Saint Circumstance said (in regards to Harold True's testimony):
"I am sure this guy can’t remember what color drawers he had on yesterday..."

I have to respectfully disagree with you.  I think you're being tremendously dismissive.

Harold is certainly brash and blunt... but, I think his logic is solid. He makes more sense (to me) than 100 average bloggers put together.. (who by the way, weren't there). 
I think there's a lot more to Harold's interview, than just humor. Unfortunately, the humor is so overwhelming, it belies the valuable content.

I’m sure someone could comb through Harold's interview, and likely find some inaccuracies in detail... but, I think Harold's "take" on the situation (as a whole) is accurate.
His version is not fun, it's not glamorous, and it's not scandalous (which is what we all crave)... but, it's reality.

I think we ALL... "constantly read shit into it" as Harold says (including myself)... because it keeps this topic fun and interesting for ourselves.
We need something to do.
When we become "super sleuths"... it makes us feel important.
It makes us feel "personally connected" to the case… “part of it”, if you will.

Case in point:
In the past, I've dug so deep into Leno's gambling... I might as well, have been at the horse track with him.
But, at the end of the day... I know that angle (motive theory) is likely all bunk.
I know deep-down, that I'm likely wasting my time with that pursuit... but, it makes me feel good (and important) to try... and that (in reality) is my motivation.

Let's face it... if this case was really solved... we wouldn't have anything to do.

We constantly paint these folks as geniuses... and add complexity to the plot, but in reality... it's probably more accurate to say "they carried their brains in their lunchboxes".

As time passes... I'm starting to adhere more and more to TomG's attitude, that sometimes senseless acts... are carried-out by senseless people… and there’s really no glamour or complexity to it, at all.
"You can't ascribe reason to crazy people".
It's a hard sentiment to argue.

Or, as Tom once said:
“Think long, think wrong”.

This reminds me of a true experience:
Like most men... I really love the movie "Goodfellas".
Fuck... I've watched it 30 times... and I've memorized every line.
The movie glamorizes not only the crimes, but the characters.

I had "Henry Hill" (played by Ray Liotta) cemented in my mind, as a genius.
He was cunning, sharp, rich, well-dressed, tough... you name it… he was everything!
The guy (although a criminal) was a hero in my mind!

THEN... 10 ten years later:
I heard the REAL Henry Hill interviewed on the Howard Stern Show.
My mind was blown!

Saint... the guy was a fucking idiot.
I think he had two marbles floating around in his head.

Suddenly... it hit me like a ton of bricks.
All this guy "Henry Hill" really had... was a TON of balls... and that’s it.
I suddenly saw those "heists" and crimes (and murders!) for what they really were… senseless acts, performed by thugs, who had Balls-Galore, but no brains.

Henry Hill was a selfish opportunist, with the sack (and necessary lack of morals) to act upon his most base impulses… but that’s it.

Seriously… this guy “Henry Hill” was like listening to Bill Garretson.

I couldn’t believe that a world-renowned blockbuster movie like “Goodfellas“, was made from THAT reality!
Talk about a distortion of facts!
Talk about making a silk purse, from a sow’s ear!

I think we often embellish the TLB murders and related circumstances the same way.
Harold True's sleepy-voiced "version"… although boring as hell for us TLB enthusiasts, is likely much more accurate than we‘d like to believe.

In short… I don’t think Suzan Laberge was chief conspirator. It's possible, but not probable.  I’m sure going forward, I will entertain that possibility many, many times, and likely invest countless hours researching… ‘cuz that’s what we do, as TLB enthusiasts. But at the end of the day… I think Harold is right.  It's probably a lead ballon.

My two cents...
If anyone disagrees, that's cool with me.

Peace!

 

LaBerge/Watson

Hello Everyone! 
It seems the LaBerge-Watson discussion has overtaken my previous thread... so, I've decided to "go with it".  "Give the people what they want", as they say.

One could easily write 10 threads (or a book) on the phenomenon which "Suzan" presents.
For starters... how often does a child lobby for the release of their parent's murderer?
Can we ALL agree... that's just freakin' weird?!  What could be the motive for that behavior?  Etc, etc.

To simplify things, I've decided to offer just one tidbit regarding Suzan, at a time.
I can't "prove" anything of course... but hopefuly, the upcoming threads (or tidbits, LOL) will provide "food for thought" and discussion.

Discussion #1:
Harold True

Judy Hansen (private investigator) interviewed Harold True during the time Suzan was lobbying for Tex's release.  

During this interview, Judy hammered Harold True for 10 minutes straight, in an attempt to tie Suzan to "the Family". 

***Judy utilized all the usual angles... the close proximity of Harold's residence to the LaBianca's... the close proximity of Tex's apartment to Suzan's apartment... the strange phenonmena of Suzan lobbying for Tex's release, etc.  It's all in there.***

It's no exaggeration to say, that Judy Hansen's sole purpose throughout this entire interview, was to throttle Harold True into corroborating a connection between Suzan LaBarge and the Manson Family.  
Judy NEVER strays from that topic or goal... not even once. 

As you listen, you'll see... Judy gets nowhere. 

Of note:
In this interview, Judy was working with Bill Nelson. 
Judy occasionally talks to Nelson, in the background.

Harold's testimony is just one man's opinion and proves nothing... but bear in mind:
Harold True picked-up Charles Manson on the Pacific Coast Highway (with his bags), the day Manson was released from Terminal Island Prison. 
Harold True knew Charles Manson from day one.

Something to think about.  More to come...