Saturday, April 2, 2016


Thanks to for making this available.... what an incredible read!

I'm only going to highlight a few things that I have never heard, nor read before --- I don't remember reading this in the Helter Skelter book by Bugliosi....

To me, it sure portrays Linda in a different light!  She wasn't the nice little hippie girl that Mr. B painted her as.....



1967 - March - So now she's in Haight-Ashbury and she's arrested...

1967 - September - now she's back in Boston hanging with bikers:

So now she gets busted with the bikers in Boston (1967):

There is so much more that is brought out, how she met Bob Kasabian, they flew to San Francisco (that was expensive in 1968!), bought a truck and drove to Los Angeles, lived in Venice (where Tanya was born) and by the way, was biker heaven in 1968....Linda even spent time at a commune near Seattle Washington during these years.....

This is a must read!   Lots of "not sure(s)" regarding what Manson did and did not say!

Never knew all this.... thanks!

Submitted by Kimchi. Thanks Kimchi!


LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks Kimchi!


LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

If anyone has been living under a rock, and they haven't been over to yet, I strongly suggest you check it out. It's a great website.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I have a few questions for Dilligaf, if he's around:

If Linda hadn't "turned state's evidence", what would her conviction and sentence have been?

For instance...

Would she have received 15-20 years, as an accessory to murder? 25 years, as a conspirator?


Would she have received a full-blown life sentence for 1st degree murder (by way of conspiracy) like Manson?

Inquiring minds want to know...

grimtraveller said...

Bugliosi says he wouldn't have gone for the death penalty for her but he would have gone for second degree murder.

katie8753 said...

Thanks Kimchi! Boy that girl got around. At least she seems to speak honestly, no matter how bad it sounds.

Thanks Cielo Drive!

Dilligaf said...


So, given your scenario, Linda did not agree to testify in exchange for immunity, so we would look at the evidence against her. While there was no direct evidence that Linda was involved in the physical aspects of the murders, certainly there was sufficient evidence so sustain charging her with the same crimes as her co-defendants. I would have charged her so, as it would have allowed for a greater leverage should a plea become possible. There would be many variables in the scenario you give, i.e., if Linda did not agree to a an immunity deal, would she have become another defendant touting the party line, or would she have still broke with them and seek a lighter sentence? She would have had to have something to offer, otherwise there would not be much to justify a lighter charge.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thanks Grim.

Thanks Dilligaf.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

I have 3 more questions for Dilligaf, if he has the time.

#1) Can the Prosecutor cut a deal with a Defendant, at ANY point during the trial (even in the 11th hour)?

#2) Can the Judge "veto" a deal?

For instance...
If Bugliosi wanted to cut a deal with Krenwinkel, could the Judge "veto" such a "deal" by saying: "I don't want any deals with Krenny, I want that murderous bitch to serve her full sentence"? (I'm paraphrasing of course...) LOL

#3) Must ALL deals between the prosecution and a defendant, be approved by the Judge?

Dilligaf said...

In most jurisdictions, California included, a prosecutor has the ability to offer a plea bargain up to when jury comes in with a verdict, but before the verdict is read. Granted, that is more of a Law & Order episode, but it could be done. If I have just invested a lengthy amount of time investigating a case, strategizing and prepping for, and then go to trial, it would have to be quite a dog of a case for me to cut a deal after all of that, it just is not too likely. On the other hand, if a defendant is facing a lengthy sentence say LWOP, but offers a plea which might net a sentence such as 25 to Life With A Possiibility, I would at least listen to the deal and then possibly make a deal based on practicality and what is prudent.

A judge must approve any deal, and has the ability to deny a deal, if he or she does not believe that justice is being served, or that it somehow would harm society.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Thank You Dilligaf.

katie8753 said...

In most jurisdictions, California included, a prosecutor has the ability to offer a plea bargain up to when jury comes in with a verdict, but before the verdict is read.

That's like telling a Defendant "you have can life in prison with parole, or what's behind Door #3". LOL.

Dilligaf said...

Though often looked at as repugnant in nature, such plea deals have become a necessary tool in today's legal process. Sometimes deals are made because of the strength (or lack thereof) of a case, for political reasons, for low-level first time offenders, for economic reasons, or a combination of factors. Once made, you are always fearful that you did not make a deal with the devil, and that that person does not re-offend partly because you showed leniency.

katie8753 said...

Dill I watched that OJ Simpson trial in its entirety (mostly) on Esquire over the weekend. I think the prosecution did the best they could, but the defense kept bringing up mistakes the LAPD did, casting doubt on certain pieces of evidence. When you bring in the fact that the defendant is considered "innocent until proven guilty", that plays a lot in what the jury has to consider.

They made the comment that the OJ jury was sequestered longer than any jury in the history of CA, but I think that's incorrect. I think the TLB jury was sequestered longer than they were.

Anyway, I can see why a jury that was exhausted from hearing all the drama would just give in because certain things weren't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I can certainly see why plea deals are necessary because you never know what a jury is going to find. The lesser of two evils.

katie8753 said...

p.s., in the TLB trial, Charlie and his minions helped out by acting like fools in front of the jury, which bolstered Bugliosi's theory that he was in charge, which of course, he was. It was "guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt". He couldn't just sit still and act normal. It was beyond his reach. Thanks Charlie!

katie8753 said...

I wonder if Charlie had been tried separately from the girls if the outcome would have been different. I wonder why the defense didn't request that. Why should they? Who wants to defend a guy like that anyway? Yikes!

Dilligaf said...

Katie, I saw that claim, but I do not know that it is fact. Sequestered versus longest trial? There is a difference. Manson v. OJ. v. The San Quentin Six trial, who knows. Factor in civil trials, and then it can get even more confusing. Why, last century saw at least three different trial of the centuries in California...

grimtraveller said...

Kimchi said...

Thanks to for making this available.... what an incredible read!

Both at and Truth on Tate/LaBianca there are many interviews {both on audio tape and transcripted}, trial transcripts and parole hearing transcripts from 1969/70/71. The benefit of them is that they widen the perspective that we've gained through the various books because naturally, the authors have their own particular biases or angles and would include segments that would tend, in their minds, to support where they are coming from. Interviews and transcripts on the other hand, do not do that so much so one can get a more neutral picture. Also, without having read them, one is stuck with the original or revised impressions of the main players. With them, we can explore our own questions and reach our own viewpoints without being, steered.
Over the last few months {it's too much to attack in one sitting or even day after day for me} I've been going through Linda's entire testimony and I would recommend it for anyone that seriously wants to see all sides of the case in court. I had wanted to read her testimony from the Watson trial for a long time. One of the things I recall from reading HS the first time back in '78 was Bugliosi commenting that in his trial Watson didn't react to what he referred to as the "damning testimony" of the likes of Kasabian in his attempt to play crazy.

grimtraveller said...

Kimchi said...

a few things that I have never heard, nor read before --- I don't remember reading this in the Helter Skelter book by Bugliosi....

Bugliosi makes a reference in his book to two pre~trial books, "The killing of Sharon Tate" and "Five to die" ~ which he calls a quickie paperback but doesn't actually name but when I first read "Helter Skelter" I was 15 and therefore tended to take it as the final and authoritative word on the subject. Then I heard some 10 years later that Atkins had become a Christian and that single act threw shards of doubt on Vincent Bugliosi's concluding comments in the book about her and subconsciously fueled my further interest in the case because he really got it wrong about her. Then one discovers that they all started making good in jail and that ran against what he thought would happen to them. Then he concludes the book with an item of how Charlie is afraid to come out of his cell {"Taming the beast" shows why !} and yet we see him over 4 decades in interviews and hearings blustering in his Charlie way and it starts to sink in that there is actually a lot that isn't in Bugliosi's book, marvelous though it is.
Looking through Linda's testimony in the Manson/Krenwinkel/Atkins/Van Houten trial has been a real eye opener. There are 25 sessions from the 18 days and there is tons of stuff not contained in Vince's book, tons. There's tons not recorded in George Bishop's "Witness to evil" from '71 which is primarily about and culled from, the trial and likewise, William Zamora's "Trial by your peers" which has lots of trial testimony from a juror's viewpoint which doesn't appear in "Helter Skelter." Reading the questions put to her, the conferences that the lawyers and Judge have and her answers leave one with an impression almost impossible to have gleaned even if one has read many of the TLB related books.
As a slight side issue, as brilliant and marvelous as "Helter Skelter" is, it's surprisingly derivative of a number of books that came out before it. You can find bits that came out in Vince's book already having made appearances in "Five to die," "Witness to evil," "The Garbage people," "The Family," "Trial by your peers," the Hendrickson documentary "Manson" and the book "Death to pigs" which, though it came out in 2011, was culled from stuff filmed from '69~'72.
George Stimson does a similar thing in "Goodbye, Helter Skelter", quite a bit of it being found in various interviews and internet articles that had appeared well before publication of the book.

grimtraveller said...

Kimchi said...

To me, it sure portrays Linda in a different light! She wasn't the nice little hippie girl that Mr. B painted her as.....

Many people seem to have the view that he painted her as some kind of wonderful woman who should have received some sort of award or something but I just can't find evidence of this anywhere. The only place I ever find him {either back in 1970/71 or subsequently} overflowing with praise for Linda is in regards to her testimony.
In "Death to pigs" he tells Laurence Merrick that although he wouldn't have gone for the death penalty regarding her, he would have gone for a 2nd degree murder charge. Never mind that without Susan Atkins, he had zilch on Linda. Once Atkins recanted, all Linda had to do was say "I wasn't there....." as there was no evidence she had been there. Bugliosi even made the point that it would have been better for Linda to be tried and be acquitted than to do what she did.
He went on to describe her and her testimony as "frank and repulsively truthful." In his closing argument when he was running through the night the LaBiancas were killed he said "now, I am not saying, ladies and gentlemen, that Linda Kasabian deserves any medal, any award from the Kiwanis Club or anything like that; all I am saying is that there is a distinct possibility that she saved the life of a human being on the night of the LaBianca murders, and this act by Linda in deliberately knocking on the wrong door shows, along with all the other evidence in this case about her, that although she is not an angel~and we have never said she was; and she would be the first one to admit that she is not an angel~she is not cut out of the same cloth that these defendants are." Of her being a Hippie he commented that "if any witness was ever placed under a microscope, it was Linda Kasabian, and I am convinced that each and every one of you saw the same thing under that microscope, a young hippie girl whose aimless drug oriented life tragically led her to Spahn Ranch, Charles Manson, and two nights of murder ~ two nights of horror..."
Just to comment on the Hippie thing for a moment ~ Hippies were not the vanguard of morality or these nice guys that everyone looked to as the shining example of what young people were to be and old people were to grow into. Hippies were generally viewed as only a couple of notches above the Family {who were themselves viewed as Hippies}. Lots of Hippies stole, didn't work, openly espoused drugs, were anti authority and anti establishment, sponged, dropped children all over the place and exposed their kids to things no child should even be aware of. Hippiedom often talked a good game and tried to build a weighty paradise on a foundation so shallow that it cracked under the weight of reality. So even if Kasabian was a Hippy, when pared down to essentials, Hippiedom was hardly an advert for something wholesome. Therefore, as far as I can see, the description of Linda as a hippy is pretty accurate. It certainly is not a euphemism for "cute girl that never gets into trouble."
That Bugliosi doesn't speak contemptuously about her should always be balanced by the fact that in commenting on her life at the time, what he says is often negative. As I once said, if the things he says about her were said about my Mum or if she were my Mum, I would not be swinging from the rooftops repeating them !

grimtraveller said...

Kimchi said...

Lots of "not sure(s)" regarding what Manson did and did not say!

That's important though. For those that hold the view that Linda is simply a liar and nothing else, there's little evidence of that as far as her testimony is concerned.
There is one glaring omission, that of her under Tex's direct order getting into Steven Parent's car to get his wallet. She herself admitted that in a TV interview 40 years after the event. But she didn't say that she actually took it. In fact, we know that she didn't because in the police report on the personal effects of the victims, Parent's wallet {complete with cards and money} was there. So that wasn't the smoking gun that many online held it to be {or wished it was.....}.
There's a real difference in Linda Kasabian between the two trials. In this Watson trial, she's a lot more assured and confident and I notice points where she's really brief in her answers. She doesn't try to provide explanations where none exist, even things that may help the prosecutio, hence the "don't knows" and "not sures."
Although there is some interesting background info that doesn't appear in the other trial, generally speaking, I wasn't particularly surprised by anything she came out with at the Watson trial. The most significant part for me was this little exchange:

Q: You heard his discussion about helter-skelter, didn't you?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you believe in helter-skelter?

A: Yes.

Q: You thought it was so; is that correct?

A: Sure.

Q: And when he told you that the family would survive by living in the bottomless pit, you thought that was true, didn't you?

A: Yes.

Q: And he told you the bottomless pit was out in the desert somewhere; is that correct?

A: Uh-huh, yes.

Q: And that when the revolution was over, the family would be the only ones who survived; is that correct?

A: White people.

Q: Yes, but the family would be the only ones of the white race to survive?

A: Yes.

Q: I take it you believed all of this?

A: Yeah, I did.

Q: Did anybody else other than Mr. Manson express any philosophy to the family?

A: I don't understand.

Q: Did anybody else talk to the family about a philosophy?

A: Not that I can recall.

Q: Helter-Skelter was Mr. Manson's idea, wasn't it?

A: Yeah.

Q: He was the one who always talked about helter-skelter?

A: Yeah.

Q: Did anybody else talk about helter skelter that you can remember?

A: It was always being mentioned everyday.

Q: By the family members?

A: Yes.

Q: In other words, everybody in the family believed in him?

A: Yes.
Q: I think you told us that shortly before the Tate incident Mr. Manson came back from the Big Sur; is that correct?

A: Yeah.

Q: And he told you that now was the time for helter skelter?

A: Yeah.

Q: And that was before the Tate affair; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, you know helter skelter involved violence, didn't you?

A: Yeah.

Q: Did you tell anybody, did you tell Mr. Manson that you didn't want to be part of any violent scheme?

A: No.

Q: You knew that it involved the killing of people, didn't you?

A: But I didn't know that that was our part in it.

Q: What did you think your part was going to be?

A: Well, that when helter skelter came to the city, when the blacks and whites were getting it in the city, and the city was burning, we were supposed to go in the dune buggies, with the children and bring them back to the home in the desert.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I wonder if Charlie had been tried separately from the girls if the outcome would have been different. I wonder why the defense didn't request that

Whenever any of the lawyers tried something in the interest of their client, they got bombed out by Charlie. When Richard Caballero and Marvin Part interviewed Atkins and Van Houten respectively, with the aim of laying the groundwork of a psychiatric defence and possibly a separate defence, both were fired.
It was interesting that Bugliosi, though he felt that Atkins wasn't legally insane, stated on the record that he thought Susan Atkins was actually insane.
But I digress.
In my opinion there is a very simple reason why Charlie did not dare be tried separately.
When Susan, Pat, Linda, Leslie and even Bobby were separate from Charlie, they fingered him as the one that pushed these murders. Susan told Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard, Nancy Jordon, Richard Caballero, Paul Caruso, Vincent Bugliosi and the Grand Jury. Leslie told Marvin Part. Pat told Claude Brown. Linda told two hitch hikers plus Joe Sage and Jeffrey Jacobs and her Mum. When they were together with Charlie, no one squealed. As soon as they were separated, they all squealed. Once they were jailed post trial and came to their senses, they reverted to their original separation mode of "Charlie is responsible for this. Yes, we did it and we'll take our lumps but he was the originator and wellspring of those killings."
He knew just by the grand jury indictments that Susan squealed. He knew by Pat fighting extradition from Mobile that if she hadn't already squealed, she'd soon crack as they had her prints and she had no confidence apart from him. He knew by the motions Marvin Part tried to put before the judge that Leslie had squealed. He knew from Joe Sage's phone call a few days after the LaBianca murders that Linda had squealed. He knew from Bobby's lawyer that Bobby was about to finger him in the Hinman killing.
Manson would not dare let any of the women be tried apart from him. He even tried to get Linda to rejoin the Family once the trial was underway. It had already worked with Susan.
The irony is that being so together ultimately had the opposite effect. It demonstrated his influence and helped sink them all.

Mrstormsurge said...

did charlie want the women tried with him because he knew they would take the fall in case it got really bad? and didn't they eventually try to take the fall for charlie re: death penalty phase of the trial?

katie8753 said...

Thanks Grim. Good point. I knew that Manson was afraid Bobby was gonna blab, but I didn't realize he wanted the girls tried with him for control. I figured he could control them even if they were tried separately.

Stormy, I think Charlie did tell them to say they killed without his orders or knowledge.

grimtraveller said...

katie8753 said...

I didn't realize he wanted the girls tried with him for control

That's my theory. It was partly inspired by George Stimson stating that it was a selfless act by Charlie to stick by his friends by being tried with them when he could have gone it alone and netted a better result than the other three. There's possibly some truth in the latter point but the former doesn't warm me up at all. When I began to discover that separate from Charlie in 1969 and early 1970, everyone blabbed, it struck me as amazing that there is a discernible pattern of what happened when separated from Charlie. And that pattern was partly broken during the trial with his co ~ defendants. But once they all realized that they weren't going to die in the gas chamber and they had their lives in front of them, the pattern resets itself and eventually they all blab. Tex, Clem, Bobby, Bruce and Gypsy too. That alone tells me that there was something incredible about his presence. People can scorn all they like and they will, but for me, it's undeniable. When Tex was acting mentally ill at Atascadero Hospital, Charlie told Bugliosi "give me 20 minutes with Tex. I'm sure I can cure him" or words to that effect. That's a man that knows what he's doing.
He says he wasn't directing traffic. What I suspect he means is that he wasn't directing traffic as we understand it. But he sure as hell was directing it in a magical mystery tour way and in George's book, he says as much, more than once.

I figured he could control them even if they were tried separately

Separately, Pat told Claude Brown that she was afraid of Manson finding and killing her and that she always thought they'd get caught for what they'd done. Initially, she fought extradition. It was Charlie that 'persuaded' her to return to LA and ultimately what was going to be her death.
Separately Susan told 6 people plus the grand jury about the murders and they were indicted for murder because of her.
Separately Leslie told Marvin Part that Charlie was the main man where the murders were concerned and that on the night in question, Charlie had asked her if she was crazy enough to do it. She also landed Pat & Susan in it and absolved Linda, long before it was even known she herself was involved.
Separately, Tex had well over a year to plot and plan how he was going to dump everything on Charlie and the girls.
Separately, Bobby told the jury Charlie killed Gary Hinman.
Separately Linda told 5 people about the murders before arrest.
Whatever control Charlie had back then only extended so far. There was a realm where even he couldn't reach them. Linda, Tex and Bobby were wise to that. Susan, Pat and Leslie weren't.

Unknown said...

Great post - Oh my goodness, I'm from Revere...

tobiasragg said...

What is so unusual about this? Yeah, she did drugs - who didn't? Point was and is, she was not a killer.