Saint Circumstance!!! On Vacation!!!
==================================================================
Did Susan stab Sharon?
Did Manson return to Cielo that night?
Bugliosi Responds...
Bugliosi: "It was indeed, more difficult to convict Manson, because Manson was not physically at the scene".
===================================================================
I've received several e-mails/questions, regarding the new comment/posting system.
It seems some folks believe the blog has gone completely "private"... or "members only".
This is not the case. For a detailed explanation of the new system (which will hopefully be temporary), please "click" below. Everyone is encouraged to review the system, so we're all "on the same page". Thanks... Lynyrd
The blog is not "private" or "members only".
The blog is "moderated", with members excluded from the moderation process.
In a nutshell, we have two groups:
Group #1) **Bloggers who (over time) have proven themselves to be responsible.
These folks are "members", and their comments will post immediately as usual.
This change does not effect them at all.
Note: If your name is on the membership "invitation" list" (blog header), and you'd like to join... send me an e-mail. My address is in the side-bar. Membership is currently "by invitation only".
===================================================================
Group #2) ** New guests.
** Infrequent visitors.
** Folks who have proven themselves to be irresponsible.
These folks are welcome to comment anytime!! In fact, participation is greatly appreciated... but, their comments will only post after "moderation".
(Moderation = Comments post after I've read and approved them).
Yes... there is a lag time, which can vary. Average wait: 15 minutes to 2 hours.
There is one "glitch", which is worthy of note. Comments from Group2, are posted according to the time they are "submitted", not the time they are "approved/published" by me. For instance... if you submit a comment at 1pm, and it's published (by me) at 3pm... it doesn't post at the bottom of the thread. It appears where it "would have"... at 1pm. Consequently... the comments can look "out of order", at times.
I apologize to everyone who is inconcenienced (in any way) by this system.
Unfortunately, a tiny minority, always has to ruin things for everyone.
I'm getting a "smart phone" in a few days... that should allow me to "moderate comments" on the go... resulting in a closer facsimile to "real time" blogging for these folks.
===================================================================
Despite it's shortcomings... I think this system is a workable solution. Fortunately, it excludes no one completely, and solves some issues. I'm also considering using "moderation" in the evenings and overnights only. We'll see how it goes...
**Folks can be added or deleted from Groups 1 and 2, at my discretion.
191 comments:
Hi CarolMR. Glad you joined us!!
Carol made a comment a few threads back:
>>>Why did Patti's daughter Brie change her last name to Tate?>>>
Carol I brought your comment to this thread to make sure everyone saw it.
I really don't know why Brie has the last name of Tate.
Debra has the last name of Tate although I'm pretty sure she's married.
They may have wanted to make sure the name lived on, since there were no sons in the family.
Sharon went by Sharon Tate Polanski, I'm sure because of her stage name, but after her death, I've never seen her referred to as Sharon Tate Polanski. Only Sharon Tate.
Anybody else have any thoughts?
Lynyrd, I love what you've done with the place!!! Looks great!
I guess Vincent isn't in on the new theory that Tex was in charge and that he killed everyone at Tate because he was so in love with Linda, and that Tex wanted Nader dead, and Tex ordered Charlie to take her there to kill Nader.
Let's see....have I missed anything on the new theory?? HA HA.
Vincent needs to attend the new Charlie 101. :)
I don't think that Susan killed anyone. That's my personal opinion. She did however assist with murder.
As far as Charlie going back that night...I'm pretty sure SOMEONE went back, but it makes sense that it wouldn't be Charlie, because his chances of getting caught were pretty good. And we all know that he didn't want to get his hands dirty with these murders.
Anyone?
Thanks, katie, for mentioning my question about Brie Tate. Your explanation (wanting to keep the Tate name alive) is a good one.
Carol, Katie... Katie... Carol. LOLOL
Brief introductuion... : )
Actually...
Carol, everyone... everyone... Carol!
Hi Carol. I don't know if it's the right one...but it makes sense to me.
I know lots of families, if they don't have a male heir, the daughters tend to retain their maiden name, or in this case, the granddaughter.
I'm looking forward to reading this book. I'm hoping there might be a lot of questions answered.
Good to see you Carol. Please join us anytime!!! :)
>>>Lynyrd said: Brief introductuion... : )
Actually...
Carol, everyone... everyone... Carol!>>>
Carol, that was a very good question. I hadn't thought about that before.
Carol...please feel free to expound on your opinions as to anything in this case.
Fresh opinions are the best!!! It's like a breath of fresh air!!
Good to have you!!!
BTW, the trial for cult leader Warren Jeffs starts Monday.
This is interesting because this is a cult, like Manson's, and like Manson's, he used women to get his way.
All the propaganda is the same, no phones, no calendars, isolation, new identities, everyone does what I say, doomsday prophecy....all the likings for a cult.
Just like Charlie's.
A lot of people like to say that Charlie didn't have a cult.
But the evidence speaks for itself.
His behavior was deviantly like a cult.
Every cult that has ever existed exhibited the same attributes.
The isolation, the identity losing, the time loss, the definition of an armageddon, no jobs, stealing, etc.
Cults are timeless, and people who join them are timeless.
Why do they join? I guess it's because they have no life, no ambition, no cause, and they want someone to "take care of them", maybe they don't want to work, maybe they've worked and they don't like it, maybe they are people who can't stand the heat. Or maybe they're just lazy.
I can't imagine people joining a cult that have children, and they are inflicting that cult on their children.
But people do. People in the Manson family did.
And they still do.
I don't know why people are still joining Charlie's cult. Hmmmmm???
Anyway, if anyone's interested, this guy's trial starts Monday.
Take notes. HA HA HA.
Anyway...back to Bugliosi.
I think he did a damn good job getting Charlie involved.
And no...the prosecution does not need a motive.
But in order to prosecute this case, he had to have a motive that included Charlie.
He could have just prosecuted the actual killers and left Charlie out.
But that would have been an injustice to society.
So he used the Helter Skelter theory to include Charlie.
And it worked.
And...it WOULDN'T have worked, if there weren't so many people who testified that:
Charlie was purporting that.
Charlie was preaching that.
Charlie had taught them that.
And....
That Charlie was still controlling them from his jail cell.
Now...anyone who wants to deny this...read up on it.
Charlie was pulling the strings on these marionettes.
Yesserriiibbbooob!
He was doing that.
He was telling them what to do left and right. And they did it.
So...anyone who says Charlie didn't have control...is so wrong.
Thank You, mr Bug that was very interesting. You can now step down from the witnes stand.
Now, I call FBI-profiler John Douglas. Please take your seat in the witness stand. You have interviewed mr Manson and would you now please tell the jury your conclusion about mr Mansons involvement in these incidents.
And after that there is also a few other peoples who want´s to speak their minds about Charles Manson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFW2LS47qQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPraTlffZbs
what he said about manson going back to the scene later makes alot of sense.
i'd still like to know how he thought sharon tates blood turned up in places(like the porch)where according to the killers she never was.
strange.
V717 and MattP, thanks for stopping-in!
Great to see both of you!
Hi V717.
Who is this John Douglas? He didn't say a whole lot of anything.
He just kinda stood beside some guy that was smirking.
He said Charlie had an IQ of 124. Did he measure it????
HA HA.
What was he supposed to be saying?
Am I missing something here?
>>Matt said: what he said about manson going back to the scene later makes alot of sense.
i'd still like to know how he thought sharon tates blood turned up in places(like the porch)where according to the killers she never was. strange.>>
Matt, good point!
I always thought Charlie went back there to "see what his children had done".
I do know that someone went there.
The blood trail was unmistakable. Sharon and Jay had been dragged to the porch.
Now I've always heard that Manson went there...but it makes more sense that he didn't.
I think he directed Clem & Brenda to go there. Why? I think it was to misdirect the evidence, and maybe to "hang" the bodies, which is what Charlie wanted in the first place, and Tex fucked it up.
I do know that someone went there and moved Sharon's and Jay's bodies.
Now who that was.....I don't know.
As Vincent says;
"Charlie said he went there to see what his children had done".
But...it makes more sense that he SENT someone else there, because he didn't want to dirty his hands.
Katie 8753
John Douglas is a very experienced FBI-profiler.
What Douglas said was that Manson wasn´t interested in starting a race war. What happened was simply that he lost control of the group.
There wasn't blood on Sadie's knife left in the sofa but there should have been. There was blood on the porch of Tate and Sebring but there shouldn't have been.
Frank:
Thanks for adding your name to the "followers" list.
If you'd like to become a member, and avoid the "comment moderation" feature, please provide me with an e-mail address, where I can send the google invitation.
My e-mail address is in the side-bar.
If you'd rather not become a member... no offense taken.
Peace... Lynyrd.
Has anyone every considered that there may have been multiple groups of killers that night of August 8th, but one group beat the other one there?
Anyone on the "invitation list".
To Join:
I'll need an e-mail contact to send the "google request".
When you receive it... click the button, and you're done.
Thanks!
Lynyrd
PS... if anyone isn't comfortable providing an e-mail contact for any reason... no offense taken.
Thanks for the invite, LS.
WTF happened overnight?
Do tell - or mail me off line if you prefer.
FrankM
Thanks for joining Frank!
Let's just say, "a word to the wise is sufficient" for 98% of the bloggers.
There's always that tiny 2%, that have to ruin it for everyone.
Great to have you aboard!
Peace... Lynyrd
must have been extreme to push l/s over the edge.
back to the subject at hand,if manson did'nt go back with clem or whoever how did sts blood get to where it was found.
did one or more of the killers go back without manson knowing-unlikely.
did garretson go inside the house for some unknown reason and do some rearranging- unlikely.
maybe in the chaos of the murders being done st got out onto the porch(stabbed earlier than the killers admitted or remembered)and bled out-unlikely but something to think about.
it makes little sense unless someone came back after the murders and moved things around.
and as vb said it makes almost no sense for manson himself to go back.
were there drag marks leading to the blood on the porch?i seem to remember something like that.
Has anyone every considered that there may have been multiple groups of killers that night of August 8th, but one group beat the other one there?
No. But I try not to consider improbable things like this unless I have some reason for wanting to do so.
It does seem unlikely that more than one group of murderers should just happen to converge at the same place at (almost) the same time. Murders are just not that common, especially murders by 'groups' of people.
Do you have some reason for taking this possibility seriously?
FrankM
I've never been a fan of the bodies being moved to the porch theory. I'm even less prone to believe the bodies were then carried back inside. The only way i can imagine how the bloodtypes of Sebring and Tate got on the porch is from being carried by the rag/towel used to write pig on the door.
>>>Mr. P said: There wasn't blood on Sadie's knife left in the sofa but there should have been. There was blood on the porch of Tate and Sebring but there shouldn't have been.>>>
Sadie said she thinks she stabbed Frykowski in the legs, but wasn't sure. It could have been the couch she was stabbing. I can understand why there wasn't blood on the knife she lost.
Matt, if you look at the crime scene photos, you can see where Sharon died. It was in front of the couch. That's where most of her blood was.
The pools of blood on the porch, according to police reports, was that of Sharon & Jay. So at some point, it can be surmised that their bodies lay there for a while. But of course we know they were found in front of the couch.
Sooo...it makes sense that someone drug their bodies to the porch, and then back in the house.
Why???? I'm wondering if it had something to do with the rope. Weren't they supposed to tie the bodies upside down or something?
If Manson didn't go back, then it might have been Clem & Brenda.
>>>Shak El said: Has anyone every considered that there may have been multiple groups of killers that night of August 8th, but one group beat the other one there?>>>
I've never heard that question asked before. Why would you think that? What multiple groups do you think might have been involved??
According to police reports, a young boy across the canyon from Cielo Drive heard shouting around 4:30am on August 9th. He indicated it came from the Cielo Drive residence.
We know the killers left the scene around 12:45 or 1am, and everyone was dead when they left, so if this report is true, that means someone else went back. Right?
>>>Mr. P said: I've never been a fan of the bodies being moved to the porch theory. I'm even less prone to believe the bodies were then carried back inside. The only way i can imagine how the bloodtypes of Sebring and Tate got on the porch is from being carried by the rag/towel used to write pig on the door.>>>
Mr. P, the amount of blood that was pooled and clotted on the porch indicates that it was blood flowing out of a body. There was way too much (and you can see it in the pictures of the porch) to be considered to have been on someone's shoe or the towel used to write "pig".
Katie8753 said:
Mr. P, the amount of blood that was pooled and clotted on the porch indicates that it was blood flowing out of a body. There was way too much (and you can see it in the pictures of the porch) to be considered to have been on someone's shoe or the towel used to write "pig".
Mr Poirot replies:
Not necessarily. All we know is there were multiple blood types on the porch of which most of that pooled blood was probably Frykowski's. The blood samples do not indicate amounts; only the types. The estimate by police that a victim bled for several minutes is probably incorrect. Not even Frykowski stood on the porch that long before he fell onto the shrubbery. He is the only victim who made it out the front door.
If the bodies were moved there would be two death locations for both Sebring and Tate on the carpet and two on the porch yet both appeared to be foud in a single blood pool. For the bodies to have been moved there would be an amazing six points of death for two bodies. The bodies being moved theory really doesn't work but their blood being moved does work. The Tate and Sebring blood on the porch sounds like it is merely blood contamination carried to the porch rather than the bodies being carried to the porch.
>>>Mr. P said: Not necessarily. All we know is there were multiple blood types on the porch of which most of that pooled blood was probably Frykowski's. The blood samples do not indicate amounts; only the types.>>>
I've only seen Tate & Sebring's blood types on the porch. I haven't seen Frykowski's. Did they type his blood there too?
You're right, he did run out the front door, but probably wasn't there long enough to have that much blood flow out.
>>>The bodies being moved theory really doesn't work but their blood being moved does work. The Tate and Sebring blood on the porch sounds like it is merely blood contamination carried to the porch rather than the bodies being carried to the porch.>>>
That's interesting Mr. P. So you think someone carried their blood to the porch? Again, for what purpose? To throw the police off? To make it more macabre?
I was thinking after I made my last post: How long does blood flow after the heart stops beating? It eventually stops flowing. So in order to make the "move the bodies" theory work, it would have to be done shortly after death.
Unless....blood still seeps out of wounds for hours after death.
Is there a doctor in the house that can answer this question!! HA HA.
Great to meet everyone. Everyone seems so nice! I don't know as much as everyone else about TLB. I was a Sharon Tate fan while she was still alive (yes, I'm that old). I remember hearing about the murders on the radio and reading everything I could in the newspapers about them. I differ with a lot of other posters on this board and other boards in that I don't dislike Bugliosi. I think he did a great job under a lot of scrutiny and he got convictions for the killers. I have read that the Tate family resents the fact that he cashed in on the case. I hope this new book by Brie doesn't trash Bugliosi. He got justice for the victims. And, as I've stated on another thread, the prosecution does not have to prove motive.
Hi Carol! I think you'll have fun on this blog! Lots of nice people!
You and I must be around the same age. I remember how I felt the day I heard about the Cielo Drive murders. It was a very sad day! I followed it every day too, in the papers and on the news.
I think Mr. Bugliosi was a brilliant prosecutor too. I know that there are some who think he shouldn't have cashed in on this case, but after all the hours and hours he put in on this case (and without that, he probably wouldn't have gotten convictions) if he can make some moolah off this case, I say go for it. He wasn't in on the killings...so it's fair game.
No Carol, you don't have to have a motive to get a conviction. But...in this case, in order to draw Charlie in, where no physical evidence was there, he had to establish the Helter Skelter motive, to prove the dominance that Charlie had over his family. Without that proof, he would have ended up empty handed.
Hello Carol!
Great to see you back!
You'd be surprised.
There's a good handful of folks here, who agree with some of your thoughts.
Have Fun!
Peace... Lynyrd
Let's think about a different scenario.
Say Charlie's fingerprints were in the Tate house or the LaBianca house, or both.
No motive would have to be established to convict Charlie.
BUT....would a motive be needed to convict the others???
This case is so different than most, because the murders were "ordered". In other words, certain people went out to kill people they didn't know because they were ordered to do so.
That doesn't make any sense....
So you have to build a case that would convince the jury that it did make sense. Thus...Helter Skelter.
Not really, Katie. Contract killings - and Manson's 'ordering' others to kill is precisely that, even if no money passed hands - are nothing new, yet in such cases the prosecution doesn't normally resort to such far-fetched motives.
In fact, had Manson been prosecuted alone for a different crime - that of ordering the murders - then no other motive would have been needed for those accused of performing the murders.
It would then be interesting to know whether the question of Manson's motive in commissioning the killers would have been so important. I mean if it could be proved that he ordered the murders, and the bodies were there and the killers compliant, is a motive necessary? What do others think?
Mind you I don't think there was ever enough evidence against Manson and that Buglliosi very probably and deliberately gave him enough rope to hang himself.
FrankM
According to author Maury Terry: Charles Manson, Abigail Folger and Shorty Shea met at a seafood restaurant near Golden Gate Park in the summer of 1967. Terrys also proclaim that Folger and Shea was murdered on the instruction of a another person present. Terry also state that Manson originally met Folger at the home of Mama Cass.
Folger also used to give money to Manson from time to time.
No Katie 8753
It´s not HELTER SKELTER.
I´t´s the Twilight Zone
Hi Frank!! I'm glad you joined the blog. I appreciate your comments and, I must say, I think you are well versed in this case and I really look forward to your comments, hoping they will shed light on this case!!! I like throwing ideas off you!
>>>Frank said: Not really, Katie. Contract killings - and Manson's 'ordering' others to kill is precisely that, even if no money passed hands - are nothing new, yet in such cases the prosecution doesn't normally resort to such far-fetched motives.>>>
You're right Frank. In most "contract killings" there is no personal reason for it. As they said in the Godfather "It's strictly business". HA HA.
>>>In fact, had Manson been prosecuted alone for a different crime - that of ordering the murders - then no other motive would have been needed for those accused of performing the murders.>>>
That's right. Except....if those who committed the crimes decided to take a powder and say they weren't there. I'm talking no physical evidence that they were. They would have walked.
>>>It would then be interesting to know whether the question of Manson's motive in commissioning the killers would have been so important. I mean if it could be proved that he ordered the murders, and the bodies were there and the killers compliant, is a motive necessary? What do others think?>>>
You know Frank, there's always a motive.
If someone just up and shoots someone they don't know, there's a motive.
Did they have a bad day? Did that person remind them of someone else they didn't like. Yada Yada.
There's always a reason/motive for killing. Always.
>>>>Mind you I don't think there was ever enough evidence against Manson and that Buglliosi very probably and deliberately gave him enough rope to hang himself.>>>
I agree completely. There really was NO evidence against Manson. Manson convicted himself essentially by acting out all during the trial.
Lynyrd has mentioned this many times: if Charlie had worn a nice suit and sat quietly during the trial, he'd be sipping Pina Coladas by the pool in some seaside resort by now.
But he's incapable of that. He had to make sure everyone knew that he was the God. HA HA.
>>>V717 said: According to author Maury Terry: Charles Manson, Abigail Folger and Shorty Shea met at a seafood restaurant near Golden Gate Park in the summer of 1967. Terrys also proclaim that Folger and Shea was murdered on the instruction of a another person present. Terry also state that Manson originally met Folger at the home of Mama Cass.
Folger also used to give money to Manson from time to time.
No Katie 8753
It´s not HELTER SKELTER.
I´t´s the Twilight Zone>>>
Hi V717. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
As far as I know, Abigail didn't know Manson or Shorty.
The summer of 1967? Manson didn't know Shorty then. Manson met Shorty at Spahn's Ranch.
Carol, I just wanted to tell you something and I forgot because I got distracted.
You say you're not that up on the case.
It doesn't matter, because we've had several people make comments that thought they weren't that up on the case, and those comments are "golden".
I remember Bobby making several comments that made me "step back" and rethink my theories.
So....any comments you want to make are welcome!!! :)
Frank said:
>>>>"Mind you I don't think there was ever enough evidence against Manson and that Buglliosi very probably and deliberately gave him enough rope to hang himself".<<<<
That's exactly what I think Frank.
Bugliosi had a fairly weak case against Manson.
BUT... Bugliosi read Manson individually... and the family collectively... like a book.
He then gave them enough rope to hang Manson themselves.
Bugliosi predicted that Manson, (and the family collectively)... would paint Manson as the leader.
Bugliosi based his whole case around that predicition... rolled those dice... and sure as sh#t... he won.
Manson (and the family) cemented his case against Manson, for him.
Everything Manson (and his family) did... inside the courtroom and out... screamed to the jury, that Manson was in-charge.
Manson did just as much to hang himself... as Bugliosi ever did.
Bugliosi's biggest claim to fame (in my mind), was predicting successfully, how Manson would play his cards.
Lynyrd that's sooo right.
Bugliosi gambled and won.
You've got that in a nutshell. (Pardon the pun....LOL)
He knew that Charlie would not fold. He knew that Charlie would "see him" and "raise him".
Somebody doesn't have a "poker face".
HA HA.
Katie you know from Sadie's testimonmy that she dipped a towel in Sharon's blood and walked to the front door and wrote pig. So there is proof of how her blood was transported very shortly after her murder to the porch. It wouldn't be that hard to see how Sadie could hardly avoid tracking Sebrings blood with her too. Blood samples only test for blood type not blood quantity.
But again, we don't know percentages of whose blood was in that pool on the porch. Was %98 of that pool Fry's blood with Sebring and Tate's blood making up the other %2? Nobody knows. I didn't think that pool was that big. It looked like a few ozs of blood. Frykowski was bleeding so profusely he left blood on the shrubbery leaves. No they did not take samples off the shrubbery but it is known he fell into the shrubbery.
Katie 8753
As far as I know, Abigail didn't know Manson or Shorty.
Well that´s what they say.
Let´s go a little deeper into the Twilight Zone and see what we can find.
Paul Krassner, editor of The Realist did his own investigation in the Manson case. Among many other things he states, and this is hevay stuff; he had a meeting with Warren Hinkle another editor who told Krassner about a private investigator that informed Krassner about Porno movies from Sharon Tate´s loft that LAPD had in it´s possesion. In the collection was included Sharon Tate with a popular singer;Sharon Tate with Steve McQuenn and another featuring Sharon with two black bisexual men.
Krassner also met with a reporter who told him that the LAPD had a porn video with no other than Susan Atkins in bed with Voityck Frykowsky.
In an interview with Ronald Reagan Jr Manson stated that his conviction for Tate/LaBianca had not much to do with the murders, but was really about missing video tapes.
Allegedly a man by the name of Nathaniel Dight had met with Tex Watson priot to the murders. Ackording to Mae Brusell he was an agent for "Naval Intelligence" and had used the cover of a hippie to infiltrate the Manson Family. He was ackording to Brusell the main drug supplier to the Family.
Paul Krassner visited the Manson girls in jail and asked them if anyone had ever met Nathaniel Dight. Yes said Sadie: Tex took me to sleep with him. And he gave us dope.
It is said that the type of acid that was used by the Manson gang wasn´t like the stuff found in the streets. This stuff was called "orange sunshine" and was a military version of LSD 25. It is belived that it was a psilocybin derivate called EA1729.
Tex Watson also tripped on a belladonna concotion a short time before the murders.
Belladonna has a long history said to be used in the MK-ULTRA experiments during the 50s.
((((((((((LYNN))))))))))
Hey Lynn!!
Have fun with the drinks and sunset!
Glad to hear you're going to the library wednesday.
See if you can get a signature, or a photo! LOL
Peace... Lynyrd
>>Mr. P said: Katie you know from Sadie's testimonmy that she dipped a towel in Sharon's blood and walked to the front door and wrote pig. So there is proof of how her blood was transported very shortly after her murder to the porch. It wouldn't be that hard to see how Sadie could hardly avoid tracking Sebrings blood with her too. Blood samples only test for blood type not blood quantity.>>>
Mr. P, surely you know that a large pool of blood didn't come from that!!! You don't dip a towel in blood and come up with that much blood on the porch.
Give me a break.
>>>But again, we don't know percentages of whose blood was in that pool on the porch. Was %98 of that pool Fry's blood with Sebring and Tate's blood making up the other %2? Nobody knows. I didn't think that pool was that big. It looked like a few ozs of blood. Frykowski was bleeding so profusely he left blood on the shrubbery leaves. No they did not take samples off the shrubbery but it is known he fell into the shrubbery.>>
Mr. P, did you see the pictures???
There were globs of blood on the porch. Should I post the pics? Surely everyone saw them.
For you to suggest that these globs of blood were made from an occasional visit to the porch is ridiculous.
Mr. P, you're smarter than that. Do I have to wake up in a new world everyday? Please expound.
I like you Mr. P, but you are making some outrageous comments now!
Make me believe what you're saying.
This is what I'm talking about. You make all kinds of comments, but don't back it up. :)
V717: You have laid a lot on me tonight.
I can't even draw it all in. I'll have to dissect it tomorrow. I'm going to hit the hay.
Lynn, have a nice weekend. Love ya!! Always love your comments!!
heres the police report on where blood was found in the house and what type it was. somewhere theres a diagram that makes things more clear but i can't find it now.
http://www.charliemanson.com/documents/tate-report-1-6.htm
I haven't eaten all day. And now I'm gonna taste that spagetti I made today.
The key is to marinate the meat sauce for hours, with garlic, oregnano, and such.
But the KEY is to also marinate the pasta.
You cook the pasta till it's done, add olive oil and spices, and let it stew.
I'll tell you... you won't taste spagetti like you've had it in my house.
and you have to make sure the pasta doesn't get dry.
Because when you put it up for leftovers, the pasta will drain.
So you have to make sure the sauce is rich.
Anyway, just trying to tell you how to make good spagetti!!!
Ciao!!!
G'night friends!!!
Matt you're sweet.
I will look at that tomorrow.
There's a blood trail that tells all. I'll find it tomorrow.
Night!
I thought this was really cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ljif3PjSCDU&feature=player_embedded
Katie that pool of blood on the porch in those pics was mostly Frykowski's blood. Linda saw him stagger to the door and exit. He stared at her then fell on the shrubbery from blood loss. I suspect that only a tiny amount of the blood on the porch was Sebring's and Tate's because neither of them were ever at the porch at any time. Sebring died where he fell immediately after being shot and remained there. Tate did try to run for the back livingroom door but was spotted by Sadie who was in the front yard who then ran Tate down before she made it to the back door. Sebring and Tate were never at the front porch at any time.
M. P
Where did you get that information? How can you know that? Assuming you weren't hiding behind the sofa you can only be drawing on second-hand accounts, taken from people whom are unreliable, were on drugs, have been known to contradict themselves and have a vested interest in protecting themselves.
Politely (I hope) I ask you to accept that we are debating this issue precisely because of the uncertainty. Analysis of the blood map is a useful exercise.
You can find the blood map in several places on the Internet - one is here; scroll down towards the bottom of the page. You may want to enlarge this in order to read it more clearly.
WARNING: do not follow this link if the sight of blood and explicit images are likely to upset you.
No offense intended, Mr P.
FrankM
Going back to this interchange:
Frank It would then be interesting to know whether the question of Manson's motive in commissioning the killers would have been so important. I mean if it could be proved that he ordered the murders, and the bodies were there and the killers compliant, is a motive necessary? What do others think?
Katie You know Frank, there's always a motive.
I expressed myself badly. Katie is right, only the wackiest psychopaths kill for no motive at all. And contract killers usually do it for money, or to repay a debt, which is I guess a motive of sorts.
What I meant was that if there had been enough evidence to show incontrovertibly that Manson had ordered the crimes and that the killers had acted on his orders it would have been possible to convict him without showing why he wanted the victims dead.
But of course there wasn't.
FrankM
>>>Mr. P said: Katie that pool of blood on the porch in those pics was mostly Frykowski's blood.... I suspect that only a tiny amount of the blood on the porch was Sebring's and Tate's because neither of them were ever at the porch at any time.>>>
Sorry Mr. P., but you're wrong. If you look at the blood trail map, it shows that the large pools of blood were Sebring's & Tate's, not Frykowski's.
I have heard the argument that maybe a mistake was made while typing the blood from each victim. While the police work in this case was shoddy, I don't think the work of the forensic pathologists or crime lab examiners was shoddy. They have to be very precise. They test blood more than once to get an exact blood type.
>>>Sebring died where he fell immediately after being shot and remained there. Tate did try to run for the back livingroom door but was spotted by Sadie who was in the front yard who then ran Tate down before she made it to the back door. Sebring and Tate were never at the front porch at any time.>>>
I agree with Frank on this one. How could you possibly know this?
This is our argument at the present time. Were the bodies moved to the porch, when were they moved, why were they moved and why were they moved back in the house?
Matt, thanks for the link. I couldn't get it open. Can you repost? It just says "page not found". Thanks!
>>>Frank said: What I meant was that if there had been enough evidence to show incontrovertibly that Manson had ordered the crimes and that the killers had acted on his orders it would have been possible to convict him without showing why he wanted the victims dead.
But of course there wasn't.>>>
That's exactly right Frank. And let me stir one more thing into the "pot".
There's a difference between motive and reason. Just like your example of a contract killing. There's not so much of a motive for that...as there is a REASON for that. Does that make any sense?
And after all these years of studying this case, arguing different theories with 100's of people, we still don't really know the motive OR reason for the TLB killings.
katie - go to franks link the diagram at the bottom of the page is what i was looking for last night anyway.
but if you're interested tho go to charliemanson.com then click on the link on the left hand side that says documents then click on tate first homocide investigation progress report the stuff about the blood is on page six and seven
Its me I just got to the airport
and am on my way home - I am on my laptop- I did get some pics of them in the lobby- you can tell its them- but again I was using a phone and couldn't get directly in front of them- later in the day when I was on the balcony of my room playing with my digital camera- they walked right under my room- so that pic shows more of there faces...
i wouldnt make it up- who really cares really- it was just weird I made that comment and then stood three feet from her parents less than a day later...
We were on vacation ,and didn't want to make a scene and ruin it for ourselves or them really...
who knows what they did or didnt do- but I doubt either of them killed there granddaughter- and nobody on earth deserves to go through what they have for the past two years- shitty parents as far as Casey or not... who hasbt directly hurt anyone themselves...
I dont know?
If you are staning in front of Clem or Ruthanne and you know its really them- what do you say??
obviously they dont want to be recognized or bothered...
I didnt have the heart to make them nervous and suspicious on there trip... they have enough to worry about
although- as you will see in the pics- they were in the middle of the lobby- not even wearing hats or shades- so maybe they aren't that concerned???
anyway- I said nothing- what would you have done?
I do think Charlie went back- not sure if Sharon was stabbed by Sadie or not- Sadie changed her story too many times- but I am not sure she did too much physical stuff herself in any case...
she talked a good game- But not sure if she had what Katie had inside of her...
and Sharon was very preggers- which would have made it even tougher to do if you had any heart at all....
there now I covered the topic as well :)
But Tate and Sebring were never on the porch. Only their blood was on the porch.
I mean she had a gun in her hand and couldn't shoot Gary- he was able to get the gun away from her...
so she was to chicken to pull a trigger- but could put a blade into a pregnant person?
as I have said before Stabbing- is a much more personal, and vicious than shooting someone- as well as much more difficult to stomache- when you shoot they fall and its over...
When you stab- they make noises and sounds, and it takes longer and it is much harder to get nerve up for as you have to get much closer, and it also it more physical and tougher- which means more trouble and easier to find reasons to bail on...
only need to be brave for a split second to shoot- and usually- when your done its finished- but stabbing someone to death takes a while...
not Sure Sadie was up for it...
See you guys soon- gotta go fly home :)
Hey Circumstance!!
Glad you had fun vacation!
Thanks for your input as always.
See ya soon...
Peace, Lynyrd
Thanks Matt! I did click on the link that Frank provided and was able to view the blood map. I will also check out the link at charliemanson.com.
Hi Circumstance! Can't wait to see your pics. I agree, the Anthonys have been through enough already. They just need some solace and try to heal.
I agree totally with you about the difference between shooting and stabbing. You don't have to be near someone at all to shoot, but you have to be up close and personal to stab.
I personally don't think Sadie stabbed anybody. She did change her story a lot, but I think at first she wanted her usual share of attention and made that all up. Tex even said in his book that since Sadie had already taken the blame for killing Sharon, he just kept his mouth shut about it, but later revealed that he is the one who stabbed her.
Anyway, have a safe trip home, and we'll talk to you soon!!! :)
>>>Mr. P. said: But Tate and Sebring were never on the porch. Only their blood was on the porch.>>>
But how do you know this??? You're saying someone got their blood and pooled it on the porch? That makes less sense than dragging the bodies to the porch.
I have a question for everyone/anyone:
We've all heard the theory, that Charlie returned to the scene that night.
What is the source(s) of this commonly discussed and accepted theory?
Is this topic found in 3-4 reputable sources?
I've always given this "return to the scene" situation some credence... I guess because I've simply heard it so many times on blogs.
After you hear something discussed so many times, it starts to become reality.
But is it reality?
Can anyone quote some real reputable sources?
Stepping back from the "blog brainwashing" that sometimes occurs to all of us... I don't know of any sources (off the top of my head).
Bugliosi claims the notion is presented by Manson himself... in (I'm assuming) the Nuel Emmons book.
I'm assuming the Emmons book, because Bugliosi says, "a book that Manson co-authored".
Is that all we've got?
Weren't we discussing this "return to the scene" notion, even before the Emmons book?
Maybe I'm just dreaming now... LOL
Anyone?
The bodies were never moved.
As for Atkins stabbing Sharon, I agree with Bugliosi... who knows?
Atkins was prone to exaggeration, and story-telling.
I believe she was an "attention-seeker"... who changed her story frequently.
Like I said... who knows?
We'll probably never know for certain.
I guess in the grand scheme, it really doesn't matter... especially at this point.
Lynyrd, Charlie said that he went back to "see what his children had done". It's on video, probably on You Tube. I'll try to find it.
Now...whether that's the truth or not...who knows?
sadie used two knives at Cielo: hers and Linda's. She fought with Frykowski while holding a knife. It's hardly likely she managed not to stab either Fry or Tate.
Frank said:
>>>>"if there had been enough evidence to show incontrovertibly that Manson had ordered the crimes and that the killers had acted on his orders it would have been possible to convict him without showing why he wanted the victims dead".<<<<
I agree.
Frank said:
>>>>"But of course there wasn't".<<<<
I agree again! : )
katie, I read the book by Maury Terry that V717 is referring to. It's called THE ULTIMATE EVIL. It sort of ties TLB to the Son of Sam murders. When I read it many years ago I couldn't put it down. Yes, Mr. Terry believes that Abigail and Charlie knew each other, probably from the Esalen Institute in San Francisco. He also has some fascinating things to say about Rosemary LaBianca. His book is extremely detailed and well-researched. The problem for me is that I have no idea if any of Mr. Terry's claims are true.
Hi Carol!
>>>Carol said: katie, I read the book by Maury Terry that V717 is referring to. It's called THE ULTIMATE EVIL. It sort of ties TLB to the Son of Sam murders.>>>
Okay I'm confused. How could TLB be tied to Son of Sam? That was in NYC and also wasn't that in the late 70's?? What was his explanation for tying the two together?
I've heard of this book, but I've not read it, so I can't really comment intelligently on it.
I know some people claim that Manson knew Sharon & Abigail, but I just haven't seen enough evidence to support that.
Im home-
Katie-
I have mentioned this book before- it ties all of them to the Process Church- we talked about this- many references to it in Sanders Book ( The Process) they say That Berkowitz, and Manson= a Manson 2 who was later identified as the guy who killed Roy Radin in the " Cotton Club" murders...
While he may have been very right that Berkowits did not act alone- I have this book- alot of it is very sketchy and very generalized- the whole book really only gets to M family at the end and it doesn't get many pages- he does mention Shorty Folger and M at a dinner- but no eye witness or anyone else to confirm it ever has surfaced to this day...
good book- interesting read- not sure if its conclusion is accurate...
L/S- in process of emailing you some pics!!
I meant plus (+) a Manson two- it ties all three of them together...
They were tied together to Process Splinter group according to Terry...
sorry never finished that first paragraph
Sigh... trying hard to catch up lol- on so many things..
need to smoke out and slow down..
Hi St. Circumstance! Glad you made it home.
>>>St said: I meant plus (+) a Manson two- it ties all three of them together...>>>
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
How is he tying Manson with Berkowitz? Manson was in prison then. Please expound when you get a chance. :)
I thought the maury terry book was GREAT when it comes to the son of sam case,if you're interested in that by all means read it and i think most will be convinced that berkowitz did'nt act alone.
but its when he stretches his theories to include the manson murders that things get a little thin for my liking.
its mostly the stuff in the updated version that doesnt seem to have any real proof behind it like folger,shea and manson being seen together at some resturant in 1967(or was it 68?).
i think the process had some involvement in son of sam and maybe the manson case as well i just don't think he proves the manson angle enough to be sure of it.
for what its worth i was on a messageboard years ago and one of the posters was a man who said he worked for bill mentzler in the early to mid 70s.mentzler is the guy who maury terry says knew the manson family in the sixties and was a member of the process who helped plan and carry out the son of sam murders(thus the connection between s.o.s. the process and the manson family).
this guy said that mentzler confirmed that he knew manson and that mentzler talked about the s.o.s. murders a year before they started,this guy left the process in the early 80s.
i know its just some guy on a messageboard but for whatever its worth he seemed like the real deal to me.
this messageboard went under in the late 90s but i always wondered what became of this guy(we'll call him mike)and last summer i emailed the guy who ran the board and asked him if he'd heard from mike in the years since then and he said he'd lost touch with him around 2000-2001.
like i said he was just a guy on a messageboard so he could have been full of shit....but i believed him.
there might be a connection but maury terry did'nt prove it.
saint c-i believe bill mentzler(sp?)is manson 2.
i had forgotten the roy radin connection...another weird story there!
Yeah- Matt nailed it-
metzer was the so called Manson 2
his take on the book is exactly like mine....
or mine is exactly like his???
M. P says:
But Tate and Sebring were never on the porch. Only their blood was on the porch.
[…]
The bodies were never moved.
[…]
sadie used two knives at Cielo: hers and Linda's. She fought with Frykowski while holding a knife. It's hardly likely she managed not to stab either Fry or Tate.
M. P, you have to get out of this habit of making dogmatic assertions as if they were somehow unchallengeable. All these suppositions of yours are just that, and are supported only by comments made by the perps themselves.
Certainty of this kind is worrying, and unhelpful in discovering the facts of this case.
FrankM
There is no evidence that Sebring or Tate's bodies were ever moved or were present at any time on the front porch. Only their blood type was found on the porch. That is the facts as they are today 40 years later. We do know for a fact that Sadie soaked a towel in Tate's blood from the livingroom and smeared the blood on the front porch door. None of the 4 killers has ever stated Sebring or Tate were anywhere near the front porch. You are assuming they were on the porch. If you can make blind assumptions then I can make dogmatic statements. Now would you please go fixate your attacks on somebody else.
The Church of the Process did not exist by the late 70's. Considing most of the hard core members became animal rescue folk I rather doubt any involvement in murder
Mr P, we have to be nice to each other. I have made no assumptions at all, just suggested that we not believe everything that has been said by the perpetrators of the crime.
I have never claimed that either Jay or Sharon was on the porch - like you, I do not know. As you point out, their blood seems to be. Does that not warrant consideration? And is not the movement of their bodies one possibility worth considering? As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Finally, I have made no attack on you or anyone else here. I got enough violence during my military service to keep me going for the rest of my life, and I do not believe in ad hominem arguments.
But all I have said is in my postings - go take a look, and may I respectfully suggest that you respond to what I have said rather than a conflation of other people's posts and your own imaginings..
FrankM
Frank you attacked me last week. Youve attacked me now in 3 different blogs. It's time for you to back off.
CIRCUMSTANCE!!! LOLOL
Your photos are up!!
: )
Great pictures of the Anthonys. How cool is that?
St C has outscooped Geraldo and Nancy Grace.
Mr. Poirot:
If I could give you some friendly advice....
Everyone (including you) has a right to their opinion... and opinions are welcome.
But, here's the catch...
You often state your opinion, as though it is fact.
Sometimes a simple prefice of "I think"... or "in my opinion"... or... a follow-up, such as, "that's my take"... can make a world of difference... to other readers... and save you much grief.
State your opinions as opinions... and facts as fact... and you'll have less headaches.
As for Frank... I've known him for years.
Frank is most welcome here, and he's not one to harrass others.
He's not a troublemaker... not by a long shot.
Poirot...
I'm giving you fair warning.
If you get into the "Jew" or "Colonel" stuff again... you're off the membership.
Fair warning between friends.
I honestly don't want to remove you... don't make that happen.
Peace... Lynyrd
just noticed that an earlier post never go thru yesterday.
To answer the question about my thought about multiple teams of murders...
It was just a thought that arose suddenly for some unknown reason. maybe based on the idea that since there were multiple suspects in the Days after August 8-9th that maybe there were different groups of people there that night for murder. The second group arriving late in the morning of the 9th and it was their noises that neighbors heard...
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
I have a question for everyone/anyone:
We've all heard the theory, that Charlie returned to the scene that night.
Can anyone quote some real reputable sources?
Hi Lynyrd, Ed Sanders says in The Family that after studying an enlarged police version of the Cielo blood evidence map and comparing it with versions of the murders as told by Susan, Pat and Linda, he became convinced the crime scene found by the police was different than the crime scene left by the killers and felt certain the crime scene had been disturbed after the murders....so he asked Paul Fitzgerald to ask Charlie (during the trial) and Charlie responded (via note) with 'i had to see why my children had done.'
I don't know if Paul Fitzgerald ever confirmed this before his death.
It is also discussed, i think believably, but that's just my opinion, in the Emmons/charlie book...for what that's worth.
Thanks Marliese!!!
Spectacular contribution as always. : )
You Rock!!!
Love the photos, St. Circumstance!
ah lynyrd, thank you.
Hi Marliese!
Charlie said on video somewhere "I had to go back to see what my children had done."
I haven't been able to find that. Do you know where it is??
New Book Alert!
"Propaganda and the Holy Writ of The Process Church of the Final Judgment: Including The Gods on War Read by Timothy Wyllie, Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, Lydia Lynch, and Adam Parfrey"
http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Process-Church-Final-Judgment/dp/1936239108/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311555267&sr=1-3
Looks like reprints of the process magizine and includes CM's essay on death. Should be out by the end of the year or so. However, Feral house occassionally announces books which they fail to publish.
Mr. P., I respect your knowledge of this case. I really do.
The physical evidence at the Cielo crime scene indicates large amounts of blood on the porch. I don't mean just dabs of blood, but large enough to have "pooled and clotted". Those blood types are indicative of Sharon & Jay's blood types.
I don't know that the bodies were placed on the porch. Of course not. I wasn't there.
I'm using logic to come to this conclusion.
You feel that someone dumped the blood there. Well...that's a possibility...but please explain how.
I made an earlier post that was a question. How long does blood seep from a body AFTER the heart stops beating. I don't know, I'm not a doctor, but I would assume that it would stop shortly after. The heart is what makes the blood flow. Without a heartbeat, there would be no blood flow.
This blood pool on the porch is just another mystery that we're trying to solve. And listening to the perps is not giving us answers.
I'm just trying to interject possible answers to these questions.
Hi Shak El. Thanks for the update on the new book. Keep us informed about publication!!! :)
Marliese...
I believe that trailer next to Spahn's house (photo #2)... is the one where they listened to the news cast the next day.
: )
Folks...
Please "click" each photo, and enjoy these FULL SIZE.
They're REALLY GORGEOUS at full size/effect.
Thanks... Lynyrd
Katie the person who knows how the blood got on the porch in a pool is Sadie.
Mr. P said: Katie the person who knows how the blood got on the porch in a pool is Sadie.>>
Okay...how do you know that? That's kinda convenient...since she's dead.
Mr. P., just tell me how you would get buckets of blood on the porch without a body. I'd really like to know that. Really!
I love that picture of Ruby Pearl. Boy...she was a tough old boot. HA HA.
I don't think they're changing the horseshoes. I've seen that done.
It looks like they're looking for a stone in a hoof.
Just my opinion.
Lynyrd those pics are GREAT!!! I've never seen them before!
It's interesting to get into the Spahn Ranch at the time.
That place was really run down.
I can see why Charlie and company gravitated there. Seems like a nice situation for them.
Charlie and company used to hang out at Dennis' pad. That was great til they got kicked out.
It seems like Charlie and his "girls" always went to the baddest dumps to dwell after that. Well, this final encampment seems like a more vital place to hang out. At least it had running water and telephones. HA HA.
I really wonder if any of the girls gave out that phone number to different guys. I mean...girls will be girls. LOL.
Wouldn't that make Charlie boil and blow his top? HA HA.
Well, friends and countrymen, I'm going to bed. I've got an early wake-up call.
I'll talk to you later.
Night!
In Helter Skelter, Bugliosi makes it clear he felt the blood evidence was bungled by the pathologist, Joe Granado. Bug complained he only took limited samples for typing from the large pools of blood on the front porch, and none from the shrubs - on the assumption it was all from one victim. In any case, it was not possible at that time to connect a blood sample with a specific person in a murder like this - only with those among the victims with the same type. You simply cannot say that it is "Sharon's blood", or Voytek or Jay; except by combining blood type info with eyewitness testimony. When the witness is also a suspect (Sadie or Linda), and the pathologist is portrayed as sloppy and not thorough, that's a problem.
From Helter Skelter, p.459 in my 1974 paperback:
"granado's failure to take samples of many of the spots, as well as his failure to run subtypes on many of the samples he had taken, didn't exactly add to his impressiveness. ... My concern here was that those samples he had taken matched in type and subtype the blood of Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring, although there was no evidence that either had run out the front door. While i could argue to the jury that the killers, or Frykowski himself, had tracked out the blood, I could forsee the defense using this to cast doubt on Linda's story, so I asked Joe: 'You don't know if the random sampling is representative of the blood type of the whole area here?'"
"A. 'That is correct. I would have had to scoop everything up.'"
This matches the court transcript, so I take it at face value. Spare me the Bugliosi comments; I am just wondering where the information is available that makes it possible to be sure who's blood was where. It confuses me when the comments seem based on the assumption that these facts are established. Absent DNA testing - which did not exist at that time - we cannot definitively distinguish which blood is who's except by deduction and extrapolation. If Granado only took a random sampling, how accurate can any "blood map" be?
I ask because there is a lot of info out there that is put out by people with more imagination than facts. It sounds good and looks convincing, and the more its bounced around the blogs the more credibilty its given. Is that the case here? Educate me, please. :)
GREAT PHOTOS SAINT!!!
THANKS!!!!
SEEMS ALL THE SUN IS DOING YOU GOOD!! LOLOL
Folks...
If you're gonna e-mail me, that's fine, but please... include your blog/google screen name, so I know who I'm communicating with! LOLOL
It happens all the time...
If I was a mind-reader, I wouldn't be here... I'd be in Vegas making millions playing poker! : )
That photo of the mailbox is incredible!
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said:
"Folks...
If you're gonna e-mail me, that's fine, but please... include your blog/google screen name, so I know who I'm communicating with! LOLOL"
What?!? You mean you don't recognize my writing?! I thought you loved me! I'm going home to mother!
Just funnin ya, L/S. Feeling goofy this eve. :)
I am one of the space cases, I confess.
LOLOL
8/9:
Just click on the link, when you receive the "google invitation", and you're in!
Marliese said:
>>>>"That photo of the mailbox is incredible"!<<<<
Holy Crap!
I just noticed... if you click on it... it actually says "Spahn's" on it!!!
AHahahaha
That's FREAKIN' AWESOME! : )
Once again... one of my bloggers notices something I totally missed!!
That's why I blog with these people!!! : )
8/9 Baby... it worked!
You're officially a "member"!
YOU ROCK!!!
...just like "Sexy Secret Agent Lana"! LOLOL
I was considering putting "Lynyrd" across the horses ass (LMAO)...
but then good sense prevailed. AHahahaha
Yeah... I'm freakin' nuts, but whatever... I'm happy.
: )
Katie8753 said:
Mr. P., just tell me how you would get buckets of blood on the porch without a body. I'd really like to know that. Really!
Mr Poirot replies:
Buckets? No there isn't. There is a few ounces covering an area of 10" x 10". A bucket would paint a porch 14ft x 24ft.
Sadie brought Sharon's blood to the porch: how? Did she drain blood into a coffee cup while Sharon was noosed from the rafter? Sharon had rope marks on her neck.
Did Sadie just dip a towel into her blood on the carpet and walk to the door to write pig? Sadie never says. But NOBODY has ever put Sebring or Tate near the front porch. Sadie left something out. Sadie went totally insane. She was go go dancing in Sybil Brand. She'd bend over with no underwear while in prison. She did something ghastly depraved to go so far into the nether world.
How did Sadie carry Tate's blood to the porch to write pig on the door? Did she drain blood into a cup from Sharon as she hung from livingroom rafters? NOBODY KNOWS!
But Sharon or Jay were never on the front porch. They never got near the front door.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said:
"8/9 Baby... it worked!
You're officially a "member"!
YOU ROCK!!!
...just like "Sexy Secret Agent Lana"! LOLOL
Yes!
All this modern technology is so cool! But I'm old and easily confused, so I'm glad i got it right. LOL
As Grandpa Simpson once said: "I used to be 'with it', but now what I'm with isn't 'it', and what's 'it' is strange and frightening to me...."
Exactly. (and yes, i am kind of a "Simpsons" geek.)
By the way, L/S - it's actually "Super Sexy Secret Agent". LOL. It just rolls off the tongue when you say it. In fact, i recommend adding "Super Sexy" before any job title - it sounds much better and will spice up your workday. Try it! :)
Toldja, goofy tonight. LOL
"Super Sexy Lynyrd Skynyrd Band"???
I'm not "feeling it". LOLOL
No no no. More like, "Super Sexy Sales Clerk" or "Super Sexy CEO", or "super Sexy Blogger". Like that. It makes a boring job sound good and a good job sound really cool!
Hmmm, maybe it only works if you're a chick. :)
What would work for dudes? "Rough and Ready", maybe?
AHahahaha
You're too much! LOLOL
: )
No doubt, I am too much. LOL
Good to end the day with a laugh. Thanks, L/S. :)
Goodnight to all...
G'Night "Super Sexy"! LOLOL
MrPoirot said...>>>>>>
There is no evidence that Sebring or Tate's bodies were ever moved or were present at any time on the front porch. Only their blood type was found on the porch. That is the facts as they are today 40 years later. We do know for a fact that Sadie soaked a towel in Tate's blood from the livingroom and smeared the blood on the front porch door. None of the 4 killers has ever stated Sebring or Tate were anywhere near the front porch. You are assuming they were on the porch. <<<<<<
I don't believe Sadie "soaked" the towel in Sharon's blood. I believe she dipped the towel or touched it in Sharon's blood.
Soaking to me means saturating the entire towel so it's dripping, sopping wet, as a towel would be if it was submerged in liquid.
If Sadie 'soaked' the towel in Sharon’s blood, the towel would have dripped blood from Sharon’s body through the house to the front porch, and the pig letters would have slopped, dripping blood running down the door. If she ‘soaked the towel’, the blood evidence on the porch wouldn’t be separate pools of different blood types on either side of the porch, it would have been Sharon’s blood slopped around and under the door.
And when Sadie was finished with the towel and tossed it back into the house, it would have continued splattering blood, and would have created another pool of blood evidence where it landed.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I've never heard any account of Sadie's pig writing activity described as 'she soaked the towel in Sharon’s blood'...it has been consistently described as she dipped the towel.
People are “assuming” the bodies of Jay and Sharon were on the porch because their blood was found pooled there in quantities that seem to indicate more than what would be there had the blood been inadvertently transferred there by the killers’ movements, or by an end or corner of a towel dipped in blood.
None of the four killers have said Sharon and Jay were on the porch because (i think it's fair to say) people that believe there was an attempt to hang the bodies on the porch believe that occurred after the killers left the crime scene, by individuals other than the killers...
I don’t know if Sharon or Jay were moved to the porch, but I’ve always wondered if Sharon’s body was rearranged after her death.
Horrifying as the death photo of Sharon is…her position doesn’t seem to match how she was killed. The saturated sofa cushion and Sadie’s account of Sharon’s murder indicate she was viciously and violently stabbed to death on sofa.
It just seems logical to me that she would be in a different position…contorted defensively from repeated stabs…not lying as she was on her side.
I hate to even bring it up because it just seems like more desecration of the victims to say these things, but could someone disturbing the crime scene after the murders have moved her to the floor alongside the sofa and placed one arm over her head and drawn her legs up?
maury terry got most of his research from ed sanders. his research is very sketchy, no first person sources. the claim that folger, shea, and manson all had a meal together came to terry from sandra good--sounds like disinformation to me. the ultimate evil is highly entertaining though.
What is this blog about?
katie8753 said...>>>>
Charlie said on video somewhere "I had to go back to see what my children had done."
I haven't been able to find that. Do you know where it is??<<<<<
Hi Katie, i don't think i've ever seen a video of Charlie admitting that. I'd like to though! Have just heard the Sanders, Paul Fitzgerald and Emmons retelling of it.
The most i've ever heard of Charlie interviews is the one with Tom Snyder, and someone once told me he was stoned in that interview.
What are the others...Geraldo, Diane Sawyer ("she got old on me"), Ron Reagan maybe?
Katie, you were asking about blood coming out of a body after the heart stops...i can't find it to quote.
I don't know, but like you said, the heart pumps blood so it wouldn't forcibly hemorrhage but i'd think... unless it had decomposed, the pull of gravity would allow liquid to run out of gaping open wounds. What would hold it in? The entire volume of blood doesn't clot and there isn't any life mechanism in the body holding it in after death. Good question!
Everyone's asleep by the time i get here. :)
Lynyrd, that mailbox photo...stunning! George with the horse is good too.
Excuse delete - I hit post before checking it made sense (and it didn't).
What I wrote was:
At my age, Marliese, insomnia is common!
An Internet search turned up the following (I can't vouch for its accuracy):
For bleeding to occur, two conditions have to be met: 1) there is a tear or other defect in the wall of a blood-containing structure (such as a vein), and 2) the initial pressure inside the vessel is greater than that outside. When we die, heart action stops, and the average blood pressure drops to zero, relative to the outside atmospheric pressure. However, as blood sinks down in the body, the vessels in the lower parts of the body become distended, and the pressure inside becomes greater than outside. So, if you were to cut a vessel in the lower part of the body, there would be bleeding, at least until the internal and external pressures equalized. This effect is especially pronounced when the dead body is oriented vertically (which of course is unusual and would be seen only in cases of accidents where the body is lodged somewhere in a vertical or near-vertical attitude).
Interesting. To meet these conditions would need cuts to the lower part of body (these were present) and presumably an attempt to stand the bodies up in a vertical position (i.e. to hang by a rope).
And perhaps would explain pooling, if moved - one theory was that an attempt was made to hang Jay and Sharon over a beam near where their bodies were found; another that someone tried to hang them at the porch.
Not saying any of this happened, just commenting on bleeding after death.
FrankM
Beware of Sanders, of course. Of that we know...but please also beware of Maury Terry, Paul Krassner and Mae Brussel? PLEASE.
If you believe everything Mae Brussel says then everything from the Civil War on is just the same jewish led conspiracy...
And more evidence leading me to BELIEVE that either Charlie or someone else tampered with the crime scene at Cielo Drive: the glasses, yes the glasses...still unexplained...the steamer trunks being knocked over...the towel being tucked underneath the rope around Jays neck...
Thanks for posting the pics L/S
I didnt mean for you to post them- i just wanted someone to be able to verify I wasn't telling any tall tales...
and only included the one of me to validate I was actually there...
But hey- nothing like signing into one of my favorite blogs to see one of my favorite people
:)
am I only kidding???
I mean I am only kidding
any way- enough Anthony's for me for a lifetime...
I am with Beauders and Matt-
Ultimate Evil is a great read with very little substance.
The first few pages though regarding the death of Arliss Perry totally hooked me into the rest of the book...
all these pics are awesome L/S
We all know which one is my favorite though lol :)
Marliese said:
>>>>"Everyone's asleep by the time i get here. :)"<<<<
The time zones are a big obstacle too.
I've gotta stay up until 3am, to meet my west coast friends for midnight.
Not easy... LOLOL
I think it would be 2am for Katie.
Peace... Lynyrd
Starship said>>>>And more evidence leading me to BELIEVE that either Charlie or someone else tampered with the crime scene at Cielo Drive: the glasses, yes the glasses...still unexplained...the steamer trunks being knocked over...the towel being tucked underneath the rope around Jays neck...>>>>
Absolutely, Starship! If that's the towel Sadie tossed after using it on the front door, it didn't get up and walk itself over to Jay's body and tuck itself under the rope...
And the glasses and steamer trunk...funny the killers never mentioned any glasses, glasses that were amazingly clean of fingerprints and debris.
And how did large quantities of pooled blood belonging to Jay and Sharon end up on either side of the front porch when no one has ever said Sharon and Jay were there?
And how about the report to the police of arguing/yelling coming from the vicinity of Cielo Drive at 4:00 a.m.?
And Charlie...unaccounted for...from the the time after he spoke with the killers when they got back to the ranch until he finally crawled into bed at dawn...per Stephanie Schram?
Welcome back Saint!!
I still can't believe you saw the "Anthonys" there!
LOLOL
It's like "Ripley's believe it, or not"! hahaha
Boy... those folks didn't take to long to "recover", and get back into the "high life"!
Two weeks later... they're out basking at one of the most coveted vacation hotspots on the planet.
Oh well... who am I to judge?
Maybe they deserved/needed it, after that whole affair.
Great to have you back Saint!!
Sorry Marliese.
I re-posted my comment to Saint... and buried your post a little bit, by mistake.
I had made a typo, and it was bothering me.
My OCD wouldn't let it go! LOLOL
So, I re-posted. : )
FrankM said...
Excuse delete - I hit post before checking it made sense (and it didn't).
What I wrote was:
At my age, Marliese, insomnia is common!
Hi Frank, no insomnia here, just a houseful of teenage boys...so sleep deprivation is the story of my life. i love it though, and wouldn't have it any other way. I figure there will be plenty of time to sleep one day, oh wait, then I'll have insomnia...LOL!
Thanks for taking the time to find and post the good blood info.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
Marliese said:
>>>>"Everyone's asleep by the time i get here. :)"<<<<
The time zones are a big obstacle too.
I've gotta stay up until 3am, to meet my west coast friends for midnight.
Not easy... LOLOL
I think it would be 2am for Katie.
Peace... Lynyrd
No, no Lynyrd, don't even think about it, i wouldn't expect you to.
What i meant was, in the mornings, you'll be reading me talking to myself. LOL.
St. Circumstance, I just heard on HLN that George & Cindy Anthony did take a secret vacation, leaving Orlando on Friday. The source said they weren’t sure where they were headed, but they think the Bahamas.
Way to go St!!! You out-scooped the press!!! HA HA.
p.s. maybe you can sell those pics to the Enquirer and make a little dough. LOL.
Hi Beauders! Good to see you!
I agree totally with you! :)
Hi Marliese & Frank! Thanks for answering my question about the bleeding after death. That makes sense to me that the bleeding wouldn’t stop until the pressure was equalized. I also agree with you Marliese that blood would seep out of deep wounds, at least for a while.
The question of whether or not Sharon was hanged. I know the rope was around her neck, but the autopsy report does show any neck breakage or damage that would be present in hanging, I would think. I think the rope marks around her neck are from the rope being around her neck and Tex pulling the rope tight to make her stand up. I don’t think she was actually hanged.
Anybody have any thoughts on that?
Marliese, I agree with you that Sharon’s body had been handled after her death. In the pictures it looks like the blood is literally smeared all over her. And you’re right, she’s in a strange position to have just fallen dead. Did Sadie do that??? Not sure.
The video I’ve seen Charlie say “I had to go back to see what my children had done” I THINK, is the Diane Sawyer one. I looked for it yesterday but couldn’t find it. I'll keep looking.
Marliese, don't worry about looking like you're talking to yourself at night. I usually look that way in the morning. LOL!
Starship, thanks for posting that. I agree, there was too much "false evidence" and things being altered to think that someone didn't go back.
At least, none of the main killers have admitted to doing any of that.
Okay I've said enough for a while. I'll let someone else speak. HA HA HA!
I just don't buy that someone messed with the bodies. Unless one has access to some secret photos taken before the cops arrived, all we can know is what the scene looked like when the crime scene photos were taken - after the initial entry and search by the police. Bug makes it clear that the crime scene was disturbed by the cops - the mysterious glasses were apparently moved, as were pieces of the gun butt, and blood was tracked across the porch by people there to process the scene. Bugliosi and Gentry describe the investigators having to seek out all those people and ask about their shoes, to sort this out. (FYI: Helter Skelter, '74 paperback, p. 16 - 17. The section begins: "Police cars were arriving every few minutes now. And as more officers visited the scene, that scene changed.". He also discusses problems with blood evidence collection here.)
This being the case, how do we know what the scene looked like before the cops got there? We can't. I am a big fan of Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is the most likely, given no evidence to the contrary. The simplest explanation here is that the cops disturbed the bodies and muddied the blood evidence via simple clumsiness. Absent any actual evidence, any other theory seems fanciful to me. Jay Sebring died of blood loss, being shot and then stabbed seven times - the gunshot and three of the stab wounds each a fatal wound by themselves. The point being, there was a lot of his blood on the floor. Same is true for Sharon, she was stabbed in the heart, lungs, and liver - a total of sixteen times, with five fatal wounds - meaning she bled a lot. Voytek was stabbed FIFTY ONE times, as well as shot twice and wounded severely on the head. Did he lose a lot of blood, as he ran for his life and these wounds were inflicted? I assume he did.
The photos I've seen show a horribly bloody crime scene, and people who died violent and bloody deaths. The killers were so bloody they dumped their clothes and stopped to hose off. This was not a scene in a movie; when real people are so viciously killed in real life, there is a lot of blood and confusion. It wasn't "CSI" either; real cops and pathologists and prosecutors make mistakes, disturb crime scenes, bungle evidence. Regular people, shocked by such a horrible scene, are not necessarily at their sharpest. Real science, as it was in 1969, is limited.
There is not enough clear evidence to definitively confirm any scenario - not even the one that got the convictions. But i enjoy playing with theories like anyone else on this blog. I just shy away from the sensationalist stuff in the books and elsewhere out there. The stuff that depends on assumptions and shadowy embellishments and unanswered questions in place of information and analysis. I think the scenarios about someone messing with the scene don't hold much water, because they always seem so murky to me. Lots of cops, coming and going, before, and as, the scene was documented by police photogs - pretty clear cut.
That's my point of view. :)
Hi 8/9 Baby.
I agree that the crime scene was probably very chaotic, but how do you explain the glasses? They didn't belong to the victims or the killers.
So, here's a question. Why did Tex take the rope up to CD? What did he plan to do with it?
I mean wire cutters, knives, a gun, a change of clothes - these make sense. But the rope?
Unless you are thinking of hanging someone ...
Just wondering is all.
FrankM
Hi Frank! I've asked that question many times. No one seems to know the answer.
Rope at Cielo Drive. No rope at Waverly Drive.
Were the killers at Cielo ordered to hang someone???
I really don't know.
That is a good question, about the rope. Maybe Tex had never done a mass murder before, and just wanted to be prepared for anything. Maybe rational reasons don't play a part in the thought process that results in these vicious murders. Personally, I think they planned to stage a certain kind of "scene", but they didn't plan on it being so hard to kill people, and their plans fell apart.
As for the glasses, again a good question. I can think of two possible explanations off the top of my head:
-They were dropped by whoever delivered Gibby's trunks, which they were originally found next to - according to reports of the first officers on the scene; or
-They were left by the killers, as a lame attempt to frame someone or confuse the evidence.
The point is, no one knows. In my opinion, it's not enough to justify any theory at all.
I have questions: Linda says she ran back to the car and waited for the others, but for how long? How much time did they spend there after everyone was dead, and what did they do? Another question, why does Bug state that Sebring was not hooded, but only had a towel tossed carelessly in his direction, when the C.S. photos apear to show the rope wrapped over the towel, to hold it in place as a hood? Why was he hooded, as well as other victims in these crimes? It looks to me like a half-assed attempt to make it seem like some kind of mad judgement was passed on these people, resulting in an "execution".
Of course, that suggests the HS theory might have validity, the part about trying to implicate the Black Panthers - and that's just impossible, i guess. I don't see it that way myself, but it does seem to be the prevailing opinion on the blogs.
>>>8/9 Baby said: Personally, I think they planned to stage a certain kind of "scene", but they didn't plan on it being so hard to kill people, and their plans fell apart.>>>
That's very possible. It takes a lot of energy to literally rips bodies apart. Maybe it was too much for good ole Tex to handle.
The trunks were Roman's trunks I believe. And I don't think the men who delivered them dropped the glasses. Since the prescription in those glasses was for an extremely nearsighted person, I doubt that whoever they belonged to would just leave without them, not being able to see.
I think it's more likely that someone left them there as a "false clue". Who was that? I don't know.
I'm not sure how long Linda waited in the car. I think that after everybody was good and dead, they left. Their whole time there was probably less than an hour. That's my guess.
Hi, 8/9 Baby,
There really are some compelling reasons to believe that the Cielo Drive crime scene was tampered with after the fact, and many of them can be found right in the LAPD's own homicide progress report. A couple of examples being that the first detectives on the scene believed that it looked like Sharon's body had been "handled" post mortem...and for Mr. Poirot to chew on too, one of the first working theories that the LAPD had about what went down was that both Jay and Sharon were first attacked, if not yet killed, on the front porch...why? Because there was quite a bit of their blood type found on the porch...large enough amounts that suggested such a scanrio which we know by all of the accounts of the killers just isn't true.
And the glasses again, the police know who delivered the steamer trunk and asked about the glasses. A whole lot of effort went into finding where the glasses came from, whom they might have belonged to, etc...all to no avail...
Katie said>>>>I think it's more likely that someone left them there as a "false clue". Who was that? I don't know.<<<<<<
If i had to guess, i'd say Charlie and the person he chose to go with him.
It's like the girls say even today, not a lot went on that Charlie didn't know about.
Thinking about it, he was somehow involved with all of the murders and attempt murders...he went to Gary's and sliced his ear, he went with Tex and shot Crowe, he went to Waverly and handed Leno and Rosemary to killers, he dropped off a crew to supposedly kill Nader, he set up and was involved in Shorty's murder...so i think it's logical if anyone went back to Cielo after the murders, it would have been Charlie, along with the person he had go with him.
We'll never know though, unless there's a death bed confession one day and i doubt that'll ever happen. :)
Hi Marliese. I agree that it probably was Charlie.
Bugliosi made a comment that he didn't think that Charlie would have risked that, but knowing Charlie, I think in his mind, he was above the law somehow. I really think that Charlie never thought he'd get caught, and even after he did get caught, he was confident that he'd get out.
I think he was very surprised to have been found guilty. That's why he tried to get the girls to blame Linda in the penalty phase, hoping they'd all die and he'd be spared.
And you're right, he was involved physically in all the murders except Tate. I think that's why people like to place blame for Tate elsewhere.
There is a plethora of theorys about these murders. Some are credible, some are not. One of the most strange and at the same time perplex theorys is that the whole 60s youth culture wasn´t so spontaneous and benign as it apperared.
There is a book in geman unfortunately it is unavailable in English "Der Fall Charles Manson", the case of Charles Manson. The author Carol Greene depict the youth culture of the 60s as a vast behavior-modification experiment designed to awaken a {propensity for violent
criminal acts} in a targeted sector of the population.
Green methodically analyzes such diverse tendencies as the
communal drug and sex movement (the hippies); the
behavioral psychologists who studied and directed their
"life-style''; the military, CIA, and Harvard University
researchers who developed and promoted LSD and other
"psychedelic'' drugs; the "New Age'' gurus who fashioned
the ideological framework out of such ingredients as
science fiction, Nietzschean philosophy, "Old Religions''
(paganism, Satanism) and "New Religions'' (Scientology,
Gaia); Freudian psychology; and the "grey eminence'' who
had the whole project pretty well mapped out from early
on, Aldous Huxley. This is more or less the same
confluence of actors and ideas that was so lavishly
praised in Marilyn Ferguson's book {The Aquarian
Conspiracy.} Greene then demonstrates how every one of
these factors specifically converges on the case of
Charles Manson and his communal "family,'' which serves
as a kind of crucial experiment, a prototype for the
desired end-product.
For those intressed;here is a link to a review in english about the book.
http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review_test_tube_murders1.shtml
The american author David Mc Gowan also fashions the same notion.
On his homepage "Center for an informed America:" The strange but mostly true story of Laurle Canyon and the birth of the Hippie Generation.
Hi V717.
>>>V717 said: Greene then demonstrates how every one of
these factors specifically converges on the case of
Charles Manson and his communal "family,'' which serves
as a kind of crucial experiment, a prototype for the
desired end-product.>>>
That's interesting V717. I'm guessing the modern day cult leaders used these same theses or teachings to control each of their designated "groups".
Such as Jim Jones, David Koresh and the newly famed Warren Jeffs.
Boy that cult stuff is a bitch. HA HA.
V717, that sounds really interesting to me. Those "big picture theories fascinate me, I'm gonna check out that review now, and see what google might turn up. If you can suggest more places to look on the web, i'd love to read more.
I was surprised to learn a few years back about the research piece done on the family before the killings. I think it was a scholarly paper and some film that I saw on the web. I think it was a sociological study of communal groups or male-dominated groups or something. Anyone else familiar with this? My memory's a bit rusty. Anyway, I remember thinking it was remarkable this group had attracted that kind of attention before the crimes.
Lots of odd links like that to this crime and the family, which is why I find it so fascinating.
I'm very sorry to report, that Mike's "BackPorch Tapes" Channel, has been removed from YouTube.
Thanks Mike for sharing your Manson collection with everyone, through the years.
You've been very generous.
Much appreciated... Best Always...
Very Sincerely... Lynyrd
Sorry about the broken link.
Try this:
http://www.erowid.org/library/review/review_test_tube_murders1.shtml
It´s just one of these days!
This is a review/summary of a book that is unavailable in English.
Der Fall Charles Manson, Mo@aurder aus der Retorte
(Test-Tube Murders, the Case of Charles Manson)<$>On April 16, the {Pasadena Star-News,} of Pasadena,
California, prominently featured two articles based on an
AP wire, entitled "LSD goes back to school,'' and "LSD,
50 years old, enjoys a new youth movement.'' The articles
celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first LSD "trip,''
taken by accident by chemist Albert Hofmann in
Switzerland. Local experts are quoted, affirming that LSD
use among junior high school students is on the upswing. A
police sergeant states, "It's cheap. A little bit of
nostalgia [is] involved there too, going back to the '60s
stuff.''
No one who lived through the "|'60s stuff'' can read
Carol Greene's book without shuddering. Greene examines
every familiar detail of the so-called
counterculture--which seemed so benign as it was being
mass-marketed to American youth via the media and the
education system--and inexorably builds a case that this
seemingly spontaneous phenomenon was not only the
exhaustively planned subversion of cultural and moral
values, but in fact a vast behavior-modification
experiment designed to awaken a {propensity for violent
criminal acts} in a targeted sector of the population.
She methodically analyzes such diverse tendencies as the
communal drug and sex movement (the hippies); the
behavioral psychologists who studied and directed their
"life-style''; the military, CIA, and Harvard University
researchers who developed and promoted LSD and other
"psychedelic'' drugs; the "New Age'' gurus who fashioned
the ideological framework out of such ingredients as
science fiction, Nietzschean philosophy, "Old Religions''
(paganism, Satanism) and "New Religions'' (Scientology,
Gaia); Freudian psychology; and the "grey eminence'' who
had the whole project pretty well mapped out from early
on, Aldous Huxley. This is more or less the same
confluence of actors and ideas that was so lavishly
praised in Marilyn Ferguson's book {The Aquarian
Conspiracy.} Greene then demonstrates how every one of
these factors specifically converges on the case of
Charles Manson and his communal "family,'' which serves
as a kind of crucial experiment, a prototype for the
desired end-product.
The grisly deeds of the Manson family have been
recounted in lurid detail before, and Greene does not
dwell on them more than is necessary. However, as her
story unfolds, the reader encounters characters far more
frightening than Manson himself. One of these is Dr. Wayne
O. Evans, who during the 1960s was director of the
Military Stress Laboratory of the U.S. Army Institute of
Environmental Medicine in Natick, Massachusetts. He
participated in something called the Study Group for the
Effects of Psychotropic Drugs on Normal Humans, which held
a conference in Puerto Rico in 1967, described by Evans in
a document, "Psychotropic Drugs in the Year 2000'':
"In considering the present volume, it is our hope
that the reader will not believe this to be an exercise in
science fiction. It is well known that the world of 15
years hence presently exists in the research laboratory of
today.
"...|The American culture has been described by
Herman Kahn as moving toward a `sensate society.' By this
term, he means that a greater emphasis is being placed on
sensory experience and less upon rational or work-oriented
philosophies. Such a philosophic view, coupled with the
means to separate sexual behavior from reproduction or
disease, will undoubtedly enhance sexual freedom.
"We also can anticipate an outcry and vigorous
attacks against the marketing of aphrodisiacs from certain
groups. To combine the presumed evils inherent in the
words `drug' and `sex' in one product would be just too
provocative to overlook. However, the fascinating
field-day offered to advertising companies by chemical
aphrodisiacs should overcome the indignation of the few.
"The choice of such chemicals as to the result of
their use lies in the hands of those people who shape our
evolution as `role models.' What middle-aged people, such
as you and I, think or want to believe has little
importance in these developments. As we consider the
effects of these advances in pharmacology we must ask:
"(a) to whom do the youth listen?
"(b) what are their social and personal values?
"(c) in what kind of world will young people live?
"It seems to me to be obvious that the youth of
today are no longer afraid of either drugs or sex. Again,
the philosophers and spokesmen for the avante-garde
advocate the personal sensory experience as the raison
d'etre of the coming generation. Finally we are moving
into an age in which meaningful work will be possible only
for a minority: In such an age, chemical aphrodisiacs may
be accepted as a commonplace means to occupy one's time.
It will be interesting to see if the public morality of
the next 30 years will change as much as it has in the
last 30.
"If we accept the position that human mood,
motivation, and emotion are reflections of a neurochemical
state of the brain, then drugs can provide a simple, rapid
expedient means to produce any desired neurochemical state
that we wish.
"The sooner that we cease to confuse scientific and
moral statements about drug use, the sooner we can
rationally consider the types of neurochemical states that
we wish to provide for people. The old argument about the
`morality of naturalness' in the production of moods,
motivations or emotions seems somewhat of a lost cause in
our present, almost totally artificial environment. We may
expect, that in the year 2000, to make judgements based on
the `morality of naturalness' will be even less meaningful
than today. Therefore, I submit to you, that if we wished,
we could probably have an effective set of aphrodisiacs
within five years.''
- Rats and `behavioral sinks' -
Another study group member, Dr. William Turner,
described studies done by American psychologist John
Calhoun, in which Norway rats, under conditions of
overcrowding, formed what were termed "behavioral
sinks.'' Here a pattern of extreme behavior changes
emerged, such as cannibalism and rape, reminiscent of
human psychopathology. This behavior emerged among 5% of
the rat population. He indicated that similar effects
might be expected of humans under crowded urban
conditions.
Strikingly similar views were held by Dr. David E.
Smith, and his colleague Roger Smith (no relation), both
of whom were associated with the famous Haight-Ashbury
Clinic in San Francisco. They shared an interest in the
concept of "behavioral sinks''; believed that rats, in
response to overcrowding, were naturally inclined to
violence, criminality, and mass murder; and believed that
the percentage of rats who would engage in such behavior
could be increased by the influence of drugs. Dr. David
Smith repeated the Calhoun experiments himself, and added
a new dimension by injecting the rats with amphetamines.
Author Greene presents and defends the thesis that for
both Smiths, Haight-Ashbury represented an opportunity to
test these theories {on humans}. David Smith referred to
Haight-Ashbury as the national center for habitual drug
abuse, and the first slum for teen-agers in America. Both
Smiths were personally acquainted with Manson, and Roger
Smith was {Manson's parole officer} when Manson first came
to Haight-Ashbury, direct from prison.
If someone wanted to transform a human subject into a
"killer rat,'' Manson was a promising candidate. The
product of a broken home, he had spent the better part of
his life in prisons. He was a thoroughly alienated
individual, but a clever one, with an interest in certain
kinds of ideas. In prison he had made himself well
acquainted with psychiatry, hypnosis, Scientology, and the
occult. He was apparently in pursuit of a system of belief
that was compatible with his criminal bent, and was
synthesizing a variety of techniques with which to
manipulate others. All this came to fruition as he
assembled his communal "family.'' Manson was also
fascinated by Robert Heinlein's "New Age'' science
fiction novel {Stranger in a Strange Land,} and used it as
a sort of paradigm for his "family,'' going so far as to
name his illegitimate son after the book's protagonist.
- Manson's anti-Christian roots -
As part of her search for Manson's "roots,'' Greene
traces the genesis of science fiction, examining in
particular the cases of Aldous Huxley and H.G. Wells.
Huxley, in addition to being a renowned enthusiast for
"mind-expanding'' drugs, was a confirmed malthusian and
an anti-Christian in the tradition of Friedrich Nietzsche.
He wrote to Harvard's Dr. Timothy Leary that for the kind
of "evolution'' that they were both trying to promote,
the Bible was the only resistance. Huxley also had an
interest in "killer rats.'' In a work entitled "Do What
You Will,'' Huxley refers approvingly to a theory of his
friend, the psychologist Dr. William Sheldon:
"There exists, as Sheldon makes clear, a certain
percentage of people--he calls them somatotonics--who are
constitutionally aggressive, who love risk and adventure
for their own sake; who lust for power and dominance; who
are psychologically callous and have no squeamishness
about killing, who are insensitive to pain and tirelessly
energetic. How can these people be prevented from wrecking
the world: Christianity tried to keep them down by means
of a `cerebrotonic' system of ethical restraints. But
there has been a revolt against cerebrotonic religion and
ethics during the last 25 years and the somatotonics are
in the saddle, not only physically but intellectually and
philosophically.''
Greene quotes H.G. Wells in a similar vein:
"The men of the New Republic will not be squeamish
either in facing or inflicting death.... They will have
ideals that will make killing worthwhile.... They will
hold that a certain portion of the population exists only
on sufferance out of pity and patience, and on the
understanding, that they do not propagate; and I do not
foresee any reason to suppose that they will hesitate to
kill when that sufferance is abused.''
She then asks: Couldn't Charles Manson have made the
same declaration? Greene hastens to add that the
difference is, that the men of the "New Republic'' kill
for clear ideas and goals, while people like Manson follow
seemingly arbitrary impulses. The real issue is the
motivation of the scientists who were experimenting on
people like Manson.
Greene elaborates in some depth on the intertwining
histories of the following ideas: malthusianism; eugenics;
"sexual freedom''; drugs that are "consciousness
expanding''; and Satanism. In the process, she makes two
very interesting observations: First, the Freudians and
the Frankfurt School promised that by stripping away
bourgeois morality and unleashing the sexual revolution,
they could dramatically reduce tendencies toward
criminality and xenophobic prejudice; what they have
delivered is quite the opposite. Second, the dissemination
of satanic ideologies and satanically influenced manners of
thinking is more dangerous than the organized, cultish
form, a warning which one hopes will be heeded by some
fundamentalist groups that develop a voyeuristic
fascination with satanic ritual acts, and fail to act
against the pervasive influence of satanic concepts in the
culture around them.
The author includes an extensive survey
of what is known about the CIA drug research and
dissemination projects, "Artichoke,'' "Bluebird,'' and
the more famous "MK-Ultra.'' She quotes former CIA
director Richard Helms, saying in response to a question
about what he thinks of LSD, "Dynamite.'' She quotes
Harvard researcher and later darling of the hippie
movement, Timothy Leary, giving full credit for all his
accomplishments to the CIA. As an indication of just how
fully witting Leary was and is, the following may be
recounted: In the early 1980s, this reviewer was
approached by Dr. Leary, who
said in all seriousness: "Do you have a copy of {Dope,
Inc.}? I loaned my copy to a British oligarch who was
staying at my house, and he never returned it.''
i was a candymaker for 23 years and just seeing those jelly belly's is making me have a smell memory. i made salt water taffy but we used the same flavoring and color schemes.
on the greene book does anyone out there speak german? someone needs to translate this book even if it is rough.
v717:
I mean no disrespect, but you seem to be a johnny come lately. I don't blame you for finding it all very fascinating, however, all that stuff you posted is, in a word, BULLSHIT.
And has already been discredited years ago and by better people than those of us on these blogs.
Starship:
It's a bit hard for new arrivals to a blog not to be johnny come latelys - we all have to join to be here, and the cost of that is short-term newbie status. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing your name around here for that long either.
And to say that "all that stuff you posted is, in a word, BULLSHIT" is a value judgment, which says as much about you as it does about the content posted.
By all means query the validity or usefulness of what is posted, but discussion of the argument - with a balanced and reasoned explanation of why you disagree - is surely better than aggression and dismissive put downs?
FrankM
i would think that guy mike would be smart enough not to post ANYTHING by rh by now.
all he has to do is get another email account,username and sign up again and hes good to go.i'm on my 3rd account and let me tell you the way they do things at yt makes NO sense at all sometimes,i'm surprised he lasted as long as he did.
hopefully he saved all his flash videos in a folder so he doesnt have to convert them all over again(good tip for anyone who wants to post to yt anyvideoconverter is a good free program that will convert your vids to flash format saves a ton of time uploading)
while we're on the subject of yt and the haight check out this vid i posted called the hippie temptation a cbs news doc about the haight in 67 you can see the scene that the manson family was born out of.its in four parts part one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho-tPtTwJK8
heres one i sent l/s awhile ago should raise a smile for a few of you here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeZPvCK_YVo
Hi Matt. Thanks for the video on hippies.
I think we saw that in health class when I was a sophomore in high school.
"Okay class....don't turn into these people".
HA HA HA.
Hi Bobby!!! Good to see you!
>>>Bobby said: And we said, I want to be like those people, they are cool.>>>
AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH.
Bobby, run as fast as you can!! And don't look back!!!
HA HA HA!!!
Speaking of the 60's- wanted to share. Am hoping to head to West LA to see it in August:
http://www.magictripmovie.com/
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
Mr. Poirot:
If I could give you some friendly advice....
Everyone (including you) has a right to their opinion... and opinions are welcome.
But, here's the catch...
You often state your opinion, as though it is fact.
Sometimes a simple prefice of "I think"... or "in my opinion"... or... a follow-up, such as, "that's my take"... can make a world of difference... to other readers... and save you much grief.
State your opinions as opinions... and facts as fact... and you'll have less headaches.
As for Frank... I've known him for years.
Frank is most welcome here, and he's not one to harrass others.
He's not a troublemaker... not by a long shot.
Poirot...
I'm giving you fair warning.
If you get into the "Jew" or "Colonel" stuff again... you're off the membership.
Fair warning between friends.
I honestly don't want to remove you... don't make that happen.
Peace... Lynyrd
July 24, 2011 4:37 PM
Mr Poirot replies;
I've made just a few points in my posts in this thread.
Frank came after me. I didn't go after Frank.
Ive read some very long posts in here that say nothing.
I'm trying to keep to the trial testimony and actual facts. I try to make one point only in each post.
Mostly what I read in this thread is opinion: such as Frank's opinion of me and my comments. I've spent a lot of time trying to see if Sebring or Tate were ever at the front porch.
Hi, Frank,
I do not mean to be aggressive or dismissive at all. And there is nothing wrong with being a newbie, however some of the younger people here especially may not be aware of the utter bogusness of people like Krassner, Brussels, and the dude who wrote the long essay on Laurel Canyon and how all the musicians there were part of MK-ULTRA or some such thing which is just not true. Perhaps they need to learn it all for themsleves...I'm just hoping to save a few years of their lives...
Peace!
Oh, and I am not new, I just have a new anagram for my old name which I got called out on on the Thelma and Louise blog, so I just thought, the jig is up...
That's cool, Starship. No offence intended.
FrankM
Lynyrd I have never saidthe word jew in your blog or any blog.
We've got some very good researchers in this blog. Instead of attacking my plane Jane statement that Tate nor Sebring were never at the front porch why not leave it open and ask the other members?
I'm not the enemy.
I want to know myself: was Sadie the one who brought two victim's blood to the front porch?
Some of these things take months to decode. Don't be hasty.
I don't think Tate nor Sebring were EVER at the front porch yet their blood was.
To me this is just good debate.
Poirot...
I really don't want to repeat or discuss, the offensive comments you made (in the past)... which I'm referring to.
Enduring them once, was more than enough.
Go back to the thread with the two pennies on it... "My two cents".
Read ALL your remarks to Hippie Scholar on July 15th.
If you find none of your comments offensive... we obviously just have a different standard, for what's appropriate.
Mr. Poirot,
Yes, exactly...how did Jay and Sharon's blood get to the front porch? I commented earlier to 8/9 baby that one of the first working theories of the LAPD was that the front porch was where both Jay and Sharon were fisrt attacked...because of the very large pool of Jay's blood type especially that was found at the front porch.
Do you think Susan Atkins carried enough quantity of Jay's blood from the living room out to the front porch to make the police think that?
Ah, yes - anagrams. I was slow off the mark ...
But I guess a rose by any name ...
FrankM
It's not so much a question of whether Mr P thinks his remarks are offensive as whether others are offended by them. Personally I find comments like (the repeated) "go suck the jew col's dick" offensive, but it could just be me.
FrankM
Starship- I am the dude that posted the stuff about Laurel Canyon and MK ultra-
I never said it was true- just pasting some stuff which was relevant to the area we were discussing at the time....
I like to mix I up once in awhile
:)
But no doubt alot of the stuff I post is bullshit- so you do have a good point there...
But I never said those thoughts were my own- or true...
But It is a very interesting read for those who like Music, L.A., and conspiracies...
Inside the LC ...
and it does have a whole bunch of stories about and references to...
Charlie and Co..
Apologies for repeating someone else's bad language here (see my post above), but I was responding to the delusional statement made by M. Poirot that Lynyrd I have never said the word jew in your blog or any blog..
I had meant to include this in my previous post but in a senior moment I forgot.
FrankM
FrankM said:
{quote]Starship:
It's a bit hard for new arrivals to a blog not to be johnny come latelys - we all have to join to be here, and the cost of that is short-term newbie status. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing your name around here for that long either.
And to say that "all that stuff you posted is, in a word, BULLSHIT" is a value judgment, which says as much about you as it does about the content posted.
By all means query the validity or usefulness of what is posted, but discussion of the argument - with a balanced and reasoned explanation of why you disagree - is surely better than aggression and dismissive put downs?
FrankM
July 26, 2011 9:47 AM{END QUOTE}
MR POIROT REPLIES:he
Frank has attacked several people. he apparently has carte blanche to say whatever he wants.
I do not feel attacked by my cerebral friend, Frank at all. In fact I long ago got over taking too seriously anything that is said about me or what I post about a 40 plus year old murder case by people who share my same strange obsession and who, largely, like myself, choose to remain anonymous.
I enjoy discussing this case with others who are knowledgable about it. I like to do so in a respectful manner and really wish references to race, religion and politics were only made when relevant, most likely when quoting.
I want to like you, Mr. Poirot. Well, like you as much as I can anyone whom I've never actually met in real life and only know as an anonymous blog poster.
And I too have always given Starfish, in his previous arrangement, a lot of respect, not least because of his measured and civil tone.
I too should like to like M Poirot, but he does need to work on his image. However, at the end of the day, as Starship says, it doesn't really matter - we're all just ones and zeros in cyberspace.
FrankM
From all the pictures I have looked at I do not see ANY drag marks or any evidence that any bodies were moved after death. The explanation for the non VF bloodspots are easy to me. Tex with his bloodthirsty rampage would have been covered in blood and could have easily been the vehicle for transferring the blood stains.
Post a Comment