Damn... Sandy has the straightest index finger I've ever seen on a human being! LOLOL
Well I'm probably "jumping the gun" but in Chapter 1 of The Family, Ed Sanders tells how Charlie learned all of his mastery, and one thing he studied were Masonic hand signals. He taught these to "the Family". Here is one website that explains them. They are probably others that are easier to navigate.http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/the-12-masonic-signs-of-recognitionHI JOSH!! Glad you're here. Feel free to jump in anytime!!
I'll just betcha that Charlie took these Masonic hand signals and embellished them to be a little different. HA HA.
Hi Josh! Hi Katie & Lynyrd...if anyone knew what the "finger up" hand signal means, it would be Josh...if you read this Josh, let us know..!!I'm guessing but mabye it means "one"..as in "all is one"..
Hi Kimchi!!! Good to see you. I'm thinking it probably means "one", as in solidarity.Josh, what do you think!!!
Hi Kimchi...Your guess, and my guess, are basically the same.I posted my nearest assumption under the photo.I'm also hoping either Josh, or "X" will come forth, with an answer for everyone.This question was actually Katie's initially... regarding my photo of "Red" at the very bottom of the blog.After Katie posed the question, it got me wondering myself...Good question Katie!
I think that when we do our "book reading club" that we'll uncover a lot of things that at first we thought were trivial, but now are significant. I can't wait!!Kimchi, Josh, Mary, Bob, Mpaul, Always, X, Josh, and Lynyrd let's start discussing!!
Oh I forgot, I posted the question a few threads back, why did they take the bolt cutters and rope to Cielo Drive and not to Waverly Drive? Why did they feel the need to cut the phone lines to Cielo, and not Waverly? Does any know?????
Katie... there's more current discussion below, on the second thread as well. : )
OK I bite.....my best guess is ONE.....it's all one....we're one species as in humankind, one one planet, as in earth and we have one chance, though we're stuck in one thought. One is a supportive, loving thing. They got mad when people were going against ATWA because it really is very counterproductive to everything. If everyone went with one, it would be a much more supportive environment alltogether.....it means ONE....Manson, said, "one good though....."
Somewhere there's a connection between frykowski and watson, Katie.....that's where the truth lies....Tex and drugs.....Tex and drugs.....Tex and wigs and hair too......Sebring and Tex?....Tex and Drugs for sure though....Cielo was completely Tex....he had some nasty thoughts towards those people....he's the guy that did the deed and he did it really horribly. He's also rumored to have killed an older gentleman in '68 in Olancha which kinda scratches good ol' helter skelter race war shtuff
IT's ONE.....all are ONE....that's what it is
that's my five nickels people....have a great night.....I got my kids tucked in and it's time for some rest.....PEACE & LOVE
Hi Josh,Thanks for your reply."One" seems to be the consensus.Tate being drug-related, is a theory which holds much weight among folks I repsect... and a theory I give very strong creedence to.I believe LaBianca was related to Leno's gambling issues.He had gone through very large somes of money on horse racing, and I believe gotten himslef in debt with an organized crime outfit.I know Tex owned a wig shop briefly... and Sebring was "hairdresser to the stars"... but, I had never heard of any "hair" connection before.The drug motive involving Tex, seems to be the consensus, for Tate.I'll agree with you there, unless I uncover facts that prove oherwise. Peace...
I always say...You gotta go with the theory, that things happen for a reason... and murders have a motive.Tate was definitely drug-related... and I've heard from several repsected sources, that Tex (and Susan) had been taking amphetamines, behind Manson's back.I believes Amps are one of the reasons Tex completely when bonkers.
>>>Josh said: OK I bite.....my best guess is ONE.....it's all one....we're one species as in humankind, one one planet, as in earth and we have one chance, though we're stuck in one thought. One is a supportive, loving thing. They got mad when people were going against ATWA because it really is very counterproductive to everything. If everyone went with one, it would be a much more supportive environment alltogether.....it means ONE....Manson, said, "one good though.....">>Okay I agree with that one.>>>Josh said: Somewhere there's a connection between frykowski and watson, Katie.....that's where the truth lies....Tex and drugs.....Tex and drugs.....Tex and wigs and hair too......Sebring and Tex?....Tex and Drugs for sure though....Cielo was completely Tex....he had some nasty thoughts towards those people....he's the guy that did the deed and he did it really horribly.>>>Tex and Sebring??? Tex sold a few hack wigs. Sebring was an international hair designer. Tex sold drugs, Sebring took drugs.No connection.Tex lived at Cielo Drive from December 1968 until February 1969, til the Polanski's moved in. He lived with the "Rev" Dean Moorehouse. (And I use that term loosely)He knew the layout of Cielo Drive. As he said.There is no connection between Tex & Frykowski that I know of. They both sold drugs. So what? So did 5000 other people in LA. Are they all friends?There is no connection between Gibby & Tex.No connection between Sharon & Tex.No connection between Parent & Tex.No connection between Garretson & Tex.That I know of.>>>He's also rumored to have killed an older gentleman in '68 in Olancha which kinda scratches good ol' helter skelter race war shtuf>>>This proves nothing. Some kid that kinda resembled Tex beat some old guy up? We all know that the "Helter Skelter" theory was nutzoid anyway. "Beating up" isn't Tex's modus operandi. He likes to cut.http://scabboy.tumblr.com/post/3638439757/charles-tex-watson-identified-in-a-1968-murder#Hey Josh, I'm not saying what you said isn't true.I'd like for you to back it up with facts. I'm always open to new ideas, IF they make sense.!!Katie
Tex did "do" Cielo Drive, and also Waverly Drive. But why??He claims Charlie told him to.If he had personal feelings about the people at Cielo Drive, then what were his feelings about the people at Waverly Drive.If you want to say that Tex stabbed needlessly at Cielo with personal feelings, then you have to say the same for Waverly Drive the very next day.Because he did the same thing.No sense makes sense.
When Tex kicked Frykowski awake on the couch, Frykowski said "who are you?" If he knew him, he would have said "what are you doing here?"This has been documented by testimony over and over.Voytek didn't know who kicked him awake that night.I know if I was kicked awake, I'd know who did it.And I think that everyone here would know the same.
OK Folks...I switched to the traditional full-page... black text on white background comment section... like I'm used to.Those tiny black boxes... with the white text on the black background was cute at first... but, was getting really annoying.It's much easier to follow the conversations this way... read the text... and even the avatars look better.
1) I believe that Tate was drug-related and motivated.2) It's obvious Tex "took care of business" that night.3) I also believe Tex went over-board due to amphetamine usage.I've never been completely sold on the idea it was Tex + dugs solely though.Completely a "Tex" situation.I think it was more likely "family" + drugs.A "Family" situation.I believe Manson was directing family business, and there was a drug issue involving Cielo... and Tex took care of business for "the family" collectively... not for himself peronally.I've heard different reasons, why Tex took care of business... for "the family".Some say Tex "owed" Manson for Bernard Crowe... which makes some sense.Others say Tex was trying to "prove himself".There's other theories as well.It's easier for Manson theorists to pin everything on Tex... 'cuz it absolves Manson completely.Problem is... that theory doesn't jive with LaBianca.If TEX only took care of business at Tate, 'cuz it was solely "his thing"... then, why would he kill at LaBianca???That's the big loophole, with that theory.Wouldn't TEX have said... "look guys/gals... I'm done. I just took care of my own business last night. I have no reason to go to LaBianca"?That didn't happen, because Tex was taking care of "Family Business" at Tate, and "Family Business" at LaBianca, as well.AND... Manson was "directing traffic".I wouldn't go as far as to say Manson "ORDERED" the killings... BUT, he definitely knew what was going-on.He knew WHY those people were on the target list.And... he was making sure things got accomplishedLaBianca WASN'T a TEX thing only (either).Neither location was...I believe Leno LaBianca was up to his eye-balls in gambling debt, to an organized crime outfit (the specific outfit, I won't get into now).Leno was up to his eye-balls in gambling debt, with an organized crime outfit... and someone made a phone-call to someone... and they also made a phone-call... and Manson took the job.Manson may have taken the job for money.He may have owed someone a favor.He may have done it to get his own ass out of a sling.At any rate... he took the "Hit Job".Manson was a guy, who believed "as long as he didn't physically kill anyone" he was clear.According to his own testimony... he tied Leno up... and split.Tex again, took care of business.I believe the whole Helter Skelter story, was a rouge, which Manson employed, to get his "work" accomplished... while, in his mind... avoiding culpability.I DON"T believe Manson is the WORST criminal to ever live... not even close.You don't even have to go outside this case, to find a worse criminal... enter Tex.The media has made Manson bigger than the "Boogie Man".He's NOT.In fact (as I've said before), if I were in prison, Manson would be my first choice for a cell-mate.Heck... you could do a LOT worse, than a 5 foot tall, aging Hipie in prison! LOLOLWith any luck at all, Star would visit once in a while... and Manson would get his guitar back!Not to mention... all the free shit you'd get through the mail!I also believe, that the murderers were responsible for their own actions.If they were stupid enough to take "family loyalty" THAT far... that's not solely Manson's fault.But... I do believe Manson had a measurable degree of involvement.Not as much as the media would portray... but, he's not an innocent victim and by-stander either.One would have to write a book on this topic, to cover everything completely... but, that's my two cents... in an all-too-brief nutshell.
Holy Shit...The moon is as big as a basketball right now! LOL(Guess they were right)
I hasten to add, that my opinions regarding this case, are based on my fact-collecting to date.If/when I gain more facts, my opinions will change accordingly.My opinions of this case (and those involved) have formed and re-formed several times over the years.As long as someone can prove me wrong with facts... I'm game for any outcome.I'm a firm believer, that no one can know everything regarding this case.There's no authority... and that's why I'm here... to learn from others... and vice-versa.Peace...
Hello, checking in.
Well I just wrote a whole lotta comments and they went into cyberspace.
Josh, just show me a link between Voytek & Tex. Show me a link between Jay & Tex.Then I'll be more inclined to believe you. That's all I'm asking for.Ciao.
Hi Katie,I've lost a lot of comments on these blogs.It's very frustrating!What I do now, is highlight, copy and paste my longer comments onto a wordpad/works document, before I hit "publish".That way, if it disappears... you just re-paste it.I think it's a security thing.I think the log-in "times-out" after a certain period of time. Then, nothing will "stick" until you log-in again.There's a LOT of google glitches.It's best to at least highlight and copy your comments to your "clipboard", even if you don't bother pasting it into a document like wordpad, or works... just in case.Hope that helps... and saves you some frustration in the future.
I have no links my dear.....I have the fact that Tex's little store was in the same strip mall as a sebring salon....I have that Frykowski and the lot were into some nasty things and were supposedly messin with "poor" hippies from the strip. The "MANSON girls" went down to the strip, to strip and slang that ass.....there's no real proof for anything.....there's not even any real proof that Manson told anyone what to do, other than what's said....the problem with this case is that it was so high profile and yet so incredibly sloppy. I think Watson was a wanna be drug dealer and go way in over his head, kinda like Bobby with Hinman....they ask Manson for advice since he's the elder statesman and he say's to handle your business.....Charlie has said that he didn't realize his unfluence and I think it applies to this set of circumstances....he made both those boys feel like pussies and they went too far....Waverly I think is a sticky situation, but again I think it's Manson going along with the girls....I think the girls had far more say than they've been given credit for.....for me personally Katie, it's been talking and having friendships with people that know Charles directly...it just doesn't seem to fit....I know some that have talked to Tex too and it really seems to fit there.....I think Tex is a coward and a fake christian...I think that Waverly is where there may be complicity on Manson's part, but it's very foggy.....far too foggy for 42 years in hard core lock up.....I ramble, so I'm kinda bad at the blog thing...lol....my spelling is probably terrible too.....call me ALTRA kimchi.....love you guys, thanks for having me Lynyrd....PEACE & LOVE...I think Ed Sanders is wack job.....let's see him go shake hands with soem of the Process CHurch members that he loves so much.....he's not as bad as Bill Nelson though.....lol...PEACE & LOVE
Hi Josh...The thing I've found, about this topic, through long experience... is that you really have to choose one premise, factoid, or "piece", and discuus that only... one at a time. For the sake of discussion/debate on blogs, getting into the case from start to finish (as we're doing)... is very un-wieldy, and usually un-productive. It would take a LOT of time, to productively cover and debate everything you stated, start to finish.We were asking about the hand signal in the photo... which you answered.And, Katie posed a second question.Katie's second question (originally) was: "why did they take the bolt cutters and rope to Cielo Drive and not to Waverly Drive? Why did they feel the need to cut the phone lines to Cielo, and not Waverly"? Personally... I don't have an answer for Katie, as I stated on a previous thread.I'm currently at work, on a really slow computer... but, I'll make an attempt at addressing a few pieces of your comment when I have a chance... probably tonight or tomorrow.
From the previous thread discussion on Manson's song "Close To Me"...It seems the man Manson was dealing with in 1967 at Universal Studios was Gary Stromberg.(According to "The Family")It seems more likely (having read that) it's Stromberg's voice joking with Manson on the recording "Unplugged '67", and not Wilson's.It seems the relationship with Wilson came later.It could easily be neither... but Stromberg, is more likely than Wilson.Peace...
For those interested in the book club:I've read the first 3 chapters (22 pages) of "The Family".It's very condensed material... so, I'll read it again, while everyone's preparing.I know Bob just ordered the book... so, there's no rush at all.Whenever everyone wants to get into it... is fine.No rush...
Hey guys - I like this comment section better, Lynyrd...I was having problems commenting on the other screen.My mother had heart bypass surgery Friday so I was out of commission for a few days. I have my copy of The Family and will start it tonight. Nice to see the new members. I can't wait to refresh and I think that Katie is right...we are going to see things that we did not think were significant the first time around.
Josh - thanks for all your input..no, you are not talking like Altra! LMAO..I know you know your stuff, that's why I asked you here...I like this forum structure too..much easier to read..
Katie said:"There is no connection between Gibby & Tex."Umm..we don't know that...everything related to Gibby was hidden or destroyed by the Folger family (PI)..everything...Yes, even investigation records..
Hi Mary,I'm very sorry to hear of your Mom's surgery.Here's wishing her a very speedy recovery, and many more years of health and happiness.Very Sincerly... Lynyrd
Hi everybody.Mary good to see you back. I hope your mom is okay.Hi Kimchi. I know that the Folger family was extremely upset about this debauchery and did everything they could to erase it. There aren't even very many pictures of Gibby.But I can't think of how Gibby & Tex would know each other.I know she volunteered her time at the free clinic in SF and perhaps came in contact with some of the Manson Family members (don't know what her capacity was there, she's not a nurse or anything, maybe clerical?) but I can't imagine that they got chummy.In all the trial testimony and parole hearings for Tex, Pat, Susan & Linda, I've not read where anyone said they knew any of the victims. I know they're all liars, but you'd think it would come out somewhere.I'm just not convinced that any of the killers knew any of the victims. That's just my opinion.Josh I agree with you wholeheartedly on one thing:>>>I think Tex is a coward and a fake christian...>>>YES INDEEDY!! HA HA.Lynyrd I love this new format. So much easier to read!Okay I've read the first 3 chapters of the book, so I'm ready when everyone else is!!
Speaking of pics of Gibby, I hate that picture of her & Voytek standing by that doorway, and he's smoking a cig and it looks like she's putting hand lotion on.Let me see if I can find it.Be right back.
Okay here it is.http://www.freewebs.com/mansonmurders/Voyteck%20&%20Abigail.jpgYou'd think those 2 didn't have a dime!! Well.... he didn't have a dime. HA HA.
OK, Back to Josh: Josh, I’ve blogged with AC Aldag (a friend) for a long time, and reading your post is giving me deja-vu.It’s like she’s whispering in your left ear, as you’re typing. The mindset is… “I got the story from Manson first-hand (or second-hand)… and that’s, that.Here’s the problem I have with that mindset: The folks of that camp, believe Manson is always truthful, and therefore communicating with Manson, leads them to the truth.I believe Manson is truthful, when it suits his needs… there’s a big difference. Manson is interesting, funny, intelligent, insightful, a decent musician, and better song-writer.He has a right to have friends, and folks have a right to be-friend him in return.I myself, would enjoy the opportunity to chat with Manson face to face.I simply don’t think it brings anyone a whole lot closer to the truth.Manson tells the truth when it suits his needs, and like most criminals, has learned to trust only himself… which makes a whole lot of sense. Look at it from this perspective Josh: Leslie and Pat spent a whole lot of time with Manson correct? They’re both in jail… and in every piece of video footage I’ve ever seen, they’re still singing the Helter Skelter motive. How close to the truth did their communication with Manson get them?Are there really folks out there presently, that know Manson better and more intimately, than Leslie and Pat?
On to Josh's post:Josh said>>>>"Frykowski and the lot were into some nasty things and were supposedly messin with "poor" hippies from the strip".I've heard this stated by AC (regarding Frykowski) many times.AC also stated many times, that Polanski was making porno films, using the "hippie" girls as well.This story has circulated among Manson supporters for years.I’ve seen no evidence to either support or refute these claims.Josh said>>>>"The problem with this case is that it was so high profile and yet so incredibly sloppy".I'll agree with you 100% on that one.Josh said>>>>"I think Watson was a wanna be drug dealer and go way in over his head, kinda like Bobby with Hinman....they ask Manson for advice since he's the elder statesman and he say's to handle your business"I believe there was a problem regarding drug dealings... and Tex, could very well have been the one that screwed-up... and brought heat on the family... like he did with the Crowe incident.Josh said>>>>"Waverly I think is a sticky situation, but again I think it's Manson going along with the girls". This is where we majorly part ways.I've been on this earth a long time Josh.If there's one thing I've learned... there's a "pecking order" everywhere... especially among men.School, work, sports teams, gangs... even blogs to be frank with you... there's a pecking order.Manson was a grown man... dealing with kids.Manson was a grown man, who had spent the bulk of his life competing for survival in prison... dealing with kids from suburbia... primarily females!If you believe that Manson was anywhere other than the top of that pecking order, you're kidding yourself my friend... or extremely naive.I don't even have to study this case, to know that a 35 year old Ex-Con was not following ANYBODY in that group. LOLOLThe kids may have made some bad decisions... got themselves into deep shit... and Manson may have had to deal with it.But, he was definitely large and in-charge of that group.There's no doubt in my mind.Unless of course, every life lesson I've learned through middle age is completely wrong.I‘ve never met a grown man (almost middle age), being led around by the nose, by young girls.Josh said>>>>I think Tex is a coward and a fake christian.Anyone who kills un-armed people... including women... AND including a pregnant woman... is surely a coward.Josh said>>>>"for me personally Katie, it's been talking and having friendships with people that know Charles directly".I already addressed this mindest above.
Josh's Post Cont'd...Josh said>>>>""I think that Waverly is where there may be complicity on Manson's part, but it's very foggy.....far too foggy for 42 years in hard core lock up"Josh my friend: It’s true, that Manson got saddled with a really bad lawyer. It’s also true, that the high-profile nature of some of the victims, and the media frenzy, were not to Manson’s advantage.BUT… if Manson played his cards right… he could have walked, or at worst, been released on good behavior, after 20 years.Manson was tried for conspiracy, and conspiracy is harder to prove than straight-up murder.The only case Bugluiosi had, was to prove Manson was in-charge.Bugliosi’s ENTIRE CASE against Manson hinged on proving Manson was in-charge.Bugliosi had nothing else.What does Manson do? He does everything in his power, to demonstrate to the jury, that he’s in-charge.Manson shaves his head… the family shaves their head. Manson carves an “X”… the Family carves “X”s.Manson stands-up and starts chanting and reciting latin in the courtroom… the girls follow suit.The girls were holding a daily vigil outside for “Charlie”. They were giving interviews to camera-men… reading formal letters for the cameras, in support of Manson’s release. At one point… the girls LITERALLY crawled a few miles on their hands and knees, from (I believe it was city hall), to the courthouse.EVERYTHING Manson and the Family did, CEMENTED Manson as leader, in the minds of the jury!!!Manson actually took a fairly weak case against himself… and did Bug’s job for him!Here’s the thing Josh:If Manson got a clean haircut... wore a nice suit and tie... kept his mouth sealed like a vault... told the girls to treat him like a stranger... AND... told the family to stay the heck out of the courthouse... AND off the street-corner... and NEVER talk to any reporters under ANY circumstances... he would have walked.At worst... (with good behavior), he would have been released 20 years ago.HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THAT... INCLUDING THE "GOOD BEHAVIOR":MANSON WOULD HAVE HAD TO SWALLOW HIS PRIDE.YA KNOW... EAT A BIG PIECE OF HUMBLE PIE.HE WASN'T WILLING TO DO THAT.AND THAT MY DEAR FRIENDS... IS WHY MANSON IS REALLY IN JAIL.Bug was a very good lawyer... but, he's not your problem... for those who like Manson.Bug never could have put Manson in jail... unless Manson "made his case for him".Manson liked be "head honcho"... and he wasn't going to relinquish that "status", and become a "nobody" again... just to win the case.Manson was not willing to "cow-tow" to "the man" AND "behave".He chose instead, to go down in a blaze of glory.That's REALLY why Manson went to jail… not Bugliosi.And, that’s why he remains in jail... and will never be released from jail.Bottom line: He wouldn't swallow his pride, then or now.He believes he's "making a statement".Personally, I'd dance a ballet, wearing a Tu-Tu in Times Square on New Years Eve... to avoid an entire lifetime in prison. LOLBut... to each his own! :)I really believe Manson’s supporters want him released much more desperately, than Manson himself wants to be released. Honestly, I don’t think Manson really cares at this point.
Great posts Lynyrd!! You make some very good points. I'll comment more later. Gotta run.
Katie said>>>>"Great posts Lynyrd!! You make some very good points".Thanks Katie... much appreciated.Bob said>>>>"Lynyrd, while reading u\your post I kept wanting to say the real mystery is why wasnt manson smart enough to put on a suit, keep his mouth shut & tell the girls to act like they never heard of him! Then you hit he was smart enough, but he couldn humble himself. your right Lynyrd".Thanks Bob.I put effort last night, into conveying those points as effectively as possible.It's nice to be appreciated.Thanks for reading, and commenting.
several great points lynyrd.i've been following your blogging for a long time. you are the man.
Thanks "Always"!Jeepers... following me for a long time????I didn't realise I'd reached "groupie status". LOLOLThe "Lynyrd Family"??? AHahahahaThat just sounds wrong on many levels. LOL
Josh and I, actually have mostly common ground.There 's only two general viewpoints to this puzzle.1) The folks at Tate and "The Family" had never inter-faced ever... the murders were totally random... and Helter Skelter was the motive.WRONG2) The folks at Tate and "The Family" had interfaced before... knew each other at some level... and the murders were not random.RIGHTJosh and I agree on that point.Marlin Marynick backs this premise in this interview (at 2min. 28 seconds):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us4bHl1cIZk Marynick states: "This was a botched home invasion, and there were definitely drugs involved... the other thing I found-out doing research, is that all these people knew each other".-----------------------------------OK... so the groups from each loaction knew each other.Now... if you inter-face with the family... what are you probably inter-facing over?Drugs, sex, or both right?I believe drugs for sure. Josh agrees. Marynick backs this as well.I'm not sold on the sex concept regarding Frykowski... I'm keeping that idea on the back-burner for now.BUT... I give strong creedence to the Hippie sex tapes regarding Polanski.I give strong creedence to the sex tapes regarding Polanski, due to the Samantha Geimer situation.Polanski is a known pedophile and rapist, who sodomized a thirteen year old girl, after plying her with alcohol.Being a movie producer, it's not much of a stretch to believe, he was involved in porn... is it?
As for Manson... I believe Josh doesn't give his friend enough credit.Manson was not a hapless victim from start to finish.Manson is very intelligent... and it's obvious he "threw" the case intentionally. Manson is definitely smart enough to know, his actions, and the actions of "The Family" during the trial, were very damaging to him. The official court transcripts demonsrate it was all intentional on Manson's part.Excerpt from the offical transcript:June 1970 Statement Concerning His Request to Substitute AttorneysJune 1970, just two weeks before the start of the Tate-LaBianca murder trial, Judge Older approved Manson's request to substitute as his attorney Irving Kanarek for Ronald Hughes. Noting that Manson had made a very disparaging comment about Kanarek, Judge Older asked Manson if he was sure that he wanted a change of lawyers.MANSON: "In a lot of respects, [Kanarek] he would be the worst attorney I could take....I don't think there is any attorney that can represent me as well as I can represent myself. I am smart enough to realize I am not an attorney, and I will sit behind these men and I won't make a scene. I am not here to make trouble... "There is a lot involved here that does not meet the eye. A person is born, he goes to school, he learns what he is told in a book, and he lives his life by what he knows. The only thing he knows is what someone has told him. He is educated; he does what an educated person does. "But go out of this realm, you go into a generation gap, a free-love society, you get into insane drugs or smoking marijuana....There is no way that you can know the taste of water unless you drink it or unless it has rained on you or unless you jump in the river." JUDGE OLDER: "All I want to do, Mr. Manson, is find out if you are happy with Mr. Kanarek or if you have second thoughts." MANSON: "I thought I explained that. I would not be happy with anyone but myself. No man can represent me....." JUDGE OLDER: "It would be a miscarriage of justice to permit you to represent yourself in a case having the complications this case has....Are you affirming Mr. Kanarek as your attorney?" MANSON: "I am forced into a situation. My second alternative is to cause you as much trouble as possible." -----------------------------------------------------------As for "Helter Skelter"....Leslie, Pat, and others did not get this story from Bugliosi.Bugliosi got the story from 'Family" members.This is just common sense.Leslie and Pat (and some of the others) are sill relating the Helter Skelter stuff now... they didn't get it first from Bugliosi.Helter Skelter was a story first related by Manson.Manson, and a small core... prolly Tex, Bruce and Clem (I'm guessing)... knew the true motives for the murders.The rest were kept in the dark with the "Helter Skelter" motive.Even Bugliosi has admitted in an interview in recent years... that he was wrong about the "Helter Skelter" motive.When asked what he now thinks about the motive, Bugliosi stated:"It's clear now, that the motives were several and disparate".In english, that means there were other motives.I'll find the interview of that Bugliosi statement, if anyone is interested.I just don't have the time to dig it out now.Peace.......... Lynyrd
I've officially worn myself out.If anyone wants my opinion on any subject what-so-ever... ever again... I'll just refer them to this thread! LOLOLOLHopefully as the membership grows, I'll be able to take more of a back-seat role.Ya know... post threads, and let everyone else chat.
Motives are almost always complex and not as cut and dry as the prosecution would have you believe. I always thought that Helter Skelter was the motive - as far as his followers were concerned...way too many of them spoke of this. This does not mean that it was solely the reason and solely the reason these people were picked. At this point in time, I don't think that even Manson himself really remembers the if, ands, or buts. Yes, I do think that he planted this idea and started the framework of the murders. But, if anyone ever spoke of the truth - after 40 years, would any of you really believe them? I don't think I would.
Hi guys. I think that's one of the things that makes this case so interesting. No one can come up with a solid motive, and the key figures aren't talking.We've bandied it about on many blogs and discussion areas about the true motive for the murders.But when you stop and think, there evidently was a different motive for each one.The Hinman murder had nothing to do with Helter Skelter. According to Bobby (a) Charlie told him Gary inherited $5000 and he wanted it and (b) Hinman sold Gary some bad drugs and he wanted the money back.Either way, Hinman didn't have any money, and he refused to give Gary the money back for the drugs. I guess he'd already spent it on his trip to Japan.Bobby ended up with 2 junk cars for his time. He later admitted he killed Gary so he wouldn't go to the police, NOT because Manson told him to.I do believe the girls thought the motive for Cielo Drive was Helter Skelter, but I think that was just a ruse Charlie kept going, because he had preaching about it for a long time and people were wondering why it wasn't coming true.LaBianca was supposedly a "copy cat" killing to get Gary out of jail. But as we've all discussed, it was more likely related to the gambling debts that Leno owed.I've read that Voytek made movies with hippy chicks on the strip, but no such movies were ever found. I think that's just another rumor, one of many on this case.
Lynyrd you are so right about all the Charlie comments.He could have done just like you said, and been outta there. But his pride got the better of him.Plus I don't think he really liked it on the outside. I think he's happy to be back home. His music career didn't take off like he thought and he probably had better friends in the slammer.
Several excellent points as always Mary!Mary said>>>"Motives are almost always complex and not as cut and dry as the prosecution would have you believe". Exactly Mary. The prosecution's job, is to convict.They want to keep the motive as concise as possible, 'cuz that's the easiest scenario to sell to the jury. They don't want to admit several motives.With several motives, they'd have to argue on several fronts, and have a complex un-wieldy story to sell to the jury.There's always more to the story than the prosecution suggests. Mary said>>>>"I always thought that Helter Skelter was the motive - as far as his followers were concerned...way too many of them spoke of this. This does not mean that it was solely the reason and solely the reason these people were picked". You're right Mary... way too many of them spoke of this (HS).,The story has been re-gurgitated by way too many members of the family, for it to have originated outside the family.Mary said>>>"This does not mean that it was solely the reason and solely the reason these people were picked".Right again!Mary said>>>"At this point in time, I don't think that even Manson himself really remembers the if, ands, or buts. Yes, I do think that he planted this idea and started the framework of the murders. But, if anyone ever spoke of the truth - after 40 years, would any of you really believe them? I don't think I would".Mary...That's the very point I as trying to make.You really have to take all information you here, with a grain of salt... even from Manson.I listen to what Manson says... give it some creedence, and then use books, blogs, transcripts, inerviews, video footage... coupled with common sense, and weed-out the likely, from the un-likely.They say if you sit in a circle with twelve people... and the first person whispers a real lengthy story in the second persons left ear... and the second person does there danrdest to recite the same lengthy story as accurately as possible, into the 3rd persons left ear... By the time the story is related through 12 folks... when it gets back to person #1 (who started the lengthy tale)... the story is significantly different.The folks who use only books to solve this case are lacking.No book will ever spell things-out, beginning to end.You have to inject some imagination, to connect the dots.If you come home from work, and your wife is naked on the bed... and a nude guys is running out your back door... you know what happened most likely.You have enough information, to make that small leap, to the conclusion.You don't need video footage, or read it in text.The folks who operate only on word-of-mouth are lacking as well.Word-of-mouth is never 100% accurate, especially after 40 years... and with Manson, there's more variables.The folks who have the best shot at finding the truth (and there's kinda more than one anyway)... are the one's who combine word-of-mouth, with research.Isn't there always more than one truth anyway?When two people divorce... do they ever have the same exact answer as to why the marriage failed?There's always two "truths" there.Add 20 more people, and a whole lot of drugs... and how many "truths" are you gonna get?Mary... always be leary of the folks that say "I know 'cuz, I know"... the one's who are over-confident... the one's who "know important people".In this game... knowing important people, is not all that significant.Mary... many of the folks who were THERE, ended-up in jail, and still don't know the truth. LOLOL
Katie said>>>"Lynyrd you are so right about all the Charlie comments.He could have done just like you said, and been outta there. But his pride got the better of him".When Charlie was denied the right to defend himself, and was strapped with Kanarek... he said "fuck it"... and decided to make a circus and mockery out of the trial, as his last satisfaction.It's written in the transcript above.Charlie's last words:"I am forced into a situation. My second alternative is to cause you as much trouble as possible".Star said the same thing in her video.Star said... "After he lost his "Pro-per" (right to defend hinself) is when he decided, as she said... to "act out".Sad thing... Even with Kanarek... if Manson played his cards correctly (as I stated), he stood a VERY good chance of beating a conspiracy charge.He threw the towel, out of frustration.Bugliosi couldn't have gotten him, if he acted as I described.At worst, he would have paroled after 20 years.He raised hell, as a final finger to the man.If he couldn't win on his own terms, as his own attorney... he didn't want to play ball.He had too much pride to abandon his role as "leader", and play a deaf-mute to win the case.And... that's-that.
I was just wondering if Charlie ever thought of his "folowers" as friends.I've never heard any of the Manson Family refer to another one as "a friend". They went from "having friends" to "being one" with a diverse group of people.Must have been mind blowing.Also, I'll ask again...does anyone have any idea why they cut the phone lines at Cielo and not Waverly?
Lynyrd you're right. You'll never learn the truth if you just read, or just listen to people talk, or just talk to "important people" (whoever that is). You have to encompass the whole agenda, then make a decision based on all facts.I've often wondered why these girls would follow Charlie anyway. Pat I understand. She was lonely and hairy. Mary I understand, she was a homely librarian. Susan I understand, she had nobody in the world and living from day to day. Squeaky I understand, she was kicked out of the house and had nowhere to go.Sandy...well I think she was a nutjob before she met Charlie. LOL.The other girls, thus and sundry, I guess had their reasons. Some stayed, some left.But Leslie??? She had lots of friends, she was popular, had boyfriends, had the chance to excel and make a mark on the world, she was very attractive. I don't get her doing what she did.
There's a million reasons Katie.Leaving home was popular at that time.Communal living was popular at that time.Being part of a group, is fun at that age.They probably had a lot of fun as a group... until the very end, when things got bloody.There were drugs, music and sex available.They visited fun places... recording studios... partied with Wilson.There was the excitement of crime and danger.Primarily their age though:I don't think Charlie's shtick would have worked with men and women in their 40', 50's and 60's as well. LOLAlthough Manson was effective with Geroge Spahn, and Mr. Moorehouse.Most importantly, I think it's 'cuz Charlie was banging them.If you have sex with a young girl under 20... they'll follow you around like a puppy dog.Women (unfortunately, LOL) outgrow that in their 30' and 40's.I had a buddy that used to joke:"How are young girls and carpets alike?'Cuz if you lay them right the first time, you can walk all over them for years". LOLOLOK... shameful "men's" joke... but, a truth I think Charlie knew all too well. LOL
Lynyrd said - If you come home from work, and your wife is naked on the bed... and a nude guys is running out your back door... you know what happened most likely.You have enough information, to make that small leap, to the conclusion.You don't need video footage, or read it in text.-------------------LOL! Right...but unfortunately, there is always some sad sack who will believe all the crap that his woman shoves down his throat, even after the evidence is smacking him aside the head. Some people believe what they want to believe. Lynyrd said - Mary... always be leary of the folks that say "I know 'cuz, I know"... the one's who are over-confident... the one's who "know important people".In this game... knowing important people, is not all that significant.-------------Exactly! We know the people who were there - the other people who say they know because they know...only know from word of mouth...and you already pointed out the "telephone game" and people exaggerate to make themselves feel more important than they really are...and those get passed around and misconstrued. That is the reason that this is so fascinating...if the facts were the facts and everyone was telling the truth and the same story - we wouldn't be discussing this today. You are right...just like with any story, one must examine the facts and dismiss the stories one at a time to discover some semblance of the truth.
Katie says - But Leslie??? She had lots of friends, she was popular, had boyfriends, had the chance to excel and make a mark on the world, she was very attractive. I don't get her doing what she did.--------You are right, Katie. That is very curious. However, because she was cute and likable, she seems to have people trying to defend her actions and believe she deserves leniency...I have never, ever heard anyone say that Pat deserves a second chance...what is up with that? Makes me leery of people who defend Leslie - or even Sadie - because they never defend Pat...their prejudices are revealed.
I know that was going off track a bit...but Katie's comment made me think of it
Lynyrd said - "How are young girls and carpets alike?'Cuz if you lay them right the first time, you can walk all over them for years". LOLOL-----------Too bad there are not too many men who can do the job right the first time! :)
>>>Mary said: Lynyrd said - "How are young girls and carpets alike?'Cuz if you lay them right the first time, you can walk all over them for years". LOLOL-----------Too bad there are not too many men who can do the job right the first time! :)>>>HA HA HA. ROLFLMAO!!!Hoo hooo.Mary you hit the nail squarely on the head!!! HEE HEE.>>> Mary said: (About LVH) You are right, Katie. That is very curious. However, because she was cute and likable, she seems to have people trying to defend her actions and believe she deserves leniency...I have never, ever heard anyone say that Pat deserves a second chance...what is up with that? Makes me leery of people who defend Leslie - or even Sadie - because they never defend Pat...their prejudices are revealed.>>>Yes indeed. I believe that Pat has more remorse than any of the other girls ever did.I feel more badly for Pat than any of them. And she knows she will never get out. i.e., the last parole hearing. She made me cry. I'm I'm not easily duped by these folks.She was a hairy, ugly girl who guys didn't ever call back, and she was lonely.Charlie struck and told her she was beautiful.She was hooked.Charlie has some voodoo that worked well on certain girls. "Grab your pencillls boyysss, & listen up." If you can master that, then you can leave the "hand jobs at home". HA HA.I agree with you that Leslie really has no excuse. Her parents got divorced...so what?Her mother "made her get an abortion".....so what?She had everything going for her, and threw it all away to be with Bobby, and later with Manson. She followed orders and helped kill Rosemary LaBianca. She thinks that since she's the Monrovia HS "Princess" that she's got clout.Well I haven't seen remorse from her. She can whine and beg and downplay her actions all she wants, she'll never get out.>>>Lynyrd said: I don't think Charlie's shtick would have worked with men and women in their 40', 50's and 60's as well. LOLAlthough Manson was effective with Geroge Spahn, and Mr. Moorehouse.>>>7Right on Lynyrd. George Spahn was an old blind man who needed help. I'm sure he was thrilled to get a hand job here and there from Squeaky. (I'm sure his "hand" was wearing out. HA HA).Moorehouse??? That guy was a psycho. A Reverend? I DON'T THANK SO. Not anymore than Tex or Bruce are. Which is laughable!!He gave his 14 year old daughter away. To a 32 year old guy.LOSER!!
And Bobby? Why would he do what he did. He was soooo cute.He was raised in Santa Barbara CA, one of the most beautiful places on earth.He had a normal upbringing.Don't get it.And now for Tex:He was raised in Texas in a christian home, and believe me, I know what that's like. I was raised here too.Go to church on Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings & Wednesday evenings.I rebelled too, because I got tired of all that church going.But...I never would have killed anyone. NEVER.
Mary said>>>"Too bad there are not too many men who can do the job right the first time! :)"I always wondered why only me, and a couple other guys "got" that joke!!! LOLOL
As I've said before...I find Pat the most remorseful, sensible, grounded and credible.Pat's crimes were more "involved" than Leslie's... so maybe some folks figure, she'll never get out anyway... why discuss it.BUT... the fact that she was less physically attractive definitely plays heavily into her not being discussed, and considered as well... I agree.Male Chauvinists!LOLOL
Mike McCloskey has joined our membership!Please join me in welcoming Mike!Mike wants to explain to us, what the hand signal (in the thread photo) means.Have at it Mike...
Charles himself said that this symbol started off as one thing-a riminder to himself of one thing-that he would never break the law again or do anything to land himself back in the slammer-it also means"one thing-don't lie" in his words-over the years of course it has become symbolic of the circle of oneness that is the crux of ATWA
Mike said - Charles himself said that this symbol started off as one thing-a riminder to himself of one thing-that he would never break the law again or do anything to land himself back in the slammer-it also means"one thing-don't lie" in his words-----------------------------Seriously? If so, he obviously did not hold much credence to the symbol.Welcome!!!!!!!!!
Hi Mike/Alikens.Mike said:"this symbol started off as a riminder to himself of one thing-that he would never break the law again or do anything to land himself back in the slammer".----------------------------------------------I gotta be honest with ya Mike...Manson was involved in auto theft, drug dealing, using women as currency, check forgery, and credit card fraud.By his own admission, Manson shot Bernard "Lotsapoppa" Crowe on July 1, 1969, at his Hollywood apartment.By his own admission, Manson cut Gary Hinman's face/ear with a sword.Manson never held any gainful employment for any significant stretch, and provided for himself through crime, and exploiting others.Manson did several things "to break the law, and land himself back in the slammer".In fact, it's a pretty safe assumption, that even if the murders never occurred, Manson likely would have spent time, in and out of prison, for lesser crimes anyway.
Hi Mike. Welcome aboard!>>>Mike said: Charles himself said that this symbol started off as one thing-a riminder to himself of one thing-that he would never break the law again or do anything to land himself back in the slammer-it also means"one thing-don't lie" in his words>>>Well if that's the case, that didn't last long. Maybe like a whole day. LOL.>>>-over the years of course it has become symbolic of the circle of oneness that is the crux of ATWA>>>Well now that makes sense. Ergo, the picture on this thread.
lmaomanson's one goal was to never break the law again? i'm sorry, but that's just kinda funny... lol.it's like when you're puking in the toilet, and you say you're never gonna drink again. hahaha"i'll never drink again". hahaha
>>>Always said: lmaomanson's one goal was to never break the law again?>>>It's pretty sad to only have "one goal" and never meet it. HA HA.>>>i'm sorry, but that's just kinda funny... lol.it's like when you're puking in the toilet, and you say you're never gonna drink again. hahaha"i'll never drink again". hahaha>>>Yeah, I'll never drink again, until maybe tomorrow night. LOL.
Post a Comment