Saint Circumstance said (in regards to Harold True's testimony):
"I am sure this guy can’t remember what color drawers he had on yesterday..."
"I am sure this guy can’t remember what color drawers he had on yesterday..."
I have to respectfully disagree with you. I think you're being tremendously dismissive.
Harold is certainly brash and blunt... but, I think his logic is solid. He makes more sense (to me) than 100 average bloggers put together.. (who by the way, weren't there).
I think there's a lot more to Harold's interview, than just humor. Unfortunately, the humor is so overwhelming, it belies the valuable content.
I’m sure someone could comb through Harold's interview, and likely find some inaccuracies in detail... but, I think Harold's "take" on the situation (as a whole) is accurate.
His version is not fun, it's not glamorous, and it's not scandalous (which is what we all crave)... but, it's reality.
I think we ALL... "constantly read shit into it" as Harold says (including myself)... because it keeps this topic fun and interesting for ourselves.
We need something to do.
When we become "super sleuths"... it makes us feel important.
It makes us feel "personally connected" to the case… “part of it”, if you will.
Case in point:
In the past, I've dug so deep into Leno's gambling... I might as well, have been at the horse track with him.
But, at the end of the day... I know that angle (motive theory) is likely all bunk.
I know deep-down, that I'm likely wasting my time with that pursuit... but, it makes me feel good (and important) to try... and that (in reality) is my motivation.
Let's face it... if this case was really solved... we wouldn't have anything to do.
We constantly paint these folks as geniuses... and add complexity to the plot, but in reality... it's probably more accurate to say "they carried their brains in their lunchboxes".
As time passes... I'm starting to adhere more and more to TomG's attitude, that sometimes senseless acts... are carried-out by senseless people… and there’s really no glamour or complexity to it, at all.
"You can't ascribe reason to crazy people".
It's a hard sentiment to argue.
Or, as Tom once said:
“Think long, think wrong”.
This reminds me of a true experience:
Like most men... I really love the movie "Goodfellas".
Fuck... I've watched it 30 times... and I've memorized every line.
The movie glamorizes not only the crimes, but the characters.
I had "Henry Hill" (played by Ray Liotta) cemented in my mind, as a genius.
He was cunning, sharp, rich, well-dressed, tough... you name it… he was everything!
The guy (although a criminal) was a hero in my mind!
THEN... 10 ten years later:
I heard the REAL Henry Hill interviewed on the Howard Stern Show.
My mind was blown!
Saint... the guy was a fucking idiot.
I think he had two marbles floating around in his head.
Suddenly... it hit me like a ton of bricks.
All this guy "Henry Hill" really had... was a TON of balls... and that’s it.
I suddenly saw those "heists" and crimes (and murders!) for what they really were… senseless acts, performed by thugs, who had Balls-Galore, but no brains.
Henry Hill was a selfish opportunist, with the sack (and necessary lack of morals) to act upon his most base impulses… but that’s it.
Seriously… this guy “Henry Hill” was like listening to Bill Garretson.
I couldn’t believe that a world-renowned blockbuster movie like “Goodfellas“, was made from THAT reality!
Talk about a distortion of facts!
Talk about making a silk purse, from a sow’s ear!
I think we often embellish the TLB murders and related circumstances the same way.
Harold True's sleepy-voiced "version"… although boring as hell for us TLB enthusiasts, is likely much more accurate than we‘d like to believe.
In short… I don’t think Suzan Laberge was chief conspirator. It's possible, but not probable. I’m sure going forward, I will entertain that possibility many, many times, and likely invest countless hours researching… ‘cuz that’s what we do, as TLB enthusiasts. But at the end of the day… I think Harold is right. It's probably a lead ballon.
My two cents...
If anyone disagrees, that's cool with me.
Peace!
35 comments:
I think in the early part of the interview she asks him if he is feeling well, and he sounds totally either wasted or out of it to me as well- so I made that joke - but it was meant to be in an endearing way... I have loved this interview from the first time you played it... I dont doubt that he is telling the truth. He just sounds really F'ed up to me. His attitude and voice crack me up- he sounds a bit out of it to me as well from one thing or another- the interviewer seemed to sense it as well. what can I tell you- it makes me laugh
but I never dismissed him and dont dismiss him. I believe he believes they never met. If I gave another impression- It was not my intent...
Buzzed out of there people can still tell the truth and argue about that they believe is the truth..
I do it all the time....
P.S.- Please make sure I get credit for this post- along with my Charlie music thread- I'm trying to improve my ratio versus those about myself
:)
And Furthermore... LOL!
I think I'm getting VERY close to taking a "Saint Circumstance vacation" for 2-4 months.
No kidding... I'm totally fried.
I'm becoming delirious.
I feel like I'm repeating myself constantly.
In fact...
It's starting to feel like ALL the conversations in TLB-Land are just cycling and re-cycling... over and over... at this point.
I'm having Deja-Vu nightmares and flashbacks.
Sorry Saint...
If this post is major overkill (which it probably is)... just ignore it.
In fact... if everyone ignores it, it will probably be for the best. LOL!
Bottom line:
I think Harold was totally fed-up with discussing these murders, YEARS before this woman (Judi) ever called him.
Harold had no interest in discussing this shit with her in the least... and that's what I interpret in his voice.
I don't think he was intoxicated.
I think he was about as sick of this TLB subject, as I've become lately. LOL!
But... I DO think he's on target with everything.
That's my whole point, in a nutshell.
You gotta give me credit though Saint...
I can take a thought which can be expressed in 3 sentences... and squeeze 20 paragraphs and a movie analogy out of it!
That's a skill that oughtta count for something!
AHahahaha
216,000 visitors later... LOL!
I guess I'm doing something right... not exactly sure what though... LOL
I can't use the technique of insulting everyone who walks through the door... Colonel's already got that one covered. LOL!
It seems rambling, is the next best thing. LOL!
Yeah Saint...
I've gotta update those "Hall of fame" stats soon.
I'm way behind.
Johnny and Sunset submitted a great thread idea 2 weeks ago... and I still haven't gotten to it yet.
Peace Brother!
I agree with most of your post...
He doesn't say much other than they were all crazy and that they weren't around when the labiancas lived next door. He was adamant that Susan L did not know Tex or the others...
not sure how he could know that for sure- But I believe he believes it- and that they never met through him, or around him...
personally- I believe it as well...
His tone with her and attitude towards her in the early part is priceless. I am sure he was very sick of it, and the type of people this subject brought into his life...
Really I dont know- but it made me laugh lol
L/S this is your world and you know what you can do in it???
whatever you want....
:) you do a great job, and it is o.k. to second guess me any time. When it is done with respect- I even encourage it!!
I think you're spot-on in the main post there, Lynyrd. It is easy to overthink and over analyse TLB because it's many bloggers' hobby to do so.
The most simple and obvious explanation is the most likely. Personally, I think the obvious explanation is that most, if not all, Manson related crimes are money/property rip-offs at the heart of it. And that's a pretty big irony, if true i.e. Charlie the Piggie, just another variant of bread-head.
Add to that, making sure his cohorts get blood on their hands.
Even the area of most interest to me (CM's magnetic & mesmerizing personality, attracting/influencing followers) is probably overplayed... His accolytes had plenty of time to consider situations, speak out or get away between episodes of mayhem.
The bottom line is they chose to serve & act in this little platoon of hate & resentment AFTER becoming thieves and robbers. AFTER Charlie started spouting death, AFTER, the murder of their pal, Hinman. AFTER the bloodbath at Cielo. AFTER Waverly. AFTER Shorty Shea.
Not a one-off bloodbath, like My Lai. But time after time. ...And much of the time Charlie and his lieutenants wouldn't be there, so this wasn't a group of brainwashed captives. And the deal was always improvised mayhem & rip-offs. That's what this group signed up to, and what Charlie specialised in.
Good luck to anyone looking for a discernible motive in the world of no sense makes sense.
I agree with both of you...
but in defense of what ALL of us do from time to time..
when you go into a room to chat and blog about a mystery- isn't the whole point to play out scenarios and debate various ideas???
nobody knows for sure what happened, and everyone knows for sure it did happen, and so whats wrong with trying to play with different pieces when trying to sort out the puzzle??
I mean after 40 years- shouldn't everyone start looking at things in different ways...
time to try some new angles from time to time- because your eyes start to lock onto the same spots after you stare so hard at things sometimes...
Hi Cease!
Thanks for your input.
I won't comment for the time being, as I really need a break.
Last night... I was going through a folder full of photos... and, I couldn't remember where the hell I got them from... or, if I had already posted them on the blog.
OK... one thought.
Cease2 said:
" Even the area of most interest to me (CM's magnetic & mesmerizing personality, attracting/influencing followers) is probably overplayed..."
I do think Manson was (and is) quite "mesmerizing" to a degree... but I agree... it's a bit overblown.
Bear in mind, young girls are much more easily manipulated than adults... and Manson was cunning enough, to target that group.
I really believe, that Manson's "rap" would have been less effective with 50 year old men in suburbia.
OK... Manson did manipulate Dean Moorehouse and George Spahn... but Dean wasn't exactly your average run-o-the-mill father... and Spahn benefited (arguably) as much as Manson.
Was he really manipulated? Probably not.
His horses and ranch were being tended to, and Squeaky was likely blowing him.
A pretty good deal for a decrepid blind man, in my book.
And Wilson, I'm convinced, was thinking with his dick.
(as was Dean actually).
When Manson amassed his "troop" of little girls, he became quite influential with men... but, it wasn't so much Manson's "zest" at that point... it was the "pussy currency" he was wielding.
Time and time again, we hear that.
Paul Watkins said he was intrigued by Manson's power over the girls initially... as did John Friedman, and others.
There's a guy in one of RH's films, who was in prison with Manson.
He said (paraphrasing):
"In prison, Manson was a nobody... the other men (inmates) had Manson on a 'pay no mind' basis".
"you could walk up to him and say fuck you punk... and not have to worry" lol
that guy was a good interview as well
Once we solve TLB then we can start a JFK blog.That should keep all of us busy for the rest of our natural lives.
I remember Henry Hill on Stern many times over the years.I always thought the reason he was never rubbed out by the Mob was because He was a drunken idiot and no-one took him seriously.
"you could walk up to him and say fuck you punk... and not have to worry" lol
I think his name was Phil Phillips.
Has anyone ever heard of him outside of that one film?
Look Saint... I'm no idiot... I got a college degree... and I know a few little fucking things about life, and law, and myself... and I know people when they're nuts! LOL!
Just kidding! LOL
It's a lot of fun... and you're right, there'd be nothing else to do in these rooms, if we didn't speculate.
As I said in the thread:
"Let's face it... if this case was really solved... we wouldn't have anything to do". LOL!
I'm just becoming more and more grounded in the fact, that we're never going to be able to "prove" any motive to everyone's satisfaction.
It's not gonna happen.
If there are 100 pieces to this puzzle... we're working with about 80... and those other 20 pieces were lost under the couch.. and vaccuumed-up. LOL
(and thrown out with the used vaccuum bag... and incinerated at the landfill) : )
And maybe Tom's right.
Maybe there's little more to be found.
I guess I'm just growing cynical.
Hi MattP!
We had this conversation before... and I'm pretty sure someone came on the blog, and indicated that "Phil Phillips" was an alias... and they provdided his real name.
Maybe it was Kimchi?
I can't remember...
L/S in all seriousness...
I honestly am starting to wonder if there is no real secret dark motive at all....
Charlie was an idiot- truthfully. He had some charm and a small amount of game but he was not intellectual or educated. Lets not give him too much credit- bugs had to do that to include him...
Charlie was desperate to get money together to get out of L.A. that he visited Dennis Wilson and a few others trying to get money is fact...
the rest of it could be just a petty crook trying to rob places he was familiar with and heard from someone or another would have some money or whatever which could be turned into money...
if that is the case then hinman fits right in with Cielo and Labainca..
one guy goes with a couple of girls- stab and then kill victim- then write on wall in victim blood.a place they had been to before. maybe they were close with him- maybe they weren't but they saw each other around and knew some of the same people and they heard some stuff and then... they make a plan to go over and get it... you know the rest
the only difference between Gary and the other two is with Gary we think we know why and bobby went instead of tex. Bobby says one thing now- but he trying to parole and of course distancing himself from the " family"- but if bobby went to rob money or drugs and somehow it turned into chaos- well tell me again how different that would be from Cielo if they were there for the same reason...
a very old and very common reason
to rob them or steal something. Maybe they planned to kill them after as welll- maybe that was unplanned consequence- or maybe Tex is just that friggin crazy lol and got caught up in the moment.
but maybe there was just not much other than basic knowledge of some locations and an idea to get something from them....
True said himself that you cant figure out crazy people lol
it does give one a headache trying
but there is so much in common between hinman and the other two. instead of trying to guess why at TLB - why not look at what we know about the first one... that seems to have had a pretty normal motive, and it was pretty gruesome as well- but it happened to a quiet drug dealer- not a pregnant star- so it really didn't make many waves....
Why do we take bobby at his word it had nothing to do with the family or that he was part of the family???
what if that was the blueprint for the others?? Even if only so far as they were just repeating something they had already done.
lol I am getting super stoned right now so I will stop blogging as I am about to stop making any kind of sense... plus the beers almost cold enough to open...
but doesn't it strike anyone else as odd???
We have a group of people who go over to a guys house they are familiar with and try to rob him and then they slowly stab him and then kill him and use his blood to print messages...
then a short time later people from the same group go out two nights and do almost the same thing...
and for 40 years we argue and fight over why???
lol sigh maybe its just me and this weed
Great post Saint... several great points.
I'll start with the first one, and hit the others later.
Saint said:
"Charlie was an idiot- truthfully. He had some charm and a small amount of game but he was not intellectual or educated. Lets not give him too much credit- bugs had to do that to include him..."
Absolutely.
Bugliosi is the one who (primarily) elevated Manson to genius status during his "trial of the century" (as a means to an end)... and through the sale of millions of books.
And others (including ourselves, the media, and authors) continue to snowball that concept today.
Look...
Charles Manson could have earned 12 college degrees by now.
Instead, he uses his time to sleep, make spiders and scorpions out of his socks... and write letters to kids.
TomG:
"Charlie Manson is a five foot seven schizophrenic, who if it weren't for the murder of Sharon Tate, would never be known or discussed. And I'm not saying he isn't funny and entertaining. I'm saying he's a dime a dozen criminal-class punk, who had the good fortune of running into some middle class pseudo-revolutionary white girls."
so quick we were to mock the cops for not connecting the three back at the time because of the similarities..
yet so reluctant we are to allow for a connection today when looking back despite the similarities...
who the f am I yoda???
hiding my keyboard :)
Lynyrd...I think if some college wanted to do a symposium on over-thinking they would have to start with JFK. But there was just sooooo much bullshit there. Still, FIFTY years later and I still think if you are arguing with more than a 60/40 certainty you have an agenda. There is just so much circumstantial evidence from both sides.
Yes, it is possible that the asshole Lee just wanted the infamy. But the markmenship seems impossible. His established connections to both the FBI and CIA seem impossible. His coolness immediately after the shooting seems impossible. His use of the term "patsy" seems impossible. The botched autopsy and missing brain seem impossible.
I could go on for ten paragraphs.
And still, it very well just may have been the idiot Lee.
Likewise for TLB. I am with ya and old Harold True all the way. These people were certified idiots. Morons. Brainless twits. They were the Three Stooges and The Little Rascals and The Dead End Kids all mixed together.
And yet we talk about them as super slueth drug dealers and mafia hit men and matricide maniacs and so on.
An egomaniac seeking infamy - 11/22/63.
Idiots Run Amouk - 8/9/69.
It may be all there is.
dammit, why am I double posting? How does one delete a post? And not to hijack, but how does one get an avatar or photo or whatever you call those things?
I deleted that comment for ya Leary.
Avatar... I thought you'd never ask.
As much as I love ya Leary (in a purely platonic way of course)... I hate it when folks blog for years with no avatar... and needless to say, you're LONG overdue! LOL!
I DYING to know what photo you have in mind! LOL
Please... pick something good.
The only thing worse than "no photo"... is looking at a bad photo 12 times a week! LOL!
Maybe MattP can help you with the rest.
I'm not very good with coaching people on technical stuff.
Step 1:
Go to google... hit the "images" tab... and search for a photo you like, using keywords... and download the photo to your desktop.
Once you have your photo...
I'm pretty sure if you click on your own name (the blue name) in the comments section here... it should take you to your "dashboard"... and you'll find the tab for uploading a photo, somewhere in there.
I haven't done it in years...
Anyone?
Also...
There might be a "dashboard" tab, at the very top of your screen... utmost right corner, when you're logged-in to the blog.
If you want... tell me what photo you want... and I'll email it to you... save you the google step. LOL
L/S said:
i'm pretty sure if you click on your own name (the blue name) in the comments section here... it should take you to your "dashboard"... and you'll find the tab for uploading a photo, somewhere in there.
That should do the trick.
Once you find the "upload picture" tab you should be all set.
I think its in the upper right hand corner of your dashboard.
Fair comment, Lynyrd. I broadly agree with your points. I think we're all hoping to uncover the great missing link that ties all of this together and somehow makes it all add up. We won't ever get there, but something keeps us trying. There are just enough moving parts in this case to make that endeavor not feel like an entirely useless one. I think our particular interest in this case is probably a manifestation of much of society's broader need to understand horrific, sensational acts of violence in general. Throw in celebrities, wealthy people, turbulent Los Angeles in the '60s, the counterculture - this one really gets the juices flowing. We want to be able to tie this up so that it has a rhyme or reason that we can understand - but it probably doesn't. Somehow I don't think being aware of that will stop me from checking these blogs though!
(Also, hello for the first time - I've read your blog for awhile but until recently didn't post on any site but Cats'. I prefer to read and linger in the background on the blogs, but you seem to be an engaging, rational person so that has encouraged me to put my head above the parapet.)
Hi Leigh!!
Welcome to the blog!
I've enjoyed reading your posts on other blogs, so we're semi-acquainted. LOL
Jump-in anytime!
Saint...
I updated your stats on the "wall of fame". LOL
Now, only 2/5 of your submissions are about yourself. LOL!
Thanks!!
but I am sure my next trip to California will put me back in the red lol
"ST. Circumstance said...
I agree with both of you...
but in defense of what ALL of us do from time to time..
when you go into a room to chat and blog about a mystery- isn't the whole point to play out scenarios and debate various ideas???
nobody knows for sure what happened, and everyone knows for sure it did happen, and so whats wrong with trying to play with different pieces when trying to sort out the puzzle??
I mean after 40 years- shouldn't everyone start looking at things in different ways...
time to try some new angles from time to time- because your eyes start to lock onto the same spots after you stare so hard at things sometimes...
September 10, 2012 4:20 PM"
Spot on, Saint. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...but as you say it is interesting to take a look at some things and give it a second look. Of course, you can't just make up stuff but if you can put together some facts/circumstances and grant yourself room to make some logical inferences it can lead to some interesting conversations. Cause NONE of us were there.
Which is one of the reasons folks come to blogs like this one. A place that allows for some reasoned give and take in a non flame zone among folks that actually want to know what happened.
On most cases you don't have this level of interest. But for a select few...
Post a Comment