Grab Bag! LOLNader, Pugh, Cults, Manson’s Mental Health and Anger, “Pigs“, Manipulation, Motive Theories, "Helter Skelter", "Pimping", "Stranger in a Strange Land"… a new member “8/9 Baby“… and Mary’s Back!
Heck, even Shak El, Frank, and V717 stopped-in!
I Love it! Have at it friends!!!
CieloDrive.com has a new Look, and some Updates!
I like it! Check it Out! http://cielodrive.com/index.php
288 comments:
1 – 200 of 288 Newer› Newest»leaving aside the whole who copied what from who thing.
is there any evidence besides kasabians testimony that the nader
incident really happened?
did atkins talk about it in her book?
Well, as usual, there is more than one description of what really happened.
Charlie's & Susan's version is that the murder of Nader was Linda's idea, and Linda's testimony is that Charlie suggested it.
Who is lying??? Don't know.
I think we need to again define the meaning of the word "piggy".
How is some unknown, struggling actor from Lebanon living in a crummy apartment a "piggy"?
Does piggy mean: affluent, famous, devil-may-care about the environment?
Or does piggy mean: anybody that screwed Linda?
i always wondered about that.
i guess atkins isn't the most reliable source for anything but i can't see any reason for her to lie about this.
but why would little miss innocent like to see someone dead even if
she did lead them to the wrong door?
peer pressure?
i mean she could have said nothing when manson asked the question right?
i did'nt know there were two versions of who brought it up.
i should have seen that coming!
Would the murder of Nader have made in difference in motive for the TLB murders?
No.
Let's look at what we know.
We know that Shorty, Hinman and the Willets were murdered to keep them from talking to police. Had nothing to do with mafia hits or drug burns.
I think Pugh & Zero were murdered for the same or similar reasons. But...that's my opinion.
It's Tate & LaBianca that we can't figure out.
If Nader had been killed, it would be one more murder we probably would have been scratching our heads over because everyone would have a different story about it.
BTW, in Linda's testimony, she said she knocked on the wrong door, someone answered and she said she had the wrong apartment.
There's something wrong with the story that Linda gives about "knocking on the wrong door".
That has always made me shake my head in disbelief.
She is in the company of 3 others the night before who stab, rip, tear, shoot and stomp 5 people to death in a vicious, visceral bloodbath. By her own words, she was scared of them.
Then, the very next night, she has the sudden valor to "save" a guy that she doesn't even really know by lying to the bloodthirsty family members in her presence that "she got the wrong apartment"?
If it were me, I would be more concerned with getting away from these people than throwing a roadblock in their develish activities and hoping they didn't figure it out!!
Hi Marliese.
Linda Kasabian makes me sick. At Cielo Drive she could EASILY have gotten in that car and driven somewhere and called the police. Tex, Pat & Sadie were at the house and she was by the gate "looking out".
After Steve Parent was shot she knew at that point, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that there was going to be killing that night.
Instead, she goes back to the house after the killing started and said "Sadie make it stop", and "Oh I'm so sorry" to Frykowski.
Well if she was that sorry, she should have stopped it herself.
And she claims she didn't do that because she was afraid of what they would do to Tanya? Well like you said, she did leave her behind. Not in time to save lives at Cielo Drive and Waverly Drive, which she could have done.
And why would she be so afraid of what they would do to Tanya? I thought it was all "peace and love & Charlie loves children" crap.
That's it exactly, Katie.
Thanks Marliese.
I was just thinking...off subject for a bit...why Charlie wanted everyone to ditch their glasses and watches, among other things, when they joined the family.
I can understand the watches...he didn't want anyone to know what time it was. That's typical for a cult leader.
But why the glasses?? Did some big meaty guy with glasses beat him up at some point?
If Mary had only had her glasses on at the "Sears Credit Card Caper", she might not have wrecked the Hostess Bread Truck during the getaway. She probably hit a big pothole. HA HA.
BTW the police found the ticket that Charlie got for not having a driver's license in the truck when Mary & Sandy were arrested. FYI!!!
You know...the ticket that "disappeared". According to a certain someone.
Then there's the coke-bottle bottom glasses Charlie left at Cielo Drive.
Interesting....
Did you see the glasses Barbara Hoyt had on, in that rare courthouse interview? LOL
Talk about "coke bottles"! LOL
You couldn't even see eyes behind there. LOL
Pugh was a suicide.
Lynyrd...you relented...
Pobrecito. I've told you before...you're just too nice!!!
Now, if I was in charge of this......
Just kidding. Although I will say, the credit should have been allowed as justified in this case. I know who came up with this first. And his name doesn't start with a "K".
And that's all I'll say about that.
Yes, Babs had some big glasses on at that interview. But...she had changed from a lithe young starlet into a...well I won't say it. She might be reading this. Don't want to make her reach for the freezer and bring out another gallon of Haagen Dazs.
Just kidding Babs. You've been through enough.
>>>Shak El said: Pugh was a suicide.>>
Okay....if you can convince me that Pugh was a suicide, with blood everywhere, and his wrists and throat cut, then I'll believe you.
I've never heard of a suicide cutting his own throat and wrists. Maybe you have.
Please expound..... I'm interested!
Katie said:
>>>>"Lynyrd...you relented...
Pobrecito. I've told you before...you're just too nice!!!"<<<<<<<
Every idea and theory related to this case is borrowed and re-cycled.
It's really not a big deal.
It happens every day.
None of my ideas are original either.
But heck... if you're going to recycle that blatantly, at least give the person a nod.
"Topic recently discussed here"...
"Idea inspired by"...
"Spin-off from"...
Anything...
Just cite your source, with a brief notation out of fairness.
I made my point.
At the end of the day, folks have to operate based on their own conscience.
Hey Shak El!
Haven't seen you in a while... welcome back!
You visited previously, and mentioned Pugh was a suicide... citing Simon Wells' book, as the main source, which convinced you.
Interestingly enough... Kimchi recently referenced Wells' book, as a resource for Pugh's death being a suicide as well.
Well Shak El never got back. So I'm assuming Pugh's murder is not a suicide.
I have a lot of things to divulge.
But...it's another day.
And I don't want anyone else to excrement my words.
Especially Mr. K! Or I am Patty. Whatever the fuck that means. Weird shit.
Sounds like Tex. Brrrr......
Okay senors and senoritas. I'm going to bed.
Whether or not you understood today's enigma, you might have understood the comments. Someone stole a thread from another. And there's no denying it!
"He who filches my purse...filches trash...but he who filches my good name...filches my own good self."..."William Shakespeare".
The Bard.
Ha ha.
Just kidding.
I don't expect you to memorize Shakespeare.
Most people don't.
I do.
Night.
katie8753 said...
>>>Shak El said: Pugh was a suicide.>>
Okay....if you can convince me that Pugh was a suicide, with blood everywhere, and his wrists and throat cut, then I'll believe you.
I've never heard of a suicide cutting his own throat and wrists. Maybe you have.
Please expound..... I'm interested!
Mr Poirot replies:
The cuts are called "hesitation marks" and are common in both murders and suicides. These cuts are not an idicator of either.
>>>Mr. P. said: The cuts are called "hesitation marks" and are common in both murders and suicides. These cuts are not an idicator of either.>>>
Mr. P., I didn't know that.
Hesitation marks. I would assume that would mean if one made a really shallow mark in one's skin, as if to test the waters.
Do you know if these marks were in Pugh's body?
I'm wondering why the police decided it was a suicide. Was it just a simple way of closing the case? No investigation needed for a yank in transit?
With all the blood loss, as indicated in the report, I assumed that the cuts were deep.
Haven't seen an autopsy report.
On The State of Florida versus Casey Anthony:
George & Cindy Anthony think their daughter Casey is guilty of murdering Caylee!
They say they want justice to be done.
This was revealed today by their attorney, right in the middle of the trial!
Katie
Check out http://joelpughcharlesmanson.blogspot.com/
Simon Wells spent a good deal of energy on this, and he has seen the autopsy report.
FramnM
Thanks Frank. I'll check that out. I wasn't even sure if an autopsy was performed on Pugh.
Hi Frank, and welcome!
Simon actually read the coroners report and talked to the Pugh family. Pugh's family actually went to England and were satisfied that it was a suicide. In fact, until the book Helter Skelter came out in 1974 they never knew that others thought it was murder.
Does anyone know the timeline for Sandra's marriage to Pugh?
Marliese...were Sandy & Joel Pugh ever married for sure???
I know she dragged him around by the nose for a bit until he got tired of it, and I think she gave her baby the last name of Pugh (was it Ivan?), but I don't know if they ever married.
Well, duh. They never were married, were they. That makes better sense.
From the previous thread:
Marliese said:
>>>>I have a huge problem, I admit, with the victims of these crimes being themselves blamed for their own murders. Nothing galls me more. It’s unfair and unjust to shift blame in order to avoid responsibility. It pisses me off to read things like ‘other deadbeats’ …the word ‘other’ clearly implies Leno was a deadbeat. We don’t know that. We know he was a gambler, we know he had debt. We don’t know that he wasn’t meeting his obligation to pay his debt. We’ve read about bookkeeping issues at Gateway, but I’ve never heard that Leno was charged with any crimes in that regard. Maybe it was coming, we’ll never know. But he’s dead, dead by horrific circumstances, and can’t answer to those charges, and it literally breaks my heart to hear Rosemary referred to as a drug dealer, or Sharon and her baby referred to as collateral damage<<<<
I can't speak for anyone else, but, I don't think any of the victims can be, or should be, blamed for their own deaths.
You'd have to be insane to justify murdering people... especially in this fashion.
I do consider motives such as gambling and drugs, in an attempt to make sense, of an otherwise senseless situation (as many do), but that doesn't mean, that I believe the victims deserved to be murdered.
I don't believe that at all.
I agree... referring to Sharon and her baby as "collateral damage" is be-littling a horrific situtaion.
Also, I highly doubt Rosemary was a drug dealer.
I do however have some reason, to believe that others may have been "involved" with drugs... but, to what extent is always questionable.
As for Leno... I believe he may have been a deadbeat, but, I don't advocate killing people... or, being a deadbeat. LOL
I do consider drugs and gambling debts as possible motives.
I'd be lying to you, if I said I didn't.
BUT... I (like everyone else), have never un-earthed evidence convincing enough, to get anywhere solid, with those motives.
AND... it doesn't mean, because I consider those "motives", that I believe anyone should have been killed in this fashion.
Evidently... there are some folks out there who believe that.
I don't see how anyone in their right mind, could honestly believe that myself.
Marliese said:
>>>>Re all knowing...
I agree with you, there isn’t one blogger who knows it all. Common courtesy and blog etiquette helps avoid issues with know it alls...adding ‘in my opinion’ or providing sources and factual back up softens that sort of thing. We’re all guilty of not doing so…some of us from time to time, others of us all the time.
<<<<<
I think everyone has a right to their opinion... the right to state it... and no one's opinion is really any better than anyone elses.
We've all been wrong before... it happens.
BUT YES... you have to be careful how you state things.
If you make a habit of stating things in absolute terms... as fact... it will bite you in the ass every time.
I made one statement in absolute terms a week ago... and that was the first time in a year... and Pristash called me on it immediately.
If it wasn't him, it woulda been someone else.
If you state things in absolute terms... you WILL learn your lesson the hard way.
I'll probably forget myself, and state something as an absolute fact again, a year from now... and it will bite me in the ass again, and I'll learn again. LOLOL
Marliese said:
>>>>Lynyrd, don’t you think there are different reasons people blog this subject, different blogs have different energy<<<<
ABSOLUTELY.
I will state THAT as an absolute. LOL
Every blog definitely has a different feel.
It's like bar-rooms.
If you've ever spent considerable time in bars (as I did in my mis-spent youth, LOL)... you'll understand the analogy.
Some are formal and stuffy joints... some are honky-tonk... some are dangerous (LOL)... some cater to the old... others it's all kids... rich, poor... "divorcee" bars... you name it.
Blogs are the same.
I like things informal, fun, and active... very active... the more people, and the more they post the merrier.
I honestly don't even give a shit what folks are talking about, as long as they're having fun.
...and that's the truth.
Some of the funnest evenings I spent blogging was at Thelma's... discussing our favorite movies, movie quotes, favorite bands and songs... wishing each other merry Xmas... posting hilarious links to YouTube... and listening to AC talk about her farm chores. LOL
We'd get 200 posts every night, just talking about complete crap... but, it was fun.
If someone wants to come on here and tell us about their vacation, a recent concert they saw, mourn the death of a loved-one with friends, or talk sports... that's cool with me.
At the end of the day... it's just a fucking blog.
Come to think of it... I have no idea why I let ANYTHING stress me out in cyberspace! LOL
If you asked another blog administrator... they'd have a different "vision" of what a blog should be... and that's why there's different blogs.
'Course... the membership strongly influences the "tone" of a blog as well... and what direction it takes.
AND, YES Marliese... Folks DEFINITELY blog the case for different reasons.
I've worked in the mental health field for my whole life.
I'd love to crawl right inside the brain of each and every one of these whackos... especially Charlie!
A psychologist wuld have a field day in there! LOL
I also enjoy the "sociology" aspect... studying the "group behavior" and interaction.
Other bloggers don't give a shit about that stuff.
They're more interested in legal stuff, court documents, dates and timelines.
others are into geography, and studying all these various locations.
(I get lost with a GPS!, LOL)
Others like the "hollywood" side of it all.
(I skip every section, of every book, that starts talking about Sharon's movies, LOL).
Others are personally connected somehow to the event, and are victims advocates.
Others, I really believe, wish they were members of "the family"... heck, some DO believe that.
And on... and on.
Marliese... you officially wore me out!
I need a cigarette! LOL
katie8753 said...
>>>Mr. P. said: The cuts are called "hesitation marks" and are common in both murders and suicides. These cuts are not an idicator of either.>>>
Mr. P., I didn't know that.
Hesitation marks. I would assume that would mean if one made a really shallow mark in one's skin, as if to test the waters.
Do you know if these marks were in Pugh's body?
I'm wondering why the police decided it was a suicide. Was it just a simple way of closing the case? No investigation needed for a yank in transit?
With all the blood loss, as indicated in the report, I assumed that the cuts were deep.
Haven't seen an autopsy report.
Mr Poirot replies:
Pugh's dad was a Dr and he flew to England to investigate his son's death. He agreed it was suicide.
Yes there were hesitation marks on Pugh. I researched his death a couple of years ago and felt it really was a suicide after initially believing Bruce Davis killed him.
I learned about "hesitation marks" nearly 30 yrs ago while working in a university library. I had a job exactly like Mary Bruner had at UC Berekley. I was a Librarian Technical Assistant not a librarian. Librarians have degrees in library science. I saw a book one day in this library that the Criminal Justice Dept purchased for the library. It had pics of "hesitation marks". Br-r-r!
Marliese said:
>>>>It can’t possibly be easy owning and managing a blog. You do a great job, you meet the needs of diverse personalities and you do so with humor and kindness. Your fairness is appreciated.<<<<
Thanks Marliese.
No... it's not easy.
As we said above, everyone is here with a different interest.
You gotta present a little of everything... even the stuff that doesn't quite interest you personally... to keep folks involved.
Some bloggers are Pro-Manson... some bloggers are Anti-Manson.
"You can please SOME of the people, SOME of the time... but, you can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time".
Peace... Lynyrd
Patty emerges from the shadows to thank Lynyrd for being a fair minded dude. Peace and Love! Threat of wedgie/wet willie/flat tire is officially rescinded.
LMAO
No problem Patty... have a nice day. : )
BTW... I told you exactly what to say.
You didn't take my advice did ya? LOL
(Inside joke)
Peace... Lynyrd
((((((((((LYNN))))))))))
Have fun Lynn!
You ROCK!!!!
Hi Lynn. Have fun!
Mary....where are you girl?? Come on back - we miss you!
I think its impossible to understand the motive behind these crimes unless you start with the fact that the family functioned as a cult. Not in the silly hollywood sense of the word; in the sense of a charismatic individual using specific, identifiable techniques to exploit and pervert basic human needs in those who are weak enough to fall prey. All in the name of some high moral ideal like "love". the story of the family is familiar and predictable to anyone familiar with the psychology of cults. Things like the forced surrender of personal daily-wear items like watches and eyeglasses are ways of robbing a person of their sense of self. dressing from a collective wardrobe of smelly clothes - you don't even have your own personal smell. It is hard to overemphasize the power of such things. Plus the constant drugs, the isolation, the play-acting, the compulsory breaking of sexual taboos. All classic cult techniques.
i have worked with psychotics and i know the kind of inflation and distortion they are capable of. In my opinion, charlie had delusions of grandeur, and truly believed it was his destiny to become a rock star because he had a message to deliver. people he dealt with in hollywood deserved punishment for failing to give him his rightful place. That idea was a springboard, amd from that point his motive is not rational, it is emotional, he wanted to lash out.
Again, this is just my take on it all, but it comes from a lot of learning about human psychology and cults. and a lifelong fascination with this crime. For more insight, i recommend learning about the Aum Shinrikyo cult in japan that released sarin gas on the tokyo subways in 1995. The crime was different, but it was still mass, random murder committed at the behest of a nut who presented himself as a saviour for a coming apocalypse. There are many illuminating parallels to the story of the Family. Including the fact that the leader was convicted of capitol murder even though he was not physically present at any crime scene, and denied he ever did or could direct anyone to do such things. Also, the majority of the group was not aware, only an "inner circle" knew what was going on, even after the gassing. The aum group had many wealthy, accomplished, educated people. One of the killers was a highly trained physician who knew exactly what he was doing to the people around him with that sarin. They did it anyway. The techniques used by aum included sexual degradation, violence and isolation, coupled with non-consensual lsd trips and outright torture. All of it wrapped in a moral and cosmic rationale that made it "right" to poison thousands at random, inflicting pain, injury, and many deaths.
The actual people killed by the Family were random victims of insane violence - there was nothing they were involved in that could reasonably lead to the kind of violence they suffered. When a member of my family was murdered at random last year, i saw firsthand how hard it is for some people to accept that a victim can be chosen at random. In the tlb case the victims died as symbols of the wealth and access and power that charlie was denied. living in a big, fancy house in an area charlie knew. Skulking predators like to troll in familiar territory.
I have blathered long enough, the gist is that charlie is truly crazy, and crazy is contagious; and the situation that resulted in these murders was by no means normal or rational, and the killings themselves were monstrously bizarre- so its not likely any normal motive like money was involved. i read a quote from the nut himself recently where he said "i am still being punished for a psychotic break i had 40 years ago." or something like that. Boo hoo, charlie. But its true. After he shot crowe, charlie rapidly spiraled into paranoid madness, and he had himself a pack of fools ready to do as they were told. Just like shoko asahara and aum in japan.
Hi 8/9 Baby!
Fantastic post! Very interesting and inciteful. I agree with everthing you are saying. You're right on the money about cult behavior. We've seen it over and over again.
Stop by to share your comments anytime!
Btw lynyrd: this is my first post but ihave been "lurking" for a while. I don't read blogs as a rule as they are often full of nastiness, but The name of this blog caught my eye as i was googling something TLB related, and i am glad to find a friendly online community around a subject i find fascinating. Well done!
"8/9 baby" because i was born on that day in '69 - hence my fascination with this crime. Abnormal psychology is a topic i study a lot - what makes human beings go to these bizarre extremes? That is my angle...
Hi katie! Thanks for a warm welcome!
8/9 baby said...After he shot crowe, charlie rapidly spiraled into paranoid madness, and he had himself a pack of fools ready to do as they were told.
Hi 8/9baby, loved your entire post, especially the above sentence. No truer words have been spoken! Welcome.
Hello 8/9 Baby!
Welcome to the Blog!
8/9 baby said:
>>>>"I think its impossible to understand the motive behind these crimes unless you start with the fact that the family functioned as a cult. Not in the silly hollywood sense of the word; in the sense of a charismatic individual using specific, identifiable techniques to exploit and pervert basic human needs in those who are weak enough to fall prey... [break} the story of the family is familiar and predictable to anyone familiar with the psychology of cults".<<<<
I agree.
The world didn't realise it, at the time... but, it was definitely one of the first, widely publicized, true cults.
We have much more information and knowledge regarding cults, amd cult behavior, than we did, just 40-50 years ago.
When Manson's "Family" was first dubbed a "cult", it wasn't in the true, clinical sense of the word.
BUT... we now know... it was truly a cult... and not in (as you say)... "the silly hollywood sense of the word".
I had offered that point years ago, at a different location, and received much opposition.
From a truly un-biased clinical standpoint, this has all the ingredients of your typical cult: ... the isolation of the members from their families, friends and past... the introduction of new doctrine... the installation of a figure-head leader... the preaching of an apocolypse... the preaching that only members of the cult will survive the disaster... and on, and on.
It's all there.
I don't know if Charlie consciously intended to form a cult specifically, but, if not, he certainly hit all the defining milestones with un-canny accuracy.
One thing I DO question however... (as Bugliosi questions himself, in the Bertice Berry footage) is if Manson really believed the apocolypse (HS) story himself... OR, if he just used it as a manipulation tool (rouge if you will), to keep most of them "in the dark", AND to get others to do his bidding.
I believe the latter (as you suggested)... that it was just a manipulation tool... which essentially requires, there to be an alternate motive for the killings besides Helter Skelter.
You have offered anger and bitterness, fueled by insanity, and emotional issues, as a motive.
I believe your motive theory, is as good as any other... and probably better than most.
-----------------------------------
8/9 Baby said:
>>>>"the victims died as symbols of the wealth and access and power that charlie was denied"<<<<
I just got through saying (a couple threads back), that "piggy" was a broad term, which defined rich, influential, "haves"... etc., etc.
What you've outlined, is essentially a jealousy/bitterness/anger motive, fueled by insanity.
This, as I said... is as credible as any other theory, when you get down to brass tacks.
The same point was just ironically made on another blog, by a gentlemen named Leary7.
It's a solid all-around theory, which doesn't require a whole lot of nuts-and-bolts, and thus has fewer loopholes, than some of the other popular offerings.
If you study this case long enough, you can't help but come-around to giving this anger/bitterness theory some creedence.
It's basically a full-circle... "let's go back to square one and un-complicate this thing"... approach.
Like I said... as good as any other.
Great post 8/9 Baby!!!
Wow... born on 8/9 huh?
Fascinating.
8/9 baby said:
>>>>"Btw lynyrd: this is my first post but ihave been "lurking" for a while. I don't read blogs as a rule as they are often full of nastiness, but The name of this blog caught my eye as i was googling something TLB related, and i am glad to find a friendly online community around a subject i find fascinating. Well done"!<<<<
Thank You 8/9... I'm flattered.
I hope you feel at home, and post often.
Here's to seeing much more of you.
Sincerely... Lynyrd
Katie said:
>>>>Mary....where are you girl?? Come on back - we miss you!<<<<
Seconded!
We gotta have us some Mary!!
Where are you Hottie?!! LOL
Actually... I'd love to see Circumstance resurface as well.
I love that guy's posts! LOL
OK... calling another person's children garbage, was in-defensable, in bad taste, and completely over-the-top... but folks, let's be fair... we've all lost our cool in an embarrassing manner a few times.
And in fairness... he's been slammed just as hard, more than once.
At the end of the day... how can you not like the guy?
He wears his heart on his sleeve... he's upfront with everything... and he's completely honest.
What you see, is what you get... there's DEFINITELY something to be said for that.
Saint... let's ROCK brother! LOL
For the record, you're always welcome here.
>>>Lynyrd said: but folks, let's be fair... we've all lost our cool in an embarrassing manner a few times.>>>
NOT ME!!! HA HA HA HA HA.
Yes St. Circumstance...come join us!
And where has Bobby gotten off to??
LMFAO
Katie lose her cool?
NO.........
You don't say. hahaha
Well, they say we have to learn to laugh at ourselves... hahaha
We've got a lot of material here. LOL
Hello everyone - just got back from a business trip. I see all the blogs have been busy and I have a lot to catch up on.
I saw St. posted on another blog...maybe he is coming out of retirement.
Since I am so far behind, I will reserve any comments until I get caught up. But just scanning - I have to say that Katie and Marliese are right on as usual!
and they have both said it so well, how can I add anything...but ditto, ladies!
Hi Mary!!
You just got back from a business trip??? Do you mean you actually have a job??? HA HA HA.
Just kidding.
Glad you're back!
Lynyrdskynrdband said:
"I don't know if Charlie consciously intended to form a cult specifically, but, if not, he certainly hit all the defining milestones with un-canny accuracy."
This is the thing i am curious about. I have read references to charlies study of scientology and poss involvement with "the process". At that time in california, one element in the occult scene was a revival of "thelema", crowley's system for self-mastery and whatnot, and there were many places to be exposed to the techniques and ideas of that system including in prison. (cf: timothy leary's prison experiences) There is a direct link between hubbard and the california thelemites. (cf: john whiteside parsons)
The point being, one of the advanced achievements in this system is to create a personal cosmology - a story of the cause and the meaning of life, and the ultimate destiny of humanity. Then get others to buy in to your story, and thereby become "godlike" and powerful. Sounds wacky, but many people get into these ideas. Did charlie? Maybe, seems possible to me. The objective is to gain some kind of power over others, on the assumption that you are a superior example of humanity amd fit to rule others. This is the occult philosophy espoused by hitler and the nazis - supposedly one of charlie's favorites - and the crux of helter skelter.
I have read theories about charlie and the occult in many places. The missing piece is knowing what he himself believed and what his ambitions were in forming the family. Why collect a chain of fools like that, and live in such squalor? There are better ways to pimp or organize crime. Charlie will never tell, may not even be able to recall his psychotic episodes, but its fun to speculate. Crazies are often drawn to the occult and its promises of power and hidden knowledge. Charlie was no exception, i think he had a half-assed plan to form a kind of cult - a spiritual family - with an idea of himself as the annointed leader. He played around with the techniques of mind control, and was wildly successful, and then had no real plan what to do next. Other than stealing dune buggies and credit cards, getting hinman's money ( or failing that, his earlobe, apparently) and holing up in death valley. why do any of that? He thought he had a calling but it was just the voices in his head. Like jim jones, minus the philanthropy and mass suicide/homicide. Some people just can't bow out gracefully when the jig is up.
but i'll shut up now. Gotta go play chauffeur for my hubby and kids.
Hi again 8/9 Baby.
I can tell you're a serious scholar of HTLB. I love it.
I think that Charlie gleaned a lot while in prison from several sources. He obviously studied Scientology quite a bit and coined some of their catch phrases. I'm sure he was exposed to the occult, but I really don't think that was his bag.
I think that Charlie (initially anyway) wanted a "family" to feel loved and that he belonged. In order to accomplish that, he had to gather his "flock".
He was very good at culling certain subjects to "cast his spell on". Charlie had the inane ability to realize exactly what a certain person's needs were. He also could recognize when a certain person was off limits and wouldn't serve any purpose.
Perfect examples of this are Pat, Sadie & Squeaky. All of them felt lost and unloved. He fixed 'em right up!
I truly believe the other girls who joined his realm were not so much insecure, as they were just rebelling against every authority they'd ever known. And that was in Charlie's bag of tricks too.
I personally don't think the men were as mesmerized by Charlie as the girls. They liked the sex & drugs.
I really think that in his mind, that he thought he was going to make it big in the music world and that was his concentration at first.
When that failed, is when he "busted a spring" and turned homocidal. Turning his "children" into "manical killing machines."
8/9 baby said:
>>>>"The missing piece is knowing what he himself believed and what his ambitions were in forming the family. Why collect a chain of fools like that, and live in such squalor? There are better ways to pimp or organize crime"[Break]
"I think he had a half-assed plan to form a kind of cult - a spiritual family - with an idea of himself as the annointed leader. He played around with the techniques of mind control, and was wildly successful, and then had no real plan what to do next".<<<<<
Well... we're getting pretty deep and specific now.
I should probably take some time, and plan my words wisely, and carefully.
But... my time is limited, so I'll just give you what comes to mind "off the top".
I think Manson liked to f#ck, take drugs, play music, not work... and hang-out with important folks when he had the opportunity.
By exploiting others... he was able to enjoy all of these interests in large quantity.
He probably had some, as you say, "half-assed" techniques, he gleened from here and there... especially prison, which aided him, to those ends (of manipulation).
But, think about it... he was a grown man... an ex-con at that... dealing with kids, predominantly females.
I think his "influence" grew way beyond his own original expectations or plans.
In fact... I don't think he had any specific original "plan" (cult or murder-wise) at all... other than getting laid more than any man on the planet, not working, dropping acid, and strumming his guitar.
I believe he exploited people for those ends only.
AFTER TIME PASSED... he woke-up one day, and realised these techniques of exploitation had gained him more power than he'd ever banked-on, planned or even theorized.
From there... things got ugly.
I think Manson intentionally "manipulated" folks... but, never had murders in mind originally.
I think his mental and emotional health, as well as that of the group's, deteriorated over time.
I think, to an extent worthy of mention... the "group" experience, deteriorated Manson, in addition to Manson "deteriorating" the group.
Lynyrd I agree with you. I think that when he initially started the "family" it had nothing to do with murder.
But...he always made sure he was in complete control. I think that in his mind, he had to have control, otherwise it would disappear, just like every other relationship he'd had.
He was like a Pied Piper that went insane.
I think that he always had a lot of anger, and was able to keep in under control a lot of the time, but as some of the family members have mentioned, they got their share of punching, kicking, forcible rape and knife throwing.
Any interview you watch with Manson after the arrests are filled with lots of deep-seated anger, along with a few pitances of sprinkled humor.
The little boy who never grew up.
A psychotic Peter Pan.
Charlie intended on going back into pimping after he would be released from prison. He studied scientology, hypnotism and other stuff in order to learn to better control his hookers since he felt he was not very effective at being a pimp in the 1950s. yet when Charlie was released at the height of flower power he accidentally discovered that he had a more willing group he could use than hookers. Charlie discovered that hippies were there for the picking. He intended to get his own bunch of hookers but ended up with his own hippie cult. It was an accident of the times.
Well said Poirot!
I agree.
Manson had learned techiniques of manipulation for pimping and other self-serving purposes... but the "cult" phenomena, was essentially an accident.
It "morphed" into that, because of the times, and several factors... but, I don't believe Charlie's intentions were ever nearly that grand.
Charlie discovered a "cult" by toying with the ingredients, as a scientist stumbles across something he wasn't specifically researching, in the lab.
Wasn't penicillin discovered that way?
The mold found eating the bacteria, in the petrie dish?
I think it's safe to say 8/9 Baby... that others have probably studied Manson's Cult "discovery"... with the intentions of making a cult... much more than Manson ever studied others... with the intentions of forming a cult himself.
Honestly... I seriously doubt that Manson realises fully, or at all... that he even had a cult... even now!
Thanks Poirot for helping me express that to her/him.
8/9... I'm assuming you're female?
Mr. P., in order to understand your theory of Charlie getting back into the pimping business (which I don't disagree), I have to look at the relationships he first glombed onto.
His first conquest was Mary Brunner.
A smart girl, college degreed, but very plain, bland and probably no boyfriends.
Then I think came Patricia and then Squeaky. Same sad story.
They all had to defer to his wishes that they were "his bitches" and they had to share him.
At this point, was Charlie thinking about using them for money (pimping?)...or was he thinking about using them to attract men to his "group"?
He did use the girls to control the men, there's no doubt about that.
Is that pimping???
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said:
"Well... we're getting pretty deep and specific now.
I should probably take some time, and plan my words wisely, and carefully."
Yeah, i do tend to go pretty deep into the stuff that interests me, and follow random threads of info far out into the fringes. But don't let that slow you up. The psych stuff is what gets me going, amd i can go on for days, but theres a whole hell of a lot i don't know about HTLB, and i don't stake myself on any theory in particular, I just have opinions and they are subject to change. I enjoy the meeting of minds here, So by all means, don't be careful, be free! :)
"I think Manson intentionally "manipulated" folks... but, never had murders in mind originally.
I think his mental and emotional health, as well as that of the group's, deteriorated over time.
I think, to an extent worthy of mention... the "group" experience, deteriorated Manson, in addition to Manson "deteriorating" the group."
Makes sense. I completely agree that it was as poisonous for manson as for anyone, had he not been so good at the manipulation, he might have been better off. Definitely the victims would've been. Maybe i give chuckie too much credit in the planning department. I guess i find it hard to believe someone could create a cult "by accident" and have such an impact. The end result is so shocking. In the sixties a lot of groups came together for a lot of reasons, most of them broke down eventually, but not like that. It begs the question, what was the difference here? I tend to think it was an extra helping of crazy, and not just from charlie; but there are many other possibilties.
I mean... how specific do we have to get? LOL
He used the women as currency, to barter with Spahn, Wilson, bikers... everyone.
I heard he even got "permission" to dumpster dive at "prime" supermarkets, by offering his women to the store manager. LOL
I read he even offered the girls to the "supposedly" chaste men, who ran the "fountain of the world"... with some scheme in-mind.
He used the girls to "get things"... and to get out of trouble most likely.
There's no "restitution", better than a guy giving you a hot, young chick, is there?
Well... I guess "several" hot, young chicks might be better! LOL
Point is... he used the women as "currency".
So, yeah... it's prostituting them, isn't it?
I don't think he actually accepted cash for sex with the girls often, if at all.
I don't think that's how he "pimped" them specifically... if that's what you're after.
Although... I wouldn't put it past him, in a pinch! LOL
8/9 Baby said:
>>>>It was as poisonous for manson as for anyone. Had he not been so good at the manipulation, he might have been better off. Definitely the victims would've been.<<<<
You've got that right!
8/9 Baby said:
>>>>In the sixties a lot of groups came together for a lot of reasons, most of them broke down eventually, but not like that. It begs the question, what was the difference here?<<<<
Well... that's the 10 million dollar question. LOL
I could never offer an accurate answer... but, just a quick thought.
This group turned-out differently than others, but consider that it started slightly differently as well...
How many communes were formed by a lifetime ex-con?
That's one major "ingredient", that may have changed the flavor of the resulting soup.
(Raising my eyebrows) LOL
It comes back to the cult aspect. Charlie was not in it for peace, love, harmony, and ATWA...he was in it to manipulate people to work and gather food and support him and give everything to him - through manipulation. His group ended just like most cults end...in violence because the main guy gets pissed off at someone and then uses their members to cause harm to others - David Koresh, Jim Jones, Charles Manson.
Then there are the people who formed communes because they truly believed that they would create a new, healthly and earth friendly way of living...but like many fads - most people got bored and tired when they realized how hard the work was and the groups could not keep and sustain enough members to carry on.
That is the difference between a fad and a cult...they may try to act like they are the same thing...but they have different agendas. With the megalomaniacs group mostly ending in destruction of some type.
Katie said - "You just got back from a business trip??? Do you mean you actually have a job??? HA HA HA."
LOL yes Katie, I am one of the lucky ones nowadays...at least for now. I started my own business 3 years ago after the company I worked for closed. It is not easy living month to month and never knowing whether it will be a good month or a bad month...but I consider myself very lucky in these times to have those worries. Many others have many more worries and worse worries than I do. I pray every day for those who are struggling.
Also, this post confuses me...the comments start out completely different than the post??? I guess I am better off not knowing :)
Hi Mary.
Kudoos on your job. I wish you the best of success!! I know it's not easy now-a-days to keep a career going.
I'll let Lynyrd explain this thread to you off blog. It's kind of clandestine, at least part of it.
I agree with you, Lynyrd & Mr. P, that Charlie was mainly just a "pimp" looking for women to pay his way.
Nothing to do with ATWA at all. HA HA.
Mary...
Great post on the commune VS cult topic!
Mary said:
>>>>"Also, this post confuses me...the comments start out completely different than the post??? I guess I am better off not knowing :)<<<<
Yeah... it's a long story... one better left untold! LOL
Some things are truly better forgotten. : )
Hey Mary, one more thing before I drift off.
I've gotta catch you up on the Casey Anthony trial if you're not up on it. Lots of things happening.
But for now...Mr. Sandman is calling....
Night.
If you really want to understand the Manson circle then you must read or re-read "Stranger in a strange land." Its basically CM's blueprint for his group and its not for nothing that mansons son by mary brunner was named after the hero of that novel.
Also during the 70's CM came up with the idea ofthe "Order of the Rainbow" which was definitely religious in nature.
The good news... is that it grew into a really interesting thread, with 12 topics cycling simultaneously... and some old friends stopping-by.. Shak El, Frank... even Patty made a "guest appearance"!
... and we have a new blogger!
Mary, meet 8/9 Baby... Baby... meet Mary!
Peace... Lynyrd!
Hey Shak El!
Others have recommended "Stranger in a Strange Land" in the past.
The book intrigues me.
I'd like to look into it, but I'm completely strapped for time lately.
If anyone would like to give a brief synopsis of the book for us, that would be great.
Shak El - I never heard of that book...so I just looked it up - I hate science fiction...but if you think it is worth a read, I will try it.
Lynyrd - like I said, I don't want to know. LOL
But you are right...wonderful comments...maybe you should just have one big post with all comments - the comments will dictate the subject - less work for you! j/k...I love your posts.
Shak... is that the bizzare book, where they get into "underground worlds" and all that?
The inspiration for the "devil's hole" stuff?
Katie - the Casey Anthony trial is something that I was still able to follow - even on the West coast...it was on the news every morning. And that is all they talk about on HLN at night...they showed all the clips - what a confusing mess...and they are the definition of a completely dysfunctional family!
We will never know the truth...reminds me of another case - pathological liar who is only concerned about themself and willing to destroy anyone to take care of their needs, regardless of who they have to step on. Sound familiar?
I know you hate Wilkopedia, Lynyrd...but it does give one a bit of background before the real research begins...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land
"Valentine Michael"...
Mary, I read the wiki description.
That's some far-out stuff!!
I guess it was, and is, quite popular, "even among folks who don't read scinence-fiction".
They say it's never gone out-of-print.
"The late-1960s counterculture, popularized by the hippie movement, was influenced by its themes of individual liberty, self-responsibility, sexual freedom, and the influence of organized religion on human culture and government, and adopted the book as something of a manifesto".
There are two versions of the book: the original text and the uncut version. The uncut veriosn did not come out until the 1980's so it was not the version read by CM and others in the 60's. BTW, the book did spawn another reiligious movement "The Church of the all worlds" which still exist.
I don't remember there being a "hole" in the book. I beleive that was a death valley legend that CM picked up
>>>Mary said: We will never know the truth...reminds me of another case - pathological liar who is only concerned about themself and willing to destroy anyone to take care of their needs, regardless of who they have to step on. Sound familiar?>>>
Yes you're right. We will most likely never know the truth. I was thinking yesterday, the only think we really know for sure is that this little girl is dead.
And this case does sound very familiar. I see the similarities every day. It's not bad enough that her daughter is dead, but Casey is ready to destroy her remaining family for her freedom. Pathetic.
Regarding Stranger in a Strange Land...didn't Charlie name his parole officer Jubal or something after a character in that book?
I wonder if Charlie first "shared water" with his minions before getting into the "bump & grind". HA HA.
Here is a very good critique of the book:
"Writing in The New York Times, Orville Prescott received the novel caustically, describing it as a "disastrous mishmash of science fiction, laborious humor, dreary social satire and cheap eroticism"; he characterized Stranger as "puerile and ludicrous," saying "when a non-stop orgy is combined with a lot of preposterous chatter, it becomes unendurable, an affront to the patience and intelligence of readers."
Katie said - It's not bad enough that her daughter is dead, but Casey is ready to destroy her remaining family for her freedom. Pathetic.
Yes, she is ready to do...and it seems they are allowing her to do so. I don't know about you - but I think they are all liars...sad, pathetic liars - they say they want justice but the way they keep twisting and changing their testimony, you would never know it.
8/9 Baby - welcome!
Manson took courses in scientology from a fellow convict named Lanier Rayner (who had been a student and titled "Doctor in Scientology" under Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard). Manson himself claimed he reached "Theta Clear" during the sessions with Lanier. That is from my POV an understatement – he already was in the so called “Theta Clear” AND beyond… from the beginning. The courses in scientology in prison just made him realize that – bringing his true nature to the surface so to say.
L Ron Hubbard and later David Miscavige and a whole bunch of other “mental elites” in other “thought-religions” and areas of the world probably knew (and still know) that Manson was light-years from their minds and ideas. Even though they themselves are and were very powerful - they had nothing against a type of man such as Manson. They most likely feared him – as many others did. You would not expect to see “hardcore rough guys” like Danny DeCarlo for example being afraid of Manson, though apparently, he clearly was. Who did people fear in the far away past? The few ones who could not be beaten in “standard battle”. This truth is the same today but on the surface that battle has changed “form”.
Manson’s only weakness lies in a concept not brought to much attention despite its presence in every day life in these “modern days”. Information overflow. He shared HIS world to his “family” – giving them a brand new perspective on the world – one which became too much for them to handle
According to Manson himself in the San Quentin interview (and actually in ONE of his parole hearings – stating comparatively the same thing) with Neul Emmens next to him when asked if he felt remorse or guilt he stated “There is not need to feel guilty… I haven’t done anything I’m ashamed of” *pausing and thinks* “Maybe I didn’t do enough! I might be ashamed for that! For not giving enough, for not being aware enough.. for not being more perceptive.. for being stupid. Then he “twists” to confuse in the end, “Maybe I should have killed 400-500 people.. then I would have felt better, then I would have felt like I REALLY offered society something!”. What he regretted was probably that he did not think more of HOW he put down the words to his “family”, the impact it would have and what potential consequences there would be if he told them… just about everything that was going on in his mind. He could not “calculate” it all – therefore my use of the term “information overflow” as his “Achilee’s heel” – after all, he ended in a physical prison yet again
Mary, big news!!
The judge called for a recess at 8:30am central time today until Monday morning at 8:30am. Something big is happening.
Now they're speculating that it might be due to witness tampering or a plea deal.
This is getting curiouser and curiouser.
How many chemists can the defense call as an expert witness!! HA HA.
Hello V717.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us.
You hit upon many topics, so I'm somewhat at a loss, on how to respond, and cover all the bases.
I'll just throw some random responses out there, and try to respond to a few of the bases.
Scientology.
It's fairly accepted that Manson was involved in COS, to one degree or another.
To what degree, depends who you ask.
Circumstance delved into that arena quite extensively for us, in the past.
He described a group (which under the surface) was not a well-meaning religion at all, but a "front" for exploiting people.
In my EXTREMELY limited experience with COS, Saint's words seemed to ring true.
At any rate... if I'm understanding you correctly, you're essentially saying that Manson was too smart for his own good?
Or, that his mind worked in different circles than the average person, and he shared too much with others, and over-whelmed them?
Hmm...
Well...
I do believe Manson's mind doesn't run parallel with the mainstream.
He certainly was more hell-bent on philosophizing, than getting-up each day like the masses, and earning an honest living, taking care of his biological children, hygiene, etc.
Whether that makes him "enlightened" or a bum, I guess depends who you ask. LOL
I agree with you in one sense V717.
I do think Manson is very intelligent in some areas, and those areas don't lend themselves to society.
Many ancient philosophers, and great minds, were considered "eccentric odd-balls" by their peers.
It stands to reason, that if you're different mentally... then... you are... well... different... period. LOL
Being philosophically "eccentric", "different", and "on the outskirts"... is fine.
But, bear this in mind:
Charlie condoned, if not promoted auto theft, drug use... he used the women as currency (which is essentially pimping and prostitution), he shot another man in the chest at point-blank range, he sliced a man with a sword, he had sex with under-age girls, he stole credit cards, and burned property not belonging to him, etc., etc.
Point is V717:
Manson very likely would have spent his entire life, in and out of prison (more in, than out), even if he wasn't convicted of conspiracy to these murders.
He was a liftime criminal, with no regard for earning and honest living, or the basic norms of society.
Being "eccentric" is one thing... but, being a criminal, is quite another.
I submit, that Manson is both.
Let's assume for a moment that Manson is the most enlightened man, who has ever walked the earth... light-years above every other mind.
Even a man on that "wave-length", has to conform to the most basic of societal rules, as everyone does, or face the consequences.
We're all members of society, inherently by our birth on this planet.
If we allowed every enlightened (and not so enlightened) individual, to ignore the most basic rules, we'd have mayhem.
There's only two outcomes I can conclude:
#1) If Manson is so extremely enlightened, than he should know enough to repsect the basic rules of society, and hence, avoid prison.
#2) He's so enlightened... he doesn't mind being in prison at all, 'cuz he's on another wave-length.
His mind transcends his immediate environment and society, and he just doesn't care where he is physically... doing as he pleases, in-prison and out.
(Doing as he pleases out, being what gets him in, LOL)
Either way, he's where he belongs.
Aside from the murders, he likely would have ended-up in prison for all those reasons, again and again anyway.
His mind has no regard for societal norms, or his immediate environment... and never has.
Is that because he's light-years above everyone else's thinking?
That's debatable.
V717:
Your outlook paints Manson as a completely hapless victim... a martyr.
I give Manson a bit more credit.
I do think Manson was victimized... but, I also think Manson had a "healthy hand" in his own demise as well.
He was a grown man.
He could have packed a sleeping bag, and rolled out of there on a motorcycle at any point, regardless of who begged him to stay.
He also could have avoided several criminal behaviors along the way.
He ALSO could have refrained from "acting a complete fool", throughout the trial.
Manson was victimized... but he wasn't "completely victimized".
You'll never sell me on that one.
Lynyrd Skynyd said:
He was a grown man.
He could have packed a sleeping bag, and rolled out of there on a motorcycle at any point, regardless of who begged him to stay.
Mr Poirot replies:
I've thought many times that they should have written off Beausoleil since he was arrested with the knife, victim's blood and victim's car. But prior to Charlie and Stephanie Schram arriving back from Easelen Inst the girls had stirred up a lethal hornets nest. The girls, mainly Sadie, had surrounded Charlie and were whining to high heaven about saving Bobby. They were ganging up on Charlie demanding he do something to save "our brother". I think Sadie was the main pot stirring loudmouth among the girls because she knew she was most likely going to be arrested for Hinman's murder too. So Sadie in effect, browbeat Charlie to help Bobby. This was very easy for Sadie to do because Manson had sliced Hinman's ear. Charlie was complicit too.
They all should have split up and hauled ass after Hinman's murder. Bobby was a lost cause.
At first Charlie tried to calm everyone down when he sent Sandy and Mary to get sone candy. But when Sandy and Mary were busted with stolen credit cards Charlie lost his shit. In a matter of minutes Charlie rounded up the killers and they drove off to infamy in Swarts' car.
I'm always amazed how fast they all panicked after Bobby's arrest. They were too adrug addled, too brainwashed with helter skelter, too complicit in Hinman's murder to gather their wits. They were "all one". They were thinking as one. They had no individuality left. They couldn't split up and flee in 20 different directions for they were all insane, all panicking, all one. Bobby, Mary, Sandy were in jail and the man was coming after everyone who had set foot on Hinman's property. Charlie couldn't split the scene because he now thinks he's involved in both Crowe's and Hinman's murder. All hell had broken loose. All the girls were screaming at Charlie to do something to save Bobby. The chain reaction was already in motion. Armageddon was in their face. Helter Skelter didn't break out in Bel Air as Charlie predicted. It broke out at Spahn's ranch. It wasn't whitey and the muslims who went to war, it was the Family who went berzerk and went to war. Helter skelter went off in their faces.
Mr P.
EXACTLY!
Mr. P. I agree.
I wonder what would have happened if Bobby hadn't been arrested. Does anyone think there would still have been murder?
LynyrdSkynyrdBand.
At any rate... if I'm understanding you correctly, you're essentially saying that Manson was too smart for his own good?
Or, that his mind worked in different circles than the average person, and he shared too much with others, and over-whelmed them?
Yes that´s correct.
Being "eccentric" is one thing... but, being a criminal, is quite another.
I submit, that Manson is both.
Yes that´s correct.
If we allowed every enlightened (and not so enlightened) individual, to ignore the most basic rules, we'd have mayhem.
You know, there was a guy 2000 years ago. Just kiddin.
1) If Manson is so extremely enlightened, than he should know enough to repsect the basic rules of society, and hence, avoid prison.
CM: I´ve been with prostitutes, bums and vinos all my life. The street is my world. I don´t pretend go uptown and being anything fancy. I can. But I find more real in the world that I am in than I do the tinsel.
#2) He's so enlightened... he doesn't mind being in prison at all, 'cuz he's on another wave-length.
His mind transcends his immediate environment and society, and he just doesn't care where he is physically... doing as he pleases, in-prison and out.
(Doing as he pleases out, being what gets him in, LOL)
Either way, he's where he belongs.
CM: Prison don´t begin and end at the gate. Prison is in the mind. It´s locked in one world that´s dead and dying or is it´s open to a world that´s free and alive.
Aside from the murders, he likely would have ended-up in prison for all those reasons, again and again anyway.
Sure: He´s a jailbird.
His mind has no regard for societal norms, or his immediate environment... and never has.
Is that because he's light-years above everyone else's thinking?
He´s been in prison most of his life. What societal norms do you think he learned there?
Your outlook paints Manson as a completely hapless victim... a martyr.
He´s not a martyr and I don´t feel sorry for him. But he was railroaded by Vincent Bug and Stephen Kay. Vincent Bug became famous and a millionaire selling his bogus HEALTER SKELTER to the public and the jury. Manson was not allowed to defend himself in front of the jury because they knew he would have debunked Vincent Bug´s SKELTER HEALTER theory.
That´s why Manson is entitled to a new trial.
He could have packed a sleeping bag, and rolled out of there on a motorcycle at any point, regardless of who begged him to stay.
He also could have avoided several criminal behaviors along the way.
He ALSO could have refrained from "acting a complete fool", throughout the trial.
Manson was victimized... but he wasn't "completely victimized".
I agree. I think the best answer to that comes from FBI-profiler John Douglas who interviewed Manson several times. He said: "What happened was that Manson lost control of the group." And that takes us back to the first question. He shared to much with others and overhelmed them. "Yes and it probaly overhelmed himself also along the way, "information overflow". My comment."
Poirot...
Manson could have left long before anything you're describing ever happened... before there was a single murder committed.
There were lots of crimes being committed (short of murder) that would alert any sensible, ethical, man of 30+ years, to "move-on".
Must we list them all?
Like I said earlier... I'll never be convinced that Manson had no responsibilty in his own demise.
Also... I'm not convinced the TLB murders were committed for Bobby... i.e., the "copycat" motive.
V717 sadi:
>>>>"Yes and it probaly overhelmed himself also along the way, "information overflow".<<<<
I don't know if I would describe Manson's being "overwhelmed" as "information overflow" particularly...
BUT... I did say earlier, that the "group" experience deteriorated Manson mentally (and likely ethically)... just as, Manson deteriorated the group.
It's a double-edged sword.
There's a great ancient proverb which applies here:
"Absolutely power, corrupts absolutely".
v717 - That´s why Manson is entitled to a new trial.
Why is he entitled to a new trial? He is the one that disrupted court and acted a fool...his own actions played right into the prosecutions hands. He destroyed himself with his antics...why should he be granted a new trial when he himself screwed up...he is not victim - he did this to himself, and it is about time that people take responsiblity for thier actions. Too many people place blame on others when they are faced with the consequences for thier own actions...no, he knew right from wrong. If he screwed up his chances at the trial...why should we - the people who pay for this nonsense - be taxed with the duty of giving him another chance. He blew every freakin chance he got...his whole life. Not my fault or anyone elses.
Lynyrd said - Like I said earlier... I'll never be convinced that Manson had no responsibilty in his own demise.
----
I dont' see where Mr. P said that...did you Mr. P?
Lynyrd said - "Absolutely power, corrupts absolutely".
Which is why groups, families, cults, etc. will fail 99.9% of the time - when they are formed on false agendas.
>>>V717 said: If we allowed every enlightened (and not so enlightened) individual, to ignore the most basic rules, we'd have mayhem. You know, there was a guy 2000 years ago. Just kiddin.>>>
If you're referring to Jesus, he didn't ignore the basic rules, he was there to re-enforce them.
>>>V717 said: But he was railroaded by Vincent Bug and Stephen Kay. Vincent Bug became famous and a millionaire selling his bogus HEALTER SKELTER to the public and the jury.>>>
Bugliosi had to prove Charlie guilty, and that was the only way to convince the jury that Charlie had control over his minions...thus the Helter Skelter theory. It's not bogus...it's just a valid proof that these people were being controlled. Not a REASON for the murders...but a reason that they THOUGHT they murdered.
>>>Manson was not allowed to defend himself in front of the jury because they knew he would have debunked Vincent Bug´s SKELTER HEALTER theory.>>>
No you're wrong. Manson wasn't allowed to defend himself because he was trying to turn the proceedings into more of a circus than he already had.
He demanded that all the attorneys be put in jail so he could have equal status??? Stupid.
He asked the court to address him as "Charlie". Stupid.
The only reason he wanted to represent himself is so he could have full access to Sadie, Pat, Skankston, Linda & possibly Tex, so he could manipulate them further.
That's the only reason.
>>>That´s why Manson is entitled to a new trial.>>>
Why would Manson want a new trial? Didn't you already say that "His mind transcends his immediate environment and society, and he just doesn't care where he is physically... doing as he pleases, in-prison and out"?
So, by your own words, it doesn't matter where he is. Because he just doesn't care.
Lynyrd you have to include the fact that Manson was going insane. e suffered a mental collaps in 69 and said so in a 1980s interview. This was why Life magazine did that cover of the wild eyed psychopthic Manson.
In Nuell Emmon's book Manson even discusses why he didn't leave earlier. He needed the Family and they needed him. Neither could break that bond.
Copycat was probably the most powerful motive of the many motives behind TLB. The wall writings in blood were copycat techniques. It was every bit as powerful a motive as scaring Melcher.
If I had just one choice of which thing I could remove from the Manson saga which would have prevented the murders I think Id choose the hallucinogenic drugs because they caused Charlie to go bonkers and that started his psychopathic violent helter skelter sermons which took a peaceful Family and turned it into a violent Family.
To Mary and Poirot:
Mary said:
>>>>"it is about time that people take responsiblity for thier actions. Too many people place blame on others when they are faced with the consequences for thier own actions"...<<<<
---------------------------------
My point exactly.
Manson could have walked long before the events, and conditions, that Poirot described, ever developed.
Manson may well have been caught in a "whirlwind" by the end (as Poirot describes)... but, a man of his age is responsible for ignoring all the sign-posts.
They were engaging in criminal behavior, on an
on-going basis.
This all started, because I said:
"Manson had a heavy hand, in his own demise".
Folks... I don't see why this is so complex... we're dealing with common sense on this one.
If you crawl around in the mud with pigs long enough, you're going to get dirty.
Especially, if you're "head pig"!
And once you're dirty, you can't say "but, Susan and the girls, were pressuring me" afterwards.
You can't drop acid every night voluntarily... and then complain afterwards, that it caused you to go insane... even if it did.
Poirot... with all due respect, you're making excuses for a 30+ year-old man, who chose to be there... and chose to live this lifestyle.
And yes Poirot... Manson could have rolled out of there much earlier on a motorcycle.
He played his manipulation, criminal lifestyle, and debauchery game too long, and in the end... it led to where that road always leads.
I have more sympathy for Ruth and Snake... they actually were hapless victims, given their age.
Luckily... neither of those poor "minors" ended-up in jail for life, due to the influence of irresponsible adults.
Now THAT would be a shame, and something to be pitied.
Mr. P., now you're getting into a gray area.
>>>Mr. P. said: Copycat was probably the most powerful motive of the many motives behind TLB. The wall writings in blood were copycat techniques. It was every bit as powerful a motive as scaring Melcher.>>>
Mr. P., you should know as well as I do, that the copy cat motives were only thought of during the penalty phase of the trial. No copy cat shit going on at TLB.
>>>If I had just one choice of which thing I could remove from the Manson saga which would have prevented the murders I think Id choose the hallucinogenic drugs because they caused Charlie to go bonkers and that started his psychopathic violent helter skelter sermons which took a peaceful Family and turned it into a violent Family.>>>
Mr. P., by the admission of several family members, Manson didn't partake of the hallucinogenics near as many times as he handed them out. He wanted to be clear headed and in control.
Poirot said:
>>>>Copycat was probably the most powerful motive of the many motives behind TLB. The wall writings in blood were copycat techniques. It was every bit as powerful a motive as scaring Melcher.<<<<
Poirot...
I do give the "copycat motive" some creedence.
I'm just not personally convinced.
My big question, is why didn't they follow-up?
Why (as I believe Vera suggested), did they not call the police anonymously, and put a "bug in their ear"?
Why didn't the all-time "squealer" Susan... the one that you say pushed for the "copy-cats" the hardest... push that motive hard, when talking to her cellmates?
Instead, she talked about making lamp-shades out of Sinatra's skin... or some shit.
Why didn't Susan say to her cell-mates:
"Wow... I think those TLB murders were JUST LIKE (even though they weren't), the Hinman murder?
Why wasn't the "family" making that connection, every chance they got... in order to make their "scheme" complete and successful?
Why kill all those folks, and NOT follow-up?
They just kill everyone, and disappear? ... leaving the motive a mystery?
Those are the questions I have... as well, as others.
I have questions for every motive, so, it's not specific to the "copy-cat" motive only.
As I said... I do give it some creedence.
BTW...
Bob, where the heck are you brother?
Lynyrd Skynyrd saidI have questions for every motive, so, it's not specific to the "copy-cat" motive only.
As I said... I do give it some creedence.
Mr Poirot replies:
There were probably no less than 6 motives specifically behind the Cielo murders and no less than 2 identical motives behind both the Tate and Labianca murders.
For instance: Tex and Sadie were at Cielo for different reasons.
>>Mr. P said: For instance: Tex and Sadie were at Cielo for different reasons.>>>
Pray tell, what were those reasons???
There are always several motives that make people do what they do...even in normal everyday life. But you cannot present 5 - 6 motives to a jury and expect them to follow the motives and all the evidence. You need to simplify the case and present the apparent motive...and HS was one of the motives...the motive the places were picked may have been different and they may have been trying to tie it all in with the Hinman murder to get Bobby off. But I honestly believe that the killers thought they were trying to start a race war amongst other things.
I may want to eat chocolate brownies because I am PMSing...but this is something I love and abstain from in everyday life so I want them for a reward...I also like the comfort that eating food from my childhood provide...I also have the munchies. Just to think about eating a brownie - brings about at least 4 different motives...consciously...never mind what motivates me unconsciously, that is something that my therapist needs to delve into. But right now - I want brownies...and those are the reasons that I am thinking about baking some.
Just an example
Mmmmm.......chocolate brownies..... (Homer Simpson).
Mary you don't need a therapist...you've got us!!! HA HA.
Mary said:
>>>>"you cannot present 5 - 6 motives to a jury and expect them to follow the motives and all the evidence. You need to simplify the case"<<<<
Mary... you're right.
katie8753 said...
>>Mr. P said: For instance: Tex and Sadie were at Cielo for different reasons.>>>
Pray tell, what were those reasons???
Mr Poirot replies:
Sadie helped murder Hinman. Bobby had just been caught. Sadie and Mary were complicit to murder and Bobby would implicate them both. Sadie wanted the copycat murders to get Bobby off which would save her neck.
Tex owed Charlie for getting him out of his drug burn he pulled on Crowe.
Even if there is any substance to Bugliosi´s Helter Skelter scenario, Manson would only be guilty of conspiracy, or accessory to murder, at worst. Some contend that Bugliosi invented `Helter Skelter`merely to promote his own career because the `copy-cat`scenario did not implicate Charlie enough.
"Circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy convicted Manson,"
Bugliosi has in recent times admitted, and has gone on record stating that he hadn´t completely put all the pieces of his Helter-Skelter hypothesis together during the trial, but due to time constraints it was the best theory, so he ran with it.
In his biography, Tex Watson claims-that during, the heyday of Helter Skelter-he placed himself entirely at the mercy of Manson. Watson while under Manson´s purported spell, belived Charlie to be the honest-to god resurrection of Jesus Christ. So completely was he a beliver in Charlie Christ, says Watson, he was willing to do anything for his mad messiah, even murder. Such was his total and encompassing love. This, in essence, was the procecution´s postion, wich Bugliosi presented. Conversly-during Tex´s murder trial-Bugliosi sang a different tune, convicting Watson of the Tate/LaBianca murders sans the ´Helter Skelter` motive, instead proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Tex at the time of the murders, was not under any form of mindcontrol, and was totally culpable for his actions.
>>>Mr. P replies: Sadie helped murder Hinman.>>>
No she didn't.
>>>Bobby had just been caught. >>>
Yes he did.
>>>Sadie and Mary were complicit to murder and Bobby would implicate them both.>>>
No he didn't. He kept his mouth shut.
>>>Sadie wanted the copycat murders to get Bobby off which would save her neck.>>>
Mr. P., you always seem to be on target, then you go off on tangents.
The copy cat motives were thought of in 1971. Did you not know that??? Should I re-direct you??? Come on now, read up on the subject matter.
>>>Tex owed Charlie for getting him out of his drug burn he pulled on Crowe.>>>
Well, according to Tex and Charlie, Tex owed him.
So you're saying the Tate murders were motivated by: Tex owed Charlie, and Sadie wanted copy cat?
Mr. P., please lie down and take an aspirin.
The reason Tex, et al, went out on that hot August night August 9th, 1969, was because Charlie was pissed off and he ordered them to.
You already outlined that...why are you vascillating?
Tex (and I hate that word because I'm a Texan too) and Company went forward because Charlie said to go to the house where Melcher lived, and kill everyone there.
End of Story.
You and I both know that.
yes v717 - Bugliosi brought up HS as the motive...but he also brought evidence of his followers beleiving he was Jesus and of the way that the murders seemed to copy cat each other...and tried to connect how Charlie knew both the residences and some of the victims...he put it all out there...however, as a smart prosecuter does - he presented HS as the motive...the motive for the killers...that Charlie preached and then connected HIM to the murders. Anyway you look at it - he was not wrong about Charlie or HS...he may have put more emphasis on these but in the end...he was NOT wrong...we all know it
Correct Marliese - they are not required to bring motive..however, it is widely believed that this is the best practice. And the HS was not the WRONG motive...it was merely only ONE of the motives.
v717 said...
Even if there is any substance to Bugliosi´s Helter Skelter scenario, Manson would only be guilty of conspiracy, or accessory to murder, at worst. Some contend that Bugliosi invented `Helter Skelter`merely to promote his own career because the `copy-cat`scenario did not implicate Charlie enough.
"Circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy convicted Manson,"
Mr Poirot replies:
Manson was a hands-on participant in the Labianca murders. He could have gotten two counts of 1st degree murder for that. He was a hands-on participant in Hinman's murder too which equals three counts of murder 1st degree.
If you want to include your suggestions of Tex believing Charlie was Jesus Christ(which I agree with too) then there are now no less than 7 motives behind the Cielo murders. Everyone who was at Cielo had multiple and different motives for the killings.
Bug had no problem finding motive. He had a problem with deciding which motives to omitt.
But the murders were in August and the cops didn't know who the killers were for 3 1/2 months.
>>V717 said: Even if there is any substance to Bugliosi´s Helter Skelter scenario, Manson would only be guilty of conspiracy, or accessory to murder, at worst.>>>
Yessiree, punishable by death! Did you not know that?
>Some contend that Bugliosi invented `Helter Skelter`merely to promote his own career because the `copy-cat`scenario did not implicate Charlie enough.>>>
The copy cat theory was only invented during the penalty phase in 1971...thus is "Non mihi refert"
Catch your breath!!!
>>>"Circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy convicted Manson,"
Bugliosi has in recent times admitted and has gone on record stating that he hadn´t completely put all the pieces of his Helter-Skelter hypothesis together during the trial, but due to time constraints it was the best theory, so he ran with it.>>>
Where is that??? Please post.
>>>>In his biography, Tex Watson claims-that during, the heyday of Helter Skelter-he placed himself entirely at the mercy of Manson. Watson while under Manson´s purported spell, belived Charlie to be the honest-to god resurrection of Jesus Christ. So completely was he a beliver in Charlie Christ, says Watson, he was willing to do anything for his mad messiah, even murder. Such was his total and encompassing love. This, in essence, was the procecution´s postion, wich Bugliosi presented.>>>
So....is there a problem with this???
>>>Conversly-during Tex´s murder trial-Bugliosi sang a different tune, convicting Watson of the Tate/LaBianca murders sans the ´Helter Skelter` motive, instead proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Tex at the time of the murders, was not under any form of mindcontrol, and was totally culpable for his actions.>>>
Mr. V., have you not read up on this material? Tex has completely and utterly said that he was at Charlie's command. He has always lamented his fate.
Please provide the info that you're saying that Bugliosi said that Tex was NOT under Manson's control. I've not heard that one.
Charlie was his master and he was at his feet.
Tex did what he was told. Always and forever.
I'm surprised at the people who post here who have not read the material.
Don't just read books like "Stranger in a Strange Land."
Read up on the police reports, autopsy reports, court transcripts, and witness statements.
That's where you'll glean your new mission.
Don't just read what Charlie "says". It's all bullshit.
Or did you not know that?
Oh BTW, Mr. V., did you read my posts about Charlie representing himself and needing a new trial?
You didn't respond.
Just wondering????
Did you re-think that crap?
Hi Lynn!
>>>Lynn said: I have worked in a company where 1/2 the company were Scientologists so I have seen firsthand the manipulation. They get people to give up everything>>>
Sounds like Charlie's dump. HA HA.
>>....if you aren't a celebrity, your life in Scientology is miserable.>>>
Hmmmm...I wonder if Charlie's life was. (gggrrrrummmmmbbblllleee)
>>>I could tell you horror stories.....>>>
Please expound!! LOL.
I'll tell you what. If I worked for a company that was a Scientologist cult, I'da been fired the first day. HA HA. No doubt about it!
I don't think those fuckers come to Texas. If they do...they don't advertise!! HA HA.
Katie - I love you...you are hilarious!
The "Manson trial" is the only that made bugliosi recognizable(and rich).Him and kay have been living off of Manson for 40 years.The whole "helter-skelter" thing was so he could write a fuckin' book
the Vincent Bugliosi book bears little resemblance to the truth as I know it - Bobby Beausoleil
Wow, i am loving this thread, lots of tasty stuff!
I'll have to come back later for a proper post, but i want to say hello to Mary, thanks for the welcome. :)
L/S : yes, i am a lady, or, a totally cool chick! LOL
Shak-el: i read heinlein's Stranger, years ago in college, i'll have to dig it out amd read it again. What i remember of it, i think i "grok" what you mean.
V717: i get some of what you are saying (i think). Think of it in electrical terms: by accident or design, charlie tapped in to a lot of "juice" by taking control of a bunch of weak minds. He couldn't handle the "load", it fried his circuits. This is often the case in cults that end tragically, a powerfully charismatic leader with a fractured psyche, the power given to a guru by his accolytes only deepens those fractures until the mind breaks. An increasing dependence on craven fools accelerates the process. I'm not sure how you see it, but In my mind this doesn't make him a victim, it makes him a fool and a tool of what you might call "evil", if you use that kind of language.
But, i'm drifting into esoteric territory, and i have to wrangle my kid to bed now, so i'm out.
I'll check in later, i'm lovin this thread!
Mary said...
Katie - I love you...you are hilarious!
Yes, you are hilarious Katie.
Hey Lynn!!
Glad you had fun at the concert!
Lynn said:
>>>>"I have seen firsthand the manipulation. They get people to give up everything....if you aren't a celebrity, your life in Scientology is miserable. I could tell you horror stories"<<<<
Yeah... Circumstance gave us quite an education regarding the misery and explotation of "scientology" one day.
I've known one "scientologist" in my life, and the description was a dead ringer!
BTW Lynn... the guy (scientologist) I knew... ended-up divorced, and broke.
>>V717 said: The "Manson trial" is the only that made bugliosi recognizable(and rich).Him and kay have been living off of Manson for 40 years.The whole "helter-skelter" thing was so he could write a fuckin' book
the Vincent Bugliosi book bears little resemblance to the truth as I know it - Bobby Beausoleil>>>
So what??? So why is Manson innocent????
Please expound
You know Mr. V. you put out a lot of crap, but don't produce any innocence.
HMMMMMM.. Waiting.......
Blahhhh.....................
Hey 8/9 Baby!!
Glad to see you back, and having fun!
((((((((((Marliese))))))))))
BTW... 8/9 Baby:
I love your posts!
"In my mind this doesn't make him a victim, it makes him a fool and a tool of what you might call "evil", if you use that kind of language".
Good Stuff!
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
BTW Lynn... the guy (scientologist) I knew... ended-up divorced, and broke
I read a couple of books by L Ron Hubbard this year to see what Scientology was about. I would call it a philosophy not a religion. Ultimately it is about getting your money. L Ron is an interesting character to say the least. At one point he went to Europe and travelled with his own flotilla of boats throughout the Mediterranean. He'd dock in a port and seek new members. He was always run off by local authorities because of his flim flam methods of operation. He ended up a millionaire before he died. He found some sort of cosmic tax loophole which enabled him to take it all with him when he died.
Ahhhh Mr. P:
BTW Lynn... the guy (scientologist) I knew... ended-up divorced, and broke>>>
No wonder. Fucking Loser!!!
Mr. P said:
>>>>"Ultimately it is about getting your money".<<<<
That's what I've been told... and what I observed... with the one "scientologist", I knew.
marliese said:
"I'm more interested in justice for the victims and their unspeakable suffering than in 'why'. But it's all fascinating,"
Hi marliese! I really appreciate what you bring to the mix. It is all fascinating, but the bottom line is that real human beings died horrible deaths. I think of Gary Hinman, who by all accounts was terrorized for 2 days by people he was friendly to, before being murdered. That murder is often eclipsed by TLB, and the fact that there was a separate trial and convictions for this killing. Gary suffered horribly, as did all the victims, terrorized and then killed in a clumsy manner that surely prolonged their suffering. It is important to remember this first and foremost. For me, it is the horror of it all that makes me want to understand why.
The awful thing about murder, for the families of the victims, is that there are rarely any clear answers as to what happened and why. In my own experience, even if the cops can tell you who, they can't tell you why - and that is usually the question that gnaws at you. Why did you do that to someone i love? What could they have done to deserve it? I give Bugliosi credit because he got the convictions, period. Whatever his personality or later behavior. He is a prosecutor, not a hero, and in making a coherent picture of a chaotic mess and winning a conviction of manson on capitol murder in the TLB killings he pulled off something none of his collegues at the time thought was possible. He did an amazing job for the victims, as far as i'm concerned.
Anyway, marliese, keep on bringing what you bring!
Ah sorry. Scientlogists are liars. And all the rest. And so is Casey...
HA HA
I'm going to bed now.
The things i've read about scientology over the years! I used to see the late-night ads for the Dianetics book - "the owners manual for the human mind". (remember those?) That got me curious. There are a lot of ex-members with stories to tell, some are just sickening. Particularly ones about a group within the group, the "sea org", and their brutal discipline and "correction" The story of L Ron Hubbard and the origins of scientology is as bizarre and disputed as manson and his family, only instead of a crazy murder machine, Hubbard made a crazy money machine. He too thought he had a destiny of greatness and power, he too succeeded wildly in cultivating the weak and craven, and he was poisoned by it too. The stories of his death and the people around him at the time are sad and strange. There are websites devoted to this kind of stuff - some folks see Scientology as a dangerous cult that must be actively opposed. If you were ever labelled a "suppressive person" and targeted by this group, i suppose you might feel the same...
One last thing and then its off to bed...
Found my ratty old copy of Stranger in a Strange Land- a 1968 paperback edition - heres the back-cover blurb:
"The story of Valentine Michael Smith, born and educated on Mars, who arrives on our planet super-human in abilities and ignorant of sex as we know it. He shocks the mores of Western culture by attempting to set up a strange and fascinating discipline on Earth: the first step is learning to "grok" ..."
Oooh! Cheesy!
But then again the Washington Post is quoted here as saying; "it sparkles and crackles and produces goose bumps of apprehension and dissatisfaction with the human race ... The best of his many books."
Who am i to argue?
G'night all :)
8/9 Baby said:
>>>>"There are a lot of ex-members with stories to tell, some are just sickening. Particularly ones about a group within the group, the "sea org", and their brutal discipline and "correction" The story of L Ron Hubbard and the origins of scientology is as bizarre and disputed as manson and his family, only instead of a crazy murder machine, Hubbard made a crazy money machine. He too thought he had a destiny of greatness and power, he too succeeded wildly in cultivating the weak and craven, and he was poisoned by it too. The stories of his death and the people around him at the time are sad and strange. There are websites devoted to this kind of stuff - some folks see Scientology as a dangerous cult that must be actively opposed. If you were ever labelled a "suppressive person" and targeted by this group, i suppose you might feel the same"...<<<<
Everything you're saying, is eerily reminiscent of the last in-depth conversation we had involving scientology... it's un-canny... right down to someone else saying... "there are websites devoted to this kind of stuff".
If it wasn't so late, I'd refer you to the other thread... you'd be amazed at the similarities.
As I said earlier... love your posts!
For anyone interested, there are a ton of used copies of the "Stranger" Sci-Fi book on Amazon for under $10... and that's shipping included.
New copies are not much more.
Both the older release, and the newer are available.
The older release is shorter (which was editied down from the original writing), at 400 pages... the newer release (which is actually the original un-edited) is 528.
The book sounds fascinating, but being that I have an impossible time reading science-fiction, I'll probably take a pass.
If I was gonna "go for it" though, I'd get the older, shorter version, that was edited-down.
I'd rather know that I was reading the same book as the hippies. LOL
'Course, getting a "new" copy of that version, would be impossible... for folks who will not read a used book.
(I've encountered one or two)
Peace... Lynyrd
BTW...
Thanks 8/9 Baby for taking the time to dig out the book, and re-writing the blurb from the back cover for us!
And...thanks to Shak El, for recommending the book originally!
There was another communal group based on LSD use whicharose about the same time as the Manson circle: the Lyman Family in Boston, MA. It was very authoritarian and based on hard work. Its members believed that Mel Lyman was God. The group was "exposed" in 1971 by Rolling Stones and its leader became increasingly paraniod and the group dropped ot of site. Mel died in 1978 and the group as a while became sevefrely depressed and suffered chronic alhocoilism. It still exists today but has not taken in new members for over 40 years and functions as an extended family. The author and environmentalist Dick Russell is a member of this group.
>>>Shak El said: There was another communal group based on LSD use whicharose about the same time as the Manson circle: the Lyman Family in Boston, MA.>>>
The Lyman Family. Interesting. I'll have to look into that.
Marliese, you're right, the prosecution doesn't have to establish a motive, but in a case as complicated as this one, without a motive you're kind of trying to go upstream without a paddle.
If Bugliosi had made his opening statement to say: I'm going to prove beyond a doubt that these girls were involved in killing 7 people and Charles Manson ordered them to, but I don't really know why" it most likely wouldn't have ended with Charlie's conviction.
As Mary said, there were several motives, but he needed a blanket motive,and Helter Skelter was the most likely motive that would involve Charlie.
I think that his conviction of Charlie was nothing short of a miracle, and as several people have commented, I really don't think he would have gotten the jury to buy this Helter Skelter control factor if Charlie & Company hadn't acted up during the trial. It would have been too unbelievable.
Marliese said:
>>>>"I'd like to think that intent is as valuable as motive in establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And when it's a slam dunk, who cares why? [break] "in cases where someone is caught red handed, or there are eye witnesses with corroborating evidence, fingerprints, dna etc".<<<<
I agree.
In cases where you have the type of "slam dunk" evidence you're describing, a motive is not necessary.
I mean...
If you have video of the man physically shooting his wife, three witnesses... and the woman (victim) herself, survives to corroborate the story (I'm exaggerating for effect)... certainly, you really don't have to know why he did it.
Unfortunately, some cases (as you know), do not have that kind of concrete evidence.
In those cases, motive can make the difference.
Marliese said:
>>>>"I always go back to Charlie's guilt in the murder of Leno and Rosemary. He was there. He drove the car there. He went into the house. He tied them up. He left the victims with killers".<<<<
Marliese... I agree with the events you just described.
My question is:
Was Bugliosi convinced he had enough evidence to prove, Manson physically entered the house, and tied them up, before the trial began?
Just asking...
If Bug was unsure he could prove those events happened, in a concrete fashion (slam dunk, if you will), before the trial began... then motive becomes the next logical tool.
or maybe manson thought that no jury in their right minds would buy into the helter skelter motive and that he'd be set free while the others who did the killing would go to jail instead
Hey Bob!
Great to see ya brother!
Bob said:
>>>>"Lynyrd, I think Bug clearly needed motive to tie Manson in"<<<<
I agree.
I was just playing "devil's advocate" to try and understand Marliese, and make a point.
Marliese has said a few times (on this thread and others) that the prosecution doesn't need to prove motive... that if the prosecution demonstrates "intent" (ie., enough circumstantial evidence)... the "why" or "motive" is moot.
Basically, she's said a few times that "motive" is over-rated. LOL
I was just asking questions to understand her, and maybe make a "rhetorical" point.
But yes... I believe that, under the circumstances of this particular situation, Bug did indeed, need a motive, to tie Manson.
Bob said:
>>>>"& why Manson would play along is really puzzling to me".<<<<
I've always said, that if Manson dressed well, got a decent haircut and shave... kept his mouth sealed like a vault, and told the "family" to treat him like a shmuck, and seal their mouths also... and stay off the damn street corner... he likely would have walked... or did 20 years tops, with good behavior.
Why didn't he do that?
'Cuz he would have had to eat a big piece of humble pie.
He'd have to play by "the systems" rules.
He'd have to de-throne himself as head honcho.
He'd have to cow-tow, to "the man".
If Manson couldn't win on his terms... he didn't want to play.
He'd rather go down in a blaze of glory, then swallow his Pride.
... and THAT'S the real reason Manson sits in jail.
He wouldn't swallow his pride and "behave" then... and he won't swallow his pride and "behave" now.
The answer is foolish pride, and defiance.
It's the old... "cut your nose off, to spite your face" mindset.
In the end... Bugliosi didn't really convict Manson... Manson convicted Manson.
Without Manson's assistance... Bugliosi had a fairly weak case aginst him.
Bug's entire case hinged around proving Manson was in-charge, and Manson (and company) single-handedly cemented that concept into the minds of the jurors.
Manson convicted himself, 'cuz he couldn't give up his "status", or his pride.
The great and powerful OZ has spoken! LOLOL
(JUST KIDDING)
If you have a case like Jared Loughner shooting and killing people in Arizona, you don't need a motive to convict him because we all know he did it. We don't really need to know why.
I agree Lynyrd that the reason Charlie didn't just sit quietly and keep his mouth shut is because he would have lost respect with his family members who really thought he was Christ and that if he wanted to, he could magically just "poof" and get out of prison.
Also I think he just likes to talk. HA HA.
I mean think about it...the judge, the attorneys and even the jury had to be protected because of the constant death threats. The jury had protection even AFTER the trial.
Then Hughes disappears and Sandy claims that the family "got rid of him".
This is literally proof that this family is not only crazy...but extremely dangerous.
All of that was in Bugliosi's favor.
Oh...forgot to say hi Bobby!!
I agree Bob.
Marliese makes excellent contributions, and I agree with her most of the time.
But, try as I might... I just can't see Bugliosi convicting Manson by presenting no motive at all.
There just wasn't enough concrete evidence against Manson there.
If there was indeed enough evidence against Manson "sans-motive", I'm just not seeing it.
Marliese and I, may have to "agree to dis-agree" on that point.
Great to see you MattP!
...another great contributor.
>>>Matt said: or maybe manson thought that no jury in their right minds would buy into the helter skelter motive and that he'd be set free while the others who did the killing would go to jail instead>>>
Hi Matt!
That's very possible. I think that Manson knew this Helter Skelter stuff was nonsense and was just another way to incite people to do his bidding.
It's interesting that Charlie actually thought the Beatles were sending him messages thru their lyrics.
I wonder why he didn't think that about any other groups. Or did he?
What would he think In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida means. LOL.
>>>Lynn said: Probably the most surreal moment was when this company had a Christmas party and watching all of them decorate the Christmas tree and listening to Christmas carols and religious hymns...was a little like being with the Stepford Wives....>>>
Lynn...that sounds creepy.
I don't understand why people get involved in this weird stuff. I read stuff about Tom Cruise now and then and how he's so involved in this stuff and he has spies listening to what his wife says, etc. I couldn't put up with that crap! Don't these people know this "religion" was invented by a Sci Fi writer???
Thanks Bobby! I never knew what that meant!
The Manson case is the american Dreyfus affair.
The Dreyfus affair was a political scandal that divided France in the 1890s and the early 1900s. It involved the conviction for treason in November 1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Alsatian Jewish descent. Sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly having communicated French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris, Dreyfus was sent to the penal colony at Devil's Island in French Guiana and placed in solitary confinement.
Two years later, in 1896, evidence came to light identifying a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy as the real culprit. However, high-ranking military officials suppressed this new evidence and Esterhazy was unanimously acquitted after the second day of his trial in military court. Instead of being exonerated, Alfred Dreyfus was further accused by the Army on the basis of false documents fabricated by a French counter-intelligence officer, Hubert-Joseph Henry, seeking to re-confirm Dreyfus's conviction. These fabrications were uncritically accepted by Henry's superiors.[1]
Word of the military court's framing of Alfred Dreyfus and of an attendant cover-up began to spread largely due to J'accuse, I charge a vehement public open letter in a Paris newspaper by writer Émile Zola, in January 1898. The case had to be re-opened and Alfred Dreyfus was brought back from Guiana in 1899 to be tried again. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus and those who condemned him
While Alfred Dreyfus was serving his sentence on Devil's Island, supporters and the press in France began to question his guilt. The most notable of these was Major Georges Picquart, who brought evidence of a forgery to his superiors and when ordered to keep silent, leaked information to the Dreyfusard press. Picquart was later court-martialed for his revelations. After Dreyfus was exonerated, Picquart was also cleared and restored to his military position.
-That is why I maintain that Manson is entitled to a new trial. There are to many loose ends in this case and Vincent Bugs so called evidence don´t prove much if anything at all.-
bobby said...
and as Marliese has well explained motive is not needed to come to a quilty verdict.
Hi Bobby, i appreciate that you got what I meant. :)
i want to emphasize Lynyrd that my comment to you, a post or two up, was in the context of responding to your specific question about Waverly.
Bobby said: V717, Is this because you think he could be acquited with a new trial ? Also which trial ? TLB,Hinman/Shay
I was thinking about the TLB trial.
As I said before: There are to many loose ends in this case and a new trial surely would put new light on these mysterious incidents that occured over 40 years ago.
To me it´s clear that Manson didn´t plan the murders, he didn´t execute them, he didn´t instruct them.
After the Tate killings, when Susan Atkins proudly told him that they had just given him the world, Manson claims to have shouted, “You dumb fucking cunt, I already had the world. You just put me back in jail again.”
Marliese, without motive Bugliosi didn't really have a case against Charlie at all.
His fingerprints weren't at the crime scene. There was no physical evidence that he was ever there. The only one who would place him there was Kasabian, after Sadie backed off because she was afraid she they were going to kill her (and right she was to think so. She could have slipped on some soap in the shower and crushed her skull).
Linda could have backed off too for all he knew. At that time, none of the family members would have testified against Charlie. Either because they were afraid to, or they were still loyal.
According to testimony, nobody except Tex heard Charlie say to kill anyone.
Tex was still in Texas and not available.
But...with the motive of Helter Skelter, Bugliosi not only laid the groundwork of complete and utter domination of Charlie over the family, he perpetuated it with the goings on during the proceedings, i.e., shave heads, carve foreheads, yell threats, sing, laugh, disrupt, etc.
It was so obvious to anyone with eyes that this man was dominating these people utterly and completely, even in the face of death in the gas chamber.
That speaks volumes for this motive and without it, he would have lost this case.
>>>V717 said: To me it´s clear that Manson didn´t plan the murders, he didn´t execute them, he didn´t instruct them.>>>
That's not clear to me. Why do you think that?
He didn't plan the murders....it was just off the top of his head when he got mad. "Go kill folks".
He didn't execute the murders (TLB). But he did order them.
And while we're on the subject, I'll say again, for anyone who likes to say Charlie never killed anyone, Charlie did help kill Shea. He was right there stabbing. So please....don't make that claim.
>>>After the Tate killings, when Susan Atkins proudly told him that they had just given him the world, Manson claims to have shouted, “You dumb fucking cunt, I already had the world. You just put me back in jail again.”>>>
As we discussed earlier, we don't really know if he even said that. Depends on who you're reading.
8/9 Baby & Marliese:
You're right, these murders were so savage and vicious.
Gary suffered needlessly for no reason. He had only been good to these people and they turned around and killed him, stole his vehicles and laughed about it.
Same with the TLB victims. Just another night at home when someone breaks in and literally disembowls them for no real reason at all. Just because some maniac ordered it.
Pathetic.
V717, why do you think that anyone would order a new trial for Charlie?
What has changed?
Oh, some lawyer that has one foot in prison and the other one on a banana peel says that Karl Stubbs was killed by Tex & Katie without Manson's orders???
You say "There are to many loose ends in this case and a new trial surely would put new light on these mysterious incidents that occured over 40 years ago."
What loose ends? What mysterious incidents?
Please share.
Alright Marliese...
Let's see if we can crack this nut of mis-communication. LOL
Maybe I'm not communicating well enough.
I'll try agan.
I believe that a prosecutor does NOT have to sell a motive, in order to convict, if there's enough intent, provable by concrete evidence.
I agree with you there 100%!
I also agree that "intent", supported by "slam-dunk evidence", can be just as powerful, successful, and important as "motive".
Moreso actually!
If you're fortunate enough to have those tools at your disposal as a prosecutor... why even bother with motive?
So again... I agree with you 200%.
Where I'm confused... is why you keep making those very true statements, in regards to this particular case?
I don't see Kasabian's testimony ALONE, to be the type of concrete, slam-dunk evidence and intent, that would supercede the necessity for a motive.
I don't see a competent prosecutor hanging his hat on Kasabian's testimony alone, as over-whelming evidence.
Bugliosi (it seems) wanted Manson behind bars desperately.
I just don't see the jury viewing a young hippie-chick's testimony (alone) as a smoking gun... or, a "red-handed" scenario.
As Katie stated earlier... it's amazing Bugliosi convicted Manson, even WITH a motive!
To summarize:
I understand your words regarding motive NOT being a necessity to convict in general terms... and I agree with you words 100%.
I also see your point, that concrete evidence, is as good as motive... and, I'll do you one better... and say it's "preferrable"!
A "smoking gun", "red-heanded", "slam dunk" situation is every lawyers dream!!!
BUT...here's the point of contention:
I just don't see how those concepts apply to Manson, in the context of this particular case, and hence, why the subject keeps being raised.
Bottom line (in my opinion):
I think, in regards to Manson specifically, in this particular case... the "slam-dunk" point is moot.
I'm not trying to bust your cookies at all.
I'm just trying to better communicate, what it is specifically, that I'm not seeing.
Katie 8753 asks What loose ends? What mysterious incidents?
Just a few to begin with: The night of the crime on Cielo Drive.
Ackording to Ed Sanders and others: Susan Atkins was strolling around in the house to search for others than Woityck Frykowski after she had tied his hands behind his back with a towel. In the room on the left, she saw a woman Abigail Folger - laying on an antique bed, reading. When Folger noticed Susan, she smiled, to wich Susan returned her smile, and waved, then moved on to the next room.
Now presume that you are laying in your bed reading and suddenly a perfect stranger appears in the door and stands looking at you. Would you smile to that person and calmly go on reading. I guess not.
Dosen´t it indicate that Susan Atkins and Abigail folger somehow knew each other.
And what about the caretaker William Garretson who claims that he didn´t see or hear anything that night. That story has never quite added up.
And was it Manson and some other member of the family who visit the murder scene after the killers returned to Spahn Ranch. Someone or somebody had obviously moved the body of Sharon Tate around in the house.
If it wasn´t Manson who was it?
There are many more loose ends. But I don´t have more time just now.
I
Actually Marliese...
There's one other thing I don't understand... LOL
(Sorry)
You said (paraphrasing), that finding "Helter Skelter" written in blood, was presented by Bugliosi, as being... comparable to finding Manson's finger prints.
I agree entirely... 100%.
The words "Helter Skelter" written in blood, were indeed, presented as "tantamount" to Manson's signature.
But the question is why?
Why are those two words, comparable to his signature?
The answer:
Bugliosi made that connection, by arguing, that Manson had preached "Helter Skelter".
Bugliosi argued that HS was Manson's "doctrine", or "cradle"... and hence, the words were "synonymous" with him personally.
Or said another way:
It was the "Helter Skelter" theory (i.e., "motive"), that made that connection (even leap) possible. The HS motive, made Bugliosi's "signature" claim, possible.
There's no "signature" without the Helter Skelter motive connection.
Without that motive, it's just two words written in blood... which, otherwise, have zero to do with Manson specifically.
The "signature" doesn't exist without the HS motive presented... hence, the HS motive is a necessity, for those words to be incriminating.
It's a circle Marliese... which goes back to a need for a motive (in regards to convicting Manson for conspiracy).
Manson was ultimately convicted for conspiracy.
He never actually killed anyone physically... and that's why "red-handed", "slam dunk" evidence is sparse... too sparse to convict without a motive.
Marliese...
Before I begin my response, I must say, your tone and profanity, are un-necessary.
I've always addressed you respectfully.
--------------------------------------
Marliese said:
>>>>"there's no fucking law that says Bugliosi had to prove motive in Tex's trial".<<<<
That's quite obvious.
There was ample circumstantial evidence against Tex.
Your statement makes much sense, in regard to Tex specifically.
Tex's hands were very bloody, sorta speak.
At that point... who cares why he did it?
---------------------------------------
Marliese said:
>>>>"I've probably also said it in the context of all the motives people assign these murders also. One will say positively copy cat, another HS, others say drug burn, mob etc etc".<<<<
You have used it in that context... and that's the context that confused me..
Beyond Tex, and in regards to Manson specifically (and TLB collectively), I think motive is a worthy topic of contemplation, and discussion.
Sure Bugliosi was not legally bound to present a motive for TLB... that's goes without saying.
But, I believe personally, that if he didn't present a motive for TLB, Manson possibly would have walked.
Bottom line Marliese...
I personally believe motive was necessary to convict Manson, and therefore, is a valid topic to ponder, and discuss.
I simly don't see the value in stating that motive does not need to be presented (from a legal standpoint), when folks discuss motive.
No... you didn't actually say that motive was over-rated.
But, if you say motive doesn't need to be presented, when folks raise the subject a couple times... it kinda seems that's how you feel.
-----------------------------------------
Marliese said:
>>>>"I'd like to believe intent is as valuable as motive"<<<<
Absolutely Marliese... and no doubt about it.
One element, is surely as important as the other... and the more of both the prosecution can get their hands on...the better!
Intent is as valuable as motive, and vice-versa... and that's precisely why, I don't think we should down-play either.
And... that's precisely why, I think both are worthy of thought, and discussion.
---------------------------------
Marliese said:
>>>>"i used the term slam dunk in regards to a defendant that was caught redhanded, or where there is a mountain of physical evidence, obviously "moot" for TLB"<<<<
We're in agreement on that point.
Well... it was arguably a slam-dunk, given the way the family behaved... but, based on a "mountain of physical evidence"... no, it was not a slam dunk.
I agree.
--------------------------------------------
Marliese said:
>>>>"So you get that my point was simply stating that in California the prosecution's burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to kill... regardless of motive. I appreciate that!"<<<<
This statement doesn't seem to have any value beyond insulting me... so, I'll pas on responding.
Marliese said:
>>>>"Lynyrd, I believe Manson was convicted of seven counts of first degree murder in the killing of Sharon, Abigail, Voyteck, Jay, Steven, Leno, Rosemary, as well as one count of conspiracy to murder...even though 'he never actually killed anyone physically.<<<<
You've got me there... kudos to you.
Technically, legally, and factually, you're right.
I wasn't talking in completely literal terms, regarding my statement, for the sake of this discussion.
What I meant was... Manson was "implicated" (I guess would have been the accurate word, not convicted), based on conspiracy and motive... and, as you said... intent as well.
I'll have to watch my words more closely, in the future.
So... bottom line Marliese:
Can we discuss "motive", as well as "intent", on this board?
Or, is "intent" the only valuable topic?
Sheesh.
You said yourself... you'd like to think one element, is as importatnt as the other.
BTW Marliese:
In the third video segment above... Bugliosi clearly states that Manson was convicted of NINE murders.
He states that around 1 minute in... (1 minute, 10 seconds exactly), into the footage.
Unless Bugliosi is mistaken... you'd better add another name or two, to your list.
Concerning Bertice Berry:
The 4 young Manson followers she added as guests harken me back to Paul Watkin's interview with Maureen Reagan where Paul pointedly remarks about the obsessive compulsive natures of Manson's followers. It's very obvious these 4 young people have obsessive personalities that blocks reason and logic from reaching their minds and thus leaves them empty, narcissistic and searching to fill that empty hole in their lost souls. Obsessive, obsessive, obsessive! Watkins was right.
Sandra once again demonstrates she is maniacally obsessive also in her broken beliefs that even a ten year prison sentence couldn't correct. Obsessive, obsessive, obsessive!
Notice how none of the Manson followers would listen to Patty, Bug or the audience. NO AMOUNT OF REASON CAN OVERCOME AN OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE MINDSET.
Charlie's entire Family and followers were all broken records continually repeating the same illogical nonsense. They all need to listen to Watkin's advice and seek help for the Obsessive Compulsibe Disorder(OCD) though none of them ever will. They are severe cases far beyond help.
V717, the only person who can/could verify that Abigail Folger looked up and smiled is Susan. And 99% of the crap that came out of her mouth, at least back then, is lies. So we don't know if that even happened.
People have been scratching their heads about Garretson since August 9, 1969. That guy evidently has lots of issues. None of which have anything to do with Manson.
Yes, Manson has admitted that he went back that night to Cielo Drive, presumably to (a) find something, (b) make sure to wipe off prints, (c) leave false clues, (d) hang bodies upside down, etc.
You can choose your favorite reason. There are probably others. :)
Concerning Bertice Berry:
That Steven needs to be taken out to the woodshed. HA HA.
Oh, how thoughtful of Sandy to deliver a letter from Manson to Patty. (I wonder if she could even read that scribble...or if she just tossed it in the trash).
And she "feels bad for Patty" because she's been lied to all these years. I guess she doesn't feel bad that her sister was butchered for no reason at all.
Patty should have said to Sandy "I feel bad for you for the lies you've been hearing since 1968".
I love it when that guy said "poor Charlie, he was stressed out because of the racial issues".
HA HA HAHA. That's rich. He was gonna rule blacky at the end of the apocalypse, kick his butt and tell him to get back to picking cotton. HA HA.
These young people need to get out and get a job!
katie8753 said...
Concerning Bertice Berry:
That Steven needs to be taken out to the woodshed. HA HA.
Oh, how thoughtful of Sandy to deliver a letter from Manson to Patty. (I wonder if she could even read that scribble...or if she just tossed it in the trash).
And she "feels bad for Patty" because she's been lied to all these years. I guess she doesn't feel bad that her sister was butchered for no reason at all.
Mr Poirot replies:
I've never seen Sandy in an interview where she sounded sane. She nearly blows up in every interview. If you dont kiss Charlie's ass for her she flips her lid.
Charlie told her to get lost a few years back. I'd love to have seen a video of her when she got tossed aside by her messiah. I think Sandy was the last of the origonal Manson bunch to leave Charlie. Even Squeaky figured out Charlie before Sandy did.
Squeaky served 35 yrs in prison.
Sandy served 10 yrs in prison.
For what? For being obsessive compulsives.
I love it when that girl asked Sandy "what if I killed your child because he was damaging the earth. How would you feel?"
Then Sandy looks all sheepish and taken aback.
"Uhhhhh.....your question.....doesn't fit."
What a dork!!!
Honestly Marliese, I think we've both exhausted ourselves, on an otherwise fruitless conversation. LOL
And, if we're sick of it, it's probably safe to assume everyone else is too.
Evidently, in the course of reading every comment on the blog... I didn't quite catch your point(s) originally, because, statements, as you know, are all about context.
Truth be told, I'm still not quite sure for absolute certain where we stand with all this... and the only way I could be, would be to go back and find those conversations, and review the context... and quite frankly, I'm just too lazy. LOL
Instead, I'd like to ask you this question...
You said:
"I've also said it in the context of all the different motives people give these murders. One person will say absolutely that it was copy cat, someone else says it was HS, others say drug burn, and that the LaBianca was mob".
What I'd like to know is this:
If you don't adhere to "Copy Cat", "HS", "Drug Burn", or "Mob Hit" as motives... (or those ideas as an explanation of what happened, for the sake of discussion)... what specifically IS your theory?
According to you, what did happen those nights?
I'm asking out of sheer curiousity at this point.
I've observed as you've down-played (even scoffed-at) other blogger's offerings for motive... but, I've yet to see you outline your own explanation for what took place.
Maybe you could outline an explanation, which would eclipse all others, and save us all a lot of discussion and conjecture.
I'm serious... 'cuz that's essentially, why we're here.
Motive is likely the number one re-curring topic, on these boards.
It seems when folks offer motives with absolute certainty, you dis-agree and dismiss them... with almost the same degree of absolute certainty.
In retrospect, that's the cruxt of this conversation for me.
I ask you... what exactly did happen those nights?
Bugliosi himself writes about how difficult it is to convict anyone if you can't prove motive. He agonized over it about what to do with CM. For him to be convicted, and remember he was convicted of CONSPIRACY to commit murder, and so that makes it even a harder sell for the jury, then he felt he had to have a motive to hang CM on. No mystery to that really, it's all in his book, Helter Skelter.
And let's not give ole Sanders, that Fugg, any more credit than he deserves...
And Marliese, Abigail Folger lounging out in bed at Cielo Drive after a big meal and some MDA for dessert, sleepily eyeing a hippie chick walking down the hall to which she waves to, is not too much of a stretch either with what was happening around there at that time.
or v, or whomever thought that means something big. Sorry...
>>>V717 said: Conversly-during Tex´s murder trial-Bugliosi sang a different tune, convicting Watson of the Tate/LaBianca murders sans the ´Helter Skelter` motive, instead proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Tex at the time of the murders, was not under any form of mindcontrol, and was totally culpable for his actions.>>>
V717, please provide the proof for this statement.
Hi Starship.
Regarding the comment about Abigail waving "hi" to Susan, I made a comment previously that there are only 2 people on earth who could possibly verify that, one of them died that night, and the other is a liar.
>>>Starship said: Bugliosi himself writes about how difficult it is to convict anyone if you can't prove motive. He agonized over it about what to do with CM. For him to be convicted, and remember he was convicted of CONSPIRACY to commit murder, and so that makes it even a harder sell for the jury, then he felt he had to have a motive to hang CM on. No mystery to that really, it's all in his book, Helter Skelter.>>>
Thanks for the info Starship!! I agree!!!
Bobby I agree!! It is so sad to see these young kids throwing their lives away for this piece of human garbage they consider to be a "hero".
It's reminiscent of those young kids back in the 60's who were sucked in by this con man, only to lose their freedom forever.
>>>V717 said: Conversly-during Tex´s murder trial-Bugliosi sang a different tune, convicting Watson of the Tate/LaBianca murders sans the ´Helter Skelter` motive, instead proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Tex at the time of the murders, was not under any form of mindcontrol, and was totally culpable for his actions.>>>
V717, please provide the proof for this statement.
Adam Gorightly: The shadow over Santa Susana.
By the way Katie 8753 You wrote:
Yes, Manson has admitted that he went back that night to Cielo Drive, presumably to (a) find something, (b) make sure to wipe off prints, (c) leave false clues, (d) hang bodies upside down, etc.
Now I have a Question to you.
How is it that Charlie suddenly becames a very Trustworthy guy?
If I have got you correctly that man is anything but trustworthy.
>>>V717 said: By the way Katie 8753 You wrote:
Yes, Manson has admitted that he went back that night to Cielo Drive, presumably to (a) find something, (b) make sure to wipe off prints, (c) leave false clues, (d) hang bodies upside down, etc.
Now I have a Question to you.
How is it that Charlie suddenly becames a very Trustworthy guy?
If I have got you correctly that man is anything but trustworthy.>>>
--------------------
I'm not sure how I indicated that Charlie was trustworthy. If you mean that I said "Manson has admitted that he went back that night to Cielo Drive", we know that someone went back there and I'm assuming it was Charlie because who else would do that?
At THAT time, the only ones who knew about the murders were Charlie and the murderers. We know it wasn't the murderers so by process of elimination, that leaves Charlie.
Stephanie has said that she didn't see Charlie until around dawn on August 9th. So that leaves Charlie without any alibi between after supper on August 8th until dawn on August 9th.
Starship Writes:
>>>>"Bugliosi himself writes about how difficult it is to convict anyone if you can't prove motive. He agonized over it about what to do with CM. For him to be convicted, and remember he was convicted of CONSPIRACY to commit murder, and so that makes it even a harder sell for the jury, then he felt he had to have a motive to hang CM on. No mystery to that really, it's all in his book, Helter Skelter".<<<<
Thank You Starship!
I agree 300%.
Manson was convicted of these murders due to conspiracy.
That "conspiracy" was sold to the jury, by the motive.
They go hand-in-hand, and the motive is absolutely vital.
Without the motive, you don't have conspiracy... and without conspiracy... you don't have a conviction.
You can say Manson was convicted "because of" conspiracy... or, "by way of" conspiracy... or "implicated" by conspiracy... or a million other options.
It's all foolish semantics... and, it all means the same shit.
Without Bugliosi selling a motive to the jury, which implicates Manson as a conspirator... Manson walks.
Comparing Tex's case to Manson's case, is complete apples and oranges, not even worthy of note.
The motive for these murders is the number one topic.
It's interesting to discuss what girl Charlie liked poking the most... or to see what the Willetts house looked like.
But, at the end of the day... the question of why, and how, something like this happens, is the big enchalada.
I'm seriously lost, as to what we're even discussing at this point... as these points are so obvious... they "go without saying".
Post a Comment