dad's footsteps," that would be below the belt.
I knew what I said would provoke a reaction in you and I also knew your immediate reaction would not be to take step back, recognize a faux pas par excellence and acknowledge that you were out of order.
The irony is that by straight away going on the attack and talking about the wrongs of the Manson Family members, you've simply done what Charlie and Bobby spent much of their time doing over the past half century ~ deflecting.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I'd love to know how the Manson killers were "above the belt"

They weren't.
There you go.
That doesn't sanitize your statement. Jibes about someone's death are in poor taste, even more so when it's not even one of the killers being spoken of.

grimtraveller said...

Dilligaf said...

In regards to average sentences, the problem with averages is that it does not take the individual aspects of a particular crime into account, which definitely should impact a sentence, as opposed to sentencing via standardized justice

I think this is a really important point. While it's true that Bobby has been affected by the 'Manson follower' tag, so was Clem and Clem was seen as the far more dangerous killer. I suspect that Bobby may well have been an afterthought to many people if he had kept his nose clean. His constantly changing story {not helped by the fact that it was contradicted by Susan Atkins and Charles Manson} to a large extent kept his murder in the foreground and meant that it really was looked at individually. And if one looks at the parole transcripts on Cielo's site, there are changes to his tale even in the few there. For quite a while, he puts blame on Danny DeCarlo, then he finally admits DeCarlo wasn't involved, for example. So I don't think one can look at the cross section of parolees over the period that Lynyrd's survey covers and necessarily compare them with Bobby.

katie8753 said...

Grim, when I said "I think she died", it was more of a question than a statement, because I couldn't remember if she died or not. But then I added "probably out of self defense". That last statement was not a bad reflection on her, but on Bobby. But, as you pointed out, it was tacky, flippant and stupid to say that. And I apologize.

I don't know why any man or woman would seek out and marry a convicted murderer, but it happens all the time. I don't have to agree with it, but, to each his own.

iamthewalrus said...

Katie's comment about Barbara Beausoliel made me wonder if her kids will help Bobby out if he gets out. They just sold her house so that is gone. Will they have him working at their little brewery slinging drinks?? Will they allow him to be around their children? They were always in pictures with Bobby at prison visits. I wonder if it will be so easy to let him into their lives without bars and guards.

grimtraveller said...

I gotta say Katie, I respect you for that. That took guts.

Donna Nelson said...

Repubtard -blind obedience to authority even when against own self-interest, believes in a sky daddy and uses bible verses to spew and justify hate, and has little to no ability to engage in critical thinking, politically viscious. Say it enough Katie and it will roll off your tongue.

See I am no libtard, no PC here.

katie8753 said...

Oooooohh....burn!!! HA HA.

Just one question Donna, who is the sky daddy?

Donna Nelson said...

Glad u have a good sense of humor Katie.

beauders said...

Katie in the 70’s when Watson thought he was really get paroled he listed his future plans as moving back to Texas and becoming a tv preacher. Could you imagine? Someone would lasso him one step into Texas and hang him from the closest tree. Of course if it really happened you and I could go heckle him. Yes I would travel to Texas to hangout with Katie and heckle Watson.

beauders said...

Grim do you know Barbara and Bobby Beausoliel enjoyed looking at pictures of children being spanked? They belonged to a club or something and when Bobby was criticized for it they quit. Bobby also said at one of his trials "You better hope I never get out." Murder and torture for me though is a good reason to never release the inmate.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

do you know Barbara and Bobby Beausoliel enjoyed looking at pictures of children being spanked?

All that children spanking stuff has long been rather odious to me. It's pretty obvious that when Bobby was being grilled about it during one of his parole hearings that he neither saw anything amiss about it nor did he expect the parole board to be on the ball about it. I think it was around the time that Bobby, Tex and Pat were beginning to realize that things they'd said or had been said about them in books, interviews and the like, were being picked up by parole boards and the DA's office and were useful evidence to go towards arguments for their continued incarceration.

Bobby also said at one of his trials "You better hope I never get out."

And that's a good example of that.
That said, I do accept his explanation of it some 30 years later that he was a dumb young hothead at the time he said this {it was in the early 70s}. The question by the new century was whether or not he had sufficiently matured from that person. Judging by the things he got in trouble for and his attitude in some of his parole hearings, the evidence wasn't overwhelming on his part !
For me, what Bobby did in 1969 is horrendous, but less of a problem actually, than the mindset he has continually displayed in the years subsequent. I know that appears an odd thing to say, but what I mean by that is that he has never been convincing to me in terms of remorse and the growth, genuine growth, that accompanies it. I suspect that this decision in his favour may have to do with some illness or something like that.

katie8753 said...

Beauders if Tex ever does get out and come to Texas to preach, we'll just hog-tie him and drag him behind a pickup over some cactus. Heckling is too easy. LOL.

beauders said...

Katie I've fallen into a cactus and it sucks.

katie8753 said...

Yeah I know Beauders. It hurts even more when you have to pull it out. That's why I suggested it.

beauders said...

Got it Katie I fell into a cactus as a child and remember the pain being pretty unbearable as an adult I had two open knee surgeries and had a kidney cut into which were comparable.

chris hannel said...

I wanna lick Susan Atkins's feet.

Dilligaf said...

Well, there’s probably not much left to lick, so what do you have planned for the rest of your day?

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

I wanna lick Susan Atkins's feet.


I'm gonna lick Her asshole


You're going to get a mighty shock if she was cremated.

katie8753 said...

Chris I deleted your comment about Susan's asshole. I'm not gonna put up with that kind of bullshit. Take your swarmy pervasion somewhere else.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

"Susan's asshole"... LMAO

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I don't imagine Chris is having much luck with the ladies, if salivating over a dead woman's asshole is his best option.

Just sayin'... LOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

This guy's gotta get out more... LOL

chris hannel said...

I'm in love with Susan. Delete and mock me all you want but my love for Susie will never die.

chris hannel said...

I lurked this blog a long time. Didn't you used to have your profile pic as Susie?

katie8753 said...

Yeah but I never said anything about licking her asshole...

grimtraveller said...

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

This guy's gotta get out more...

It might actually be safer for all concerned if he didn't !

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

I'm in love with Susan. Delete and mock me all you want but my love for Susie will never die

You should express your undying love in a more "about to eat dinner" friendly way.

You're going to get a mighty shock if she was cremated

Apparently, there's no 'if' about it.

chris hannel said...

It'd be an enjoyable experience.

chris hannel said...

What is your profile picture?

Uknown said...

He probably won't get out but if there people are only being held for there association with Manson they should just stop giving them parole hearings. If Davis didn't get out it's hard to imagine Bob getting a date. Does he deserve parole? By the parole boards standards apparently. But as others point out his crime was simply unforgivable and of it was drugs or robbery doesn't matter Hinman did not need to be killed. Had Bobby walked away leaving Hinman to report an assault and robbery he probably would have done no more than a couple years.He made a choice that even a young man should have known better.Truthfully had he left Hinman alive he'd have got probably nothing the state would have gone after the older career criminal. The more I think about it I think he wanted to kill as some status thing. Regardless it makes little difference as I doubt he's a danger although his pedo art is concerning. He's not going to get out in my opinion

katie8753 said...

Why would Bobby think Gary would go to the police? If Gary was a drug dealer, he wouldn't go to the police. So to me, it confirms the fact that Gary wasn't a drug dealer, and Gary's murder wasn't due to a "bad drug deal". Proof positive!!!

Bobby didn't kill Gary because he was afraid he would go to the police. That's ludicrous. Bobby killed Gary because it gave him a "high". He was the alpha male with 2 females. That's more of Manson's crap. We know that because Bobby went back and laughed because Gary had maggots on him.

Yeah....that's funny!

Bobby should just stay in prison for the rest of his life. He took the life of his "friend". In a most horrific way!

As far as anyone thinking that these killers should be kept in prison because of the "Manson connection". That is also ludicrous. These people were/are perfect killers on their own.

Take that for what it's worth!

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

What is your profile picture?

That's me playing my double bass with the "fret spaces" cheatingly and lovingly painted on the neck with enamel paint.

chris hannel said...

I wish I could give Susie a foot massage.

chris hannel said...

Cool.

chris hannel said...

How old are you Katie?

beauders said...

Chris do you want to massage Katie's foot?

chris hannel said...

A little bit.

katie8753 said...

Beauders, LOL!

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! Perv alert!!!

Chris you've been "creepy crawling" this blog for a long time, in your own words. I can delete your comments all day. It only takes 2 seconds for me to delete your comments. And this is my slow time of year.

If you really want to be a contributing commenter on this blog, you might want to chose your words more wisely. You know, like discuss the case instead of pontificating perverse actions toward dead folks.

chris hannel said...

But Queen Katie, I know everything about the case already. It's my favorite true crime story.

katie8753 said...

Well then prove it.

Why don't you contribute toward the conversation discussing the case, instead of talking about a dead killer's body parts?

chris hannel said...

Queen Katie, I don't mean to sound rude but Susan Atkins wasn't a killer. In my eyes, the killer would be the one who wielded the knife that killed the victims. Which means Tex is the killer.

katie8753 said...

First of all, don't call me Queen Katie. Secondly, if you want to discuss the virtues of Susan Atkins, it might take quite a while.

She was definitely at a killing scene and admittedly held Sharon down while Tex stabbed her. By definition of the law, she was a killer too. You can throw semantics around all you want, but she was definitely contributing to murder. Which makes her a killer.

She could whine and lie about all her involvement later all she wanted, but she was there, and she contributed to killing.

chris hannel said...

Idk why everyone feels sympathy for the Jonestown followers but not the Family. Both were brainwashed by nutjobs.

katie8753 said...

Susan also admittedly put a pillow on Gary Hinman's face to smother him when he was gasping for air. I think we can pretty much classify Susan as a killer.

katie8753 said...

The Jonestown followers didn't do home invasions and kill folks.

katie8753 said...

And BTW, who feels sympathy for the Jonestown followers??????????? Nobody I know!

Cryptic!

chris hannel said...

Did you ban me?

chris hannel said...

Katie, you don't like me do you?

katie8753 said...

If I banned you, you couldn't comment. So the answer to your question is no. I didn't ban you.

Do I like you? No yet! But you can keep trying.

You claim to know a lot about this case. Then comment on the case instead of being a scumbag perv talking about Susan Atkins decaying body parts.

chris hannel said...

Susan was cremated. She's not "decaying". I truly believe She should've been freed. I believe in Her remorse and rehabilitation.

katie8753 said...

Whatever. I'm heading to bed. I've gotta be up early for the MLK march tomorrow. HA HA. Just kidding.

See ya later alligator.

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

chris hannel said...

I truly believe She should've been freed. I believe in Her remorse and rehabilitation

Her final book, "The Myth of Helter Skelter" tends, unfortunately, to cast great doubt on that.

chris hannel said...

No. Susan never killed anyone. Those cellmates are liars. There was no blood found on Hsr knife. Tex admitted to killing Sharon. We know what happened. All we have to do is piece it together and not be conspiracy theorists. And about California, that's the most liberal state in the country. Susan Atkins didn't kill anyone. She was bragging in prison to look tough. Idk why some people find it hard to believe that She isn't this monster they made Her out to be. Howard and Graham admitted that they "spiced it up a bit" to make the story more interesting.

chris hannel said...

I hate how everyone always says "we'll never know what really happened". We do know. Susan's knife was found with no blood on it. Tex admitted to killing Sharon. These were copycat murders. Tex dealt all the fatal blows to the victims. I believe only Tex and Manson were truly as society says "evil". The others were brainwashed. Everyone always goes on about Susan "downplaying" Her role. The truth is downplaying? She admitted what She did was wrong. What else do they want Her to do? Keep a portrait of Sharon in Her cell and pray at the altar of Debra Tate? You guys are too hard on Susan. Yes, the Family was fucked but that doesn't mean She should stay in prison forever. At most, She should've done 5 to 10 years, that is if you wanna send Her to prison. The person who held someone down isn't as troubling to me as the person who did the stabbing. Susan only held Sharon down cause Susie didn't have it in Her to kill Sharon. Tex was more than willing to take someone's life. I think the Family should be released. The ones that shouldn't be are the guy who started the cult in the first place(Manson) and Tex. While the others all made turnarounds in prison, Tex has stayed the same. One psychiatrist described him as a "walking time bomb". I feel Susie was more sincere about Her Christian rebirth than Tex is.

beauders said...

Katie I also feel sympathy for the victims of Jim Jones. A third of them were children who had no choice in going there or in dying. Look up what cyanide does to a person, those children truly suffered. Jones even took advantage of the Foster System in San Francisco to get more children and to get their benefits. Another third the seniors bought Jim Jones' crud hook line and sinker. They moved to Jonestown thinking they were going to paradise when they arrived they realized they had been deceived. Jones took all their money and passports, then over the course of a year or two brainwashed them into fearing the jungle that surrounded them. They traveled for twelve hours on water over the ocean and rivers to get there. There was only jungle surrounding them there was no way to escape, even if they tried. Many were infirm or needed medication that the nurses gave them, they didn't keep anything in their own possession. A lot of the seniors were former slaves and had seen cruelties that are hard to imagine. The rest were worked continually in the cruel Guyana sun, fed very meager rations, and didn't sleep because Jones was speaking all the time on the intercom. These people were idealists and maybe naive but Jones could really talk and by the time they got to Jonestown it was too late. I grew up in the Bay Area and it really affected everyone there were rumors of there being over a hundred hit men who were going to kill enemies of the temple, then ten days later the mayor is assassinated as was councilman Harvey Milk who had both spoken at the temple and were political associates of Jones. People assumed that it was all related but it appears it wasn't. It was a scary and fascinating time for me as a fourteen year old fan on horror movies. You don't need horror films when you have Jonestown on your doorstep.
For Susan Atkins I feel sorry for the little girl Atkins was but there really was something wrong with adult Susan Atkins. I think she was a braggart who enjoyed telling people she murdered Sharon Tate herself because it made her feel like a big shot, not to intimidate the other inmates into leaving her alone. Prison probably gave Atkins the structure she needed to be a decent person so her staying there was probably the best thing for everyone, even though seeing her on that gurney at her parole hearing made me feel bad for her and it would have hurt no one to have let her out.

chris hannel said...

Aren't you a liberal? And you're saying Susie had something wrong with Her? Hahaha! That's funny.

Giordano Downes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chris hannel said...

.......Uhhhhh no She wasn't. She never sexually assaulted anyone in jail. So much conspiritards on this blog.

katie8753 said...

I always felt sorry for Susan because of what happened to her when she was young. She lost her mother to cancer and her father just abandoned her and her siblings. Losing your parents at that age has got to be one of the cruelest ironies one could suffer. It's no wonder that she joined up with Manson & his cronies. She needed a family-type situation and there it was. But what really bothers me about Susan is that after Gary was brutally murdered, she didn't even think about leaving the family. She knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that they were getting into murder, and she never said that she was bothered by that, at least not until her parole hearings. That's a warning sign.

Beauders, I don't know much about the people who followed Jim Jones except for documentaries I've seen on TV. I can't imagine being so enamored by someone that you would give up all your belongings and just follow him to such a secluded part of the world. Obviously the children had no say in anything and it's horrible that they were killed by that lunatic. I didn't know all that about hit men running around killing people. That is scary.

chris hannel said...

Katie I think it's funny that a gun hating libtard like yourself has a problem with Susie. I've noticed Atkins haters are always morons. Either liberals, rednecks, Satan worshippers, drug addicts, gun grabbers, communists and socialists, etc. I have yet to see an Atkins hater that isn't a complete dumbass. I also have yet to see an actual argument against Susan instead of just conspiracies("She killed Sharon", "She worshipped Satan", etc.).

chris hannel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

California has turned so lib-tard

You know, even before this, I felt that this was a biased statement. But have a read of this; there's nothing liberal about California's stance towards members of the Manson troupe. The ultimate proof of that is Susan Atkins in 2009. If that was liberal, I'd hate to fall foul of a hard liner !

who feels sympathy for the Jonestown followers?? Nobody I know!

I certainly do. Lots of lost people and their children looking for hope and finding Jim Jones who initially seemed to give them just that.

chris hannel said...

Idk why everyone feels sympathy for the Jonestown followers but not the Family

Actually, I do feel some sympathy with some of the members of the Family but not for following Charlie. And I feel a certain sympathy for Manson himself.

katie8753 said...

Chris said:

Katie I think it's funny that a gun hating libtard like yourself has a problem with Susie.

Are you kidding??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! I'm a Trump supporter. You need to do your homework.

chris hannel said...

I looked through the old posts and on one post you agreed that rifles should be banned. And even said "assault weapons".

katie8753 said...

Hey Chris, a/k/a "the perv", visit my blog and you'll find out how I feel about Lib-Tards!!!

katie8753 said...

Rifles should be banned? In what context was that?

chris hannel said...

What's the name of your blog?

chris hannel said...

Katie never mind I misread it. It was Lynyrd who supports banning rifles, not you.

katie8753 said...

You must have missed a million chapters! I'm one of the most ultimate conservative right wing Goddesses that ever lived!!!

If you have the stomach for it, my blog is blogaboutnothing7.blogspot.com/

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

No. Susan never killed anyone

Back in '69-'71, Susan's big thing was that if you killed someone, you were doing them a favour. Releasing the soul. That was what set Leslie and Susan apart from Tex and Pat. Tex and Pat knew the score when it came to offing someone. Bugliosi's book demonstrates that Susan never killed by her own hand. The actual evidence however, points to a different story. Bugliosi majored on his feeling that she killed Sharon. Why he never laid out in his book what he knew about her complicity in Frykowski's death mystifies me.

Those cellmates are liars

Thing is though, pretty much everything they said they were told has been corroborated in one way or another, whether it be through what one of the killers said, what someone else has said or the evidence. What's interesting about the early police interviews they did in Nov '69 is just how much stuff both women were told. They obviously don't recall all the details and indeed, it was only in the future that many of the details came to mean anything. So stuff about Gary Hinman being gay, them collecting money from him, the concept of Helter Skelter, the name of Sadie's son being "something strange like Abracadabra" and many other things, can be found there in embryo.They may have confused certain details and Ronnie Howard was certainly prone to exaggeration {something she said Virginia Graham did}, but lying ?

There was no blood found on Her knife

A mystery indeed. But all that tells us is that she lost it, not that she didn't use someone else's at some point.

Tex admitted to killing Sharon

He did. But he said absolutely nothing about suspending her from rope. Or even doing something with rope that explained the abrasions on her cheek. Or why her blood was in such great quantities on a porch no killer has ever said she was on ~ quite the opposite actually.
All I'm saying is that whatever things are clear cut in the case, Susan's non~killing status is not among them. She may well not have actually killed, but it is by no means certain and her flip flopping over the years didn't help.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

We know what happened. All we have to do is piece it together and not be conspiracy theorists

Susan always claimed that Tex stabbed Sharon around the heart. But she had 16 stab wounds and they were in a variety of areas on her body, including her back. Her blood was in a large pool on the porch. Her face had 2 abrasions that were consistent, according to the medical examiner, with being hung by rope. We know much of what happened. There are parts we don't know. Forget the conspiracy theorists. The evidence is such that there are a number of things that happened that have never been explained. That could be for a number of reasons, but one cannot state categorically that Susan didn't kill anyone because really, we just don't know.

And about California, that's the most liberal state in the country

Not when it comes to those that committed murder in the Family. When it comes to them, it's as liberal as Russia !

Susan Atkins didn't kill anyone. She was bragging in prison to look tough

In later years, she said she did this to appear bigger and tougher than she was and also, to fend off the amorous attentions of the women. But also in prison with her at the time was a friend of hers called Nancy Jordan. When Robert Hendrickson was filming for his documentary circa '69~72, he interviewed Jordan who described her visits to Spahn Ranch and her friendship with Susan in the prison. She was in with Atkins before the others and she said that Susan had told her she'd killed Sharon. Now, she had no reason to big herself up for Nancy's benefit and Nancy wasn't hitting on her for a little lovin' ~ yet, she told her friend exactly the same thing she went on to tell Howard and Graham. Jordan said that Atkins told her that it was weighing heavily on her; contrast that with Howard and Graham both saying how animated and happy Susan was as she related the story. The thing to bear in mind with Jordan is that she didn't go to the authorities. She wasn't a court witness. Until "Death To Pigs" came out in 2011, it wasn't known that Nancy Jordan had been told these things. This information had been under wraps for 42 years and it wasn't her that brought it to light.
So it becomes one of those things that forces a thinking person to analyze more.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

Idk why some people find it hard to believe that She isn't this monster they made Her out to be

"They" didn't make her out to be a monster initially. She did that by telling her cellmates that she had killed Gary Hinman & Sharon Tate, fellated her baby son and tasted Sharon Tate's blood and that she had done everything [bad] there was to do, as well as marvelling over the death of Zero as a beautiful thing and laughing in her taped interview with her lawyer about the abject fear Sharon was going through and referring to Steven Parent's dead body as a 'thing' as well as Sharon being the last to die because she had to watch the others die. Whether any of what she told people was true or not, Susan was the one that started that ball rolling. Leslie Van Houten in her police interviews with Mike McGann and with her then lawyer, Marvin Part, also spoke of her rough side and her willingness to be involved in murder.
She may not have been a monster but she was dangerous. Aside from Manson, she's the only one that had some role, be it major or minor, in each of the murders {I include Lotsapoppa in that}.

Howard and Graham admitted that they "spiced it up a bit" to make the story more interesting

Well.....Ronnie Howard and Ronnie's husband who was Virginia's ex-husband said that about Virginia Graham. But Graham never copped to it. And she wasn't exactly complimentary about her ex-husband or Ronnie Howard. She says, for example, that she was chosen to testify first because Ronnie's memory wasn't as clear as hers.
Basically, the two women spent years bitching about each other. Howard said that Graham spiced up the matter about {the husband said she flat out lied} about the Family's celebrity death list but even when she wrote her shitty book a few years ago, Graham recounts in interesting detail what Susan said about the people on that list and what was to happen to them.

chris hannel said...

Katie I was wrong about you. You're a beautiful intelligent person. A queen. I will do whatever you tell me. I will kiss your feet and take care of you if that's what you desire.

chris hannel said...

I think you're being naive. We know Sadie never killed anyone. I'm tired of these Atkins haters and their revisionist history. Susan is not a killer. The evidence doesn't add up. The blood on the porch was more than likely from the towel Susie used to write PIG on the door. They also probably stepped in the blood and were tracing it through the house.

beauders said...

Wow, Chris if you think Katie is a liberal, I wonder what kind of conservative you are. I don't consider myself a liberal because I consider issues individually not as a package deal. Such as I believe in the death penalty, and actually think it should be used for other crimes. Violent sex criminals should die in my book. You can call me liberal if you like, I've been called worst.

chris hannel said...

California is a hypocritical state. They're okay with pedos being released and they're all for criminal immigration but they wouldn't release Susie. My beautiful Susie Q. At this point it doesn't matter how awful the crimes were. They're all in their 70s and 80s now. They wouldn't be dangerous, just old and frail. They're taking up cells that could be occupied by gang members or drug smugglers. It's a waste of money keeping them in prison. That's why California has so much prison overcrowding. Also, why is TomG allowed to praise Fidel Castro and write "fuck America" and "Americans are evil, they're demons" on LSB3 but it's not okay for me to talk about my love for Susie?

beauders said...

No one cares if you love Atkins, but you seem to think she's still alive.

katie8753 said...

Allright, time to "spin down".

I'm getting ready to head to bed. And when I head to bed, everyone else has to too. Unless you "whisper". No hanky panky going on. LOL.

Night y'all!

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

I think you're being naive

Because I don't agree wholeheartedly with you ?
I simply point out that it may well be the case that she didn't kill anyone by her own hand but such a conclusion is not a foregone one. However, when you have someone saying she killed, then saying she didn't, then saying she killed, then saying she didn't, telling some people she killed, then telling LE that she didn't, then changing up her story continually over a 40 year period, then writing books that purportedly contain the truth that even I can show you to be riddled with untrue information and inaccuracies....well, my brand of naivety is called analytical thinking and weighing up known elements, in the real world. If that's naiveté, hey, bring it on and give me more.

We know Sadie never killed anyone

Um, we don't know that actually. At best we have beliefs.

I'm tired of these Atkins haters and their revisionist history

With all due respect, that truly is one of the funniest things anyone can say on a TLB website in relation to Susan Atkins. Revisionist ? Talking about Sadie ? You know who started the whole revisionist package in TLB, before even Charlie and Bobby got in on the act and made it their own ?
Susan. Susan "I stabbed Sharon till she was dead / but I couldn't do it and said 'Tex you do it' / 'as a matter of fact I told her I didn't have any mercy for her'/ 'I did not kill Sharon'" Atkins. You're on a loser trying to defend the revisionist monarch of TLB from revisionism. I have no time for anyone haters but Susan started the revision ball rolling and learned too late that you may start the process but you can't control it once it has started.

The evidence doesn't add up

The evidence doesn't add up to every single thing any of the perps have stated happened. Bugliosi, when he was giving his closing argument, recognized that there were things that couldn't be explained because no one had explained them.

The blood on the porch was more than likely from the towel Susie used to write PIG on the door. They also probably stepped in the blood and were tracing it through the house

I used to wonder whether that was the case. But on Cielo.com in the photo section, there's a pristine photo of what's left of that blood pool once it's dried and there is no way that that much blood could get on a towel in one pass, unless it were totally saturated with blood and the towel wasn't anywhere close to being so. Look at the pictures of it. Similarly, with that amount of blood, the clothes of the perps would have turned red, Tex in particular. Yet look at the photos of his black top and jeans when it was found. They don't even look like they have blood on them.
I find joined up thinking both answers some questions and poses other ones that answer some of the questions being asked..

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

California is a hypocritical state. They're okay with pedos being released and they're all for criminal immigration but they wouldn't release Susie. My beautiful Susie Q

One of the main reasons they didn't release Susan Atkins is because by denying the murder of Sharon Tate she was going against the court record. She was convicted of the 7 TLB murders, even though she did not enter the LaBianca house, because the 'conspiracy to commit murder' bit encompassed both nights and therefore whatever an individual did or didn't do is irrelevant ~ 7 people died, Manson, Krenwinkel and Atkins were guilty of all 7 under the law.
So Atkins in not accepting the court record was "showing" the parole boards that she wasn't fully rehabilitated because their argument would be "she's still hung up on individuals rather than showing she understands exactly why she's in this mess." And if you don't even accept responsibility or demonstrate understanding for why you are in jail.......
As an interesting aside, we never heard Susan making noise about not killing Abigail Folger, either of the LaBiancas, Steven Parent or Jay Sebring.

Also, why is TomG allowed to praise Fidel Castro and write "fuck America" and "Americans are evil, they're demons" on LSB3 but it's not okay for me to talk about my love for Susie?

i. Different times.
ii. You have been talking about your love for Susie. We'd just rather not hear what you'd like to do with her 10 year burned body parts !

I will do whatever you tell me. I will kiss your feet and take care of you if that's what you desire

If you're willing to shell out the $$$$s, a dominatrix may be more up your particular alley.

chris hannel said...

Do you just believe whatever Bugliosi says? That dude is the biggest liar in the whole case. Idk what you're preaching about, but I know Sadie never killed anyone. And She earned parole and those boards know it, they just didn't wanna release Her cause of the notoriety of the case. Do I know who started the revisionism of this case? Yup, Vincent Bugliosi. You know, sometimes I wanna create a documentary about Sadie, a documentary that will prove Her innocence and get Her exonerated. Kinda like how Making a Murderer did for Steven Avery. Susie is the only dominatrix I need.

chris hannel said...

Does anyone honestly think that they'd release Charles Manson if he ever truly felt remorse? No! Never. Just like they won't release his followers no matter what improvement they show. High profile inmates like the Family and Ted Bundy would have no chance of parole. Do you guys know that a murderer named Craig Price is gonna be released soon? Or that a former coke addict who committed a mass shooting on Easter or some other holiday was released recently? I think his name is Christopher Martin or something like that. The description of that shooting was gruesome and paints a picture of what a real junkie can do when hopped up on drugs. The Family was heavily on LSD which rendered their conscious and made them more susceptible to Manson's bullshit. So why can Chris Martin get released but not the Family? Have any of you ever heard of the 2 murderers I referenced? Probably not. Now take what I said and flip it around. Can you imagine a murderer like Jeffrey Dahmer getting released? Or the Columbine shooters being released(assuming they didn't kill themselves)? It sounds crazy when you put it like that. Notoriety plays a role in parole hearings. Especially when one victim happens to be a celebrity.

chris hannel said...

Edit: The shooter's name is Christopher Thomas.

katie8753 said...

Chris get a grip! Susan Atkins didn't give a fuck about folks! Not one single FUCK!!!

She's not the dainty puredrop you think she is. She put a pillow over Gary's face to kill him.

How can you say she's not a killer??? Doesn't putting a pillow over a dying man's face who is gasping for air to "shut him up" an act of killing?

chris hannel said...

Susie didn't put a pillow over Gary, that was Bobby. Again, how can you take turns suffocating someone? Did they each hold a pillow over his face for 2 minutes? Wouldn't 2 minutes be enough to kill him? If not 2 minutes then how long? 20 seconds? Are you guys just blindly following Bugliosi? Again, how do you want Susan to show remorse? Create a religion devoted to worshipping Sharon Tate? She did everything the parole board told Her to and still "not suitable" but someone like Chris Thomas or Craig Price are suitable for release? It's all just politics. Crooked corrupt politics. Ever notice how no one involved with the Tate murders is "suitable" but the ones not involved with killing a celebrity are deemed "suitable"?

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Doesn't putting a pillow over a dying man's face who is gasping for air to "shut him up" an act of killing?

Yes, the attempt to "shut him up" was by smothering him which rather renders Susan hardly innocent but ironically, that's not what killed Gary.

chris hannel said...

Do you just believe whatever Bugliosi says?

No, but neither is my reflex action and default position to not believe him just because it's Bugliosi.

Idk what you're preaching about

More's the pity. It's quite straightforward.
In parts.

Do I know who started the revisionism of this case? Yup, Vincent Bugliosi

That doesn't even make any sense.

Susie is the only dominatrix I need

Well, good luck with that !

Does anyone honestly think that they'd release Charles Manson if he ever truly felt remorse?

Now, that's a fascinating question. I agree with you, they probably wouldn't have. But you need to examine the reasons why that would be. Even if he had lain low, worked on his attitude and was rehabilitated, that would be set alongside his criminal record before the TLB trial and that would make people plain uncomfortable. It would've been interesting to see what Charlie would have put forth to demonstrate a real deep seated change of heart.
I actually do think that if he was serious, he'd persuade some board members, in time.
But not the Guv'nor !

Ted Bundy ....Jeffrey Dahmer getting released?

You raise an interesting point. I believe in the concept of parole, even for someone that has murdered, but the circumstances have to be exceptional. There are no circumstances that would honestly justify the release of Bundy or Dahmer or even a living example like Ed Kemper.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

Again, how can you take turns suffocating someone?

Quite easily. You hold the pillow over someone's face and then say to one of your cohorts "right, you take over."

Did they each hold a pillow over his face for 2 minutes?

For how long, I don't know. But according to Mary Brunner all three of them did hold the pillow over his face.
But that's not what killed Gary. Bobby's stab killed Gary. Charlie's earlier sword whack could have killed him if he hadn't received the right medical attention, according to the medical examiner. We'll never know because Bobby beat him to the punch.

Are you guys just blindly following Bugliosi?

Bugliosi didn't say anything about that. It was Mary Brunner.

Again, how do you want Susan to show remorse?

I think she did show remorse. Unfortunately, being the girl that cried wolf, she forever poured doubt on her own declarations of rehabilitation and full remorse. I've given you some examples already. You actually do Susan more damage by being the blind follower. If you loved her as much as you claim, you'd be honest about her flaws. That's what real love compels a person to do.

chris hannel said...

Exactly! Grimtraveller, you even admitted it. Take an inmate that's pretty much unknown(Craig Price for example) and a high profile inmate like the Family. No governor wants to be known as the person that freed a Manson follower, but no one really knows Craig Price so why should the governor care? The Family members have shown remorse, admitted what they did was wrong, renounce Manson, made parole plans, etc. Craig Price hasn't shown any remorse, and in 2017 was caught attempting to stab another inmate to death. The Family is in for life, Price is set for release in 2020. Do you see the unfairness and the corruption going on now? The Family are all in their 70s and 80s, Craig Price is only like 40 or something. The Family have never been violent to other inmates. Why does the jokestice system think the Family are a threat to society but Craig Price is rehabilitated?

katie8753 said...

Chris said:

Susie didn't put a pillow over Gary, that was Bobby.

Sorry you're wrong. Susan did put a pillow over Gary's head. She admits it. Because Bobby told her. Mary did it too.

She put a pillow over Gary's head, in her own words, because Gary wasn't "dying fast enough".

katie8753 said...

Susan is a killer.

beauders said...

Chris, have you looked at it in the opposite maybe the unknown killers are getting out too soon.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

Exactly! Grimtraveller, you even admitted it

Even admitted what ? You've kind of lost me there.

chris hannel said...

That notoriety plays a role in deciding whether or not to release an inmate.

chris hannel said...

Katie, you're an atheist. Stop trying to judge Susie when you yourself are no better. Matter of fact, go be with the rest of your atheist ilk at Mansonblog. That site's full of em. Which is why I prefer LSB3.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

notoriety plays a role in deciding whether or not to release an inmate

It's certainly one of the factors.
But sometimes, it should be.

katie8753 said...

First of all, I'm not an atheist. Secondly, I'm not a killer. And thirdly, why would you tell me to go to the Mansonblog and then come here.

That makes no sense.

katie8753 said...

Oh BTW, I thought you said I was a beautiful Queen and you were gonna kiss my feet. What's up with that???

katie8753 said...

Are you taking that back? HA HA.

chris hannel said...

Queen, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I'll kiss and lick your feet for you. I'll brush your hair and clean up after you.

chris hannel said...

Does the 8753 in your username mean that you were born August 7th, 1953?

katie8753 said...

No it's your weight.

katie8753 said...

I was reading Restless Souls last night. Why? Don't really know. But of all the things we're not sure of on this case, we are positively sure of one thing. Sharon's family was broken by these murders. And the same day that the Tate family found out Sharon was dead, the killers sat around and watched the news on TV and laughed about it.

This is why I say they should never get out. Anyone who can just go kill people they don't even know, and don't really even know why, and laugh about it doesn't deserve to be walking the streets free.

chris hannel said...

I didn't mean to offend you Your Highness. Is there anything I can do to make it up to you? Massage your feet? Clean your house? I'll do anything.

katie8753 said...

Well there is something you can do. Stop insulting people on this blog and stop grossing people out with your sleazy comments.

katie8753 said...

There are certain things I can do to ensure that scumbags don't insult folks on this blog.

Easy Peasy! LOL.

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

But have a read of this; there's nothing liberal about California's stance towards members of the Manson troupe

The "this" was supposed to be this !
Regarding California's liberality.

chris hannel said...

Why do I get banned for loving Susie but TomG didn't get banned for praising Fidel Castro, a dictator? Rejected by Mansonblog and rejected by LSB3. I'm just a loner, I can ever really connect with anyone. I only connect with Susie, I can relate to her. If you don't want me on LSB3 then I'll leave. All you had to do was say leave, not restrict me from commenting.

katie8753 said...

What was Bobby's nickname? Cupid? He looks like a dirty old man now. Which is more apropos.

katie8753 said...

Night ya'll!

katie8753 said...

Okay Chris I turned the moderation off. Don't blow it.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

Why do I get banned for loving Susie but TomG didn't get banned for praising Fidel Castro, a dictator?

As far as I recall, TomG expressed an opinion about Fidel. He didn't declare what he'd like to do to a dead body, which by any standards {except perhaps those of a necrophiliac} is, a little out there, no ?

Rejected by Mansonblog and rejected by LSB3

Oh stop feeling sorry for yourself ! I was banned by Mansonblog back in 2015 and had my wrists slapped here last year. And yet here I am, a contributor to both. Consider it a badge of honour !

I'm just a loner, I can ever really connect with anyone. I only connect with Susie

That's the worrying part although I suspect you're just having a laugh with us. I hope you are !

If you don't want me on LSB3 then I'll leave. All you had to do was say leave, not restrict me from commenting

Last I looked, every one of your comments was intact. I think you're rather fortunate because even if you're joking, the way you've related to Katie has been, to put it politely, heading beyond the pale.
Yet when you've stuck to making good sense, your comments have been just the kind of comments that engender good and meaty debate.

chris hannel said...

Thank you gorgeous!

chris hannel said...

I believe in remorse and rehabilitation. I don't believe Manson or Tex should ever be released, but I think Susie showed the necessary requirement of remorse. And I also do think She's beautiful. Katie, you know how men are, I'm just complimenting Susie Q on Her looks. I'll say though, if I was on the Family's defense team, I think I could of got Sadie off with a not guilty verdict. I hope this isn't a bannable offense.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

I'll say though, if I was on the Family's defense team, I think I could of got Sadie off with a not guilty verdict

I don't think even God could have gotten Susie off with a 'not guilty' verdict ! If for no other reason {apart from the fact that she was guilty, let's not forget} than she just couldn't keep her mouth shut or stick to a consistent story. They should have named her Motormouth rather than Sadie Mae.

chris hannel said...

If a jury can be convinced that OJ and Casey Anthony are innocent then they can be convinced that the Manson Family is innocent.

katie8753 said...

OJ & Casey Anthony didn't stand up and make a scene in the courtroom, laughing and singing and threatening people.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

If a jury can be convinced that OJ and Casey Anthony are innocent then they can be convinced that the Manson Family is innocent

Naturally.
However, you need to take into account all the specifics of the evidence introduced in the trial. The thing went on for 9 months. Even if the defendants hadn't been stupidly disruptive throughout, even if Charlie hadn't X'd himself out of society and the females followed suit, even if the defence had put on a defence, even if Charlie had represented himself, they still would have had to answer what was a phenomenal amount of evidence from such a large and varied scope of witnesses. Not least Susan Atkins and what she told her lawyer and what she told the Grand Jury.
I spent some months last year reading through the trial transcripts and one thing I am forever convinced of is this; it was a devastating combination of evidence and testimony that netted those 'guilty' verdicts. No one thing did it on its own. It wasn't helter skelter, it wasn't simply Linda Kasabian's testimony, it wasn't even the abstract concept of "The Manson Family." It was a series of things working in tandem corroborating, supporting; one set of evidence giving rise to another. Some people are of the opinion that it was a done deal ~ there is no way that they weren't going to be found guilty. Others are of the opinion that it was actually an easy case to defend and that if they'd behaved themselves and just discredited the witnesses, especially Kasabian, then the 'not guilty' verdicts were simply a matter of time.
Having read that entire trial, I think both sets are wrong. It could have gone either way, like most trials can go either way depending on so many variables. However, when all the evidence is collated and balanced, I'll say it again, not even God could have gotten a 'not guilty' verdict for Susan Atkins. That may, on the face of it, seem like a mighty contradiction, but it isn't.
One thing OJ didn't do was admit he killed his ex-wife. Then say he didn't. Then admit he did. Then say he didn't. If he had done that, I doubt he would have been acquitted.

katie8753 said...

OJ & Casey Anthony didn't stand up and make a scene in the courtroom, laughing and singing and threatening people

At the risk of getting laughed out of town, I don't think the courtroom behaviour weighed heavily in the minds of the jurors. We easily forget that when all is said and done, it was those 12 people and those 12 people only that convicted Manson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten. The defendants could have done exactly the same thing, but if Linda had been proved a liar, it would have been over bar the shouting.
Although it never gets a good press, William Zamora's book "Trial by your peers" is a tremendous and, in my opinon, indispensible book as it gives a glance of the trial from the viewpoint of one of the jurors. Another really good book ~ it actually came first ~ is "Reflections on the Manson Trial...journal of a pseudo-juror" by Rosemary Baer, the wife of one of the jurors {she and her husband didn't agree about the death penalty}. Among the things that makes both books priceless is that they pre~date "Helter Skelter" by one and two years.

chris hannel said...

I'd explain Susie's confessions as jailhouse bragging, and bring up the criminal history of Her cellmates. I'd mention the fact that Linda Kasabian stole money from Steven Parent after he was already dead and when Tex and the others were inside. Then I would use the recording of Her first interview with Richard Caballero and Paul Caruso, where She explains that it was Tex who did the killing, and that this was before She spoke with Manson in prison. The helter skelter door can be explained this way: It was a popular Beatles song and they were Beatles fans so they were just writing lyrics from a popular song on that door. There's other writing on the door from another Beatles song(the writing is "1234567 all good children go to Heaven"). Give the definition of what helter skelter is, an amusement park ride where you ride from the top of the slide to the bottom. I'd compare helter skelter to a theory made by Krishna Venta. Krishna Venta told his cult that they were the chosen ones and there was gonna be a race war which the blacks would win. During the war him and his followers would wait in a cave in the desert for 40 years, their cult growing to 144,000 members. After the blacks won, Venta said they would be too stupid to rule the world, and that's when him and his cult would emerge from the cave and rule the world. I'd present a theory that Bugliosi stole this and was using it against the Family, telling the Family members testifying for the prosecution to talk about helter skelter so he could get a successful conviction. Krishna Venta's cult's place was located close to Spahn Ranch. The census for the neighborhood where they left Rosemary LaBianca's wallet was a predominantly white neighborhood, I would use census records to show this. I would then talk about Sadie's terrible upbringing and how She was molested by Her older brother and abandoned by Her father(maybe She sees a father figure in Manson). Talk about the drug use, physical abuse, and all that. And finally present a different theory to go against Bugliosi's helter skelter. They were committing copycat murders to free Bobby Beausoleil. The writing on the walls(PIG, death to pigs, etc.) was supposed to resemble the wall writing at the Hinman murder(political piggy), the murder that Bobby was in prison for. He we arrested August 6th, the Tate murders were literally 2 nights later. The LaBiancas were chosen because they called the police to break up a party that was happening next door in 1968, the Family was at that party. I would conclude by proposing a question to the jury. "Which motive sounds more logical, copycat murders to free one of their members or a race war theory very similar to the teachings of Krishna Venta?"

katie8753 said...

Chris said:

I'd mention the fact that Linda Kasabian stole money from Steven Parent after he was already dead and when Tex and the others were inside.

They were committing copycat murders to free Bobby Beausoleil. The writing on the walls(PIG, death to pigs, etc.) was supposed to resemble the wall writing at the Hinman murder(political piggy)

The LaBiancas were chosen because they called the police to break up a party that was happening next door in 1968, the Family was at that party.


How do you know that to be factual? None of that has been proven.

chris hannel said...

Hello gorgeous Katie. Can I ask you a personal question, what do you think of shy guys?

katie8753 said...

Chris, we've gone over this several times, I think. I know you aren't stupid.

If you want to discuss the case, then have at it. You can argue your points until the cows come home.

But stop the silly personal bullshit. The next time I put the moderation on, it will go on for a long time.

Now, if you want to discuss the case, we can do that. And don't whine and complain next time that you were side-winded.

It's up to you.

katie8753 said...

If you have any proof that Linda stole money from Steven Parent, or that the murders were copy cat killings, or that the LaBiancas were the ones who called the police on that party, even though they weren't even LIVING THERE YET, provide it.

chris hannel said...

Wow. You put me in my place Katie. I'll obey the rules you set for this blog. What do you think the motive was?

katie8753 said...

I'm assuming that you, like many folks who post on these blogs, have no proof of any of their theories, and like you, resort to silly bullshit to change the subject.

Beauders and Grim have tried to talk to you about different subjects, but if you're not interested, then please just go away, or be serious about your discussions regarding this case.

katie8753 said...

Okay, that's more like it. Let's stay on cue.

My theory is the, I guess you call it the "general one", the one that makes more sense.

Charlie needed money. He asked Bobby to get money from Gary because someone told him that Gary got an inheritance. Bobby, Susan and Mary went to Gary's house. Yada yada yada, Gary said he didn't have any money, which was true, and Bobby, Susan & Mary killed him. Bobby says that Charlie told him to. I don't believe that.

Next, Charlie told Tex to "go to the house where Melcher used to live, get $800, and kill everyone there." And he told the girls "do whatever Tex says". And "leave something witchy".

We know they went to Cielo Drive and killed them all, including Steven Parent who was just there by mistake.

I don't believe that Tex, Susan, Pat or Linda knew ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE. I know there are some folks who think Tex knew Jay because of drug dealings. I don't see any proof of that.

I have no idea why they went to the Labianca's house, except that I think Charlie was in touch with Rosemary's daughter. Rosemary's daughter and the newspaper guy were the only folks who knew when the LaBiancas got home that night. And isn't it strange that Charlie headed over there right after.

I think that Shorty was killed because Charlie thought he "squealed" and caused the raid on the Ranch on August 14th.

Now, you tell me what you believe.

chris hannel said...

Copycat murders. Gary sold Bobby some mescaline, Bobby then sold the mescaline to the Straight Satans. The mescaline was bad and they demanded their money back. Bobby went to Gary's to get the money but he wouldn't give it to them. You know the rest. After Gary was murdered and Bobby was arrested for the murder, the Family committed copycat murders to free him. Cielo was chosen because Terry Melcher used to live there. The LaBiancas were chosen because in 1968 they(or someone living there) called the police to break up a party next door, a party the Family was at. They stole money from Cielo and Rosemary LaBianca's wallet cause they still needed to pay the Straight Satans for the mescaline deal. I agree with you about why they killed Shorty, but the raid was on August 16th. Lol.

katie8753 said...

Okay August 16th. My bad. LOL.

There's no proof that Gary sold Bobby mescaline.

There's no proof that the Family committed "copy cat murders" to get Bobby out.

The LaBianca murders. I'm still out on that one. I know the LaBiancas aren't the ones who called the police, but it doesn't mean that house wasn't chosen because of that.

BUT...I think that Rosemary's daughter was in on it. I think she was sick of her mother bitching at her for dating that biker (can't remember his name), and she wanted her inheritance.

I think her name was Suzanne.

chris hannel said...

Her name was Suzan LaBerge and her boyfriend was Joe Dorgan.

chris hannel said...

The copycat theory works. There's obvious similarities between the Tate and LaBianca crime scenes and the Hinman crime scene. LASO or whichever department was investigating Gary's death actually contacted LAPD(who were investigating the Tate and LaBianca murders) and told them the cases may be connected due to the similarities. LAPD responded by telling them that the cases aren't related and that was the end of LAPD and LASO's cooperation.

katie8753 said...

Well the copycat theory only works in theory. Excuse the duplication.

I know there was a buzz in the family that it was copy cat. But I don't think that resonated with the killers, i.e., Tex, Susan & Pat, and Tex, Pat & Leslie.

I don't think anyone told them it was copy cat. Charlie said "do something witchy". He didn't say "put something on the wall that looked like Gary's wall".

Of course the murders were related. They were carried out by the same family. But it doesn't mean they were copy cat.

chris hannel said...

Bobby, Charlie, and Susie said that the murders were copycat killings. And I believe them. It makes sense. People just don't wanna believe it cause the Family said it. You say there's no proof of the copycat murders but there's no proof that they knew Suzan LaBerge either.

chris hannel said...

Also, what do you think of the comparison I made between helter skelter and Krishna Venta's race war prophecy?

beauders said...

Grim where did you get a copy of the trial transcript? I think it would interesting to compare and contrast Tex's trial and the main Tate/LaBianca trial. I find that all the older books have important information in them, people get lost in criticizing writing abilities and styles and lose the information these books contain. I also enjoyed the Zamora and Baer books.

katie8753 said...

To me, copy cat killings don't make any sense at all.

There were no phone lines cut at Gary's or the LaBiancas.

There was no food or drink consumed at Cielo Drive.

The victims weren't held hostage or tortured for days at Cielo or LaBianca.

There was no chasing around in the yard at Gary's or the LaBiancas.

The only thing similar in all these killings was (1) the Manson Family were the killers, (2) there was some writing on the walls and (3) all the victims died.

That doesn't add up to copy cat killings to me.

But what do I know? I'm going to bed. We'll talk in the morning.

chris hannel said...

I like how aggressive you are in proving your point. We will definitely talk in the morning. Have a good sleep Queen of LSB3.

grimtraveller said...

beauders said...

Grim where did you get a copy of the trial transcript?

I got it from a Denise Fox at the LA county DA's office back in 2017. You can e-mail her at dfox@da.lacounty.gov and just make an official request for the transcripts. It comes on 4 DVDs and there's loads of the LAPD interviews from 1969 on them, like the full 7 hour Danny DeCarlo one. The sound quality on most of them is pretty terrible though.
There are some transcripts missing, half of Brooks Poston's, Paul Watkins', Dianne Lake's, Barbara Hoyt's, Pat Krenwinkel's {my biggest disappointment}, half of Gypsy's, Terry Melcher's, but there's also the 2nd trial of Leslie, Tex and Clem which doesn't make up for the missing ones but it's cool to have them.

chris hannel said...

I'd explain Susie's confessions as jailhouse bragging, and bring up the criminal history of Her cellmates

Daye Shinn tried to bring up the criminal history of Graham, Howard, DeCarlo and Roseanne Walker.
It made no difference to the jury.
The criminal histories of so many of the witnesses as well as the accused had the strange effect of actually levelling the playing field.

I'd mention the fact that Linda Kasabian stole money from Steven Parent after he was already dead and when Tex and the others were inside

And how, back in 1970 would you have known that ? None of the perps mentioned Linda being in Steve's car. She didn't mention it. It came as a surprise to everyone when Linda did mention it.
40 years later in 2009.
Oh, and, she never said she took any money. She was told by Tex to, but she never did. How do we know this ? Because in the Parent property report, his wallet had money in it.

Then I would use the recording of Her first interview with Richard Caballero and Paul Caruso, where She explains that it was Tex who did the killing, and that this was before She spoke with Manson in prison

Unfortunately, it was after she'd spoken with Howard and Graham.
But the real reason that tape recording would do you no good is that it formed the basis of her grand jury testimony ~ and she recanted that.

The helter skelter door....

No one was convicted because of that door.
Interesting thing about that door, it was painted by Country Sue who joined the Family after the murders. Manson had left Spahn for the desert when she did it. Yet, it demonstrates just how pervasive helter skelter was in the minds of Family members, whether they were old, hardcore, on the verge of leaving or new. With all the other evidence of HS that came up, trying to explain away the door would just give the impression of you wriggling.

I'd compare helter skelter to a theory made by Krishna Venta

Bugliosi in the last part of his and Gentry's book noted that Charlie was an eclectic, a borrower of ideas. So much of the Family's schtick had its sources elsewhere. For example, the Black side of HS came from Black Muslims Manson had encountered in jail. So him appropriating Krishna Venta's ideas only demonstrates Bugliosi's point.

katie8753 said...

Okay where were we? I've had a long day. Don't know how long I'll be here.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

I'd present a theory that Bugliosi stole this and was using it against the Family, telling the Family members testifying for the prosecution to talk about helter skelter so he could get a successful conviction

And you'd have one major problem that you could not surmount. That is that starting on Oct 3rd '69, over a week before the Family was even arrested in Death Valley, Brooks Poston and Paul Crockett were interviewed by Sheriff Don Ward and they told him about the Family and HS. In the 7 weeks before Bugliosi was even on the case, HS had come up again and again from a variety of sources, some in the Family, some {like Al Springer} not.
We know Bugliosi did not steal this or make it up. For years people said that Paul Watkins was the architecht of HS. Then in 2015, the interview Leslie did in private with her lawyer, Marvin Part, came to public attention. It mirrors Watkins. Watkins hadn't spoken to Bugliosi at this point. Furthermore, no one in court actually testified that the murders were committed because of HS.

The census for the neighborhood where they left Rosemary LaBianca's wallet was a predominantly white neighborhood

This was brought up by two of the lawyers. Actually, they didn't leave the wallet in a neighbourhood. They left it in a petrol station on the freeway. And listen to what your dear darling Susie said about it all at the grand jury:

Q: What happened after you and the other members of your Family drove off?

A:Well, we drove around and Charlie said we were going in the opposite direction than we came from. We drove about in a predominantly colored area, I don't know the area but this is what I gathered.

Q: You saw quite a few Negroes in the area?

A: Yes

Q: All right, you may continue. What happened next?

A: Charlie gave Linda Kasabian the woman's wallet and told her to put it into the bathroom in the gas station and leave it there hoping that somebody would find it and use the credit cards and thus be identified with the murder and then we left.

So it doesn't matter what the make up of the area the petrol station was in. They'd seen "quite a few" Black people in the area and that was good enough for them.

I would then talk about Sadie's terrible upbringing and how She was molested by Her older brother and abandoned by Her father

None of that was known at the time. We found out about the Dad when she wrote her first autobiography in '77. We didn't find out about her brother and his friends until possibly this century.

grimtraveller said...

chris hannel said...

present a different theory to go against Bugliosi's helter skelter. They were committing copycat murders to free Bobby Beausoleil

Right around the time the trial started, Rolling Stone's edition for June came out and in it was a series of interviews with people connected to the case. Charlie, Clem, Gregg Jacobson, Phil Kaufman, some of the women and Aaron Stovitz, the lead prosecutor, who went by the alias, 'Porfiry.' The interview was from March 19th 1970 and in it, Stovitz outlined his theory of the copycat. He said it was just a hunch on his part and that he had no proof. It is the first time anything about a copycat had been brought forward in connection with Bobby and it came from LE, not the Family ! Absolutely nowhere by March of 1970 had there been one word anywhere from anyone about a copycat. All the Family members that had been told about the murders never mentioned a copycat. Susan didn't say anything about a copycat murder. In her case in particular, she would have had nothing to lose, as she was telling Howard and Graham {whether it was true or not} she was guilty of murder. Why not say she did it to exonerate Bobby ? If she was bragging, it would have made no difference; if she's trying to look like a tough murderer, whether it's HS, "Charlie told me to" or a copycat, it really doesn't matter. Yet she didn't.
Even more damning to the copycat is Leslie ¬> she had a thing for Bobby. In her private interview with Part, she lands herself, Susan, Bobby, Tex, Mary, Pat and Charlie in the shit. She explains the reasons for the murders. And not a bean about a copycat. Again, she had nothing to lose at all. She's already confessed, she'd already implicated everyone, if it was the copycat, why not say so privately to her lawyer ? It can't be used against her. It was Gypsy that first mooted the copycat and then, not even until everyone had been convicted and they were in the penalty phase.
There are a number of reasons why the copycat does not wash. I'll enumerate them sometime.

I would conclude by proposing a question to the jury. "Which motive sounds more logical, copycat murders to free one of their members or a race war theory very similar to the teachings of Krishna Venta?"

The problem with appealing to the logic of the jury or anyone else, for that matter, is that it's not their logic that has to be taken into account, but those accused of murder. If a murderer that murdered a couple during a burglary in Honduras in 2016 says "I committed this murder because back in 1957, the Manchester United goalkeeper, Ray Wood, had his jaw broken by an Irishman during the FA cup final and he was replaced in goal during the game by an Irishman and eventually lost his place in the team to an Irishman and left the club," it may sound ridiculous to all and sundry but if that was the genuine reason the murderer had, then are you going to throw it out just because it sounds kooky ?

katie8753 said...

Okay good, Grim came on. I can relax by the fire and drink. HA HA HA HA!!!

Just kidding. I'm gonna head to bed when the last flicker goes out, which will probably be in about 1 hour. Clock is ticking. LOL.

It's cold here. I think it's around 29 degrees. BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

I'll be back tomorrow!

chris hannel said...

Grim, I got nothing. I have to dig deeper into Susan Atkins and Her history. I have to read the life story of my dear darling Susie and debunk the myths. Tbh, I mostly just skimmed the info I had, I'll have to read the whole things this time. I know Susie can't be a sociopath, I know it in my heart and in Her's. I'll have to read Helter Skelter and the stuff on Cielodrive.com instead of just getting info from the web. Then I have to put a defense together and exonerate my dear darling Susie, cause I know there's a way to exonerate Her or at least change the public perception of Her. It worked for Steven Avery, so certainly it has to work for Susie. No more just skimming info.

chris hannel said...

Gorgeous Katie, please don't turn the moderation on.

katie8753 said...

I won't turn the moderation on, if you don't get creepy. Promise!

beauders said...

Thanks Grim I will look into that, I've always said I wanted to read the transcripts in whole before I died. I had an opportunity to buy a set from the Nazi from Ohio named James Mason. I decided not to because Manson had sent the copy that was loaned to him by Steven Kay. I didn't want to have a problem with Kay. As far as I know Mason still has it. Around this time Kay's son died, like my brother of a heart attack in his forties, and I think lost his motivation to get it back. It was Kay's personal copy from the trial days and I've wondered if it had his notes on it, what a find that would be. For the motive I think it was a mishmash of ideas. I think the women believed the Helter Skelter Theory if not entirely then as a large part of a motive. I also throw in a lot mind control for the women as well. Watson did it for ego. He wanted to have the power Manson had over the women, he went as far as bragging about being in charge of the Family along with another guy before his arrest in Texas. Like Atkins, I think Beausoleil did it to be a big shot to Manson and the women not bikers. Davis was a combination of being at the wrong place at the wrong time and just being a dumb follower and pier pressure. The reason Davis should remain in prison for the rest of his life I believe is not because of these murders, but because the police came to him in the 70's and gave him immunity for the Gaul/Sharp murders if he would tell them what he knew and he said no, he was still loyal to Manson. I know more about the Gaul/Sharp murders than most because I have a set of the crime scene/autopsy photo's and they make the Tate/LaBianca photo's look like a day at the park. The girl had been raped and her photo's are centered around her groin area. Also the eyes were stabbed so lots of pictures of their bloody faces. I will not share these as I consider them very personal and private. If you want a set I'm assuming John Aes-Nihil has them as I bought them from Bill Nelson. Nelson sold all his material to Aes-Nihil when I brought him up on Federal Mail Fraud Charges. That scared Nelson enough to take him out the Manson stuff for the first time. Too bad he went back because it cost him his marriage, relationship with his children, and his health because he started hassling Sandra Good so much she decided to look into his past and found out he was a convicted pedophile. Nelson lost everything including his life because of his obsession with this case.

katie8753 said...

There's a new Governer in CA. I guess Moon-beam got too old. LOL. He's very Lib-Tard. He embraces illegal aliens, and is willing to tax the citizens of California to support all of the illegal aliens, making sure they get to go to college for free and have free health care.

Now I understand why all those Californians are fleeing to Texas!

I was thinking about those people killed in TLB. Gary, who was just trying to make his life better by pursuing a religion that helped him get off drugs, The folks at Cielo Drive who had dinner that night and were just relaxing, the LaBiancas who had driven all the way back from the Lake and were trying to relax.

It must hurt to get stabbed. I stepped on a nail once, and it hurt a lot. It's got to hurt a lot more to get stabbed.

I don't know what this new governer will do with these freaks, but maybe he'll let them out. They can pay taxes to help illegal aliens.

beauders said...

Katie i bet he won't let them budge, he was the cool mayor of San Francisco and is headed for the Whitehouse. Those of you conservatives may know his ex-wife Kimberly Guilfoyle of Fox News. Very pretty people.

chris hannel said...

Keep your liberal politics off LSB3.

beauders said...

Are you writing to me Chris?

katie8753 said...

Beauders I do know who Kimberly Guilfoyle is. She used to be on The Five but she got kicked off because she's dating Donald Trump, Jr. At least that was the gossip back then. Don't know if it's true. I haven't seen her around for a long time.

sunset77 said...

There was a story on Yahoo the other night that Leslie Van Houten was approved by the parole board also.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Sunset!

chris hannel said...

Yes. This is Katie's blog and if she wants to make fun of libs then she can. If you want liberalism then go to Mansonblog.

katie8753 said...

Hey Chris, lighten up on Beauders. She's a sweetheart!!!

chris hannel said...

There's no dash in the word "libtard".

katie8753 said...

There's no dash in the word "libtard".

Says who?

chris hannel said...

Katie you can stop replying to my comments cause I'm not gonna respond. I already said I was done with LSB3 and I mean it. You support criminal thugs and would lock up an innocent man for self defense. I'm never posting on LSB3 ever again for the rest of time, I only view the blog occasionally to see if anyone misses me and to see if my question about Sadie was ever answered. Obviously no one misses me nor bothered to answer my question. Stop wasting your time Katie. I'm not a user of LSB3 anymore so you shouldn't waste your time replying to my comments from 1 week ago.

chris hannel said...

I should clarify. My question was that is there a way to view all of Sadie's parole hearing transcripts from 1978 to 2009 cause cielodrive.com only has 2 transcripts. I was wondering if there was a way to view all Her parole hearing transcripts. If you have an answer then feel free to reply, if you don't know then don't reply.

katie8753 said...

But...you did respond....

If you want to have the last word, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

You might want to check the Wayback Machine for your answers about Sadie.

katie8753 said...

And BTW, don't ever tell anyone on this blog they have or don't have permission to reply or not reply to your comments. You don't have the authority to grant or dismiss their permission.

chris hannel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

Chris you're the one who announced you were "leaving LSB3" because of comments I made years ago about a guy in Florida. That was your decision. Nobody said you can't post comments here.

Stop blaming other people for your decisions.

chris hannel said...

Why can't you just support Zimmerman and see that he's innocent?

chris hannel said...

I just want Katie to agree that Zimmerman is innocent. I don't know why that's so much to ask.

chris hannel said...

The people at Mansonblog are a bunch of hateful bigoted Atheist scumbags. Acting like they're better than Sadie even though they're sitting there mocking and trampling on someone's beliefs. Fuck those people. Athetard scum. I love Sadie, knowing She was Christian makes me love Her even more. Says a lot about Atkins haters when Sadie us being remorseful and entering programs to better Herself and they're trashing someone's beliefs which is bigoted. All I get out of viewing that waste of space of a site is that bigots hate Susan. God is real and Christianity is the truth. Seriously fuck Mansonblog and everyone who uses it. I hope it goes offline.

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

chris hannel said...

The people at Mansonblog are a bunch of hateful bigoted Atheist scumbags

i. There have been very few there over the years that one could describe as hateful. I'd say that of all the sites I've participated in.
ii. Over the years, there have been a few bigoted people there, if one goes by the dictionary definition of a bigot which is "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions." The same applies here, it applies at Cielo's site, the Cols site, Cats77's former site, government, football teams, political parties, schools and anywhere you care to name. You can be intolerant to views that don't see Sadie as you'd like.
iii. Atheism is hardly a crime. Some of the keenest minds on every site have belonged to atheists.
iv. Calling people "hateful bigoted scumbags" is actually rather ironic, don't you think ? Not to mention somewhat hypocritical.

Acting like they're better than Sadie even though they're sitting there mocking and trampling on someone's beliefs

Most people that have something to say about Sadie that are not in jail for murder do think they are better than she was.
Reality check: while she did get the occasional berating because she was a Christian, that tended to be because even as a Christian, she appeared to play fast and loose with the truth, changing her stories right up to her dying day and putting out comments and information that is demonstrably false. "Goodbye Helter Skelter" being the prime example.

I love Sadie, knowing She was Christian makes me love Her even more

Actually, that's not an unusual thing. I'd been a Christian a few years when I heard she'd gone that way too and it made me curious to read her book and helped me understand her ~ both the fair and the flaws.

Says a lot about Atkins haters when Sadie is being remorseful and entering programs to better Herself

She learned the hard way that if you keep crying wolf, even if you end up telling the truth, no one believes you. And you can't blame people for that. How can they ever trust you to tell the truth if you keep changing that truth ?

and they're trashing someone's beliefs which is bigoted

Not really. I mean, that may be the case sometimes, but it's not bigoted to point out what you don't like about particular beliefs and criticize them. Is a person who doesn't believe in abortion or is critical of the argument of "a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body" a bigot ? If one believes in free speech, one has to take the rough

All I get out of viewing that waste of space of a site is that bigots hate Susan

One thing every TLB site I've been on has in common is a distaste towards all of those convicted of murder in this case. Not every individual has it but many do. What's the problem ? People are entitled to their feelings on each individual, even if it's someone you purport to like. That adds to the weight of discussion everywhere.

God is real and Christianity is the truth

Well, I believe that. But so what ? Many don't and that informs, to some extent, the views that they express. It is simply one of the side issues, though an important and interesting one, attached to the case as a whole. You sound like you want everyone to bend the knee to whatever you think they should and not have any freedom to express what you don't want them to.
Even God, though He has the right to, doesn't do that.

Seriously fuck Mansonblog and everyone who uses it. I hope it goes offline

It seems daft to come to one site just to grizzle about another. That's poor form.

That said, I think you're just having a laugh. You remind me of part of the lyric of the Strangler's "Peasant in the big shitty."

You're not♫♪♫ real ~ oh no, ♪ you're not ♫!

katie8753 said...

Grim how do you put those musical notes on there?

beauders said...

Yes he's either having a laugh or he's mentally ill.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 221   Newer› Newest»