“There are a variety of people who want you to believe that the murders at Cielo Drive were due to the fact that Voytek was a drug dealer, and that Folger was funding it. This is not true".
"The reason for the Cielo Drive killings, is that Charlie was mad at Melcher“.
You have a right to your opinion.
As for me...
I haven't ruled-out the Frykowski/Drug angle.
There's enough "smoke" in that area, to make the theory worthy of consideration.
I agree, that Manson was probably pissed with Melcher… very pissed.
Manson has expressed anger towards Melcher on film (during interviews).
However…
Problem #1: Melcher no longer resided at Cielo, and Manson knew it.
Problem #2: The “Melcher bitterness" theory doesn't explain LaBianca.
Problem #3:
The "Melcher bitterness" motive, doesn't jive (very well) with the Crowe, Hinman, and Shea events.
The Crowe, Hinman and Shea crimes were committed for fairly pragmatic reasons, such as money issues, drug problems, and/or self-preservation (or, a combination of all three).
Those crimes were motivated by practical purposes beyond anger and bitterness.
Are we to conclude, that Cielo Drive was the ONLY location where "bitterness" was the sole motivator?
OK... it's possible... but, it doesn't fit "The Family's" MO (modus operandi) very well.
Modus operandi is a Latin phrase, meaning "method of operation".
The expression is often used by police, to describe a criminal's habits and manner of working.
At the end of the day... killing for the sake of bitterness, doesn't fit "The Family's" track record.
I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" here, to make a point.
My point:
If you dismiss the Frykowski/Drug Motive due to loopholes… you must also dismiss the “Melcher/Bitterness” angle, because neither theory is a complete puzzle.
In my opinion, dismissing either theory… especially the Drug Motive… is a grave (and somewhat naive) mistake.
The expression is often used by police, to describe a criminal's habits and manner of working.
At the end of the day... killing for the sake of bitterness, doesn't fit "The Family's" track record.
I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" here, to make a point.
My point:
If you dismiss the Frykowski/Drug Motive due to loopholes… you must also dismiss the “Melcher/Bitterness” angle, because neither theory is a complete puzzle.
In my opinion, dismissing either theory… especially the Drug Motive… is a grave (and somewhat naive) mistake.
None of the folks at Cielo Drive, deserved to be killed.
I repeat... none of the folks at Cielo, deserved to be killed.
BUT... having said that (twice)...
The idea that EVERYONE connected to Cielo Drive, was living a lifestyle, that was completely beyond reproach, is a bit of a fantasy.
This was Hollywood in the 60's.
It was a liberal place, at a liberal time.
To accurately examine this case... we must view the folks who frequented Cielo Drive (and "the times"), through a lense of reality.
Frykowski and Polanski were living questionable lifestyles... and consequently, they were probably interfacing with unsavory characters (at least, at times).
I also believe Sebring's behavior is somewhat questionable (in some respects), as well.
My assertions are underscored, by Polanski's lie detector test (see below).
During Polanksi's lie detector test, he points the finger at Frykowski and Sebring:
**He states (paraphrasing):
"Frykowski had been sniffing cocaine for at least two years".
**He also states (paraphrasing):
"If I had gotten rid of Frykowski, Sharon would still be alive".
**He also states (paraphrasing):
"Sebring had taken some kind of a (pause)... 'drug delivery job‘, or something".
**He also states (paraphrasing):
"Sebring was affluent by outward appearances, but he owed a large sum of money to his dentist. He may have been struggling financially“.
**During the lie detector test, Polanksi also admits to "f#cking" two airline stewardesses within 48 hours of Sharon's death. (Bear in mind... Sharon was carrying his unborn child, when she was brutally murdered).
**You can add the sodomy of Samantha Geimer to Polanski's character resume', as well.
She was thirteen years old.
**Also worth considering:
Folger's "association" with Frykowski, doesn't speak well of her judgement.
By most accounts, Voytek was a moocher, deadbeat, and drug user.
One has to wonder:
Just how "deeply" did Folger allow herself to get involved with Voytek (and his "activities")?
Up to her eyeballs maybe?
According to you (Katie)... Abigail told her therapist several times, that she regretted her involvement, with Voytek.
She communicated her regret several times.
That speaks volumes.
It seems to me, she was "in over her head".... and she wanted "OUT".
That Aside...
Is it completely far-fetched to assume, that Folger MAY HAVE lent Voytek money to finance his drug habit?
C'mon Katie... it's not only possible... it's probable.
How could Folger remain completely unaware of Voytek's drug use?
Was she living under a rock?
And furthermore... where else would Frykowski get money for drugs???
Bottom line:
This was Hollywood in the 60's.
At that place and time… things were wild.
To believe that every person associated with Cielo Drive was living completely beyond reproach, and could never be associated with any unsavory characters at any time, is tremendously naive.
People don't buy drugs from Nuns.
('Course… you could probably buy drugs from nuns too... in 1969 Hollywood)
For the record:
Let's not forget, Sharon and Jay traipsing around in their underwear… while Jay drank beer.
We have Sebring in a pair of “grape-smugglers‘ with his sausage clearly visible… and a very pregnant Sharon, sporting cotton panties.
Tell me that situation wasn't a bit "left of center". LOL
Alright... I know it's hot in California... but, c'mon... is it necessary to display your Johnson to a friend's pregnant wife? Ever heard of swim trunks dude? LOL
They give new meaning to the word "Godfather" in California.
Well... maybe if you throw-in a few Eddie Haskell's. LOL
I'm simply saying, that SOME of these folks MAY HAVE "associated with", and consequently "pissed off", some unsavory characters (such as drug dealers).
If you party with drugs, you associate with drug dealers.
It's a direct correlation.
Never rule-out anything, until the fat lady sings.
This case isn't closed, until it's solved.
And until such time... everyone has clues to offer... even the victims.
Peace... LS
116 comments:
I like Katie, she is a good person and I consider her a cyber friend.
To paraphrase what Mr Lynyrd is pointing out, the old saying is like a parachute, a mind only works well when open. Keep your chute or mind closed, you will come to a quick conclusion.
It could be that in addition to drugs a lot of these factors were in play to some extent, Charlie very well could have bitterness towards Melcher, Wilson, et al. Of course, he had their actual addresses so it's hard to figure why taking out the LaBianca's would 'splain that one. Then we are told it is Helter Skelter as a race war. Charlie did talk a bit about race for sure. Problem there is that instead of keeping the killing going to actually get a race war going this so-called-race-war-starting-committed -tribe books off to the desert after just the second day of 'terror.' Even crazy Charlie would know that to get a race war going you would need more than a half dozen dead bodies. Caliifornia alone had just had a real race riot with the Watts uprising which led to six days of hell and 34 deaths. And that had a helluva lot more impact than a half dozen murders over a two day period.
My question is why did Rosemary LaBianca, a woman who came up the hard way, have such a reaction to the deaths up at Cielo? Living in California -especially LA- the papers were full of horrible deaths on a regular basis. Anyone think she had such reactions to those killings?
Great Thread Lynyrd. And yes, my mind is open but not so open that my brains don't roll out! LOL
Great post L/S!! Excellent points all around here...
I totally agree nothing can be ruled out for sure until we know the truth for sure...
I am not going to float anymore possible motives for now. In this case- absolutely- the more I have learned tells me the less I know lol There are so many things which start to make sense and then,regardless of which theory your are tracing, something comes up which makes no sense... But that happens for every theory and one of them has to be right no???
When/If we do find out the truth- I have a feeling there will be a few things which still don't fit in and make us slap out heads in frustration that we couldn't work through them, or see the connections...
But I still have to wonder if it is more than coincidence that all three of the home intrusions were perpetrated in the same style....
Hinman/Tate/Labianca
1 guy and several girls go in and tie up victims and then murder them. Write in blood on walls, and leave without taking anything of major value....
Does that fact that they all happened the same way- mean only that they used similar tactics, or that, maybe, they had similar purposes??
Or does it mean nothing at all???
My mind is open :)
Great post Lynyrd!
I think I've been saying all along we need to keep an "open mind"...but that's just my opinion..lol..
I read something interesting this morning to add to discussion--it is posted on the Nikolas Schreck (Official) Facebook page:
MANSON FILINGS: An Occasional Series of Updates to Nikolas Schreck's Book The Manson File: Myth & Reality of an Outlaw Shaman
A Personal Message from Nikolas Posted At His Request -
Putting a Face to the Name of One of the Tate-LaBianca Saga's Most Mysterious Figures
''Readers of my book will recall the name Charlene McCaffrey. On April 13, 1969, McCaffrey, the receptionist at Jay Sebring's celebrity hair salon/drug dealing business was robbed at gunpoint by drug dealer Tex Watson along with her lover Joel Rostau. Rostau was Sebring's drug supplier and connection to the Genovese crime family. Watson tied McCaffrey to Rostau before stealing their drugs. The exact same method of operation he would use on August 8/9 1969 when he robbed drugs from Jay Sebring who was tied to Sharon Tate. Watson even used the same gun to commit both crimes. After the Cielo Drive murders, Charlene McCaffrey reported to the LAPD that her boyfriend Rostau had delivered a large quantity of drugs to Sebring at the Tate residence earlier on the night of the slayings, which my later research confirmed. I tried but was unable to track down any photo of McCaffrey, including an unsuccessful effort to secure her mug shot from 1969 from the LAPD, who were very uncooperative. Now my friend and ace researcher Gina Watkins-Judd, who was inspired by reading my book to dig further, has discovered that under another name, Charlene McCaffrey enjoyed a fairly high profile career in the film industry. Gina also tracked down some images of Charlene McCaffrey from various Hollywood productions. So that my readers can place a face to the name of this key player in the Cielo Drive case, here's McCaffrey as she looked in 1975 appearing on the TV crime series The Streets of San Francisco. Is it an in joke or a coincidence that McCaffrey was cast as a receptionist, the real-life role hip Hollywood knew her to play? My appreciation to Gina for sharing her research with us."
You can see the post and photo here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=495622777158906&set=a.397619000292618.92078.397565613631290&type=1&theater
Thanks Johnny. You’re a good friend! :)
First of all, I didn’t say Folger wasn’t buying drugs for Frykowski’s drug use. What I said was, I doubted that she was funding his new “job” as a drug dealer. She was buying drugs for her AND Frykowski to take. According to her psychiatrist, she was close to dumping him. In fact she indicated that when they left Cielo Drive she was going to head back to San Francisco and leave Frykowski to mooch off someone else. As to her bad decision to even be with Frykowski, she wasn’t the first woman, nor the last, to fall for a “bad boy”. But that stuff was getting old really quick.
Okay, opening my mind for a bit, if the hit on Cielo Drive was due to some type of drug burn, who burned who? And who ordered it? Charlie or Tex? If Tex ordered it, why would Charlie tell the girls to “go with Tex and do what Tex tells you”? And who was the target? Everyone there?
Why kill Steve Parent? Why not just let him drive off and then come out of the bushes? I guess my point is, does it make more sense to kill everyone there for revenge against one person, or does it make more sense to kill everyone there because of some type of jealous rage?
As I said before, I know that Charlie knew Melcher didn’t live there, but I really think that house represented rejection to him. And anyone who was enjoying that house just represented a clique of certain people that would never invite Charlie into their world.
Hi Kimchi! Thanks for the info!
On April 13, 1969, McCaffrey, the receptionist at Jay Sebring's celebrity hair salon/drug dealing business was robbed at gunpoint by drug dealer Tex Watson
Do you know if there is any police report on that, that we can read?
So she was arrested in 1969? Do you know what for?
BTW, I also find that picture of Jay in his "tidy whities" repulsive. I'm hoping that Ms. Chapman didn't have to get a glimpse of "Mr. Johnson". LOL.
Well, you know I'm jumping into this one. First of all, Jay was wearing speedo swimming trunks. They were quite popular at that time. As far as him wearing them in front of Sharon, let's be honest, she'd seen what was under there so was this really so revealing? Plus, these were private photos that would've ended up in someone's photo album if not for the murders. If he'd known that we'd all be looking at these pix, maybe he wouldn't have worn something quite as revealing. However, I'm NOT complaining. I enjoy the view! LOL
I'm really torn on the motive. Manson clearly knew that Melcher had moved so if he was after him, why not find him? From all accounts, he'd been to the beach house where Melcher was living as a telescope disappeared from there. I think it's possible he might've been trying to put a scare into Hollywood since he supposedly knew so many famous people. I also think it's possible that Frykowski was a big target. Was he trying to do something to earn some big $ so he could stop mooching off Abigail? Was he trying to do this to start his own business? Would Abigail have really left him? I also think (along with Katie) that her trip to San Francisco might've been the end of her relationship with him. Her psychiatrist said she was trying to leave him. She was going there to celebrate her birthday. Why wasn't he going with her? You'd think she would've wanted her boyfriend there. Had either of her parents ever met him? Did she know that they wouldn't approve of him?
This sounds like the end of a soap opera episode....for the answer to these and many other questions, stay tuned for another episode of....
I always thought it was weird how Roman seemed to thrown Frykowski and Sebring under the bus. He was supposedly such good friends with both of them.
How could he claim to know that Jay owed money to his dentist? Did he handle Jay's $? I think not. Dentists have never been cheap. Maybe Jay had lots of work done and was paying in installments? That had nothing to do with this anyway, unless I'm really missing something.
A little off topic, but I really want to understand why Charlie went to the LaBiancas. If you remember my last post in the last thread, Charlie claimed he never tied them up and thought he was going into an empty house. If he thought the house was empty wouldnt he say something to Tex? And in the Diane Sawyer he said he entered the house, pet the dogs and told the others "See ya later." Why did he even bother coming with them?
Venus said: However, I'm NOT complaining. I enjoy the view! LOL
HA HA HA HA!!! :)
Hi Lauren. The problem with Charlie is that he tells lies.
He also said in the Diane Sawyer interview that he wanted to "show them how to do it" because they were too sloppy the night before.
Venus said: I always thought it was weird how Roman seemed to thrown Frykowski and Sebring under the bus. He was supposedly such good friends with both of them.
So true Venus. Roman was/probably still is a weaselly little ferret-faced two-timing backstabber. I don't see for the life of me what Sharon saw in him.
As far as Jay owing money to the dentist, so what? So he found a dentist who would let him make installments? Good for him. When I go to the dentist they want their pay before I walk out the door.
katie8753 said...
So true Venus. Roman was/probably still is a weaselly little ferret-faced two-timing backstabber. I don't see for the life of me what Sharon saw in him.
-----------------------------
I think she used him to further her career.
By the way, Jay was hanging some serious pipe. lol
Doc! I'm glad you're back! :)
Thanks Katie. It's good to be back. Please take a good long hit off the peace pipe. I already have and I have to say, man I have the munchies.
Well Doc, if you have the munchies, make sure you don't double dip a chip! Glad to have you back in the fold. And the peace pipe has definitely been smoked. :)
The large amount of money that Sebring owed his dentist may not have been for dental work. In that time period, dentists sometimes used pharmaceutical cocaine in their practice. There was at least one dentist in the LA area that was dealing pharmaceutical cocaine. In the late sixties, Gram Parsons had access to a dentist that was dealing this almost pure form of cocaine. Gram's buddy Keef Richards once famously said "Gram Parsons gets better Coke than the Mafia"....
Jeff!
You ROCK!
Roman burns me up. He had suspicions about Voytek yet let him and Abigail live with his pregnant wife while he was fooling around in London.
I don't know if I believe Roman about Jay owing a lot of money to his dentist. I just had a ton of dental work and owe a LOT of money to my dentist. I would think if I were rich and famous like Jay, I would have no problem paying my dentist. Was Jay really in such dire financial straits? Venus?
CarolMR said...
Was Jay really in such dire financial straits? Venus?
--------------------------------
Cocaine went for $2000 an ounce back then. What would that be in today's money? Maybe 6 or 7 grand but that's a guess on my part. I've known some wealthy coke heads in my time and an ounce wouldn't last them a month. Quite an expensive habit, especially back then.
Thanks, Doc, for the explanation.
Actually Doc, 2k back then is closer to 12k today. which is a heckuva lot of cocaine. More than one would need for personal use.
JeffreyJef, that is a great point about the dentist.
Carol, I think it said in the police report that Jay was in financial trouble. At least, I've read that somewhere, can't remember exactly where offhand.
Doc & Johnny are right, the cost of the drugs was probably eating into his capital. But this is also a good argument against his SELLING drugs. If he was selling, he wasn't very good at it. I personally think he was just taking, and evidently giving it away.
Also, he was spending a lot of money at the time to expand his operations to San Francisco and beyond. So take the drug purchases & the expansion efforts, and you can probably see why Sebring was "underwater" on his finances. I'm sure that he had high hopes of turning that table in his future, but unfortunately, he didn't have one.
One thing we have to remember about murder victims. They didn't expect or intend for their lives to end abruptly. They had expectations of living and reversing any financial problems with future business endeavors.
I think that Jay was thinking that by growing his business, his capital would increase. Just my opinion of course.
I'll also add that I think it was despicable for Roman to point any fingers at Jay Sebring for the cause of these murders.
It stinks of jealousy.
Selling Drugs is the best way to get them for free if you do it right or at a greatly reduced price.
The problem can be if you're bad at it you end up much deeper in debt than when you started.
With coke back then you could end up in very deep water quickly.
matt prokes said...
Selling Drugs is the best way to get them for free if you do it right or at a greatly reduced price.
The problem can be if you're bad at it you end up much deeper in debt than when you started.
With coke back then you could end up in very deep water quickly.
May 6, 2013 at 11:31 PM
----------------------------------
I've know a drug dealer or two and most of them become their own very best customer. The few successful dealers I've known ALL ended up in prison. Not many win in the drug game.
doc speaks the truth about dealers becoming their own best customers and ending up in prison.
Like anything else in life it the individual who makes the difference. Greed is usually the reason so many end up in trouble.
Greed.
But whatever the case-again- There is a system of law to handle those who break them. God help us all when the time comes we send out hippie vigilantes with knives to keep people on the up and up...
Like it was said on this post earlier- for people who went to Cielo over drugs- they didn't take any drugs...
Gary was a drug dealer- but they found no drug making equipment or drugs??
Cielo was over a drug burn, but there is no proof after 40 years of any of them knowing each other, and they left drugs at the house??
Cielo was retaliation towards Melcher but Charlie knew he was no longer there??
Waverly was over drugs?? There is still not a thing to back that up
I have never heard anything but rumors to support this???
But I have read at least half a dozen of the people who were involved with the family and/or living with the family talk about H/S....
So why is that always the one we rule out first again????
I remember now- cause it came from Bugs...
we choose to believe every hippy, and/or hanger on who ever came across anyone in the family. We put together our own theories and ideas from reading testimony and accounts which may or may not be true from 2'nd and 3'rd hand sources. We take the words of people who were only peripherally involved or had their own motivations for telling stories. We listen to Schrek and Terry and Sanders spin the tales of Satanism, and underground sex tapes and that is all perfectly believable to us...
But we cant trust a Guy who took the very worst paying job you can get out of law school to work for the state. He made a few character mistakes later in life so he couldn't possibly have done a good job prosecuting murderers? We wont listen to someone who spoke with the relevant people involved and studied the crime scenes and investigated the locations- when the trail was still semi-fresh. He spoke with everyone who was hands on and in place at the time....
I mean there is a small chance that all he did was repeat exactly what he heard and reported exactly what he found, and we just cant wrap our minds around it because it is just to weird...
I have personally watched tapes and interviews with a dozen people who talked about H/S- seen it painted on the refrigerator at a victims house and painted n a wall at the ranch. The family was using this term...
No doubt about that!
We keep trying to make sense of it, so we can understand...
"No sense makes sense"
isn't that what they said????
maybe we will never understand or find the real motive- because we already have it. Maybe we have had it all along. I am not a believer in the H/S theory really- but I also don't understand why this is the first one we write off?? Bugs hit the lottery. It happens. The guy had people who weren't trying to defend themselves in any serious way. He had a guy in Charlie who was playing right into his hands. I could have prosecuted that case and won. The story was going to be a best seller anyway- they were putting out books while the trial was still going on. Why would he need to lie? He had it all right there for the taking...
Tex,Brooks,Juan,LULU,Katie,Diane, Watkins,Jackobson,Wilson...
all lairs? I have read/heard all of them talk about H/S....
Who was Marica Clarke or Chris Darden before OJ? They both worth books and made millions as well. Whoever was assigned the case would have been a human being who made some mistakes in life. We all do. does that mean we aren't capable of doing our jobs and being efficient in the work place??
Bugs book sold so well for two reasons. First- the story is bizarre. But second- he did a really good job of laying out the facts... All those other books we look to for other ideas did not sell as well. Why? Maybe- just maybe- because we understand that the other books are based on speculation and Bugs did the best job of lying out the facts as they were known???
just wondering...
Thanks St. I agree 100%! :)
I certainly agree with one part of this post, the Manson family was not the Cleaver family.
Trying to figure out "why" people do things that other people consider abhorrent is an inexact science at best. That's one reason why I don't spend much time trying to figure out motives in this case. There is no "rule" that mass murderers need to have a single motive to explain all their crimes. People like that can be angry at one person one day, kill them for a particular reason that's makes perfectly good sense to them, and do the same thing the next day to a different person (or people) for a completely different reason.
The Manson family had no qualms about committing crimes whatever, in fact they often committed crimes for no apparent reason at all, for instance, home invasions in which nothing was stolen. There is no reason at all to do that unless they were "training" for future, more violent home invasions.
My personal opinion is the Manson family was a "criminal enterprise" with mass murder only being a part of their activities. They stole cars, stole credit cards, utilized threats and intimidation, attempted and probably extorted money, and probably many more crimes. Committing murder for these people was little less mundane for these people than going to the store and buying a loaf of bread for most people.
Each murder scene involved in the Manson case could have been for a completely different reason, or a combination of reasons, or for no reason at all. People that do the things they did, don't need any reason.
Sunset- you have some strong ideas about this subject... I like them alot
I have no idea what the motive was or was not...
but let me float my last thought on this subject for the time being-
In my opinion- if Charlie was calling the shots and they were doing murder for him. Wouldn't he send the strongest? The Men? The only murder we know for sure Charlie instigated was Shorty, and sure enough it was the guys who went and did it. Like you would assume he would do- send the strongest most loyal men to exact his vengeance or anger or whatever...
in all 3 of the other murders (Hinman/Cielo/Waverly)- it was the same. 1 guy with several women. Not what you would expect...
even the murder which did not happen the second night- he left two women with one male to go into the house ( Clem/Sadie/Linda)
They knew they had Shorty alone and close to the ranch, and still he sent three guys. Everywhere else- it was the same- mostly girls.
that just never made sense to me??
not that much of it does...
At present I am tending towards the theory that the answer lies within the relationships between those involved in the killings and Manson.
Paul Watkins in his book mentions that Tex was not able to be a full member of the family because of his sexual hangups (failing to embrace the orgy scene).
Take a look at Tex's sketch map of Spahn, it shows the two places he lived in tents away from the family.
Atkins had a difficult relationship within the group.
Krenwinkel I find most of interest because she was something like the third or fourth girl to sign up back in 1967. In the Emmons book she is described as his quickest and easiest convert. Perhaps the answer lies with her. She may have been the "safe pair of hands" sent along with the ones who were flawed.
Apparently she took the longest to get over the family (late 1970s, she kept the photo of Manson in her cell for the longest).
Anyhow, perhaps Cielo Drive chosen literally because Tex knew the house.
Those sent had the most to prove to the group. Kasabian literally just along as a driver.
Brunner and Goode in jail. Fromme incapable emotionally. Perhaps Pitman too valuable to risk. Lake and Moorehouse just kids. Van Houten sent the second night because she wouldn't submit to Manson's whole world view.
I am always intrigued that none of the originally family killed a single policeman in a single shootout (pre-1971). Even in Oct 69 all of them gave up without firing a single shot.
August 16 69, all of them gave up. For a paranoid anti-establishment group armed to fight the police,not one of them fought back against the Man.
For all the revolutionary talk, not one of them ever pulled a gun. So I can't agree with the revolutionary angle.
So I do lean towards it being more about personalities and relationships within the group.
At present I am tending towards the theory that the answer lies within the relationships between those involved in the killings and Manson.
Paul Watkins in his book mentions that Tex was not able to be a full member of the family because of his sexual hangups (failing to embrace the orgy scene).
Take a look at Tex's sketch map of Spahn, it shows the two places he lived in tents away from the family.
Atkins had a difficult relationship within the group.
Krenwinkel I find most of interest because she was something like the third or fourth girl to sign up back in 1967. In the Emmons book she is described as his quickest and easiest convert. Perhaps the answer lies with her. She may have been the "safe pair of hands" sent along with the ones who were flawed.
Apparently she took the longest to get over the family (late 1970s, she kept the photo of Manson in her cell for the longest).
Anyhow, perhaps Cielo Drive chosen literally because Tex knew the house.
Those sent had the most to prove to the group. Kasabian literally just along as a driver.
Brunner and Goode in jail. Fromme incapable emotionally. Perhaps Pitman too valuable to risk. Lake and Moorehouse just kids. Van Houten sent the second night because she wouldn't submit to Manson's whole world view.
I am always intrigued that none of the originally family killed a single policeman in a single shootout (pre-1971). Even in Oct 69 all of them gave up without firing a single shot.
August 16 69, all of them gave up. For a paranoid anti-establishment group armed to fight the police,not one of them fought back against the Man.
For all the revolutionary talk, not one of them ever pulled a gun. So I can't agree with the revolutionary angle.
So I do lean towards it being more about personalities and relationships within the group.
Thanks for your input Chris.
Katie, you summed it up VERY well with this post:
Also, he was spending a lot of money at the time to expand his operations to San Francisco and beyond. So take the drug purchases & the expansion efforts, and you can probably see why Sebring was "underwater" on his finances. I'm sure that he had high hopes of turning that table in his future, but unfortunately, he didn't have one.
One thing we have to remember about murder victims. They didn't expect or intend for their lives to end abruptly. They had expectations of living and reversing any financial problems with future business endeavors.
I think that Jay was thinking that by growing his business, his capital would increase. Just my opinion of course.
May 6, 2013 at 8:25 PM
katie8753 said...
I'll also add that I think it was despicable for Roman to point any fingers at Jay Sebring for the cause of these murders.
It stinks of jealousy.
Now, my 2 cents.....in 1963, Jay charged $25 for the 1st haircut and $15 for further haircuts. He was also paying his staff of 9 assistants, 2 manicurists, a shampoo guy, 1 desk man, 1 porter and 1 parking lot attendant, not to mention paying for the building, utilities and so on. It takes a lot to get a business going. His was clearly a sucess, but he had a vision to expand and was probably putting all his extra income into that. I don't think the guy would be dumb enough to be a drug dealer, I do NOT buy that at all. Why would he jeopardize what he'd worked for?
Allow me to introduce my friend "Chris" (our newest author) to the group.
I'm sure most of you, have read his in-depth threads.
It's great to see Chris participating in the comments section.
Although Chris and I have communicated off-blog for quite some time (and he's contributed several threads)... this is his opening debut, in the comments section.
Please join me, in welcoming Chris.
I'm sure he will prove to be a helpful and informative asset here.
Don't mind that crazy lady (Venus), who just snuck a comment in, while I was completing my thought.
LOL!
Just teasin' ya Venus!
Chris! Great to see you. Good comments! :)
Venus, I concur! It does take a lot of money to run a business, especially when you expand it to another city. More overhead, employees' salaries, travel expenses, etc., etc. It's not like Jay was just sitting around snorting coke and waiting for the money train to roll in.
Crazy lady Venus, can I change my usdername and use that? LOLOL
Hey Chris! Welcome!
Great to read your stuff Chris!!
And another thing that burns me up about Roman's comments about Voytek & Jay, and his "if only I'd done this" crap, what about his sorry ass not coming home when he was supposed to?
He claims he had to stay in England and re-write a script.
They don't have typewriters in California??
And he thought he was soooooo great when he went along with renting Cielo Drive because he could "have his office above the garage". He never even used it that I know of.
No, he wanted to stick around in England so he could do the horizontal mamba with every bimbo in town.
Pathetic.
Right you are, Katie. He wasn't home because he didn't want to be there. Period.
He said that he told Sharon on Fri. that he'd be home in a few days because he could just as easily work on the film script in LA. Uh, he just realized that? I have my doubts that he really said that to her.
If not for the murders, who knows when he'd have returned? She supposedly had told him that she had a party planned for his birthday on the 18th and asked if he'd be home by then. Would she really have been planning a party? That's supposedly when the baby was due, I find it unlikely.
You're right Venus. I hate to say this, but I wonder if he would have had more lame excuses not to come to LA even if the baby had been born.
I don't think he was that interested in the baby, and he made the comment that he didn't like America, he preferred to live in Europe.
That crazy lady, who evidently likes the contour of Sebring's "member".
LMAO!
Speedos... LOL!
I'd love to join that Sebring club, the members are awesome! hahahaha
Chris, I also wanted to mention that you have evidently invested countless hours researching and putting together some REALLY good threads!
Much appreciated! :)
Hi Chris!
Love your threads, I know you put a lot of time into them, they are great reference material...and glad to see you are posting and your point of view!
I don't post often, now only to share things I've learned that are "new" to "me"...which really isn't saying much even though this case is over 40 years old..
But...I did learn a few things today... I took the time (over 1 1/2 hours) and listened to the Kanarek interview that Cats did quite a while ago...
For being 80 or 90 years old, he's still very lucid...amazing compared to my parents/inlaws...
Before he was an attorney he was an engineer and worked for Rocketdyne, in all places---the famous facility behind Spahn Ranch in Simi Valley, notorious for releasing all the cancer causing chemicals in the '50s...
He answered all her questions, how Charlie retained him, the Onion Field trial, the Bill Farr thing, Virginia Graham, etc., etc...
According to him, on August 9th, while driving around, Linda Kasabian guided Charlie to Harold True's house, she wanted to buy some drugs (I can't remember what kind)and didn't know he had moved, guess she had bought them from him before (that was implied) that's how they were guided to the Waverly house...
Mr. Kanarak would not say one way or the other what he felt about Charlie's involvement, if he felt he was guilty) he just kept saying "Attorney-client, he retained me, I'm not going to comment"...
He also mentioned that Charlie had a sponsor, I guess the person that paid him, but would not talk about it or who they were.
By the way, he had no harsh words about anyone, except he was not happy that Bugliosi didn't go more into the Bill Farr thing and how he (Bugliosi) was indicted and then cut loose in the matter (in the Helter Skelter book).
If you have time or care to listen to the whole thing, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZeq4Ti5x3U
Thanks Kimchi!
According to him, on August 9th, while driving around, Linda Kasabian guided Charlie to Harold True's house, she wanted to buy some drugs (I can't remember what kind)and didn't know he had moved, guess she had bought them from him before (that was implied) that's how they were guided to the Waverly house...
I wonder where he got that information? Hmmmm....
If there's one thing I've learned about trial lawyers, is that they will say ANYTHING to get their client off. Whether they're guilty or not.
Hey Katie :)
I see a verdict is in in the trial you have been following...
Would innocent be a bigger shock than Casey A ????
It would be to me...
This is another one who needs to pay...
Yeah St. They're announcing the verdict at 3:30pm Central Time. I'll be watching. I can't imagine they would acquit her. She admits killing him.
But as you say, stranger juries have prevailed. I guess we'll see....
Jodi Arias was found guilty of premeditated and felony first degree murder. YEAH!!
;)
Katie you must be jumping for joy! Celebrate tonight!
Seriously, the bitch was nuts. Looks like a jury did convict you, you crazy bitch. Haha she was crying like a bitch, she went in complete shock when they read the verdict.
When was Jodi crying? Her nose turned a bit red but I didn't see one tear. I'll be she's boo-hooing in her cell right now.
I deleted the previous post because it double posted for some reason and the posts were 5 minutes apart. Strange.
Venus, check the video:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/justice/arizona-jodi-arias-verdict/index.html?hpt=us_c2
You see a tear run down her face.
Okay I'm gonna get on my "Jodi soapbox". LOL.
I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jodi thought she would come into the courtroom and hear the words "not guilty", have the leg shackles removed and she would be on her merry way. This bitch has no relationship with reality. If you'll notice, when the word "guilty" was read, it took a second or two to register with her.
I really think she believes her own lies and fantasies.
I'm so glad this jury saw through her crap and voted guilty. Jodi is a dangerous person.
Now, she will either get the death penalty, life in prison without parole, or life with the possibility of parole. I personally think it will be either the death penalty or life without parole.
Either way is fine with me. If she got away with this murder, she would definitely do it again.
BTW, I'm watching the continuing coverage of this on HLN, and they said that after Jodi left the courtroom, and wasn't on camera anymore, she had it out with her lawyers.
The next phase is to determine if the murder was extremely cruel, and they advised her to look contrite or remorseful, and she's screaming at them that this is all their fault.
Also, during this 4+ month trial, Jodi has never even looked at her family, who has been in the courtroom the whole time.
The jury saw all this.....
Lauren, I couldn't get the video to work, but I'll take your word for it about the tear!
Katie, let's HOPE she gets a good sentence!
Well, Jodi just went on local TV and made a comment that she hopes the jury gives her the death penalty because her family has longevity.
It's opposite day!!! LOL.
Was that a current comment or something that she'd said previously? I remember that she'd said that "if" she did kill him, she'd want the death penalty. Hey, Arizona, grant her wish!
Venus, this was a comment right after the guilty verdict.
If you've ever been involved in any kind of suit, your attorneys tell you to "keep your mouth shut" throughout the proceedings, until done is done.
This bitch has to sing at every opportunity, which has been her downfall, which is good. She can't keep her mouth shut, because it's all about her.
She's been threatening suicide since she was like 15 years old. But it's all bluff talk obviously since she's still taking up our air space.
This is just another bluff, which will backfire on her, because she's not that good at it.
She can read all the "self help books" that her psycho-babble friend/expert sends her, but it's not gonna dig her outta this hole.
Mark my words, when she's given the death penalty she's gonna go haywire. LOL.
One more thing....I will sleep like a l-i-t-t-l-e b-a-b-y tonight, knowing that Jodi will not prevail, even if she wags her tongue 'til doomsday.
She's not afraid to meet God...she doesn't believe in God...nor the Mormon faith. She's just a cross-street liar.
Chew on that. Night ya'll....
Have to admit I had believed that a few ninjas had killed Arias' guy. Still a little stunned at the verdict.
STORMY!!! :)
Night!!!
They finally buried the Boston bomber, what's-his-name. No cemetery in Massachusetts wanted his sorry carcass.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/saga-marathon-suspects-body-drags-19137845#.UYu2bEq4J8E
I say let her rot in jail. Let her be miserable and have to suffer not taking pictures, not getting laid(well consensually), not being able to manipulate men and going through means of exploiting religion(and this is coming from an agnostic) and being able to lie.
Bobby, that's a little TMI. LOL. But SMOOOOCH anyway! :)
that pic too weird what more to say him showing his junk whatever
Okay back to Miss fancy pants.
Well there was supposed to be another phase of the trial to take place today, to determine if the murder was "cruel". It was cancelled and rescheduled for May 15th.
It seems that Miss Odious decided to trash everyone after her guilty verdict. She had an interview with a local news affiliate in Phoenix. Come to find out, she had set this interview up on Sunday, previous to her conviction. I'm sure, in her gray matter, that she was going to be acquited and the interview was going to be all about her "manifesto" and her plans for her future life. When that balloon busted, she kept the interview to trash folks.
She trashed Travis, his family and the DA. Again. She was then moved to a "suicide watch" in a different facility. It's a little cushier but not that much.
What she doesn't realize, as well as the TLB murderers didn't understand, that by getting the world's attention, they also heaped the world's disgust. In other words, she's under lock and key. Escape at this point is useless.
I've followed this case for almost 5 months now and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. I wish someone would just throw that cunt a rope and say "do it". Put us ALL out of our misery. Have a nice life in hell.
B-O-B-B-Y!!!!! Smoooch!
I've always got a smooch for you. Tidy Whities or boxers. :) LOL.
KAtie to be honest I havent followed jodis trial I followed the lorena bobbit day by day I think that took it outta me
Bobby you have been a mainstay on this blog for years. You are SOOOO appreciated. Don't you NEVER forget that! :)
SWAK!!!!!
She goes around saying everyone abused her: Travis abused her, her parents abused her, her cellmate attacked her. She has an excuse for everything.
Candy I didn't follow the Bobbitt trial, although I heard about it.
In time, people will stop following the Arias trial, when it's done. Then she will just be a distant memory, like all the rest. Then she can live every day wondering why people don't care anymore.
She got what she wanted. Now she's like Eleanor Rigby.....
Lauren, right on!!! It's always someone else's fault! Pathetic.
One more thing. The TLB murderers were "all that" during the trials, but afterward, when everyone just forgot about them, and they didn't get out on parole, they just faded away. Just like Jodi will.....
But...Jodi will always be: The 3-Hole Wonder. HA HA HA.
That will be her moniker for the rest of her long/short life. Kirk Nurmi made sure of that. LOL.
Seriously folks, this is the hippo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z1Krfww5eE
Zard back. LOL.
Kirk Nurmi came up with a new word:
Conversating.
It's a new word added to a new dictionary: the Nurishish New World Dictionary. LOL
i had a funny conversation with bill nelson once when he was talking about the picture of sebring and nelson said what a "big" man sebring was. i acted like i didn't know what he was talking about. he probably assumed that i had huge boyfriends and didn't know the difference.
Beauders I guess that old saying about the size of the feet isn't necessarily true. LOL.
I bought a Speedo back in the 80s..... there was significant shrinkage however so thank
God there's no pictures....
Candy, you have to admit that the Lorena Bobbitt trial was quite a handful....
Doc: I was in the pool!! I was in the pool!!
HA HA.
HI DILL!!!!!!!!!!
Well, you know me, I did some Speedo research and that's what Jay was wearing. Google pix of vintage Speedos.
Harold True is almost as nuts as Manson and crew, but he is right about one thing. Everyone was killed at place known by Chucky. That would apply to Cielo, Waverly, Old Topanga Canyon Road (Hinman),the ranch (Shorty) and Venice (Zero).
Lastly, and by the way, if anyone has occasion to speak with the Colonel, kindly tell him for me that there is zero chance here that the LaBianca affair has anything at all to do with the mob. The mob puts a bullet in the brain stem, or Jimmy Hoffa's you. What they don't do is use Manson and crew. If you want to know more of what I mean, mosey on over to Youtube and watch the vids on the mob's one hit man, the "Iceman".
For an almost forgot, for johnny in seattle, forget about Schrek. He's as nuts as Chucky. Watch the Geraldo interview of Manson. The part about Melcher. Hear the anger in Chucky all these years later. Oh, and by the way, one motive need not necessarily exclude another motive, i.e., Helter Skelter and settling a score, two birds with one stone and all that. Here, I'll save you some time, starts just after the 21 minute mark, so 21:00 and on for two minutes or so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSqeZw4NBIM
And that's the closest will ever get to a "confession". To borrow Chucky's own phrasing during the interview, he tries to walk backwards there once he realizes what he just said, or more correctly, after Geraldo makes it plain what he just said...
And so you get a related point, the fact that Chucky saw Sharon there and was chased off by that Japanese photographer fellow, doesn't mean that Chucky knew that she lived there. She might just have been there for some photos.
ResGestae
I've read the book by the Iceman (and yes, it is chilling) but would hesitate to say that there are only certain ways the Mafia would kill someone. You can go through the litany of mob related murders and find some fairly horrific ones. I'll give you an example, syndicate accountant Gus Greenbaum (the man who took over the Flamingo on the night of Bugsy Siegel's demise) would meet his own demise when caught embezzling. Here is how he and his wife were killed:
"His embezzlement was discovered by the Chicago syndicate. On December 3, 1958, Greenbaum and his wife Bess were found dead in their Phoenix home. Their throats had been cut with a butcher knife. Gus was found in bed with a heating pad and his television turned on. He had nearly been decapitated. Bess sustained blunt trauma to her head before her throat was cut. Her head was padded with newspaper and a towel, seemingly to avoid blood stains on the furniture.[1]"
Not the usual 22 to the head or made to disappear, eh?
Obviously a message death, don't cheat the mob.
In terms of Charley being mad at Melcher, I would just point out that Charley knew very well where Melcher lived. Maybe he was sending a message to Melcher but surely even Charley would know that sending that message by killing a pregnant filmstar at Melcher's old digs would bring the heat on Charlie to something akin to the sun. Charlie may be a criminal, he didn't leave his brains behind on Terminal Island.
But I don't disagree about your point on the possibilities of multiple motives being in play.
With deep respect, my I put forth the motion that Robert and Katherine get a room. Anyone second?
by the way, bobby, excellent point elsewhere on BB's hung jury (not off topic since I used the word hung). I still can't fathom it.
Bobby, that was waaaaaay too much info! LOL Talk about skimpy suits.
I was referring to vintage Speedos, there's a pic of George Hamilton and Geraldo Rivera wearing the exact same suit as Jay. Of course I can't find it now, but it's out there somewhere, I saw it.
So, in other words, if it was underwear (which I don't think so) then lots of well-known guys were in public wearing their undies.
ResGestae said...mosey on over to Youtube and watch the vids on the mob's one hit man, the "Iceman".
I've read the Iceman Book by Carlo(I think thats His name)and watched the HBO Videos.
While theres no doubt He was a stone cold Killer I have to wonder if He made up some of that stuff.
Badda Bing!
Happy Mother's Day to all you mothers out there. :)
I'm going to agree with Harold True and Res.
These murders happened at places where Charlie had rejection.
And Harold isn't crazy. He's pretty much nailed down.
Leary said: With deep respect, my I put forth the motion that Robert and Katherine get a room. Anyone second?
Who is that?
Johnny said: Their throats had been cut with a butcher knife. Gus was found in bed with a heating pad and his television turned on. He had nearly been decapitated. Bess sustained blunt trauma to her head before her throat was cut. Her head was padded with newspaper and a towel, seemingly to avoid blood stains on the furniture.
That sounds like a Jodi Arias MO. She stabbed, shot and decapitated. And she wasn't involved in the Mafia...at least not that I know of.
Jodie Arias is a close second to Casey Anthony as people who I don't like..
But I try not to dwell on these things and move on.
Word has it in court that Jodi was involved in witchcraft....
TOM!!!! :)
Believe it or not, I inched my way from Casey, and I will inch my way from Jodi once this cunt is buried in some prison, which will happen.
BTW, Casey could be re-tried in Federal Court because it's now come to light that she searched for "fool proof suffocation". It's not double jeopardy.
Let's see what happens.
I hate that Jodi used the system once again to have her ugly puss on TV and trash Travis and his family, along with other folks.
She had to have her say since the jury basically, by saying guilty of murder one by premeditation, was saying they didn't believe a word she was spitting out during her time on the stand.
But her avenues are getting smaller....
Once this trial is done and they've put her in prison and thrown away the key, she won't have the exposure she so desires that she got from killing another human being. She nuts, and the non-exposure will make her mad.
I think that they should bring back the Guillotine for this execution. And make sure it's a dull blade.
If I were to opine on the nature of good and evil, which I won't do, because what do I really know?
But even so, say I did opine? What would I say?
I'd probably defer to our Catholic teachings, that a moral compass begins to develop in each whole being as a child. That every whole individual has the choice to embrace morality as a path to abundant living or reject it as a block to their pleasures or purposes.
We scrutinize these Manson crimes still. But the crimes today are off the charts in comparison.
But I am not going to say that because what in the Sam Hill would I know?
f I were to opine on the nature of good and evil, which I won't do, because what do I really know?
But even so, say I did opine? What would I say?
Tom, I'm no "body language expert" or a "mind reader", but I do know what kids do.
And every time Jodi was asked a question, whether it be in court, in a clinical interview or a TV interview, she always prefaced the answer with "Ummmmm", followed by a roll of the eyes looking up right to left.
I'm a mother, and as such, have access to children's lies. I know that when you ask a child a direct question, and they hedge by saying "ummmm" and looking around, that they are searching for the perfect lie.
And that's the truth.....And that's what she's been doing for the last 13 years or so. Lying her ass off.
Good or evil? She killed this guy in cold blood, then lied about it for 5 years, then finally admitted it, but trashed the shit out of him, and continues to do so.
Good or Evil? I say Evil.
I rest my case.....
Oh well, here is James Taylor with the Water Is Wide. I love this guy.
Have a nice evening. I can't change the fact that he and Carly broke up. Damn.
Night y'all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opfEk_Yoksk
I decided to delete the asshole comment. It was pretty gross, even for a Manson blog.
We'll let that be Jodi's "dirty little secret". LOL.
katie8753 said...
Oh well, here is James Taylor with the Water Is Wide. I love this guy.
-------------------------------
Love me some James Taylor. I think I still have a copy of Mudslide Slim on vinyl.
Yes Doc, I definitely have Mudslide Slim on vinyl. Good stuff!!!
Hmmm, that grass underneath Sharon's and Jay's feet looks very strong and green to me. I'm surprised that the gardener told Garrettson to water that weekend....
Okay...for Doc... LOL. Sweet Listenin'!!! The whole album!! :)
Night y'all!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SADmPjewrls
Okay...for Doc... LOL. Sweet Listenin'!!! The whole album!! :)
Night y'all!
------------------------
I'll give it a listen tonight.
What about Jugdish?
Sweet Listenin' Doc. I know. I listened to it very many nights in 1971. I had a record player in my room, and my mom allowed me to listen to it on low volume after her bedtime. Which I did....
G'night Jugdish! :)
LOL.
Thanks for the welcomes.
Kimchi, no I haven't heard the Kanarek interview yet.
One of the best missed opportunities throughout the TLB trial is that Kanarek did not get to question Manson on the stand.
On one hand it would now make for a tortuous read, but the thought of 25 days of testimony (at least before Bugliosi got a chance to cross examine).
Manson's statement is a great read, imagine it lasting over three weeks and covering every subject under the sun!
I do consider Manson then as only just becoming the HIstorical FIgure he considers himself today (something Buglios knowinglyi helped to invent). His testimony would have been fascinating.
And always remember that Joan Didion commented that the whole scene, between the 'Beautiful People" an dthe underworld had become menacing. Didion said that a short while before Tate, she had stepped into her hallway and found a total stranger there, a seedy and scary-looking man. She asked him what he wanted and he said nothing for several minutes, just a strange eerie pause, and then "Chicken Delight?"
"No" Didion said, nobody had ordered any and she stood kind of paralysed, waiting…the man turned and left.
It's a weird scene: who was that man and what did he want: Didion seemed to feel that he was a killer.
Shortly after that, they got the Tate news and Didion said that she always remembers and wishes she did not: "that nobody was surprised"…and she italicised this for emphasis. Nobody was surprised.
Why? Just because of the scene in general or specifically the Polanski house scene?
Everyone was kind of blase about it. It had been coming to someone, at least.
Wish I knew what Didion talked about with Linda…she doesnt reveal much.
Always thought Rosemary's reactions were an important point
Plus, the LaBianca house was creepy-crawled.
And the dogs left outside when hey should be inside.
And this was in Helter Skelter! Yet Bug made nothing of the fact that Rosemary reported the creepy-crawling to a friend and the Manson Family admitted doing this kind of thing! It's just abandoned!
Point 2: Why did Abigail wave at Susan? Its always bothered me. According to Susan, she waved twice. According to that musician, was it the guy in Love, when Bobby B showed up at his house, he let Susan crash on the bed and when she came out she was so strung-out and thin and dirty…pure, total methamphetamine looks…that the Love guy was furious and let Bobby know. "That thing has been on my bed"
Now if something that looked like this traipsed through my home in the middle of the night, I wouldn't look up from my book and wave. Twice. What kind of creatures were parading through the Tate house? And why didn't Sharon put a stop to it all?
Does it seem to anyone that Sharon and Voytek/Abigail were leading separate lives? Disconnected lives? Two total drug users going on mega benders, and one clean pregnant girl.
So it's the 60s and things like this happen but it seems weird. Was Sharon clear about what was going on? She doesn't seem to have mentioned it to anyone. Its almost like she didnt know them. Did Sebring come over to keep her company away from them? Would you want a guy like Voytek around if you were pregnant?
And as for Polanski, leaving a pregnant woman with a man he knew by his own admission was into shady business, at a time when Didion said everyone knew these overlapping worlds were sparking serious trouble…how do you leave a woman in that situation?
Oh yes. You crack jokes on your lie detector test, fuck stewardesses before your murdered bride is even cold and then sodomize a child. Why am I even asking?
Post a Comment