Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Ed Sanders… or as Starship likes to say: “That Fug”

This interview was conducted by Harold Channer, on March 23, 1975.  (Video Below) 
Channer is something of a goofball, but Sanders gets into some heavy topics. 
Turn up your volume, the audio is very low. 

Topics of Note:
7:30 -- “Manson was a victim of certain strains of cruelty that exist in American civilization.  He then used those techniques of cruelty onward”.

10:00 -- “The murders uncovered a huge spectrum of things that people wanted to hide. Everything from pornographic movies, to drug dealings, to cultic persuasion as religion…. bad news on all aspects of California life.  Desperate people were interested in keeping things hidden”. 
He expounds on this topic, explaining how this made uncovering facts exceedingly difficult… with lots of dead-ends. 
Example: A man Sanders tracked for some time… (who supposedly delivered drugs to Cielo), was consequently found dead in an automobile trunk.

14:00 -- Manson/Jesus trip.

18:00 -- Sanders dscusses what he calls the “3 strands” which (he believes) led to deterioration: “Devilish lifestyle, Schizophrenia, and hippies/kids being treated shabbily by the police“.

26:45 -- Why was Sharon Tate killed? 
“I originally thought it was a matter of drugs.  I no longer believe that.  Neither do I believe these people were killed for the purpose of setting-up racial Armageddon.  That’s Bugliosi’s contention”.

27:30 -- This transitions the conversation to Bugliosi:
“I reviewed Bugliosi’s book for the Kansas City Star.  Bugliosi could put facts down in a way, that would hold people’s attention.  He wrote the book, just as he speaks in court”. 
Sanders explains that he attended the entire trial.  I wasn’t aware of that fact.
Ed continues:
“Bugliosi’s book contains lots of information that I didn’t have access to, such as Polanski’s lie detector test.  It’s an interesting book”.
However, Sanders concludes by reiterating:
“I don’t agree however, with the book’s contention, that the killings were orchestrated for the purpose of setting-up racial Armageddon… nor, does anybody who really knows the case… including some defense attorneys and law enforcement personnel”.

30:40 -- “The motives and details are historical.  One’s case file is never closed”.

Note: The original interview exceeded one hour. 
I took the liberty of cropping it, as it departs totally from the TLB subject at 31:16. 
The entire interview can be viewed here:


LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

This thread was compiled from research that Kimchi had initiated, compiled (and submitted) months ago
I am just catching-up now.

Sorry Kimchi... I'm way behind on thread submissions.

Thanks Kimchi!

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

If anyone has submitted a thread idea... please be patient.
I WILL get to it.

ALL thread submissions are most appreciated.

I'm just one guy... trying to juggle this blog world hobby, with real life responsibilites and interests. LOL
I'm happy to say... that most times... the real world still takes precedence. : )

Peace and chicken grease... LOL

sbuch113 said...

Strange interview.
Flat, monotone no eye contact.....a disconnect.
Like the two of them had been smoking PCP prior to sitting down.

Kimchi said...

It must have been a very long time ago, because I don't remember doing it---LOL

One thing I can't get out of my mind is the guy found dead in the trunk - Joel Rosteau...

I've only seen bits and pieces about him...that he was Jay's supplier, Jay's secretary's boyfriend..etc..he had an injured foot..blah blah..found dead in trunk of car, could be mafia related...

Schreck said the foot injury was caused by Tex a few weeks earlier...but he didn't source it.

Kimchi said...

"Peace and chicken grease"

Ahh c'mon Lynyrd....

I heard a good one today...

In LA County Jail, when inmates get beaten with flashlights by the deputies, they call it "Edison Medicine"....

OK, only witty to me...at first I thought it was because they use tasers, Edison is the company that supplies the electricity...ha-ha-ha..

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi SBuch.

It's kinda weird how Sanders doesn't look at the interviewer... (or even look his way)... for like 10 minutes. LOL

It IS quite monotone... but, I believe the really low level of volume magnifies that experience.
Whoever recorded this audio, did a poor job.
I really beieve if the audio was much louder... that monotone experience would have been significantly diminished.

All that aside...

I like the way Sanders expresses himself.
He utilizes unique word choices and phrases, to express his thoughts.
He thinks before he speaks.
He's downright eloquent at times.

I'm actually kinda surprised he's not more popular in TLB circles, since he states emphatically (as early as 1975), that a race war had nothing to do with the murders.
He also states quite humbly (and open-mindedly), that the true motive still escapes him... and that, as far as he's concerned... the case is still... and always... open.
He seems quite sensible and forward-thinking to me.

After all the heat Sanders has taken on the blogs... I was kinda expecting an excited, sensationalistic, frivolous man... like Bill Nelson.
This guy comes across as quite grounded, laid back and deep-thinking to me.
He's nothing like Bill Nelson.
Honestly... I really wasn't expecting a man of this caliber.
Frank... the intelligent blogger known to all... has defended Sanders in the past, calling him (paraphrasing)... "an artistic literary talent".
After viewing this... it makes sense to me.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


Kimchi said:
"One thing I can't get out of my mind is the guy found dead in the trunk - Joel Rosteau"

Your knowledge of the case... and especially the "twice-removed players", always astounds me.

Seriously folks...
Kimchi could tell you who George Spahn's 3rd cousin is! LOL

katie8753 said...

Hi Sbuch!! You're right. They don't really look at each other.

Sanders reminds me of Michael Stivick on All in the Family. HA HA.

Except he has a little more hair.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

He does kinda look like Meathead. LOL

But, you're still a dingbat! : )

katie8753 said...

I think my computer is messing up. I want to thank Kimchi again for this thread. Good stuff. I hope it doesn't show up twice. I posted it once, but I think it went to some black hole. LOL.

But if my thanks shows up twice...twice the thanks. LOL.

I don't have time to listen to the whole video tonight. I've had some work done around my house today, and it was all GOOD, but not I'm just "wore out".

But I will review it tomorrow.

Thanks Kimchi!!!

katie8753 said...

>>>But, you're still a dingbat! : )>>

Oh Ahhhh-chie!!! Are-rent you the sweet talkah!!!



MrPoirot said...

I thought Sanders was being dead clinical about how the massacres were brought about. He appears to have become much more attuned to the nature of the evil and mental illness that lay behind all the motivations of the Family. He is much more precice about what happened in 1975 than he was in 71 when he published "The Family". You can tell he clearly understands more in 1975 about how the Manson Family was a macabre group of misfits who truly studied evil and became experts at being evil. He clearly states how the counter culture had a wheel in the ditch even at its' beginnings and was doomed to failure and being exposed. Note how he attributes much of the root cause of the murders to paganism. He even explains paganism's centuries long list of destruction in its' history by attributing the fall of the Roman empire to alien pagans who flocked to Rome just as the Family members flocked to Spahn Ranch.
Unfortunantly Sanders didn't name his book "Helter Skelter".

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hi Poirot.

Sanders' book has gone through a few fairly dramatic revisions... so evidently, Sanders has no qualms about amending things if/when he's wrong... or when he learns more.
He states that mindset in a round-about way when he says, "the case is always open".
Also worthy of note:
Sanders was sued by the "Process Church" at one time, and was forced to remove a chapter.
That accounted for a portion of one revision.

Poirot said:
"The nature of the evil and mental illness that lay behind all the motivations".
Well said Poirot.
That's a pretty good synopsis, of the overall theme.
Personal, social, and ethical compromise... coupled with pre-eisting, and exacerbated mental illness.
That's my one-sentence version.
Pretty similar to yours...

It should be noted:
When Sanders mentions "Pagan religions" in his Roman deterioration analogy... he's speaking in general terms to describe several generic and various religions, sects and cults.
Paganism is a specific religion, and he's not referring to them specifically.
You and I know, what Sanders means... but his use of that term is actually something of a misnomer.
It's inaccurate.
He should have just said "various cults and sects of all kinds".
He does clarify (and state) that, shortly afterwards.

Many christians understand the word "pagan" as anyone who doesn't have religion... and that's how Sanders uses the term.
That's not really accurate, because "Pagan" refers to a specific group technically... and they do have a religion.
I just learned that in recent years myself.

My long explanation of that, is not for you specifically Poirot.
Our friend AC Aldag is a practicing Pagan in the truest sense... and she'll be here within 12 hours to clear things up, if I don't. LOL
My explanation is pre-emptive.
How did I do AC?

1. a misapplied or inappropriate name or designation. 2. an error in naming a person or thing.

That "Roman Empire" analogy (digression), was my least favorite part of the entire interview.
Sanders is quite clear, articulate and transparent throughout.
That section gets a bit convoluted, and is quite frankly, kinda useless.
But, whatevers...

katie8753 said...

For being so laid back in this interview, his book was quite funny. Oo-ee-oo.

It's really hard to hear parts of this interview. I think Sanders said that during the trial, Charlie put a finger on his throat, motioning to Sanders, as in "I'll cut your throat" type thing.

Did Charlie really think that the judge and jury couldn't see all his intimidating actions?

starship said...

Interesting that Sanders references Joel Rosteau. I've always felt he might be key to this whole thing as well...in that he knew something we don't...and then ends up in a car trunk at JFK. There were a rash of those back in those days. They were mafia-related. Done so that you knew it was them. Someone could have copy cat the style, but I wonder how likely a drug addled doper might have the sense to do so.

I find Sanders compelling too. He lives in Woodstock last I knew and writes a blog about the Catskills. My problem with The Family is that it is so poorly sourced. Just like I argue with people on these blogs sometimes: if it isn't sourced well and it's pretty outlandish, then I tend not to believe it.

katie8753 said...

Hi Starship!

I agree with you, I found Ed's book a fun and very interesting read, but there are parts in the book that are so outlandish, you just have to chalk it up to "urban Charlie legend". LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

My take, is that Sanders is an "artsy fartsy" Bohemian/Beatnik type... along the lines of Kesey, Kirouac and Ginsberg.
The man is very much, a poet.

As such...
Anything Sanders creates, is going to be painted with dayglo bright flamboyant colors.
His book is as much a work of literary art, as it is "true crime", a documentary or biography.

Guys like Sanders (poets) attempt to paint pictures with words.
Exaggeration is very much a part of their palette of colors, which they use to convey (and often drive home) thoughts/concepts.
Poets utilize the figurative to describe the concrete.
Bottom line...
Sanders' personality and background (as one would expect) come through in his writing.
"It is, what it is".

I think clearly, Sanders knows a great deal about the case, and he's nobody's fool.
His resume is quite impressive.
He's succeeded as a poet, singer, social activist, environmentalist, author, and publisher.
His literary bibliography is quite deep.

Just a few of his achievements:
-- 1967 cover of "Life Magazine"
-- 1983, Received a Guggenheim
-- 1987, National Endowment for the Arts Fellowship in poetry
-- 1988, "Thirsting for Peace in a Raging Century", won an American Book Award
-- 1997, Awarded a grant from the Foundation for Contemporary Arts
-- Writer-in-Residence at the New York State Writers Institute in Albany, New York.
The list goes on...

As for mixing poetry and art... with crime research... here's a glowing example (pun intended) of my point:

"Sanders is the founder of the Investigative Poetry movement.
His 1976 manifesto "Investigative Poetry", published by Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s City Lights Books, had an impact on investigative writing and poetry during the ensuing decades.

In the 1990s, Sanders began utilizing the principles of Investigative Poetry to create a series of book-length poems on literary figures and American History.

Among these works are "Chekhov, 1968: A History in Verse", and "The Poetry and Life of Allen Ginsberg".
In 1998, Sanders began work on a 9-volume America, A History in Verse.

Peace Brothers!

katie8753 said...

Wow. I didn't know all that stuff about him. I'm impressed!

He doesn't look like much of a "go getter" in this interview. I guess looks can be deceiving. Or maybe he was just having a bad day. LOL.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Frank's words (regarding Sanders) have stuck in my head, ever since I read them, way back when.
He has an impactful way of explaining things.
His words stick with you.

I couldn't help myself.
I went back and found his commentary.
Nobody expresses things as well as Frank, and I feel compelled to re-share his words at this most appropriate time... since Frank expressed these thoughts regarding Sanders, long before I ever did.
I'm retreading over a path, which Frank already blazed.

I hope he doesn't mind.

Someone asked:

"Could it be that Sanders (and hendrickson as well) are trying to cash in one last time off the only thing on either of there life's that ever brought them any real money?"

Frank Replied:

"Sure he wanted to make money out of it, but hey, this was America. But I think he is often misunderstood because people think of his book as a factual account, as investigative journalism. I prefer to think of him as more of a Bruce Chatwin type writer, painting a canvas with a bit of fact, a bit of conjecture and a bit of bullshit. An art form, in fact.

You know, there is life outside Tate-LaBianca. I think it would be useful to bear in mind that Ed Sanders has had a long creative life (check out his bio), and that his brief flirtation with all things Manson has been a short, regrettable and ultimately insignificant part of it.

He's not done badly for himself, and has won awards in a number of artistic fields. He's often seen as a kind of link between the Beat and Hippie generations, and was certainly very much at the front of the countercultural revolution. Maybe you have to be my age (pushing 70) to relate to that.

But anyone who could publish a magazine called 'Fuck You' (back in the early 60s), and attempted to exorcise the Pentagon can't be all that bad".

[long time Fugs fan]

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Pretty good shit huh? LOL

Where are you man?
The cerebral world needs you!
: )

katie8753 said...

He says that he doesn't think the motive for the murders was drug-related, but does he ever say what he thought the motive was?

I couldn't hear all of the audio.

leary7 said...

From Massachusetts and mis-spelling Kerouac...detention for you Lynyrd.
I've regretably butted heads with Frank a few times - he can be dismissive of folk like me who are still freshmen in terms of TLB scholorship - but you are right, his summary of Sanders is dead on.
And he is missed.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


The short answer: No.

The long answer:
Sanders suggests processes and factors which he believes lead to (and contributed to) the deterioration of their moral fiber, to the extent, that it allowed them to participate in such acts.
He attempts to answer the "How?"
IE... "How could people commit such acts?"

As for the "Why?" (motive):
He says initially he believed it was drugs, but now (as of 1975) has dismissed that belief.
He states that the motive still escapes him... as every author has... save for Bugliosi.

Bugliosi still maintains "race war" as the motive... but even he has loosened his grip.
Bugliosi has back-pedaled a bit in recent years.
When asked if he stilled believed HS as the motive, Bugliosi responded:
"It seems the motives were several and disparate".
That's "lawyer talk" for:
A LOT of factors contributed.

Speaking of "several and disparate":
I've always believed, it's entirely possible, that all the killers participated for their own perceived reasons.
IE... Van Houen's reason for participation, may have been differed from Tex's... and so on.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Katie said:
"I couldn't hear all of the audio".

Hearing aids come with a volume control.
It's just behind the lobe. LOLOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said:
"From Massachusetts and mis-spelling Kerouac...detention for you Lynyrd".

I know... I know...

I caught that error just after I posted it... and thought:
"Eh screw it, no one wil notice".
But someone always does... LOL
I guess in the grand scheme of things, that's a good thing.
It means that a few people are actually reading my posts! LOLOL

katie8753 said...

I believe the "why would they" is very simple. Because Charlie told them to.

The "how could they" is much more complicated. It was an individual choice, but when you look at the "family" situation, it's very apparent that after spending many months with Charlie, most of them were "de-programmed" into his way of thinking. i.e., they would do anything he said, not only for him, but for the other members of the family.

This "de-programming" continued long after the arrests and trial for some. Not for others.

It would be interesting to know exactly how long it took for it to "wear off" for each individual. I would think it would be more quickly for those on trial and facing the death penalty than for those who were still on the street.

katie8753 said...

>>>Lynyrd said: Hearing aids come with a volume control.
It's just behind the lobe. LOLOL>>>

I've got one of those old K-Mart ones. No volume control allowed. HA HA.

katie8753 said...

If you look at the individuals who were charged with murder, it seems that each kept on with this "family vigil" for a while, according to each of their needs. The others, Gypsy, Squeaky, Sandy, Cappy, etc., let go more slowly.

I think the convicted family members conceived their new reality more quickly, because they were facing their own reality about what they'd done.

The others, of course, were bystanders, and thereby weren't looking into the same abyss as the convicted family members. So it probably took longer to finally sink in that their new reasoning was only a fabrication of Charlie's mind.

I hope by now that each and every one of them has finally realized that Charlie was a con man and using them.

It's like Sanders was saying...Charlie was a victim of cruelty and he used that experience to inject cruelty on others.

katie8753 said...

Hi Leary! It's interesting that Sanders mentions the Lincoln assassination as an ongoing discussion, just like the Kennedy assassination. We know the Lincoln killing was a conspiracy. Many people were hung for that, but we're still debating the Kennedy killing.

We still discuss these cases for years, yet never really come to the final conclusions.

prefeteria said...

I always wondered what extra stuff never made it into print:


MrPoirot said...

katie8753 said...
Hi Leary! It's interesting that Sanders mentions the Lincoln assassination as an ongoing discussion, just like the Kennedy assassination. We know the Lincoln killing was a conspiracy. Many people were hung for that, but we're still debating the Kennedy killing.

We still discuss these cases for years, yet never really come to the final conclusions

Poirot replies:

We are still debating if Squeaky intended on shooting Pres Ford. I can assure anyone that if Squeaky had used a revolver instead of a semiauto that Ford would have been assassinated by Red. She unknowingly ejected the round in the chamber and then inserted a magazine with four bullets just before she left her house that fateful day. The semiauto had ammo but not in the chamber. Even though Squeaky had fired semiauto pistols at Spahn's many times she was still a beginner with that type weapon. Squeaky's sugardaddy tried to talk her out of taking the semiauto because he thought it was too complicated for her but know-it-all Red paid him no mind.
I listened to Ford in an interview in the 1980s say that he never found out why she wanted to kill him.(other than the fact that she was a very pissed off lunatic)

leary7 said...

just kidding of course Lynyrd. I misspell all the time.
Yup, Katie, the debate will rage on. I saw Robert Redford's 'The Conspirator' recently about the Lincoln conspiracy and thought it was god-awful. Suprising because I've always liked Redford as a film maker and it had some of my favorite actors in it - Kevin Kline and Robin Wright etc. But it just felt really wooden to me.
Next year will be a half century since JFK was killed at high noon in the middle of a town square in Texas with a thousand witnesses and we still argue about it. There was a Gallup poll a few years ago that showed 78% of Americans don't think Oswald acted alone...but only 11% thought the matter should be pursued. In other words, they didn't think they had the truth but they didn't care. That is scary. I forget who it was that said, "the times we live in are so dangerous the only defense is the truth". I think it might have been FDR, or one of the Stooges.
This is what the Col and others rail about - that we don't have the truth about TLB but nobody cares anymore.
One has to wonder, what with the Wall Street collapse etc, if Americans have abandoned their demand/committment to the truth.
I've always believed that dissonance causes apathy - to much conflicting info causes an overload and people just stop caring. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with Romney, information wise I mean. Anyone who thinks it is no big deal to have a Mormon for president just simply does not have the facts or even a remote version of truth.
Yikes, where did that rant come from. To many energy drinks this morning I suppose.

leary7 said...

Does anyone else find it interesting to step back and look at who has chronicled TLB for us? We have The Prosecutor of course, and then The Artist (Sanders) and The Perv (Nelson) and lately a Canadian psych nurse and the sappho partner of the victim's sister. It's an interesting lineup to say the least.
Two of the great writers of our time, Mailer and DeLillo (and most recently Stephen King), both took on the JFK assasination. Anyone know if any famous literary folk ever contemplated doing a Manson story. I know Oliver Stone was interested in doing the film. but I wonder if any serious writers thought about doing a TLB tale.
Of course there are always rumors of Family members having a book in the wind - Gypsy has thought to have been peddling one for awhile, and I think Liz said Stephanie Shram was doing one. And I think I heard the Squeaky was coming out with another.
Thruth is the only ones I would read would be something from Mary, Clem or Ruth Ann. Maybe Pittman. And of course the bedroom confessions of Donkey Dan. I would read that.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., I think pointing a loaded gun at the President is lunacy in itself, whether or not you intend to shoot. I'm not sure how the SS works, but she's lucky she didn't get one right between the eyes.

As to why she did it...I really don't know either.

katie8753 said...

Hi Leary.

I would love for a new movie to be done about this case, but I'm afraid with no new evidence or facts, it's just gonna be the same old thing, just better lighting & sound and better looking actors. LOL.

I'm not so sure I'd want to read a book written by family members. I guess it would depend on which one, like you said. Maybe some would tend to be more truthful than others.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Prefeteria said:
"I always wondered what extra stuff never made it into print:



Hi Prefeteria.
I'm sorry your comment got a bit buried.
That's quite an impressive link you shared.
That HAS to be the most complete list of Sanders' works, available anywhere.
It includes quite a BIO too.

Bloggers never cease to amaze me, with the stuff they find.
That's the beauty of blogging!

I'll read through it, more closely later...


leary7 said...

I hear ya Katie, it does seem....idiotic, to want to hear from the likes of Clem or Mary or Pittman. Giving them a forum seems more than a bit indulgent. But dammit, they aren't going to be around forever and there ARE STILL stories to be told. Tell me you wouldn't enjoy sitting in a sidewalk cafe in Spain with Clem and asking him fifty questions. it would be a treat for me.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Leary said:
"Does anyone else find it interesting to step back and look at who has chronicled TLB for us? We have The Prosecutor of course, and then The Artist (Sanders) and The Perv (Nelson) and lately a Canadian psych nurse and the sappho partner of the victim's sister. It's an interesting lineup to say the least".

Yeah... it's quite the menagerie. LOL

1. a collection of wild or unusual animals, especially for exhibition.
2. a place where they are kept or exhibited.
3. an unusual and varied group of people.

"An unusual and varied group of people".
Kinda like the bloggers, who read those books!
: )

I'd definitely read a book written by Squeaky.
Beyond the fact that she's my favorite "character" (for lack of a better word) in all this... how could one resist the curiousity?
Personally, I'd HAVE to read the contents of her book.
I couldn't resist.

It's kinda like Mike Tyson.
You know there's probably no substance forthcoming... but, you have to listen anyway.

If Squeaky shares new information in her book... great.
If not... she'll be outrageously entertaining, as always.
I don't see how one can lose, with a Squeaky book.
Entertainment guaranteed... with the outside chance of learning something new.
It's a win-win! LOLOL

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...


katie8753 said...

>>>Leary said: Tell me you wouldn't enjoy sitting in a sidewalk cafe in Spain with Clem and asking him fifty questions. it would be a treat for me.>>>

I'd love to sit with most any former family member and ask fifty questions. But...will I get the truth? I somehow doubt it.

Clem has had his chance to wag his tongue for years and hasn't done so. I'm wondering if that was part of his parole. Or maybe he still fears the punishment for squealers.

katie8753 said...

Donna Summer died today. A true icon. She was a beautiful woman and a fantastic performer.

You youngsters might not know her, but she was great back in the 70's.

She will be missed. Sigh....

katie8753 said...

Back in the 70's, lots of people told me I look like Donna Summer. I was flattered!!! LOL.



MrPoirot said...

I think Clem and Squeaky finally found out that when they started pontificating that all they were doing was immitating Charlie. Why go around threatening to kill everybody and trying to start race wars? Why sit in prison for decades trying to prove a point that nobody gives a damn about? Besides: the entire green movement was solved by simply putting out dozens of green port-a-johns at all the Occupy protests.

starship said...

Intersting about Squeaky. I've heard someone make the point that she was expert with weapons and so if it meant that if there wasn't a round in that chamber then she didn't want one there.

I am all for art, I love movies and books, fiction is great. But maybe because I studied history, I like my TLB stuff to be facts. So the point about Sanders is a good one, and perhaps that is why I don't like him all that much. Restless Souls too...and Statman even tells us what 'sources' she used for that book.

Robert Redford has a movie coming out in the fall: THE COMPANY YOU KEEP. I hope it's a good one, and recommend highly the novel on which it is based written by Neil Gordon.

As for JFK, I hate to say this here, but if you can stomach it, read Bugliosi's book, RECLAIMING HISTORY. Better yet, Stephen King's 11/22/63

Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

katie8753 said...

Mr. P., I don't think Clem was ever as dedicated to Charlie as Squeaky was. He probably wised up pretty quickly in prison that he had followed the wrong master. It took Squeaky a lot longer to figure that out.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Starship, You Rock.
Case closed...

prefeteria said...

Unfortunately the Sanders archives are only available for viewing in person and by appointment. If you happen to be "on the road" between Boston and NY then perhaps it's on your way.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Prefeteria. This Sanders guy is pretty accomplished. I'm impressed.

leary7 said...

katie...has Squeaky 'figured it out'? I wasn't aware of that.
starship...Lee Harvey may indeed have pulled the trigger, but my take is that one cannot argue either side with more than a 70/30 certainty given the strong circumstantial evidence both ways. When one does argue with a 100% certainty they usually have an agenda. Stephen King, for instance, bases his lone assassin belief primarily on Lee having ordered the rifle found in the TSB building. One can take any number of "facts" and hang your conclusion on them. What has always stayed with me was when Lee was confronted by the press and asked if he shot the president he proclaimed, "No, I am just a patsy". That is an interesting choice of words, don't you think. Lee didn't say "no, I am innocent". He used the specific and relatively unused word 'patsy'. And there is no question Lee was involved with some undercover/behind the scenes stuff.
Stiil, he may very well have just decided screw it and that he wanted to be infamous. He had that kind of ego and warped delusions.
There really is just not a conclusive "smoking gun" in the JFK case. There are discrepencies in the ballistic evidence, the autopsy, the acoustic and eyewitness and so on.
I am afraid the debate will go on and on...even with having had "deathbed" confessions from Howard Hunt etc.

leary7 said...

Bobby, I will elaborate later, library is closing soon. Suffice it to say the Mormon - Catholic comparison really doesn't hold water - apples and oranges really.
Did you know that every American president is Mormon? And Babe Ruth and Marilyn Monroe etc etc.? The Mormons have something they call "the baptisms of the dead" so that folk who died before converting could still be baptized and get into the "celestial kingdom" - the Mormon heaven. So they have baptized all the presidents. This practice got them in trouble with the Jewish people as the Mormons were baptizing all the Holocost victims and Golda Meir and other famous Israelis.

Not for nothing, and no offense to those who choose to believe, but Mormonism is truly a comic book religion - mysterious buried golden plates and civilizations that there is no evidence of and so on.
And I will tell you that the Mormon church has done the best PR job in America. They promote themselves as "the family values" church but their divorce rate is higher than the national average as is their teenage pregnancy and suicide rate and also the rate of spousal abuse.
It is all smoke and mirrors.
More later.
But I will leave you with this. A Mormon has to have what is called their "temple recomendation" in order to go to the Mormon Temple. And only those who go to the Temple can get into heaven. A temple recommend has to be renewed every year. The Mormon goes in and has an interview with his ward bishop. In the 90's the Bishops started asking married Mormon couples....MARRIED COUPLES... if they were having oral sex and if they answered yes they were denied their recommendation and thus their acceptance into heaven.
Do you really want a president whose religion tried to outlaw oral sex for married couples???

katie8753 said...

>>>Leary said: katie...has Squeaky 'figured it out'? I wasn't aware of that.>>>

Well I thought she had. Maybe I'm wrong. I sincerely hope she has....

>>>Bobby, I will elaborate later, library is closing soon.>>>

Do you blog at the library? LOL.

CarolMR said...

Why are so many people, like Sanders, so obsessed with what Bugliosi thought the motive was? In this country the prosecution does NOT have to prove motive at all in order to obtain a conviction.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Carol said:
"Why are so many people, like Sanders, so obsessed with what Bugliosi thought the motive was?"

I didn't see any clear indication, that Sanders is obsessed with Bugliosi, or his theory.
Harold Channers (the interviewer), questioned Sanders directly, regarding motive.
He then questioned Sanders directly, in regards to Bugliosi specifically, and his book.
It would be difficult to answer these questions, without mention of the very motive theory which won the case... and the very motive theory, which serves as the focal point of Bugliosi's book.
Bear in mind also, that Sanders had previously been employed by a Kansas City newspaper to review Bugliosi's book.

Sanders is so very laid-back, it's hard for me to picture him being obsessed about much of anything.
He's bordering on sedated. LOL

Carol said:
"In this country the prosecution does NOT have to prove motive at all in order to obtain a conviction".

That topic has been discussed (here) several times already... ad-nauseam actually.
That was before you began visiting the blog.
So... I'll make this brief, as not to belabor the point.

Suffice it to say:
The prosecution does not have to present a motive, in order to obtain a conviction in California.
(Personally... I'm not sure about nationwide)

It's understood by many TLB scholars (certainly not all), but many... that convicting Manson without the presentation of a motive, would have been difficult.
I would never say... impossible... but certainly more difficult.
I would stand by "more difficult" with relative certainty.
Bugliosi has stated that opinion himself, on video.

If memory serves correctly...
I believe Starship and Dilligaf echoed similar sentiment... but, I don't want to put words in their mouth.

leary7 said...

Katie...I am travelin so yes, I do use the library computers to check the TLB sites and my Boston Globe.

Sorry about the Mormon rant. It is a sore subject with me. Anyone really interested should google Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and read some of the non-Mormon pieces on them. These two guys were such delusional megalomaniacs and con men that they make Jim Jones and Koresch look like Ward Cleaver.

And when JFK was elected 17% of the country was Catholic. The Mormons claim 6 million members in North America but when you subtract the Canadians, the children and the inactive you probably have about 1.5 million Mormon adults - less than .05% of the population. Of course Nixon was a Quaker so that was even less.
But Bobby, there is a specific reason to worry about having a Mormon president and I will get to it sometime soon. Just to worn out right now.