Tuesday, April 5, 2022

Was Bruce Davis The Zodiac?

I think we all believe that Bruce was responsible for a lot more murders than he was convicted of committing.

From Dave!  Thanks Dave!!



Sketch of Bruce Davis along with Sketch of Zodiac.


A Lottery of Coincidences: Bruce Davis (clarksvillian.com)

73 comments:

katie8753 said...

I think Davis killed Joel Pugh.

beauders said...

He was not the zodiac. This was another rediculous Bill Nelson theory.

Dilligaf said...

While I think that there are some areas of possible involvement, such as Gaul, Tenerelli, Haught, Pugh, Stubbs, and Habe, the chance of Davis being the Zodiac sounds like a really bad TV plot. While there are several different camps regarding potential Zodiac suspects, anyone falling into the camp of Davis as the Zodiac deserves whatever comes their way.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said:

I think we all believe that Bruce was responsible for a lot more murders than he was convicted of committing

Speak for yourself, sister.

I think Davis killed Joel Pugh

In order to believe that, you have to believe these things:

i. Bruce Davis left the USA and was not recorded leaving America.
ii. Bruce Davis entered England and was not recorded entering England.
iii. Bruce Davis left England and was not recorded leaving England.
iv. Bruce Davis entered the USA and was not recorded re~entering America.
v. Bruce Davis had met Joel Pugh at some point and would have recognized him again, even though no one has ever introduced any evidence that Bruce was even aware of Joel's existence and Joel's closest friend said Joel never did meet Charlie Manson or any of the Family or went to any of their haunts.
vi. Even though Joel came to England spontaneously on a whim with friends he'd met in Spain {he'd gone travelling to Morocco and Spain}, Bruce Davis must have known this.
vii. Bruce must also have worked out exactly where Joel was staying and must have also worked out it was west London. In a hotel on a motorway in open view of its 6 lanes.
viii. Bruce must have worked out exactly which room Joel was in, snuck past reception at the opportune moment and done the deed. Then snuck out again without being noticed.
ix. Bruce must have known Joel's lady love that he came to the hotel with, was going to leave him after 3 weeks.
x. Bruce must have razored some fake hesitancy marks on Joel's wrists.

The late Simon Wells did some extensive research into the Pugh matter. For one's opinion on his death to have any validity, it is as well to read what he had to say and it saves you having to buy his book ! Check this out. It's very interesting.
I think that the idea of Bruce getting to England from America undocumented and back to America with no record of any of his movements, strains credulity.

sunset77 said...

I've looked this up before and I'm not going to look it up again. Personally, I'm about 99.9% sure Davis is not the Zodiac. It seems to me, many years ago, the Zodiac called the police to taunt them from a pay phone. The police traced the call and rushed to the phone booth and almost caught the Zodiac, the phone receiver was still hanging. The police were apparently able to gather fingerprints from the receiver, they also apparently have DNA from the stamps the Zodiac presumably licked when he sent letters to newspapers to taunt them. If any of that matched Davis, I'm sure we would know by now.

Also, it seems to me the Zodiac apparently committed a murder, possibly of a taxi driver in a city, maybe San Francisco, Davis was apparently known to be in a different city at that time, and it would have been impossible for him to have committed the murder, and be in another city in such a short time span. I don't remember all the details, but like I said, I don't have time to look all that up again.

Dilligaf said...

The taxi driver was Paul Stine. He was murdered in the Presidio Heights area of SF. Eyewitness accounts of the shooter do not match any description of Davis.

katie8753 said...

Yeah I doubt that Bruce was the Zodiac. But I have a hard time believing that Joel Pugh killed himself. It would be very difficult to cut your own throat twice. I don't care how depressed you are. The door was locked from the inside of the room, but there was a window that a killer could have gotten out of.

Bruce Davis did go to England to study Scientology. Scotland Yard did say that Bruce could have flown to England after April of 1969, but for some reason, didn't elaborate on that. I find that strange:

Scotland Yard later responded to an inquiry by the Inyo County district attorney for more information about Bruce Davis’s departure from London:

“It has been established that Davis is recorded as embarking at London airport for the United States on 25th April 1969 while holding U.S. Passport 612–2568. At this time he gave his address as Dormer Cottage, Felbridge, Surrey. This address is owned by the Scientology Movement and houses followers of this organization. The local police are unable to give any information concerning Davis but they understand that he has visited our country more recently than April, 1969. However, this is not borne out by official record.” — Interpol statement


As to why would Bruce kill Joel? Why did Manson's people kill anyone??? WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHY!!

We do know that Joel was unhappy with Sandy's relationship with Manson. Who knows how Manson would view that? Would he be considered a "snitch" like Shorty??

https://themansonfamily-mtts.medium.com/the-strange-death-of-joel-pugh-b4620b363637

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said:

I have a hard time believing that Joel Pugh killed himself. It would be very difficult to cut your own throat twice. I don't care how depressed you are

I've no idea what the relevance of the third sentence is.
But to be at the point where one would end one's own life rather makes our logical, unsuicidal thought processes, kind of null and void. Do you know what it's like to try to kill yourself ? I don't.

The door was locked from the inside of the room, but there was a window that a killer could have gotten out of

London in December is cold. Especially back in 1969. It's doubtful you'd have your window open {which is the only way someone could get into the room} let alone with no clothes on. And if it's true that the police didn't check for prints, that would be because the door was locked from the inside and the window was obviously not an escape route. London cops, in the aftermath of the Kray crimes that led to their high profile trial, were sensitive and suspicious of any kind of violent deaths. They would check for these things.

Scotland Yard later responded to an inquiry by the Inyo County district attorney for more information about Bruce Davis’s departure from London

Yeah, but their response amounted to absolutely nothing. When police make statements like "we believe", they are duty bound to say why and produce someone that can verify what they suspect. Why did they believe Davis had been to London ? Did they produce someone that saw him ? You can't escape being documented 4 times.

As to why would Bruce kill Joel? Why did Manson's people kill anyone??? WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHY!!

Er, yes we do. There were a multiplicity of reasons.

We do know that Joel was unhappy with Sandy's relationship with Manson

Yeah, in 1968.

Who knows how Manson would view that? Would he be considered a "snitch" like Shorty??

Snitching about what ? According to his best pal, he never met Manson or any of the Family.

https://themansonfamily-mtts.medium.com/the-strange-death-of-joel-pugh-b4620b363637

The big difference between Allegra's piece and Simon's is that much of Allegra's is recycled from Simon's piece 10 years earlier. She adds her own speculation as though it were fact, particularly the stuff about Bruce being in London at the same time and Joel studying scientology in London. He rarely left his room. And Bruce never left the States.
If anything, the idea that Manson ordered a hit in London and it happened, just plays into this foolish notion of him as some revolutionary criminal mastermind. He wasn't. He was a failed petty criminal who always got his comeuppance and was never canny enough to evade the long arm of the law for long. There are definitely aspects of his being that are fascinating and different, but this doesn't extend to crime.

katie8753 said...

Grim said:

(In response to "Why did Manson's people kill anyone??? WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHY!!)

Er, yes we do. There were a multiplicity of reasons.


YEAH!!!! We finally know why TLB happened. You say you know why Sharon, Jay, Voytek, Abigail and Steven were killed the first night, and why Leno and Rosemary were killed the second night?

Please explain it to us unlearn-ed folks who have been arguing about this since it happened in 1969. And please don't use gossip, opinions and innuendos. Just the facts please!

And also please explain why the blood pool was on the porch at Cielo. And where the glasses came from. And why Garretson said he didn't hear anything. And how Manson knew the LaBiancas were finally home around 2am. And if Manson called anyone, including Suzanne LaBerge. And why Tex didn't cut the phone wires at the LaBianca's. And why Tex felt he had time to shower and pillage the LaBianca house. And why Charlie took Linda to Saladin Nader's apartment.

I have lots more to say, but let's hear your explanation thus far.

Dilligaf said...

πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

beauders said...

Katie are you happy ridge doesn’t sing? I know you hate his voice.

beauders said...

Stephie looks really good for just being shot and needing a blood transfusion.

katie8753 said...

Beauders, why do they always end up in the same hospital room? And why do they always come in there in groups and singularly to talk to a person in a coma??

Yes I'm glad Ridge doesn't sing. His voice sounds like ground glass.

Prediction: Stephie will wake up next week and "not remember" what happened, and that means Sheila will have to try and kill her. And that will drag out for days until Stephie finally gets her memory back and someone will catch Sheila trying to kill her and save her.

Finally, Liam makes me sick the way he goes after Stephie and Hope. My son keeps telling me, "if you hate this soap so much, why do you watch it"? And...I...don't...answer...LOL.

katie8753 said...

And Stephie does look good with makeup and everything, being at death's door and all.

Did you notice that her knees are bent? What's that about?

beauders said...

Liam will be the one who figures everything out and saves Stephie single handedly save her from a murderous Sheila.

beauders said...

Dilligaf what are those emoji's?

Dilligaf said...

I was applauding Katie’s response to Grim’s post. We do not have to agree with each other’s opinions, but rather than blasting Grim, Katie offered the opportunity for Grim to further expand upon his voluminous perspectives. I appreciated that.

beauders said...

I agree Dilligaf, thanks for the quick reply.

beauders said...

Katie I’ve read a rumor that Finn has a twin brother. Tried and soap opera staple.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Dill!

Beauders I don't know how a twin brother would fit into this soap opera. I wonder why Finn wanted off the show. Maybe he was fighting with someone. He really wasn't on that long.

katie8753 said...

I was hoping that Grim would expound on the "why" of the TLB murders, since he said he knows "why". He said there were a multiplicity of reasons. Not sure what that means. Maybe he could expound.

He could solve the crime of the centuries! Everyone has argued for years about "why" these murders happened. As far as I know, no one involved in this case has ever said why. I doubt if any of the girls knew why. They just did what they were told without asking why. I really doubt if Clem knew the reason why.

I personally don't believe anything Tex, Bobby or Bruce say. They've changed their stories so many times, got "borned again, in a effort to get out, etc. So that's out. And Charlie has only spoken in riddles until the day he died.

So please Grim. Let us all in on the "why"???

BTW I have some other questions for Grim. I'll wait awhile to see if he answers this one.

starviego said...

Sometimes I think the Manson/TLB saga was America's first reality TV show. And it's still in syndication!

katie8753 said...

Starviego, LOL.

grimtraveller said...

Dilligaf said:

voluminous perspectives

That sounds like a progressive rock album by a band whose members met in university🧠 !

grimtraveller said...

starviego said:

Sometimes I think the Manson/TLB saga was America's first reality TV show

I'd give that award to the Kennedy/Oswald/Ruby affair.

katie8753 said...

So Grim, please tell us WHY!!! The TLB world is waiting....

beauders said...

IS Manson/LaBianca a soap opera?

beauders said...

Katie, Kathryn Hayes, Kim Hughes from As The World Turns has died.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders. I heard she died. I miss that soap opera.

I guess TLB is like a "Dark Shadows" soap opera too.

beauders said...

Yes I watched Dark Shadows in mid 1990's I enjoyed it.

katie8753 said...

I watched Johnny Depp's defamation suit against his ex wife Amber today on Court TV, and I've gotta say, Johnny should have just let old dogs die. He showed up to Court wearing a gray suit, black shirt, white tie, with that hang dog hair of his and wearing a big ring on every finger. He should have toned that down 100%. Amber showed up in a nice pantsuit and her hair in a bun looking contrite.

He's suing her for $50 million for hurting his career, and she's counter-suing him for $100 million for ruining hers. My opinion is that they both bullied each other. In fact, I think she was the aggressor. But I think a jury is going to find in her favor. Just my opinion.

The look in Court is everything. I've said many times before, if Charlie had just shown up in court clean-shaven, hair cut, nice suit and tie, and just sat still the whole time, the jury would have let him off. But he couldn't do that. He fell right into Bugliosi's hands, controlling the girls every day, disrupting the court and trying to kill the Judge.

katie8753 said...

I just had a thought. Maybe the TLB murders were Charlie's way of getting back "home". Maybe he was sick of being on the outside. Everything was falling apart. Nothing was working like he wanted. And just like "Shawshank Redemption" he just wanted back inside because he finally felt safe again. He was finally in control again.

He made sure at every parole hearing he would yell crazy stuff and be denied.

With every interview, every encounter with a journalist he made sure the world thought he was crazy. He went out of his way to yell gobbly-gook and what-not nonsense every chance he got.

He made sure until the day he died that nobody understood anything he was saying. He was trying to get back "home".

I think I'll do a thread on that...

katie8753 said...

I love watching old TV series, and I watched an Adam-12 episode today that involved an old man who was a parolee who told Malloy that he just wanted to go "back home". He was tired of being on the "outside" and just wanted to go back home. At the end of the episode, he tried to rob a Savings & Loan and got shot dead. He told Malloy he "wanted to go home".

I'm wondering if Stephen King saw this episode and thought of Shawshank.

katie8753 said...

Johnny Depp starred in the movie adapted from the Stephen King novella "Secret Window, Secret Garden". See how this all ties together?

The movie, "Secret Window", starring Johnny Depp, ended totally different from the Novella. In the movie, the star (Johnny Depp) survives and kills his nemeses. In the Novella, the star dies.

"The only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story, the ending. And this one is very good. This one's perfect".

"I know I can do it, Todd Downey said, helping himself to another ear of corn from the steaming bowl. I'm sure that in time, every bit of her will be gone. And her death will be a mystery...even to me".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuvTeV2NPVM

beauders said...

Katie, have you read "The Stand" by Stephen King? if not get it from the library (get the expanded 1994 issue or newer. It's my favorite book and it has a plague that makes covid look like a walk in a park. The underlining story is the issue of good versus evil, King calls it a dark Christian tale. After that if haven't read Anne Rice's "Witching Hour," it's my second favorite book. It is several novel's in one and is literature not just popular fiction.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said:

So Grim, please tell us WHY!!! The TLB world is waiting....

I first came to this site around May of 2015. I've been involved in numerous discussions, many of them tremendous and informative and good fun, with some keen minds. Almost from my very first post, I've been, in one way or another, saying why.

The look in Court is everything

I hate that. I really do. But I agree with it entirely, it is everything. Well, almost. My sister, currently a judge but formerly a barrister, and I used to argue about this all the time. She always felt that by turning up to court looking smart and circumspect, it gave the impression of being respectable and contrite. I would argue that that is why so many criminals got off when they were guilty. They looked smart. And why so many people that were not guilty ended up either in jail or with criminal records. They didn't 'look the part'.
So much for justice being blind.

I've said many times before, if Charlie had just shown up in court clean-shaven, hair cut, nice suit and tie, and just sat still the whole time, the jury would have let him off

I'm not so sure. Charles Watson did exactly that and still ended up with a death sentence. Yes, he eventually admitted he killed all 7 [8] victims, but he was trying an insanity defence. He was clothed smart, respectable and looked clean smelling and almost cute.πŸ₯Ά
Also, having read the two in-depth books written by jurors on the case {and one by one of the juror's wives}, I don't think they would have just let Charlie off purely because of the way he looked and behaved. Nor, for that matter, did they convict on those basis. They had to go by the evidence that was presented before them. Because if one doesn't, there is a likelihood that the judge can overturn the jury's verdict, rather like Judge Choates did in the Grogan trial, when it came to the sentence pronounced. He saw Clem as being unduly influenced by Manson and gave greater weight to that than the jury had.

But he couldn't do that. He fell right into Bugliosi's hands, disrupting the court

Far sightedness wasn't his strong suit. Rather ironic when one thinks of him saying he planted glasses at the scene of the Cielo crime, glasses he used to start fires with. Nearsighted specs don't start fires !
He was unwilling to see what so many others could clearly see about him. Arguably, he was, as they say, so far up his own arse.
But many believe he wanted fame of a kind. And he saw the trial as a way of persuading the world to turn on to the gospel of Charlie. But....the world wasn't that interested after a while and even young people started seeing through him and when that all came crashing down, he started shutting up about HS because in jail, one just might get one's back shanked, carrying on with that shit πŸ’©.

controlling the girls every day

One of the major ironies connected to the case is how, by doing that and thinking it would absolve him, he ended up being the greatest piece of evidence of the prosecution's case. They had called loads of witnesses to show Manson's domination and they were effective, but it was his co~defendants and the other Family members {Gypsy, Squeaky, Cappy, Clem, Sandy, Ouisch, Mary and Nancy} that demonstrated in living colour what the prosecution were alleging. The jury couldn't not see it. And having seen it, they couldn't unsee it.

and trying to kill the Judge

A bit like Squeaky and President Ford, I guess there'll long be debate as to whether or not Charlie was actually trying to kill Judge Older.
But afterwards, Older, carrying a gun under his famous black robes, wasn't taking any chances !

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said:

Please explain it to us unlearn-ed folks who have been arguing about this since it happened in 1969

People talk. We argue and discuss all kinds of things. But in many discussions, there is often the explanation already there and often it is just being rejected, for the multitude of reasons that people have for doing so. For me, there is no mystery as to why these murders happened.

And please don't use gossip, opinions and innuendos. Just the facts please!

Gossip doesn’t interest me. It is, at best, a side trip. Opinions are unavoidable. But as I’ve pointed out to loads of people over the years, for opinions to have any credibility, or validity they have to be based on something evidential that can be backed up.
The matter of Bruce and Joel Pugh is a great example of something to which many people hold, but it is based on the thinnest of air. It’s the kind of air one wouldn’t survive very long in !
As for innuendo, you’ll have to explain that one to me. I don’t know what you mean.


And also please explain why the blood pool was on the porch at Cielo

If you mean the pool that belonged to either Sharon or Jay, your guess is as good as mine. I used to think that it was victim’s blood that came off from the perps, but that amount of blood doesn’t drip off a person that isn’t the one bleeding. Also, for it to pool, the person would have had to have been still. Or moving very little. Therefore, I can’t see how one can avoid the conclusion that at some point, one of them was on the porch. If Jay was shot early on in proceedings, then stabbed profusely, that means Sharon. And as not one of the perps has ever described her on the porch, that means we have a clear example of omission. Now, that could be because someone can’t recall {although that’s hard to believe} or it could be because someone is refusing to mention it. I don’t think it supports the idea of a visit to Cielo by Manson afterwards, because on a hot night, a couple of hours after the murders {and if one takes into account how long the journeys would take, the activities of the murderers once they’d left Cielo, them reporting to Manson what happened and them cleaning the car etc, then it would be longer}, those bodies would no longer be bleeding.

grimtraveller said...

Katie said:

And where the glasses came from

I neither know nor care. When William Weston did a thread on it here, we flogged that one to death. I thought it was really good, actually. Manson has given 2 completely different accounts about the glasses. His Nuel Emmons account {of whose book he describes as ‘bullshit’} is a phoney because in it, he says he planted the glasses and that he use to use them to to start fires ~ but the type of glasses that were found at the scene are not the kind that can start fires. This is scientific fact. So that’s a bullshit account right there.
His statement to George Stimson, that he gave the glasses to the troupe to plant as a false clue {in fact, in Stimson’s book, he says this twice; the other time he says he gave it to Tex}, is fraught with problems because Atkins knew nothing about the glasses {she said as such, to a cellmate}, Watson has, in 2 books, numerous parole hearings, a trial and interviews, never once mentioned them and Pat has never mentioned them. It also puts Manson as front and centre in being involved in the murders at a conspiratorial level.
So make of those what you will.

And why Garretson said he didn't hear anything

Fear ? LSD ? Traumatic shock ? Shame ? He really did hear nothing ?
He was a strange geezer. Even he probably didn’t know why he said half the things he said !
But he sure changed his tune 30 years later. Unfortunately, tales of 3 eyed babies and Rosie Tate Polanski somewhat undermine his credibility.

And why Tex didn't cut the phone wires at the LaBianca's

Why would he need to ? It was like 2am, it was unlikely that anyone would be visiting the LaBiancas at that time, unlikely that they’d be called or would do any phoning at that time and he and Manson were able to more or less walk in. It was a very different scenario to the one they’d met the first night.

And why Tex felt he had time to shower and pillage the LaBianca house

Well, didn’t he ? In all likelihood, would it have been a credible fear that the LaBiancas were going to have visitors between 2 and 3am in the morning ?

And why Charlie took Linda to Saladin Nader's apartment

Bloodlust. And a certain relief. After cruising around for hours and failing to show the others “how it should be done” he finally managed to subdue two people and leave them to a terrible fate. At that point, he was back on top of his thought and was in ‘invincible’ mode again.

grimtraveller said...

Katie said:

And how Manson knew the LaBiancas were finally home around 2am

He didn’t.
The idea of the 2nd night was to show the previous night’s set of killers how it should be done. As far into the future as 2013 Manson was telling Rolling Stone that Cielo would have gone better had he been there. He considered Waverly as better because he was involved. But on the night in question, up to the point of the sports car incident, it had been failures, mishaps, indecision, changing minds etc and I think with his competitive nature, it wasn't lost on him that the night before, even he'd been surprised that the perps were "home so early" with 5 deaths behind them, deaths that had made the news big time, all day long. On this night they'd been out for hours and as yet, nothing.
I reckon at that point, the former True house was the target. He knew where it was, he knew how to get there, he assumed the house next door, that he did know well, was empty because he'd always known it to be empty {he told Vanity Fair in 2011, Rolling Stone in 2013 that he'd been in the house before when he visited Harold. True, who had moved in, in Sept '67, and moved out in Sept '68, according to his testimony in Leslie's 2nd trial, said both there and elsewhere that there wasn't anyone living next door}. He also knew Harold no longer lived at Waverly and I think his target were the 3 housemates that True had shared the house with, Allen Swerdloff, Ernest Baltzell and Harry Yost. When Harold was moving out, Charlie had wanted to move in and asked True if he could, but True said it wasn't for him to say, and that he should ask the other 3 and when he did, the 3 housemates said 'no'.
After the 5 failures to kill people on the night of August 9th/10th, I suspect when Charlie thought of a surefire place to show the others in the car "how it should be done," an obvious place, in his mind, was the former True house and having rejected his request to live in the house, the 3 housemates were hardly his favourite people. Manson didn’t take the answer ‘no’ very well. Not when it came to something he wanted.
What Charlie didn't know was that Swerdloff, Baltzell & Yost had moved out not long after True. He knew Harold wasn't there {why else would he have asked if he could move in once Harold had gone ?} so, if by his own admission to George and Vanity Fair, he went to Harold's house, why ? Also, back in March ‘70, Aaron Stovitz gave an off the record interview to Rolling Stone and in it, he stated that Manson went to the former True house and finding no one in, went next door…...
Manson himself told George Stimson that it was his curiosity at seeing a light on next door and a dog that made him go over to the LaBiancas, so in that context, it was random. It works out to be a straightforward puzzle fit; if the LaBianca house was thought to be empty and the True house occupied, then it was isolated. If the True house turns out to have no one there but the house next door is occupied, it's just as isolated as the True house would have been had the positions been reversed.......
Charlie didn't exactly help his cause when he told George Stimson he remembered telling the killers not to let the victims know they were going to be killed.

grimtraveller said...

Katie said:

And if Manson called anyone, including Suzanne LaBerge

There has never been a shred nor morsel of evidence ever proffered by Watson, Susan, Leslie, Pat or Linda, that Charlie got out of the car to make a phone call. Not once. He got out, according to them, to scope out the houses or buildings in which he was planning to make a kill.
Suzan LaBerge had a nervous breakdown in the aftermath of her Mum’s murder. Throwing her in as some kind of conspiratorial suspect in the Waverly murders is actually pretty consistent with the kind of wild speculations that are based on either absolute nothings, or the flimsiest of happenings and trying to vest them with deeper meaning, that are endemic to this case, especially in the internet age. For example, because Charles Watson used to live near Suzan LaBerge, once, and because in 1990, she spoke up for him in a parole hearing, the conspiracy theorists had to put 2 and 2 together and make…..22. They weren’t even mentioned in the same breath prior to that parole hearing ! Or because Watson did one drug burn and Wojiciech Frykowski was rumoured to be looking at entering the drug dealer profession and Jay Sebring is said to have got cocaine for friends from time to time, suddenly it becomes a ‘fact’ that they knew each other and a drug burn/deal was the reason for the murders, further “compounded” by the fact that Sebring was a hair stylist and Watson sold a few wigs.
Ho~hum.

He said there were a multiplicity of reasons. Not sure what that means

It means that there was more than one reason. There was a collective reason that made up the conspiracy and then there were individual reasons that different people held at different points, that fed into their actions. Hitting back at society, being involved in a revolution, a war, getting White society to be angry enough at Black people for the murders, so that this would kick off slaughter of Black people that would in turn lead to a civil war between White liberals {who would defend the Blacks} and conservatives, who would severely weaken each other so that the remaining Blacks would come out and finish both off.
I didn’t say the reasons for the murders were realistic, sensible and justified !

He could solve the crime of the centuries!

In case you weren’t aware, it was solved before watergate was even dreamed up in the mind of one Mr Nixon...

Everyone has argued for years about "why" these murders happened

And ? πŸ™„
Just because lots of people refuse to accept the reasons that have been given 🀫, that does not invalidate those reasons.

grimtraveller said...

Katie said:

As far as I know, no one involved in this case has ever said why

As far as you know.
Charles Manson said different things at different times.
Charles Watson, in his first book, gave 3 reasons. One of them {the raising of bail for Mary} is demonstrably untrue {one only has to look at the booking time on Mary’s mugshot to know that}, and his second, the copy cat to free Bobby, is among the more ridiculous reasons put forth. It didn’t even originate with the Family ~ it originated in a Rolling Stone interview as a hunch from Aaron Stovitz.
Susan Atkins gave 2 different reasons during her life, and it is very interesting that she stated that when giving his report to Charlie, Tex described the events as “sure was Helter Skelter.”
Leslie Van Houten, from 1969, was clear about Helter Skelter, in private with her lawyer, being the reason for the murders. She so held to it at the time, that she actually said she’d do the same thing again if she was in the same circumstances.
Pat has always said that the first night she thought it was just a robbery, but that 2nd night, what she wrote, told the whole world what her reasons for killing were. And as the years have rolled on, she can’t and doesn’t deny it.
And then in their particular murders, Clem, Bobby and Bruce have said why they killed. In Bobby’s case, one has to take his post incarceration tale with a huge pinch of salt, but the reasons they’ve put forth haven’t been hidden.

I doubt if any of the girls knew why

When Susan Atkins talks about hearing Pat and Leslie in jail discussing that HS may not be coming down after all, you know that they all well and knew why they killed. I accept that when they left Spahn that first night, they didn’t know murder was on the agenda. So their reasons for what they did at Cielo had a sense of unknown quantity about it. But everyone knew what was on the menu that second night. And the fact that only a few weeks after, they all left Spahn and decamped to the desert, something that was very much part of HS {plus them looking for the underground city while they were out there}, speaks volumes.

They just did what they were told without asking why

In his closing argument, Vince Bugliosi said that HS wasn’t the women’s motive; that their motive was to do what Charlie said. There is that element to it but he was actually wrong about that to some extent. Leslie Van Houten knew what her motive was. It was all connected with HS. Susan Atkins told Virginia Graham, in the days when she didn’t expect a fellow jailbird to go to the police and relay what she’d been told, that once the murders had happened, she knew this was the beginning of HS. And Pat showed her understanding of them “doing it properly” that second night by writing HEALTER SKELTER, DEATH TO PIGS and RISE at the LaBianca’s. While it is easy to focus on HS, the more significant words written are actually RISE. Who, in the Family way of seeing things, were deemed to be the people that were going to rise ? That’s what tells you that Pat knew why she was killing at Waverly.
True, they didn’t ask why when they set out to Cielo. After what happened there, they didn’t need to ask why.

I really doubt if Clem knew the reason why

Well, that’s not what he says. He knew why he was in that car on LaBianca night. He would have been involved in a murder had Linda done what Charlie ordered. Remember, he had the gun. But he never specifically has talked about that night. He can’t, because if he did, he’d risk putting himself in frame for at least 2 counts of murder and conspiracy to murder.
And he well and knew why they were killing Shorty. There were a series of parole hearings in which he talks about it. He could talk about that one because he was already doing time for it.

grimtraveller said...

Katie said:

I personally don't believe anything Tex, Bobby or Bruce say

That’s your prerogative. For me, that’s not a wise course to take. I always feel that if one is going to discuss those people, and hold opinions that are to carry any weight, credibility and validity, then one has to take the entirety of what they have said in the past and are saying now. That’s how one stands any chance of determining whether or not any of them could be telling the truth, which bits might be the truth, are they being economical with it or abandoning it altogether.

They've changed their stories so many times

A~ha. While some of has been for understandable reasons, there comes that point where you can only cry ‘wolf !’ so many times before the wolf not only bites, but mauls.

As far as I know, no one involved in this case has ever said why

The evidence of what they've said over a 53-year period is out there for all to see, for those that want to do the heavy lifting. But your position is that you don't believe anything they say anyway. So how can you ever arrive at a conclusion ?
Personally, I'm not interested in the conclusion-less life. I'd rather be wrong than conclusion-less, that never ending treadmill of acceptance that I can't know, yet will ever discuss and postulate theories based on nothing but my own biases.


got "borned again, in a effort to get out

Yeah, that’s worked out well, hasn’t it !
But I fundamentally disagree with you. As a Christian myself, I’ve spent many years looking long and hard at Bruce, Tex and Susan when she was alive and the idea that giving your life over to God, having to accept what is necessary to accept, in order to have God do the necessaries in one’s life, living the Christ led, Spirit led life, with all the difficulties that brings, and in jail too, just in order to get out of prison, well, let’s just say if it was the case, it wasn’t a very good idea !
Firstly, few people that have the responsibility for determining parole, honestly respect the claims of Christianity, especially real Spirit led Christianity, as being anything particularly good. Especially if it’s murderers we’re talking about. The days when someone ‘bad’ saying “I’m now a Christian” and even a large minority of the population taking that as a good thing, those days passed so long ago, I doubt any of our Grandparents were even around.
But the main reason I disagree with the idea of just becoming “borned again” in an attempt to get out is the evidence that stands right before you ¬> namely, Watson has been a Christian since 1975, Davis since 1973 ~ and they are both still Christians.
And both are still in jail.
In Watson’s case, being a Christian is actively keeping him in jail, in my opinion.

grimtraveller said...


Susan Atkins was in Christ for some 35 years, right up to the moment she died. In her last compos mentis hearing in 2005, she actually made the point that parole was not her aim, but healing for the victims’ families and herself:

”I know that each family member here every day, they miss their loved one. Every second and every minute and I cannot give that back to them. I cannot take that pain away from them. I caused that pain. I wish with all my heart and I pray with all of my soul that one day they will be able to heal. I'm not even asking for forgiveness any more. I don't think that's possible, but I desire more than anything that the people present in this room who are so deeply deeply wounded would be allowed to deal. I've read many of the 150 letters that came through the Doris Tate legacy website. Many of them were redacted from the confidential file and I have received copies of them. People who love me ask me Susan, why do you read those letters. Why do you subject yourself to so much hate. And I tell them because I have to. I have to feel, I have to understand, I have to experience what these people feel towards me. It's the only way to make continued amends. The people in the families and the victims are begging the Board of Prison Terms of parole to stop them from having to come and sit here and face me and see me ask for parole. And I don't think that those people understand that that's something that the law affords me; an opportunity to ask to be found suitable for parole.
I don't come here today to ask to be found suitable for parole. I come here today to ask that there would be some way to mediate healing for the people who have suffered so much. Some way that the Board of Prison Terms and parole and the California Department of Corrections in conjunction with organizations that are dedicated to serving the community of the families of victims, the families of murder victims to help mediate healing. I don't know if the families of the victims want to ask me anything, but I do know that every time they've come, I've heard every word of theirs and I hold every word that they've said ….. Family members of the victims have passed away and never heard me say that I am sorry, that if I could, that I would take it back. And I can't take it back…..I live my life; a life that's a gift. Every breath I take is a gift that I know I don't deserve. The people in this room who believe I don't deserve it and I agree with them ….I don't deserve anything….I do know the gravity and the nature of my commitment offense. I do know that although the death penalty was abolished because it was unconstitutional, in my heart it would have been right, had I been executed…..I firmly believe in the process of remorse and repentance and regeneration and rehabilitation and finally, restoration to the community. The community outside and the community inside”


Doesn't sound to me like someone that just became a Christian in order to get out of jail. Besides, pretty much anyone in Christ knows that that is simply not the way God works. And few people, if anyone at all, could carry on the charade of being a Christian and having almost half a century of parole rejections. Both Watson and Atkins were resigned to the reality that they were going to remain in jail. Watson is on record as having said that.

Katie said:

And Charlie has only spoken in riddles until the day he died

Kinda. Yes and no. I’ve heard him speak and at times be really articulate. Other times, he talks in those riddles, yet, if you’ve listened to him often enough, not just heard him, but listened, one can make sense of a lot of what he has said. And despite the myth put about over the years, that he’s super honest and never lies, he does. Demonstrably so. And after a while, it becomes relatively simple to poke holes in many of his statements. And to understand and agree with some of his pronouncements.

grimtraveller said...

Oh well Katie, you did ask ! 😁

Dilligaf said:

Katie offered the opportunity for Grim to further expand upon his voluminous perspectives

Believe it or nor Dil, that expansion was the short, brief, not so wordy 🀐 version !

katie8753 said:

I just had a thought. Maybe the TLB murders were Charlie's way of getting back "home"

It's an interesting thought.
But it's fraught with problems.
For starters, it assumes that he was ready to take responsibility for the murders.
Further to that, it overlooks the fact that the death penalty was in effect in California in 1969. So he wouldn't be going home, he'd be going somewhere eternal and permanent, with gas filling his nostrils to help him on his way. This also would answer the question of why he didn't just turn himself in.
Further to that, it begs the question of why didn't he just commit some low level crime that would see his parole revoked and put him back 'home'. All he needed to do was walk into a police station with a joint and offer to sell some marijuana to the cops. Or when he vandalised the road digger, just give himself up.
It's easy to say Charlie didn't operate on the same principles as the rest of society and that is true....but only up to a point.
A question worth asking and answering, is this; did Manson behave like someone that wanted to remain in jail or someone that wanted to get out it ?
When he told Bugliosi that he was only sending him back home, it's easy to detect some bravado posturing on Manson's part. After all, he was under the death sentence. He didn't know what the California supreme court would rule the following year. Manson just couldn't openly admit that he'd been 'bested', hence the "prison is my home, you're only sending me back there."

Maybe he was sick of being on the outside. Everything was falling apart. Nothing was working like he wanted

Maybe things weren't working out exactly as he wanted, but it's a heck of a jump to being part of murders that, if caught, aren't even guaranteed to get you a permanent place in jail.
While he was inside before and during the trial, he repeatedly said that all he wanted to do was to get back to the desert. And he said this almost until he died. I don't believe that spending the rest of his life in prison was on his radar back in '69/'70.

katie8753 said...

Yeah Beauders, I've read The Stand. Good book. I used to read Stephen King all the time back in the 70's or 80's. I haven't read any of his stuff lately. I guess he's still writing.

WOW GRIM! That's a lot of words!! LOL. I have to say I agree with you on most of it. It may not be fair to judge a defendant on his/her appearance, but that's part of the package. If I'm a juror and the defendant shows up in court looking like an emboldenment of his/her alleged crime, it's gonna put a negative slant on my perception of innocence.

Yeah, Tex looked like a fresh-faced highschooler at his trial, but it's a lot easier to convict a confessed killer than to prove that a third party who didn't kill anyone was involved by "mind control" and conspiracy to kill. I stand by my statement that if Charlie had worn a suit, shave & haircut, and sat quietly thru the entire proceeding, it would have been a lot harder to convict him. He, in essence, proved Bugliosi's case by trying to control everyone and everything. No he probably wasn't trying to kill Judge Older. I think he was having a bad temper tantrum.

Good point about the death penalty being a good reason Charlie WASN'T trying to get back home. I didn't think about that. You're right, Charlie had no way of knowing the death penalty would be abolished a few years later.

I really don't think the girls knew why about the killings. Linda even said she thought Cielo was a "creepy crawl". I think they were parroting each other about Helter Skelter. There are so many theories floating around about "why". Maybe Tex, Bruce, Bobby, etc. knew parts of the "why", but I really think that Manson is/was the only one who knew the whole truth.

katie8753 said...

I think it's strange that supposedly Charlie drove around aimlessly for hours, then around 2am made a beeline over to the LaBiancas. I also find it strange that Suzanne tried to get Tex out. If she wants to turn Christian and forgive him, fine. But she doesn't have to get him out of prison! That's so odd.

katie8753 said...

Okay I watched the 2nd day of the Depp/Heard defamation trial on Court TV today. Today's witness was a friend of Johnny Depp's and he pretty much owned the entire day. If you're interested, here is a link to it.

If you want to watch it on Court TV it's kind of hard. They show a million commercials and sometimes the same one 5 times. But it's an interesting court proceeding.

Listening to the testimony, Johnny Depp owned an apartment building in LA which had 4 penthouses, and Johnny lived in one and the other 3 were occupied by moochers. The other 3 penthouses were being occupied by "friends and family" who weren't paying ANYTHING in monthly rent.

Johnny was being RIPPED OFF!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-d9IAWreBQ

Night y'all!

katie8753 said...

Hey Beauders, check out Paris' new hair-do.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said:

I stand by my statement that if Charlie had worn a suit, shave & haircut, and sat quietly thru the entire proceeding, it would have been a lot harder to convict him

Well, I agree with that. I disagreed that they would have let him off, but I'm in agreement that had he "looked" the part and behaved himself, it would have been harder to find him guilty. Him trying to control everything really messed him up, because despite the reality that he controlled the Family, it didn't work in the real world. Charles Manson's life was characterized by his distinct lack of control.

I think it's strange that supposedly Charlie drove around aimlessly for hours, then around 2am made a beeline over to the LaBiancas

I sort of agree....strange isn't the word I'd necessarily use. I personally think it is a story of desperation. The people he's sent out to kill the night before have made international news and I think he felt somewhat threatened by this. Although I still believe that getting HS well off the ground was a large part of his thinking, I don't dismiss his thinking that he had to reassert himself in the eyes of the others.
In a way, him saying he was going to show them how to do it was rather setting himself up because then, having poo~poo'd their news making exploits {the murder of Gary Hinman didn't make any news} by saying it was too messy {ie, not good enough}, he had to produce. And in 5 attempts, he hadn't.
Susan Atkins, before the grand jury, told her lawyer that there was some angst between Charlie and the people that lived in Harold True's house. She didn't go into detail, but I've long felt that Charlie may have felt that, as he knew the house, he could do some stuff there.

I also find it strange that Suzanne tried to get Tex out. If she wants to turn Christian and forgive him, fine. But she doesn't have to get him out of prison! That's so odd

For me, it was less strange, than showing her immaturity as a Christian. It's true that she didn't have to try and get him out of prison, but she, having gone through a Christian conversion herself, genuinely believed that he had undergone important changes. He had, but not sufficient to warrant release from prison after only 19 years.
But I understand your view on it, because if I wasn't in Christ, I'd think it was not only odd, but insane.

katie8753 said...

Well, well, well. Grim and I agree sometimes. That's good. I'll tell you what!

I worked in the backyard today and my back hurts. I'm going to bed. Tomorrow is the front yard. I guess they call that in England a "front garden". Well it makes your back hurt the same. LOL.

I was gonna post a video of my son, but I decided not to. I love y'all, but I don't trust everyone in the "circle of life".

I'll leave y'all with one of my fav videos cuz I just wanta rock your soul. Van Morrison, whom I love!!!

Night y'all!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRshbS-MN20&t=10s

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

Well, well, well. Grim and I agree sometimes. That's good

Vlad Putin πŸ‘Ί could learn a thing or two from us ! The blog should be translated into Russian, just for him ! πŸ₯³

beauders said...

Katie if you read "The Stand" in the 80's you have not read the latest edition. There is between 300 and 400 more pages, a lot of added details. Trashcan Man gets a lot more detail. Just thought you should know your missing out. Don't break your back in the yard, you can leave some for another day.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Beauders. I didn't know they added more pages to The Stand. Stephen King is a guy that used to be easy to read, but the more he wrote, the more it was hard to understand what he was getting at. For instance, I tried reading The Tommyknockers 5 times, and just gave up.

I also read a lot of Dean Koontz back in the 80's. He's a lot like Stephen King, but a little more edgy.

Stephen King spends a LOT of time describing his characters. Sometimes I go into like a convenience store and I just look at people and wonder how King would describe them. He was very descriptive of minor characters. Years ago I considered making a living as a writer and I identified with King a LOT! But I've given up on that income possibility.

King did a lot of good "short stories". The movie Stand By Me was based on his short story "The Body". Also, he wrote a short story called "Apt Pupil", which was also made into a movie.

Hey did you see Paris' new hair-do? As I predicted, Steffie doesn't remember anything, so that will give Sheila some time to kill her.

Sheila saving Taylor's life will have a play in this...

katie8753 said...

Well I worked in the front yard today and my back hurts again. I guess I'm gettin' old.

Night y'all!

katie8753 said...

Oh, and Happy Good Friday to everyone!!! :)

beauders said...

Is Paris wearing a wig? She went from very short to very long in a very short period.

katie8753 said...

That's gotta be a wig. There's no way her hair could grow that fast. It's down to her knees.

sam dass said...

I certainly find all the coincidences very interesting, the main hang up i have about Davis being Zodiac however is he just doesn't seem to be smart enough.
I'm not saying Zodiac is super clever but Davis i think is pretty dumb even today.

sam dass said...

Happy Easter y'all

katie8753 said...

Happy Easter Sam!

sunset77 said...

Off topic comment.

We had our Easter dinner yesterday, I was out in the kitchen doing the dishes with my brother in law, I could hear the conversation coming from the dining room (because they all have big mouths), it was all the women. My mom, my aunt, her daughter, (my cousin), her daughter (my niece) and both my sisters. The first topic was abortion, apparently someone passed a law somewhere that bans abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. One of my sisters works in a hospital lab, the other works in a pharmacy. They were yelling about a woman's right to choose and it should be legal everywhere.

Then they started yelling about gun control and how guns should be restricted claiming no ones guns have been taken away from anyone they claimed.

My niece is a "big time" Democrat, she is very beautiful. She recently married a "big time" Republican in the Bahamas, they have a house in Florida and one in DC. He sometimes appears on FOX news, he is running for political office in Florida. She was talking about how many millions that was going to cost. He wasn't at the dinner, he had to be at some Republican event. I've never seen him except on FOX news and Facebook. My niece said she wasn't going to Mar-A-Lago because she didn't want to meet "that man".

Amazingly, I managed to listen to all that without vomiting. However, when the conversation at the Easter dinner table switched to babies, changing diapers, and how many panty liners they needed to carry around, I had to go outside and smoke a cigarette.

My back is bothering me also, I'm getting old also.

Happy Easter!

grimtraveller said...

That was as off-topic a comment as one is likely to get !

katie8753 said...

Sunset! I'll bet you were glad to be on KP duty instead of having to sit around the table and listen to that "hen party". HA HA HA! Years ago I think it would be kind of stressful for a Democrat to be married to a Republican. But these days, I would think that would be constant fighting and tension!! I have family members who are Democrats and in the last few years we've learned the hard way to NEVER discuss politics. It ALWAYS leads to a fight.

I don't know exactly why the Democrats hate "that man from Florida" so much. I guess it's because he hates abortion and the Democrats can't live without it for 1 minute for some reason...

I'm watching a movie called Love and Mercy. It's about the Beach Boys during their heyday and afterwards in the 80's. It's mostly about Brian Wilson's strange behavior and mental problems during those years. He evidently had some quack doctor treating him who was basically making him a prisoner so he could get his money. This movie has some really weird scenes with Brian and I'm assuming all that stuff really happened. This guy was really off his rocker. They blame his mental problems on his Dad being so abusive, but I find it funny they don't even mention the Manson connection with the Beach Boys and the fear I'm sure was instilled when they found out the very family they had in their studio was the same family that did the TLB killings.

Anyway, Happy Easter all!!!

sunset77 said...

Sorry about that of topic "Grimtravller", I don't have much time to look up stuff on this blog anymore. Personally, I'm not a "big fan" of off topic comments when other people do it, so I try to refrain from doing that myself as much as I can.

I think I heard somewhere Brian Wilson had pretty serious mental problems, he spent a great deal of time in bed, like years. I would like to look up that movie Katie, but I just don't have time.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Sunset. I watched that movie on HBO On Demand, but I think you can watch it on You Tube but you have to rent it.

katie8753 said...

Just letting everyone know if you want to watch the Johnny Depp defamation lawsuit this week, it's live on the Law&Crime You Tube Channel. That's better than watching Court TV with all the commercial break ins and what not.

You're welcome! HA HA.

Johnny's on the stand this week. I've gotta say with all of the You Tube channels I've watched and the chat rooms I've read, 100% of the people are for Johnny to win. I haven't found anybody in favor of Amber. I'll reserve my opinion for now.

katie8753 said...

Well let's see, today Johnny was on the stand for most of the day under direct by his own attorneys and he had the luxury of spending 20 minutes on each question giving an answer to questions.

Then at the end of the day, he was subject to cross examination by Heard's attorneys and that was the best part of the day. That guy is AWESOME when it comes to asking questions and wondering what the question was, etc.

Tomorrow is gonna be interesting.

BTW, my opinion? I've only heard one side of this story, but I get the gut feeling that this skank chick married Johnny for his money. And she didn't get enough at closing.

Just sayin'....

BTW we're still a TLB blog. Feel free to discuss that case too!

Fullbug said...

Those pictures of Johnny Depp...wow....he has aged soooo incredibly bad in just a few years.

grimtraveller said...

sunset77 said:

Sorry about that of topic

Don't be. It was pretty refreshing.

Personally, I'm not a "big fan" of off topic comments when other people do it

I don't mind it if I happen to find it interesting.

I think I heard somewhere Brian Wilson had pretty serious mental problems, he spent a great deal of time in bed, like years

If you ever get a moment, check out his real autobiography, not "Wouldn't it be nice ?", but "I am Brian Wilson."
It's hopeful, informative and depressing all at the same time.

katie8753 said:

I have family members who are Democrats and in the last few years we've learned the hard way to NEVER discuss politics. It ALWAYS leads to a fight

Personally, I think it's simple immaturity that causes people to not be able to discuss contentious topics without getting all het up. Someone can be totally wrong in my opinion, or even ignorant wilfully, but that's not going to stop me loving them or them being my friend. Equally, I can't stop someone from having the view they hold. I don't mind being told by someone why they think I'm wrong or why my opinion stinks or is ill-informed or whatever. I only ask 2 things; that the person affords me the same freedom and that they listen to what I say and not just instantly dismiss. Listen, consider, understand ¬> then, and only then is that person in a position to dismiss !
A great lesson for me {though flipping difficult, I must confess} has been learning from people I vehemently disagree with. Even Charles Manson had a lot to say that was right. Doesn't mean I want to follow him though.

They blame his mental problems on his Dad being so abusive, but I find it funny they don't even mention the Manson connection with the Beach Boys and the fear I'm sure was instilled when they found out the very family they had in their studio was the same family that did the TLB killings

Brian was already long gone or, let's say, going, when Manson appeared in his orbit. And to be honest, Charlie played such a minimal part in his life. He barely rates a mention in Brian's book.
No, from all accounts, his Dad doesn't seem to have been someone that necessarily contributed wonderful things to Brian's mental state {I'm being diplomatic here}.
LSD tended to compound that and believe it or not, the music the Beatles were making after "Revolver" really threw him into a tailspin.

Fullbug said...

Re Brian Wilson's mental health issues. He certainly has had some serious mental health problems, and one thing people always mention is that he had a sand box installed in his living room in the 70s and point to that as a sign of his problems, but in Brian's defense, I want to point out that he had the indoor sand box for a very logical reason: he wrote songs at his piano in the living room and he wanted to write while having his feet in the sand for inspiration. I think the sandbox is a really cool idea and it makes perfect artistic sense.
He later had the sandbox removed because eventually sand got all over the house and because cats were using it as a giant litter box.

katie8753 said...

Okay....the trial is over for the week. WHEW! That last clip they played seemed to be really hard on Johnny. It was hard to hear, like all of the audio clips they played, but you could hear Amber saying "drop that knife" and a lot of clambering.

Johnny looked really sad at the end of the session.

That's the hard thing about trials. There are no "Perry Mason" outbursts and loud "ah haas" to find the guilty party. It's up to the jury to decide.

The bad thing for Johnny is that he sent so many texts to people that can be repeated. And he used harsh language. Johnny is good with words. And sometimes those words can be used against him.

I'm tired. I hope Johnny wins, because I think he was hoodwinked.

Okay onto other things.

Grim said:

Personally, I think it's simple immaturity that causes people to not be able to discuss contentious topics without getting all het up.

I'm not sure what "het" means, but maybe it is immaturity.

As Ricky Nelson said, "It's Late". We'll discuss this tomorrow.

Fullbug, Johnny does look old. I think this relationship aged him by at least 20 years.

Also I think Brian Wilson had many mental problems. If he had a sand box installed around his piano, how did he push the pedal?

grimtraveller said...

Het up ¬>
Excited or agitated;
Heated up; made warm or hot {`het' is a dialectal variant of `heated'};
Worked up emotionally by anger or excitement.

katie8753 said...

Oh okay thanks Grim. Never heard of that variant. Must be UK thing???