At first I thought, "Who better to play that self-proclaimed gangster Charles Manson than perhaps the best gangster actor of all time?"I would have thought DeNiro would have nailed it, but instead he reverts back to acting like an old mafia-like gangster. And I really couldn't figure out who Michelle Pfeiffer was playing, Sandy or Squeaky? Gypsy even perhaps? Why they made Tex into a teenager I'll never know. The portrayal of Leslie Van Houten was right on though.
But don't even get me started on all the facts they have messed up. Even Sanders, that Fug, wasn't as bad as this.
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1204986880/tt2404311?ref_=tt_ov_i
==============================================================
Speaking of Sanders...
200 comments:
I don't think this movie is based on Ed Sanders' book... or the "Manson Family", at all.
According to the credits, this movie is based on a novel named "Malavita" by Tonino Benacquista.
Darn, I was hoping it was the info I am impatiently waiting for....lol
Starship...
I think there's some confusion.
The movie (on this thread) is not related to TLB.
The movie of the same title (i.e., "The Family") which was being discussed on a previous thread, is here:
http://www.slashfilm.com/scott-kosar-write-direct-manson-film-the-family-ryan-kwanten-starring/
http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/10/31/ryan-kwanten-might-play-charles-manson-in-the-family/
(Note: Above links provided by Sunset on the other thread)
Those links suggest that a movie called "The Family" (related to TLB) may be in the works.
The Deniro movie (currently in theaters) is a totally different project... unrelated to TLB.
Hollyweird sure likes to confuse us don't they?
It's a case of two movies, with the same title.
Nearest I can tell, the "Manson-related" film is being written and directed by Scott Kosar... and will star Ryan Kwanten.
I highly doubt that Kosar's movie will ever make the Big screen.
Those links are 3 years old.
So...
How 'bout them Patriots?! LOL
I may have found the theatrical trailer for the film depicted in this post, I don't think it's TLB related, not real sure, not worried about it.
Link HERE. There may be foul language.
Hi Sunset.
It's a different movie with the same title.
Details of this movie (titled "The Family"):
Produced by Martin Scorsese.
Starring Robert Deniro.
Based on Tonino Benacquista’s non-fiction book “Badfellas" (Malavita).
Details of the other movie (also titled "The Family"):
Produced by Scott Kosar.
Starring Ryan Kwanten.
Based on TLB/Manson.
Scorsese's movie is currently in theaters.
Kosar's movie (originally promoted in 2010) will probably never be made.
But again, who knows...
I have to say, TLB aside...
This movie actually looks pretty good.
I LOVE Deniro.
As far as I'm concerned... Deniro and Hanks are the two best actors in Hollywood.
Kerouac is whacked... LOL
Caro-whacked. LOL
Hey Bob!
I think Saint is a Jets fan, actually.
Oh, the horror... LOL
I've been a Baltimore football fan since Johnny Unitas, the Ravens won last year, but the salary cap killed them, don't look like much this year.
Looks like Aaron Hernandez is in a punting situation.
At least I'm not a fan of the Browns.
The Jets kill me- its like they try to suck...
The Yankees have always been my fall back- but age is catching up with them fast....
what are you going do when you raised by a dad named " Mickey" ?
Joe Namath and Mantle were all I heard growing up...
I know Deniro is most well known for his mob movies and I love them all, but I watched Meet the Parents again the other night and no matter how many times I watch it- he makes me laugh my ass off.
He can be funny as hell too...
Not as funny as the "But fumble" Mark Sanchez pulled off though.
or as funny as that hair wire he has on when he does interviews.
What can I say? It is not the golden age for New York Sports teams at the moment...
Ill watch Golf this weekend and hope Mickelson can pull off some magic for me at the tour championship to win the 10 million Fedex bonus...
Cause the J-E-T-s make me want to P- U- K-E
:)
Happy Weekend all!
I remember hiding under the bed when Joe Namath and his Jets beat the Baltimore Colts in Superbowl III, when I was a kid. Bubba Smith, a linebacker for the Colts said, "if we'd played them 100 times, we'd have beat them 99".
Broadway Joe still has a YouTube page and still talks football about his school, Alabama, and the Jets. I've watched his vids for over a year now. His latest one was uploaded 6 days ago, it' HERE.
That's an interesting discussion of the hippie movement. Kerouac is lit but clearly states how the communists overtook the movement which is true but seldom admitted.
Funny Starship!
Thank God for Mary....
Hi Saint,
If it makes you feel any better, I really don't think my Patriots are gonna be very good this year.
I'm predicting a 500 season.
Hopefully, I'll be "pleasantly surprised".
In recent years, I've been mostly into basketball and hockey.
Joe Namath was cool.
He was one of the first athletes, who really embraced television, commercials and marketing.
Much like Ali and Cosell, Namath was on tv all the time, when I was young.
I think he advertised everything from shaving cream to panty hose. LOL
I LOVED the 1976 Oakland Raiders when Madden was the coach.
That team freakin' ROCKED!
Talk about a classic team!
-Ken Stabler
-Fred Biletnikoff
-Cliff Branch
-Dave Casper
-Art Shell
-Gene Upshaw
-Otis Sistrunk
Now, that was REAL football entertainment... and of course, Madden was the bomb!
---------------------------
Then of course, the Steelers were EPIC in the 70's, as well!
-Terry Bradshaw
-Franco Harris
-Rocky Bleier
-Lynn Swann
-John Stallworth
-Jack Lambert
-Joe Greene
More AWESOME football entertainment!
------------------------
Of course... the Dallas Cowboys dominated for many years... and although I LOVED their cheerleaders... I just couldn't stand that team.
Too many HUGE egos.
--------------------
Here's some other classic football teams that definitely provided TONS of entertainment:
Redskins, 49ers, Broncos...and of course... WAY back, was the Packers and Dolphins.
Ditka's Chicago Bears were entertaining as hell. LOL
Who can forget Jim McMann and "The Fridge"? LOL!
"And along came Maryyy..."
Isn't that a song? LOL
MARY!!!!!!
And then ALONG came Mary...
By the association I believe.
Lynyrd, that clip is a hoot. I'm sure Buckley thought of that day as the best day of his life...
Yeah...
Quite a trio to interview!
Ginsberg was in the audience.
Buckley should have brought him on stage too. LOL
The entire "Meet the Parents" series is AWESOME.
I love the car scene, when Deniro is wearing those leather gloves, and talking to "Focker" about "Puff the Magic Dragon"! LMAO!
Best scene ever!
L/S- you forgot the Purple People Easters... Fran Tarkenton
But you got most of the rest of the great temas of the 70's lol
Starship- I got what you were doing :)
Alan Page was cool... #88.
Never cared for the rest of them, too much.
They always went to the Super Bowl, and lost.
Nobody remembers second place. LOL
If Starship was joking, it went right over my head.
Although, I must say... it's comforting to know.
I was getting a little worried, for a minute there. LOL!
I was poised to offer him a much-needed vacation, with severance pay. LOL
Thanks, St. I was trying to be funny in a pithy ironic point of view.
Smart move Bob, nothing so obnoxious as a Boston sports fan. I speak, of course, as one.
Great piece. My favorite entertainment of all time were the Buckley vs Gore Vidal debates.
This one would have been better without Yablonsky. Imagine Janis Joplin between Kerouac and Sanders.
Kerouac was my idol for years - the Patron Saint of Bi-Polar Piety.
It is my belief that there is but ONE book or ONE movie left to be written about The Family and it revolves around a two-part question. First, how did the girls come under the spell of Charlie to the extreme degree that they did (we know a good deal about this but there is more) and then second, how did they individually come out from under the spell. We know almost nothing about the second part.
Stephanie Schram for instance talks very intelligently about the total and complete love she had for Manson and how difficult it was to get over it despite the clear evidence that Charlie had caused the death of innocents. It is an interesting dynamic - loving the devil - and then trying to lose that love. Some of em - Cappy, Sandy etc - seem to never have. We have no idea about Mary, Ruth Ann, Nancy etc. We do know about Gypsy, Pat etc but most of them admitted it took about ten years to get their minds clear.
Charlie was one helluva Rasputin, and that is why we remain students of the story.
For some of them it was probably a necessity to drop all aspects of Charlie because it ostracized their kids. Others were subjected to being driven out of town. Still there were others who required decades in prison to wake up.
As Charlie sits in his cell....Mother Nature weeps
That's heavy Louis.
Interestingly, I found the entire movie "The Family" depicted in this post online. The link is HERE.
It may not work for everyone depending on your browser settings. Also, that website is have some issues right now, you may have to reload it several times to get it to play.
Having read the Prison Journey of LULU and being made aware of the entire post incarceration story of the 3 girls locked up, as well as all of their parole hearing transcripts from the time they started having them- my qualified opinion of how they eventually got off Charlie is very simple...
with time they grew up and matured, and realized how silly and bad the entire situation really was.
Took longer for Pat than the other two- and the ones on the outside probably took even longer as they were still partying- but all of them got to an age or point where they wanted to have some kind of normal life- and they realized over time that what they were doing with Charlie was not normal.
Also in my opinion :)
to insinuate that there had to be more as to why they got under him in the first place is to go back to the secret power/mind control garbage...
They were turned on by the boys - they were turned on by the excitement, they were turned on by the drugs, they had very few options, and they were longing for sense of family.
Charlie provided these things, and it really was as simple as that.
Like the "secret motive" some insist is out there- I, personally, don't need to make this story any more terrific than it already is.
Tex, Katie, Sadie, TJ, all left the ranch at one time or another ( granted only to return) so even the most die hard of them had moments of clarity where they knew they were living the wrong way...
but to a teenager- friends and parties and rebellion are the highlight of life.
and not just for them but
for all of us when we are that age... and, like them, we all grew out of it at some point.
I bet you that if you asked every former memory of the family to describe there feelings about the entire period of their lives you would get one word from 90% of them...
EMBARASSED
life happens and people grow, and go through phases and changes and there is no magic to that other than the magic it holds within itself....
( wow I like that quote and as far as I know its a Saint C original)
that's my two cents :)
Saint C are you saying they grew up and saw the light and all became republicans? I don't think so.
I remember being shocked in 1975 when I heard Squeaky tried to take out Pres Ford. Five years had passed yet she was still full of Charlie.
Nancy Pitman got on that Monfort binge and did prison.
Decarlo and Cooper were thieves for years afterwards.
Gypsy also did prison and was a scam artist long after Charlie.
Sandra Good never woke up.
If Charlie weren't in prison I think they'd all still be gang fucking each other and stealing cars. This is the Manson Family we are talking about not the Bowery boys. They were all murdering Leftist militant hippie scum. Those types never seem to join the human race in totale.
BTW I think Buckley made a good point about hippiedom not really being the result of the Viet Nam war backlash. Kerouac made the point that hippiedom became communism. Only Sanders tried to put forward a good face for hippiedom.
Im saying at some point- and they all got there at different times- they grew up and got over Charlie...
Everyone you named eventually did the same.
None of them were Saints in the first place- Decarlo being a life long scumbag would have happened anyway.
But as far as preaching the gospel of Charlie and his ideas- at some point every single one of them grew out of it.
the last time I saw press try to talk to Squeaky in New York- she only wanted to be left alone. Where aren't any of them speaking out today about Charlie??
Plenty of forums to do so.
Only Star and greywolf...
NOT anyone who was there
Not saying they all grew up and became productive, responsible adults- just saying they outgrew the phase in life which would allow a guy like Charlie to influence them or lead them around...
but maybe I am wrong-
wouldn't be the first time. just my opinion.
I have heard for a long time some of them read these blogs. Why do none of them identify themselves or step out and argue for Charlie??
because with age comes wisdom, and they all know how ridiculous they looked back then.
again- if you ask me- I bet you that 90% of them feel more shame than guilt...
Last thought-
not to belabor this point- but if you read all the parole hearing transcripts over all the years you can literally watch them evolve as people...
and in almost all cases before they realized they had to start saying they should not have hurt anyone, and taking responsibility for that-
The first admission they were willing to make when they snapped out of it- and again all at different times- was that they should have known better.
Took them all a different amount of years to fully admit to their participation, and some would argue a few still haven't...
But go read the transcripts-
Over and over they rattle on about how they should have known better...
much more about how stupid they were and remorse for screwing themselves- than compassion for the victims or the families of those they hurt.
Instead of one time saying that I killed and I should pay- it is always I was young and stupid and people should understand I got hoodwinked...
I have no doubt they have regrets- but about what?
when asked at a Parole hearing once to whom she felt she did the most harm- Pat answered herself.
She is generally considered the most remorseful.
Nancy still hangs with Stephanie Schram. Mary Bruner still hangs with Kitty Lutesinger. I don't think Sandra Good is fully demansonized. They all didn't shuck their past. They still retain some aspects of Charliedom. I think if Charlie were free they'd come back to him. You'd see them all sitting on Ellen Degeneres' show.
St, you have your perspective full of personal projections and everyone on these blogs respects that.
But many of us see the story as allot more nuanced and layered than you do. To me the Manson Family was not just another misguided gang or goofy commune - they were fantastically unique in that they to the Haight Asbury free love and coupled it with Manson's nilihism to ultimately become an anarchistic cadre bent on complete destruction of the society they lived in. This wasn't the Jets and the Sharks or even the Crips and the Bloods.
I don't see why folk feel the need to minimize Manson's abilities - according to many many accounts they were quite extrodinary.
Yeah, there were boys and drugs and good times...but it was Manson that Pat and Leslie and Sadie and Mary and Lynn and Sandra and about a dozen other women were totally enslaved by his persona.
To deny that or even downplay it is missing the core of the story from my perspective.
Any way to give some context about your knowledge Mr P? That's a trip imagining Mary and Kitty hanging out together. I wouldn't have guessed that one.
Leary remember the recent foto of Nancy leaning against the Woody with 3 other people? One of the other three is Stephanie Schram with her daughter.
Of course a few of them remained friends- but if they were still spouting the Charlie line- we would know it...
we did for as long as they were spouting it...
Leary- all due respect- LULU was living an alternative sexual lifestyle before Charlie- Tex was dealing drugs before Charlie, Decarlo was a biker before Charlie, Sadie was dancing to Satanism with Anton Levay before Charlie...
Lets not make it out like Charlie took a bunch of school kids and totally changed their character. I think that most of them got a little wiser with age, but that doesn't mean that they were were angels in the first place...
That isn't personal- that's years of studying them and the facts.
Again- plenty of them left, and others went back and forth- Charlie was not as in control as people make him out to be and by the time of the actual crimes and the flee to the dessert he was down to just a handful of people.
You can dress this up for all eternity and romanticize it as much as you want. You can add stories and make connections, and spread rumors and innuendos.
Layer it as much as you wish.
But Charlie wasnt snapping his fingers and making people do at his beck and call.
Plenty of people said No to Charlie. It was just a few who went that far, and if you study the past of those who did- you will find plenty off dysfunction pre- Charlie. Those were the idiots who pay the price for the association today...
and again- I think they get that now and feel more stupid about being the fools than they do guilty about what they did.
BUT you are right- it is my opinion and I am glad if it respected- I respect you and all of yours :)
yes it does to me
:)
god help us all the day spelling and grammar count lol
Hi guys! I agree with parts of what everyone is saying. I think these people were broken when they met Charlie, but he did have an influence on them. Just my 2 cents.
Bobby, I'm sorry that guy talked you into that. And it still bothers you 35 years later. That's sad...
Thanks Bobby you're so sweet!! :)
I have to admit the only Texas College football I watch is Texas A&M. I like watching Johnny Football. LOL.
I think Charlie had the idea for whatever reason ( motive) and he found a few of the 30 or so who would actually go make it happen.
again- from reading various sources- It appears he tried at least twice before those nights to get others to cause harm to one person or another and 3 if you want to count Bobby's trip to Gary's...
It could be ( just thought of this for the first time tonight- just throwing an idea out there) he was so surprised that someone actually did it- that he had to go and see for himself and that was the reason he returned to Cielo- if in fact he did return to Cielo. I know the jury is out on that too...
Just kicking some thoughts around tonight..
Hey Katie ;)
St C what you are saying about Charlie doesn't jibe with any of what the actual Family members say. They all acribe great control to Charlie. Messiah-like control.
Ascribe
I followed the link that Sunset provided, and watched the entire movie.
It was pretty good!
FYI:
The movie loaded-up immediately (with no hassles)... and expanded to full screen (with the click of a button).
What more could ya ask for?
I was definitely gonna catch this flick in the theater.
I just saved myself twelve bucks. LOL
Thanks Sunset!
Check it out:
http://viooz.co/movies/22133-the-family-2013.html
The video player is halfway down the page.
Simply press the center of the movie, and you're watching!
The button in the extreme right corner of the video player expands the movie to full screen (for those who don't know).
[It's just to the right of the volume control]
Here's wishing Rfoster1, a speedy recovery.
I haven't seen him around in quite a while, but he used to visit our blog in the past.
Yes and No Mr. P - he called the shots no doubt- but making decisions about day to day things for a group and directly controlling a specific individual are different...
More often than not he was beating the girls and shaming the men into doing things his way- not sending some cosmic vibe which they all followed without question...
or using the threat of expulsion. Which for some of them was even worse.
This isn't my strongest argument on the subject. I concede that.
Get well soon Rfoster :)
It seems like when California stoppped letting inmates be interviewed on tv , Red and BLue also stopped doing tv interviews-I'd guess because Charlie couldnt do them so they wouldnt either-up until the they had both appeared on tv shows and news interviews alot on news and tv shows-just my guess-???
candy and nuts said...
"It seems like when California stoppped letting inmates be interviewed on tv , Red and BLue also stopped doing tv interviews-I'd guess because Charlie couldnt do them so they wouldnt either-up until the they had both appeared on tv shows and news interviews alot on news and tv shows-just my guess-???"
That makes sense, I guess it's a possibility. A source told me about 1.5 years ago that "Blue" still followed Manson, but not as strongly as she once did. "Red" did 34 years in prison, she may just want to live her life in peace now.
I've followed this case online for about 3 years now, and both "Red" and "Blue" have kept a pretty low profile during that time, I haven't even heard a recording of either of their voices made during that period.
Trying to determine what members, or former members of Manson's family are doing and why they are doing it, is difficult at best. I don't "dig" into peoples personal lives or try to harass people. The few tiny glimpses of firsthand knowledge I've gotten from former Manson associates, is they simply want to put the entire episode behind them. (I don't blame them).
Sunset your last sentence is sort of the entire point I was trying to make..
I got sort of sidetracked as I was hammered like a loon yesterday and sort of wandered off my original idea which was that- Present day more than real remorse for hurt they caused- I think they just feel embarrassed.
I as well don't really want to bother any of them or "out" them. I do feel they have a right to live the rest of their lives without having to answer for things they said and did as kids
( the ones who didn't murder or do violence)
although most kids who do bad things don't go so far out of there way to make sure the entire country knows how proud they are of it lol
Sorry, but it still makes no sense to me whatsoever to downplay Manson.
It is a yes or no question.
Were there or were there not 15-20 women in the Family who would have killed or died for Charlie.
The answer is a clear and undeniable yes.
Would they have done so for Tex? For Little Paulie? For Clem or Bruce??
That would be a no.
And forty odd years later it is unclear how many still retain both love and loyalty towards Manson. The only one we can say does with any certainty is Cappy because she has said so. But there are several other "maybe's" still kicking around - Lynn and Sandra and such.
I have NEVER subscribed to the view that the Family consisted of normal middle class kids. Most of em were bent even before meeting Charlie.
Still. what happened in that group was not normal or common or "coulda happened anywhere".
And the X factor was Manson. Sorry, but personally I think it is a waste of time to even debate that.
Hiya Katie, glad to so see ya. I didn't know you were a closet Aggie.
Leary if you can name me 15 women who would have killed for Manson you let me know and I promise to honestly say I am wrong...
go ahead...
but that's the thing Saint, we don't and can't know for sure. Who would have guessed Ruth Ann a wannabe killer, but her comment to Donkey Dan out at Barker makes it seem clear that was her goal.
But you're right, 15 might be a tad high. It might be closer to 10-12.
But let's see...Sadue, Pat. Leslie no doubt...Nancy, Mary, Gypsy, Lynn, Sandra, Ruth Ann, Cappy highly likely. And girls like Kitty, Little Patty (present at Zero's "suicide") Sue Bartell and several others showed some indication of irrational devotion to Charlie.
But really what difference does it make if the number was 11 or 17. The fact is Manson did cast a spell, a unique and deadly spell.
That's all I'm sayin.
Ruth was 16 and not killing anyone. she was trying to talk big to fit in.
Country sue didn't even join them until after TLB- Charlie wasn't even around her. She joined in when it was no more pressure and nothing but party time.
Stephanie and Diane not only wouldn't hurt anyone for Charlie- They ran away from him...
Simi Valley spit in the middle of the night...
TJ flat our refused to hurt anyone.
Linda was told to take Sadie and Clem to kill someone she knew and instead took them to another place...
Sadie had a knife in her hand at Cielo and lost it- had a gun in her hand at Gary's and had it taken away. Who was she really trying to kill on her own?
LULU stabbed a dead body in the butt...
Some of these girls talked a good game to fit in, and a couple went the extra mile- but none of them Save Krenwinkle did anything close to becoming a monster for Charlie.
there were not 10 to 15 people who would kill for Charlie- there were about 10 to 15 people left with Charlie when the killing started. Most of them got the hell out of there when it got to that point. hardly a group of mind washed robots following his every command. when the fun and partying ended- so did most of the loyalty to Charlie for all but a small few.
I can name as many people who disobeyed his suggestions of violence as you can name people who did do violence for him...
I dont want to argue with you Leary- this is my point and its made- if you want- you can have the last word.
St C your boat left and you are sitting on the dock still.
Ruth Ann thought she had killed Barbara Hoyt.
Linda's hesitancy to kill for Charlie was because she knew the intended victims. Had she not known them she probably would be in prison today.
LuLu is in prison for two murders now.
Sadie held Sharon so Tex could stab her. Is that not murder to you?
Tex murdered 7 or more. Everyone was surprised he did that but he did.
Tex Katie LuLu Pat
Thats 4 if you want to count what Sadie did which was basically to hold people down and what lulu did which was basically after the fact
I have studied Susan Atkins a whole bunch and her bark was always much worse than her bite. She had plenty of chances to kill people and the most she deserves in the way of credit is a couple of assists. She got the punishment she deserved for what she helped to do. But to paint her a blood thirsty killer who did whatever Charlie told her is to ignore what she really did, and who she really was.
Ruth gave Barbara( who by the way was trying to get away from Charlie)an acid soaked hamburger- she was a kid with no options- but I will count her as well
I will give you all 5...
you want me to run off the names of those who never hurt anyone or who flat out left when it got violent...
Juan Flynn said no way when asked to go with Charlie and kill
Paul and Brooks left and would not go back
TJ said no and split when asked to kill Crowe
Simi Valley split in the middle of the night when she became aware others were being hurt
Hoyt and Shramm fled Barker after it started to get violent
Linda purposely led Sadie and Clem to a wrong house against orders.
There alone are more defectors and resistors than aggressors- and do you deny the "family" was about half of its peak size by the time they got out to Barker??
Why did so many leave when the going got tough if Charlie had so much power over them?
I honestly believe that Drugs, sex, fun and games kept most of them around as much as any special power Charlie had- when the fun and drugs and sex gave way to hiding and violence and serious trouble- most cashed out.
Yes there were a few who stuck around and would have followed Charlie to jail if they would have left him. but of the 30 or 40 or so who were around at the peak of the Spahn days- that core group was very small...
It is impressive that he was able to exert so much influence on his gang of younger druggies
BUT...
He was not a brain washing guru who had a large group of people who followed his every command...
That just aint so.
or at least not in my humble opinion :)
Leary,
Add Star to your list. Maybe even Rosemary's Daughter?
Just kidding...
St C in the version of "Titanic" that you saw did the ship sink?
I dont do chic flicks Bro lol
If I'm wrong please specifically point out where...
Leary said 10 to 15 people would kill for Charlie- I made my case for those who wouldn't and unless you say otherwise I am at more than the 5 who you/he can say would/did...
But I am always open to the fact I may be missing something. Unlike most who say it- I really am in this for the truth. Even if that means someone knows it or finds it and I have been wrong all along. I just want to know facts. If you have them, and mine are wrong- spell it out.
I swear I am open minded
I have found not many are
I find it Ironic and strange that so many who say that Helter Skelter is a myth or propaganda by Bugs say it is so far fetched, and yet some of the same people insist Charlie had the complete control and/or mystical powers he would have needed to make that scenario possible...
not saying Leary or Mr.P are in that camp but- usually I am the guy saying that Helter Skelter is at least a possibility until we learn otherwise for sure, and even I know that Charlie wasn't that much in control of them...
I think -and this is my last comment- now you too Mr. P get the respect of the last word if you want it- there were not 10 to 15 people who would have killed at Charlies command for all of the reasons aforementioned.
I think your giving him a little too much credit, but understand why people who really haven't read all of the accounts by all of the players would arrive at such a general conclusion....
He might have been able to pressure a few into murder- but he wasn't able to order people around at his will or that sick bastard would have done way more damage than he did. Thanks god so many of them had more sense than you are giving them credit for...
I just wanna say, that although I didn't have time to personally participate in this debate... (I've been sick for days)... I really enjoyed reading along.
This is blogging, at it's best.
This is what blogging is about.
I think all participants (in this debate) scored some points.
When folks engage in debate, things often become presented as black vs white.
That's probably out of pride.
In reality, there's a lot of grey area to many of these topics.
I think everyone is "right" (to some degree).
Think about it:
- True remorse VS embarrassment
(Many times, these elements co-exist simultaneously. Embarrassment for one's actions, often initiates remorse. Embarrassment... in a sense... is often part-and-parcel of remorse)
-The level of devotion of each family member (to Manson).
(This would obviously vary with each individual... both then, and now).
- Folks "staying-on" (at the ranch) because of Manson's influence VS the "allure" of general "family life" (i.e., drugs, sex, fun).
(Again... I think both elements co-existed simultaneously. Both elements had a hand in keeping the main "players" residing at the ranch)
- The fact that Manson had greater influence over youth... and the "age factor" inherent therein.
(This is somewhat of a given. Youths are generally easier to manipulate, and wisdom comes with age. Manson was well aware of this factor)
I found myself agreeing (at least in part) with everyone.
I think most TLB topics boil down to a matter of "degree".
How many people were "devoted enough" to Manson to kill?
"ENOUGH" to leave several people dead... (I suppose) is the only number, that really matters.
Peace everyone.
I really don't want to get sucked into this debate.
But, for what it's worth... that's my two cents.
You guys ROCK!
And again...
I don't believe "devotion to Manson" was the ONLY factor, which led to these crimes.
One could easily point to peer-pressure... the cult environment (at the ranch) in general... the mental state of (some of) these participants before they even met Manson... the fact that they were truly a criminal outfit - up to their eyeballs in shit (by the end)... and on... and on... and a myriad of other stuff.
But...
I DO think Manson is where he belongs... and for a reason.
And that sentence alone, speaks volumes.
13 who would kill for Charlie
Tex
Krenwinkle
Sadie
Ruth Ann
Gypsy
Nancy
Brooks Poston
LuLu
Clem
Squeaky
Kasabian
Cathy Gilles
Beausoleil
I said you could have the last word so I will leave it be
BUT lol
Brooks???
Linda Kasabian was given instructions to kill and disobeyed, but still makes your list?
I said last word though, so I wont argue lol
:)
If that is your opinion- I will respect it and move on.
Yes, Brooks. You can see Brooks tell you himself in "Manson73" that he is lucky to have made it out without killing for Charlie.
Ive already said why Kasabian made it out without being a murderer.
There is an interview with Gypsy who talks about Kasabian being the toughest girl.
I have a theoretical question for you St C:
if Tex had gone alone to the Tate house do you think he could have killed 5 people and gotten away? Same question at Labiancas.
I really should have included Mary Bruner and Sandra Good in the list. They were as brainwashed as anyone.
The recent Kenyan massacre with maybe 160 dead is suspected of being led by a little woman too. It's amazing how violent a brainwashed subject can become.
Are you yourself beyond being brainwashed? How about global warming? Did you buy into that?
Looking for a fight Bro? I am not going to give you one :)
Why bring up titanic and global warming? whats that got to do with the subject?
Why speculate and argue over what Tex "Might" have done? we know what he did do...
You can have your opinion over who MIGHT have done what. The people I named WOULDN'T.
How can I debate when I am pointing out documented facts about what some of them such as Kasabian DID when asked to kill- and you are countering with what you THINK.
There are a few of them who we can debate- and there are a few of them who did kill or hurt.
But you cant change the fact that most of them wouldn't and didn't. your ideas and beliefs are just that. Charlie told Linda to go to a house and kill- and she deceived him and did not.
Those are facts. If she still is someone you want to argue over- you'll have to find someone else.
In fact if you want to argue period- you will have to look elsewhere. this conversation is deteriorating into something which is not what I wanted to get into.
Thanks though for the back and forth.
If I were a betting man- and the over/under on people who would have killed for charlie was at 8- I would take the under. If you feel different- good for you.
Let's include the ones who were involved in Shorty Shea's and Hinman's murders. Mary and Bruce are now involved. The list is over 15 now.
St C I hate to see you get upset but you say the fact is that most did not try to kill for Charlie when the reverse is fact.
The Manson Family is the United States' largest group of murderers in the 20the century.
Now I am going to have the last word
:) at least my last word on this subject and then you can go ahead for as long as you like...
I am not upset you disagree. I am not upset you might be right. I get upset because you and others in this community cant have a disagreement without making personal comments. The problem for me is that when this gets to the name calling level- I stink at it. I am no good at trading insults. I just go straight for the throat and everyone gets mad at me for going to far. I have learned the way that game goes, and although I never start the personal attack shit- I always end up the bad guy because I just cant seem to not offend people when decide to give back some of that I am getting...
You are counting every person who was around any of the murders and every person who ever uttered a threat, and that just wont work for me. 90% of what those young people were doing was trying to impress Charlie and each other. being one of 5 people attacking Shorty is very different from being willing to go kill someone on your own at Charlies command.
Mary Never hurt a soul- but if you want to keep screaming she would have- we are at a stalemate because all we can do at this point is argue over it...
What I have on my side is that SHE DIDNT!! That doesn't seem to matter to you. Just like you ignore Linda's outright REFUSAL..
Everyone who didn't kill anyone is debatable. Everyone who did is not.
This started by me pointing out specific examples of more who wouldn't than those who would...
4 did for sure- Ruth's Burger attmempt is silly but you can have that too... 5 then throw in Clem and Bruce who also perpetrated violence and you get 7.
If you want to include Bobby we can settle on 8 and push my bet..
But Bobby insists he was separate and had nothing to do with the family or Charlie.
But-Ill give you him as well.
but anyone else is speculation and you don't get credit because you THINK your right and I am wrong.
15 to 20 people willing to kill at Charlies command is just not so.
that is where this started and now it is where it ends- for me.
We can agree to disagree. But when you start bringing in the comments which are an attempt to belittle me or me me sound like I don't know what I am talking about you go too far.
Not a Gentlemanly thing to do if you ask me...
Poirot,
The titanic comment was unnecessary.
Saint said:
"Being one of 5 people attacking Shorty is very different from being willing to go kill someone on your own at Charlies command".
Hmm...
I'll have to think about that one.
Is killing without an accomplice (or crime partner), one of the parameters for making this list?
These folks rarely committed crimes alone.
That really narrows the field.
With all due respect gentlemen...
I think you've (both) embarked on a discussion which is impossible to settle definitively.
I mean..
This topic is hypothetical to a large degree, and can only be answered with a healthy dose of speculation.
Who "could have" killed?...
Who "would have" killed?...
Who "was capable of" killing?...
---------------------------
Case in point:
If you ask me the following question:
How many "family members" were capable of killing, under the right set of circumstances??
I'd say... probably quite a few.
(But again... that's my own personal speculation)
But, then again...
If you ask me the following question:
How many "family members" COULD HAVE killed "FOR CHARLIE"?
This is a more difficult question.
It's more stringent.
The extra parameter (of course) being, "FOR CHARLIE".
This really depends on one's opinion of Manson's level of influence.
Which brings us back to motive... group dynamics... etc.
And again... what "COULD HAVE" or "WOULD HAVE" happened, is always an impossible question to answer definitively.
L/S- I agree who would have/could have is all speculation...
Its totally opinion of who would and who wouldn't.
BUT this started with me reacting to
"Were there or were there not 15-20 women in the Family who would have killed or died for Charlie.
The answer is a clear and undeniable yes."
I guess that I was the one who first steered of course by bringing up guys- but when I thought about it- aside from all the hype- I could think of more instances of people not killing than those who actually did- despite the fact that they all talked much shit...
My point with Clem might have sucked- that's why I was totally willing to concede him.
But- the general picture Leary was getting at was that Charlie had people under his clear an undeniable power to murder, and I do not think that's so.
He ordered Clem/Sadie/linda to go and kill a dude and gave them a gun. Left alone- they tossed the gun in the sand, went to the wrong house and then called it a day and went home. Now when Clem was with Charlie and Bruce and Tex and they were all attacking Shorty- yes, he joins in with a few strikes- what choice did he really have???
are those two the same thing???
Sadie had a gun on Gary- she doesn't shoot him when he lunges for him- she looses the gun. later when he is hurt- she tries to help him - then Bobby kills him. she should be in jail for what she helped do- but is that cold blooded killing on Charlies orders?
Maybe I am crazy insane- but I dont think Brooks Poston could harm a fly...
I wasn't trying to win and who wouldn't/couldn't argument-
I was trying to tally up the score of who actually did and who actually didn't to make a point to Leary- who made a good one himself-
"but that's the thing Saint, we don't and can't know for sure"
Here's a similar hypothetical question, on a broader scale:
Would there have been more killings, if Atkins never squealed... and (hypothetically speaking) "the Family" was free to exist (and operate) in society, for another 2 years?
Would more (and different) "family members" have emerged as killers, during that extra interim???
Would the list of killers have grown?
Of course... we'll never know.
Which is kinda my point... i.e., that this discussion is largely hypothetical.
----------------------------
That's where I should end my commentary.
But...
At the risk of getting myself involved further (LOL)... I'll say this:
I think it's safe to assume, that more crimes would have been committed... and the list (of killers) would have grown (with the passage of time).
That was the trend (regardless of one's motive theory and/or theories).
That's just my own speculation... (since we're speculating).
AND... IF there were more killings:
Would those killings have been "For Charlie"?
I guess that depends largely, on how one views group dynamics (at the ranch).
Which of course... is ANOTHER question.
The real debate here, is this:
Was Manson calling ALL the shots?
That's the real question... when you get into this "FOR CHARLIE" stuff.
That's the bigger picture/question.
I can't believe, that I'm gonna get sucked into this (because I KNOW I'm gonna regret it)... but here goes. LOL!
Against my better judgement... this is my list. LOL
To clarify:
I believe these folks were "capable of murder", "under the right circumstances".
Note:
A stray bullet... which kills a cop during a senseless shoot-out (etc)... in my mind... constitutes murder, for the purposes of this list.
Here's my list of whackos:
Cappy
Gypsy
Sandy
Clem
Bobby
Bruce
Manson
Nancy
Tex
Leslie
Susan
Pat
...and possibly Lynn.
That's 13 folks, that I think... "under the right circumstances", "COULD HAVE" found themselves on the wrong end of a cold body (or the right end, as it were LOL)... under the right circumstances.
Would those "HYPOTHETICAL" murders have been committed specifically "FOR CHARLIE"?
Who the fuck knows.
Regardless of motive... I DO believe that Manson was a conspirator... and hence, was justly charged.
For whatever that's worth...
Well...
If it makes ya feel any better Saint... I didn't come-up with 15-20 people... so, I guess you're right. LOL
Saint,
I agree with you regarding Brooks Poston.
He's not a killer.
I do believe Manson was calling all the shots within the group dynamic. I really do.
I also believe it was only for the last 1/3 of the very short total time he was out and with the full group at Spahn when he would have been actually been asking anyone to go that far.
But although he was in charge -several fled rather than hurt, and that tells me his ability to call shots wouldn't cross the ultimate line with at least some. My list of those who seemed to leave or flat out say no when the violence started is longer than the ones I know did violence at his beckoning.
As for your list of who might have down the road or would have had they been summoned "Under the right St. Circumstances"...
Cappy would me my only pause
:)
I also personally wouldnt have Lynn on my list until you added the clause about Certain Circumstances.
and one or two more of the girls are questionable- you cant count Charlie as someone who could kill for Charlie
So if you subtract Cappy/Charlie/Squeakster- you sort of get where I came up with my over/under number of 8 lol
I guess if the number ended up at about 10 more or less it would still be about 25% to a third of his total posse at its prime whom would go that far for him and maybe I should acknowledge that....
its a significant percentage when it comes to being willing to do that type of evil.
If I can put my 2 cents in, I think they all would have killed for Charlie, given enough room.
I absolutely think Charlie asked people to kill for him.
I think those people joined that group because of various psychological reasons, reasons being that they weren't comfortable with their own family dynamics and also they were feeling alienated from the entire world because of their peculiar beliefs. Due to Timothy Leary and what-not.
So I think that they would have, if the family had never been busted and had stayed together, killed for Charlie.
That's just my 2 cents. :)
Katie
lol :)
Katie- maybe Im dead wrong. but even if you take L/S list and subtract the guys -it leaves 7 and 8(if you count Lynn) which is still around what I set as an over/under even if more than I thought personally- certainly less than the 15 to 20 girls Leary started this whole thing with...
So If we can all just agree I am right we can put this to bed and move on lol
:)
St. I think they ALL would have done it. With enough encouragement from Charlie and enough "lovin' up", he could have had an army of killers.
That's all they needed. Encouragement from Charlie. And he was good at it. He learned it good from the Scientologists.
Well, I'm gonna hit the hay. Lynyrd, I'm glad you found out that it was a Google glitch that made me think you deleted me.
No more about that.
I'm glad Dr. Evil put the "bag of shhh" on me.
I'll talk to you manana. I hope you're feeling okay!
Me too... nite
OK Saint...
I counted Manson himself (on my list)... so technically, my list is only 12 individuals. LOL
I'll give ya that.
But otherwise... I think my list is fairly conservative.
I'll stick by 12 individuals minimum.
Granted... Squeaky didn't kill Ford... that's true... but c'mon, she's bat-shit crackers.
Who really knows (for sure) what Squeaky would have been capable of doing (at Manson's behest) back in 1969?
She was pretty damn loyal... and let's face it... cray-cray.
Heck... In 1987, she broke out of jail just to "visit Manson" (like that was even possible, LOL).
What was she going to do... break out of her own jail... and break INTO Manson's??? LOL
In 1979, she attacked a fellow inmate with a claw hammer. LOL
C'mon Saint.
Squeaky is nuts.
Case closed.
You can't argue Squeaky's sanity.
---------------------
I agree...
Cappy is probably the "least likely to murder" on my list.
But... with her back against the wall... a gun in her hand...fear and adrenaline pumping... and some peer-pressure to "defend the group"... and, I think she'd shoot.
I think she was "capable" of killing "under the right conditions" in 1969.
That's all I'm saying.
Hey...
This is YOUR hypothetical question... not mine. LOL!
--------------------------
If you're going with total individuals... I come to a conclusion of 12.
If you're going with females only... I conclude 8.
Eight.
LOL
Eight females... that's my final answer.
So...
Who wins again?
LOL!
: )
Sandra's parents were so afraid of her they hid. The mother said she wished Sandra had not survived her childhood illness. Sandra said she would kill her parents.
You can't exclude Brooks if you watch Hendrickson's movie "Manson73". Paul Crockett deprogrammed Brooks according to Brooks himself or he would have killed the Inyo sheriff for Charlie.
Brooks was extremely brainwashed and drug addled. He fell into deep sleeps for days simulating ego death. He would soil himself.
Sadie held a pillow over Hinman's face to finish him off.
Cappy nearly had her Granny murdered.
Ruth Ann would just as easily have given Barbara Hoyt rat poison. You can't exclude Ruth Ann because she was the cutest and young.
All of the inner circle Family members were under Charlie's control. The inner circle could have included 35 people at its peak.
I'm too lazy to go back through the comments (yet again)... but I think 8 total women, makes Saint's bet a "push". (i.e... a tie... no winner or payout).
And believe me... I didn't orchestrate the results that way intentionally.
Some things just work-out for the best. : )
This is an honest casino. LOL
Leary bet 15-20 women... so, he loses. LOL
Just kidding Leary.
(I'm gonna get myself in trouble. LOL)
Poirot... I'm beat.
We'll reconvene tomorrow.
The casino closes 8 hours daily, for cleaning. LOL
"Snitches will be taken care of" said Squeaky. She wasn't kidding.
Don't forget that Paul Watkins was lucky he didn't die from a mysterious fire in the van he slept in.
Stephanie Schram said Charlie was running a "murder school".
The reason Family members began to jump ship wasn't because they objected to the violence. They feared being murdered themselves.
The end days of Manson's Family was a scene of insanity and indescriminant murder. The air was thick with mass murder never seen before in America. The Family descended into a group depravity that was devouring itself and whomever else their whims decided to include. Cute little girls were talking about skinning people alive.
For what it's worth, although I do consider Manson to have had a huge sway over influencing the group, by elevating him to having near super-human abilities of mind control and manipulation does make it more difficult for him to be seen as just a man amongst many.
Once he is given the credit as leader and mastermind it separates him from the group and makes him a special case. Everyone else is reduced to "follower" status and he is placed in a group of one. By default he becomes different from the others and so unfortunately different terms of reference must be used to define him when compared to the others.
My own take on it (at present) is that the group was nihilistic and anti-social and promoting personal thrill seeking at the expense of personal common sense and respecting the rights of others (to property or to life).
I currently believe that Charles Watson is the personality in the mix that helped the group cross the line.
Disregarding laws involving accomplices I don't consider the "Manson Girls" really murdered anyone, and that it was Watson who either initiated or helped to finish off anything Krenwinkel and Grogan started.
Had the drugs been plentiful and the living conditions easier at Barker Ranch Sept 69 onwards and Watson stayed around (with Manson) the body count may well have risen.
Susan Atkins I believe enjoyed having the experience of taking part, but smothering an already dying Hinman or holding down Tate for Watson may well have been her being caught up in the moment of the experience.
The same could be said of van Houten holding down Mrs LaBianca before calling out for Watson's assistance.
Krenwinkel appears to display a reluctant willingness to make a good effort at murder but with both Folger and Mrs LaBianca she requires Watson to finish off for her. As though she can commit an initial attack but cannot complete. For me oddly enough I perceive a lack of bloodlust in her.
Similar to Grogan can hit Shea over the back of the head as part of the killing group, but I tend to imagine that it was Watson who was prepared to inflict the mortal wounds.
As to the others, the law of accomplices may well have seen Brunner, Share, Fromme, and a few others jailed for murder, but I believe their reputation as dangerous homicidal individuals precedes them and in most cases talk is cheap.
For a group (in 1970-72) so fueled on talk of the death and destruction of hundreds if not thousands of people and the end of society being imminent, all went meekly to jail and then on to prison and quietly served their prison terms adjusting to institutional life (with the exception of Manson, whose own behaviour appears more irritating to authorities than genuinely threatening).
For a comparison have a look into the Red Army Faction in West Germany 1972-1977. To see how an anti-social group with guerilla leanings attacks society and responds to its leaders being jailed.
Thanks for your input Chris.
Good to see you!
Chris...
Please check your email, at your earliest convenience.
I sent you three important emails today.
I've been trying to contact you, for a long time.
(Disregard the old emails).
I hope my emails find you well.
Thanks in advance, for your kind consideration.
Always a pleasure,
LS
What? Are we back to pussy shit again?
Yup.
We're right back to PS again. LOL
I'm just kidding...
There was a lot of conversation on this thread, so I rotated it back to the top.
I was tired of scrolling.
There's really no more significance to it, than that.
I'm not really sure where I came-up with PS (for the other thread), but it felt right at the time (for no apparent reason).
Then... I got sick of looking at it (again, for no apparent reason).
A blog administrators whim. LOL
It happens...
Enjoy! LOL
I don't think You could ever know which Members of the Family would actually kill for Manson.
People say whats expected of them to say in some situations-its peer pressure.
Until push comes to shove(ie Watson,Krenwinkle maybe Atkins)talk is just a bunch of words with nothing behind them.
Chris you seem to still be in disbelief at what Krenwinkle did but isn't that why the Manson Family murderers are the most infamous of all killers?
I always found it completely unbelievable that Charlie got two dozen women to cook, clean and have sex with him and his worthless pals yet he didn't have a dime to his name. That's impossible wouldn't you say? Never mind that he got them to kill pregnant women for him.
This dude Manson got two dozen women to cook and clean for him for nothing in return!
I think Poirot and Katie are on the right lines. Most of the inner circle would have killed. Same as a soldier would kill under orders. Same as a mother would kill to save her child. Same as the farmer kills the pig. Same as they would all steal, screw, dumpster dive, rip their parents off etc etc.
The soldier, mother and farmer solve moral dilemmas quite easily (they all kill), so why shouldn't folks who share beliefs in "something else", or think "another way".
For a while, these people dropped out so far they were no longer US citizens, their parents offspring, or keepers of the basic morals and ethics we all share.
Back in a time when it was possible to believe there could be a "new way", even if you had no idea how - just so long it wasn't the old way.
(((((--!!!---CEASE2---!!!--)))))
What's up Borther!
Long time, no see!
GREAT to see you!!!!
Hi MattP,
It's a completely hypothetical discussion.
There's no way anyone could ever know for sure, which kids "would have" killed for Manson.
It's impossible.
I agree...
Some of the kids that we perceive as potential killers (i.e., the most likely to kill)... MAY NOT have killed... when push came to shove.
By the same token:
There were probably a couple "wild cards" (at the ranch) whom we would never envision as a "killer"... who just might surprise us (given the right circumstances).
Sometimes the quiet one's, are the most dangerous.
There's no way to tell for sure.
It's all completely hypothetical.
I'm sure there's a few on my list, who would never have committed murder... and quite possibly, a few that I missed.
(For the sake of discussion) I put together, what I thought was the most obvious list of whackos.
But again, who the fuck knows.
This is precisely why, I didn't want to get (too deeply) involved in this discussion.
---------------------------------
Then again...
As Katie, Poirot and Cease2 put forth... maybe they were ALL fucking nutzo by the end! LOL
I'll tell ya... the famous "Crawl" that the girls performed, was quite a convincing display of devotion (to say the least). LOL
Of course, crawling and killing, are two separate things.
Might as well debate which ones wouldn't have blown George Spahn.
Please don't!
p.s Greetings LS.
LMAO!
OK...
Here's my George Spahn Blowjob list:
..........
LOLOL!
Saint,
Would you like to start us off? LOLOL!
Create a "base list", if you will?
Set "the vig"? LOLOL!
I'm just bustin' ya Bro. LOL
Actually... I think it was Leary, who took us down this path. LOL
I agree with everyone who says you cant speculate what people would have done.
Cease and Katy and Mr. P and Leary have the right to think Sandy would killed for Charlie- and I have the right to think she wouldn't...
My point- again- is not to try and win an argument of who would and who wouldn't- although in fun we went there..
My point is that I can name more specific examples of those who wouldn't than I can those who did.
Those are not speculations- they are recounting of facts as they happened.
And I believe they are in my favor.
With all due respect to Katie- she said they All would kill- but Linda didn't, and TJ didn't when directly told to. and we all know that.
So we know that at least two wouldn't follow the command and by definition that means you cant say ALL of them would- we know at least two who wouldn't...
And we know at least 5 or 6 who did and would- but again and finally lol I agree :)
the rest are specualtion
Which ones wouldn't have blown George Spahn?
I would only debate which ones actually did or didnt :)
I don't care who MIGHT have done that
for that matter- I dont care to know if anyone factually did THAT lol
Cease, I think that was Squeaky's job. LOL.
Why was there never a catfight between George's wife, Ruby Pearl and Squeaky?
There's three for your list Lynyrd.
OK, here's my list of 15 women who were giving George Spahn BJ's.
BRB, somebody at the door....
True there are examples of those who didn't "murder on command".
I just think there was so much paranoia at the end, varying from person to person, and bad vibes from Manson that many of them could have gotten their hands bloody.
Seems many of them got completely lost in their giggly games of believing Charlie's come-to-Now hokum. And confused and bewildered by being told to question every "normal" thought, constantly.
The whole saga is layer upon layer of tragedy and destroyed lives, i guess.
Cease, I agree. There are those who refused to kill at the time but who knows who would have done what later?
I personally think that anyone who joined this bunch had to have had a few screws missing.
I keep going back to Nancy Pitman. She came from a pretty wealthy family. And she chose to live like this???
And in addition, she chose to go along with the Willett's murders? That's too bizarre.
And as far as Squeaky or Sandy killing someone...I think if push came to shove, they would have done it for Charlie in a heartbeat.
Cease2 said:
"I just think there was so much paranoia at the end, varying from person to person, and bad vibes from Manson that many of them could have gotten their hands bloody."
I agree.
By the end, things had become unpredictable.
No one could ever know for sure, where things were headed.
Put Little Paul on the BJ list. Hell, blind George wouldn't even know the difference.
1 Tex-convicted murder.
2 Krenwinkle-convicted murder.
3 Sadie-convicted murder.
4 Ruth Ann-nearly tried for attempted murder of a witness.
5 Gypsy-ditched Shorty's car after his murder. Involved in shootout.
6 Nancy-involved in Willet murders.
7 Brooks Poston-by his own admission could have killed a sheriff for Charlie.
8 LuLu-convicted murder.
9 Clem-convicted murder.
Squeaky-convicted attempted assassin.
10 Kasabian-involved in eight murders.
11 Cathy Gilles-set out with Manson to kill Granny.
12 Beausoleil-convicted murder.
13 Mary-participant in a murder.
14 Bruce Davis-convicted murder
15 unknown male present at Shorty's murder
16 Manson-shot Lotsapoppa
2 parts:
I know where some of them headed- out of there
I am still not getting through to some of you :)
I am not an have never been trying to engage in a speculation of who MIGHT
I am trying to engage in a factual review of who didn't and who didn't.
I am sure if you back a dog into a corner he will fun or fight- we can see with the aid of time who did either.
Paul Watkins himself said on film that things changed "After Charlie got on his H/S trip".
I have seen family member after family member say that the best times they had were early on at the ranch.
Not in the black Bus
Not in the yellowsub house
Not anywhere else
The Ranch- so it wasnt the living conditions which drove them out when they starting fleeing- it was the change in Charlie which scared those off who left.
That change was the move to violence. It got scarey instead of fun.
You can take Charlie off to- he doesn't count. " Unkown Male"? you want to do that now?
Uh-Uh- unknown is unkown
Mary stood by and watched- I never said that I didn't think they had it in them to watch- I said directly killing someone yourself at Charlies order.
Linda flat out wouldn't do it- and was not even at the Labiancas the 2'nd night- Clem didn't get charged for being in the car- Linda isn't responsible- she was
Mary comes off
The4n you have the young girls who were trying to fit in with older criminal males. If you dont expect them to talk a good dame- your not really being fair.
when you have a teenage girl- running around with older trouble making criminals- what do you expect her to say? But what did she actually do- that is what counts here? Nothing!
that takes Cappy off
Ruth lol- o.k. that tough gangster put hits of acid in a hamburger. The way this originally started was by me pointing out that most of them are more embarrassed today than ashamed. If you have seen a recent pic of Ruth lately- you will see she has turned out to me one of the most unrecognizable and normal of them. She would be the poster child of proving my point- but o.k she tried to hurt someone so you can have that.
What Nancy did was not at Charlies orders- but maybe in his name. Same with Gypsy- and they shot in a fight/attmempt too escape- not because Charlie told them to go kill someone. This is more like L/S scenario of "under certain circumstances" than an following a direct command of Charlies..
Look I have spent three nights arguing over people who did not kill anyone. Its futile to keep doing this. you make any list you want.
LINDA WOULD NOT DO IT WHEN TOLD DIRECTLY TO DO IT!!!
Mr. P -your last list has 9 girls on it. a few of them never killed- but the only one I refuse to even consider is Linda- because we KNOW what she would or wouldn't do.
So even YOUR list- when you take off Linda for the aforementioned reason has 8 names on it of girls who would kill for Charlie.
8 which is exactly where I put my total.
Now if you take the 2 or 3 girls off who never actually did hurt anyone themselves, and add the two or three guys who did- you have almost exactly what I came up with for a total...
Not sure really why we are going so crazy with this?
none of us are that far off.
weather you realize it or not- we are now looking at them individually trying to determine who had it in them....
and that was my whole point to begin with. Charlie didn't have the power to command anyone in his orbit to kill. Only the ones who had it in them to do so could/would. I believe there were more of them who wouldn't.
towards the end- more people weren't getting there hands bloody- they were getting the hell out of there.
some of you are trying to say that it is a mere coincidence that at the exact period when people started getting hurt and killed- others finally started getting sick of the living conditions- and that if they were staying at a holiday Inn killing others they would have stayed.
I cant believe people would think that.....
So now we count everything a teenager says as something they would actually do? Brooks never even claimed he was going to hurt anyone lol
If my friends from high school told you some of the things I said and did- you would be shocked to see what type of puss I am today.
But I am not unusual- we all do that. It is called growing up- and we all do it. Even the family. Fortunately for me- I never did a goddamn thing to hurt anyone as I was all mouth ( that hasnt changed) and very little action. I was a very good athlete in school and was a varsity wrestler as a sophomore. As a result- I hung around with many older guys who could drive and who took me to parties where they got drunk and fought almost every weekend. the things I said during the week to fit in and the things I did at those parties are not at all the same, and I am sure I was quite typical as a kid.
I don't think the dynamic was very different. there are a few in every group who have the animal gene in them- but most don't.
I don't think this group was any different in that way.
If Charlie had 20 to 30 people willing to kill for him- alot more would have died. He was a career criminal with nothing to loose and he has proved to this day he has no qualms with staying in jail. there were plenty of times when they were very desperate, and then after he went to jail and would be locked up for good- why weren't they killing???
They bragged about the list of Hollywood stars they were going to kill. this entire argument you have mentioned all the "talk" they did and Cappy gets on the list for saying she was going to kill her grandma...
why did none of these murders happen???
I would bet my last goddamn nickle if you left Cappy alone with her grandmother and a gun or knife she couldn't do it.
But again- it is speculation. I keep trying to compare my list of what we actually know they did do with your list of what they said, or what you think they would do..
its going nowhere- but I point out one last time- that Leary said 15 to 20 girls would kill undeniably and I deny it and explained why. Even in your last post you named only 9 including the one who makes absolutely no sense..
we really aren't that far apart.
The ones who think ALL of them would have- now that's another story.
Not sure how anyone who knows the case can feel that way when we know for a fact that several didn't
If Charlie tells TJ to pull a gun and shoot someone, but TJ wont and then Charlie has to do it himself-and you say TJ still would have- not sure what to say to you???
when Charlie asks Linda where the guy she knows lives then drops her off with a gun and instructions to kill him, but she goes to a wrong house on purpose and nobody gets killed then she testifies against Charlie- but you say she still would kill for him- not sure what to say to you either???
not wanting to get insulting- but I really dont think I can reason with someone who is not going to be reasonable.
These two examples do not seem like reasonable thinking to me.
But Happy Saturday all :)
great day here in South Florida- hope everyone has a great weekend
:)
Pardon my typos and grammar- My post was way too long and when trying to cut it I made some boo boos
It gets frustrating to have to keep slam my head into a locked door over and over again.
I just don't understand why people would rather guess at a result than acknowledge the actual result. We wont ever know in a few cases and that should be enough to anguish ourselves over- why try and get cute with the answers we do have???
"well she didn't when asked but she would have"
" well he/she said they were going to do this- so they would have for sure"
Ill never accept that- so if that's going to be the argument we will never see eye to eye.
Listen Saint. All it is is, you're not comprehending that some, if not all, of us consider your core argument as speculation too.
You said ...
"I am not an have never been trying to engage in a speculation of who MIGHT"
In fact, you have been SPECULATING that people who didn't kill-on-command IN SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, wouldn't ever.
Same thing. Speculation.
My George Spahn "Zen" question wasn't intended to be facetious or frivolous. I wanted you to kind of think about what you were proposing.
Basically, you just CAN'T dictate that your spurious arguments must be accepted. I'm sorry, but you just CAN'T.
1 Tex-convicted murder.
2 Krenwinkle-convicted murder.
3 Sadie-convicted murder.
4 Ruth Ann-nearly tried for attempted murder of a witness.
5 Gypsy-ditched Shorty's car after his murder. Involved in shootout.
6 Nancy-involved in Willet murders.
7 Brooks Poston-by his own admission could have killed a sheriff for Charlie.
8 LuLu-convicted murder.
9 Clem-convicted murder.
10 Kasabian-involved in eight murders.
11 Cathy Gilles-set out with Manson to kill Granny.
12 Beausoleil-convicted murder.
13 Mary-participant in a murder.
14 Bruce Davis-convicted murder
15 unknown male present at Shorty's murder
16 Manson-shot Lotsapoppa.Convicted murder.
17Squeaky-convicted attempted assassin
Same list. I didn't number Squeaky. That is ten women.
I can't take Cappy off. She actually left with Manson to go kill Granny but a flat tire marooned them all day in the desert. Thus the wheels were set in motion to murder Granny. Cappy acquiesced.
You mention TJ, I didn't but he left Spahns carrying a gun. What did he think the gun was for? Had Lotsapoppa died TJ would have been convicted 1st deg murder for carrying the gun. Yes he left the Family but he came back and stayed for years.
It is written about in one book that she is the one who got Squeaky primed to go kill Pres Ford.
Mary stays on the list. Two days prior to her arriving at Hinman's it was discussed that Hinman needed to killed if necessary for his money. Mary knew murder was afoot and included herself voluntarily. She knew Bobby had a knife. She saw Bruce introduce the gun. She stayed the entire two days of torturous murder and was charged but went states evidence to escape a murder conviction.
That's ten women who would kill.
The Manson Family is the largest group of killers in the 20th century.
I omitted Sandra's name as the one who talked up Squeaky. She nearly got Squeaky to assassinate a US president.Sandy served ten years for death threats. Sandra was a very angry woman with murderous intent even without Charlie.
The ten women in my list by themselves are the biggest group of killers in the 20th century.
So again - Mary didn't kill anyone but she stays on the list...
Brooks says he "could have"- stays on list
unknown male was a round at the time- so he would have killed at Charlies command for sure- even though we dont know who he is or anything about him
Manson commands himself and we count that as a separate person-
Cappy- never killed anyone but said she wanted to kill her granny- but never did- but on the list
Mary- never hurt a soul- stood and watched Susan and Bobby struggle with Gary but never got involved in any way- but she would kill for sure at Charlies command
Hell maybe Leary was right- throw in Country Sue- who cares if she came along after Charlie was already gone-
what anyone actually did do doesn't seem to matter Mr. P- your mind is made up and thats o.k. with me..
We will have our own beliefs.
I am leaving it at that.
The ten women in my list by themselves are the biggest group of killers in the 20th century.
lol even though half of them never killed anybody???
:)
Peace guys
Mary participated in Hinman's murder and was charged with murder but given immunity to testify.
MrPoirot said...
OK, here's my list of 15 women who were giving George Spahn BJ's.
BRB, somebody at the door....
Old George had 15 different women blowing him??...Make no wonder he always had a smile on his face.
Louis m
aybe that is what killed him?
Hey Saint...
Did Hitler kill anyone personally?
Did Stalin? Did Oswald? Yet as I have said many times these three guys and Charlie are probably on the Mount Rushmore of Evil.
Maybe I need to go back and read old posts but I swear I agree with your perspective 95% of the time. But, and again maybe I am wrong here, you seem to be hellbent on minimizing Charlie's impact and I just can't get on board with that.
If you will indulge me a silly sports analogy - the Patriots never win a Super Bowl without Brady and TLB NEVER happens without Charlie.
Manson's influence and slavish control over a gaggle of women (hell, why argue numbers, let's just call em a gaggle) is still what fascinates most folk about the case.
Arguing about wether Mary or Ruth Ann or Cappy or such would have actually pulled the trigger is great parlor (or campfire) conversation but there will never be a definative answer. You will just have majority opinions and minority opinions. That is what Lynyrd was talking about when he said it was all about degrees of belief.
A certain degree of folk say yes, a certain degree say no. And that is why we come here to vent and engage and make our case.
I am not keen to defend my initial 15-20 projection EXCEPT to say that really there are several Family folk who might have killed one day and not another. Can we say for instance that Madaline Cottage was not a killer when she was there with Zero.
And yes, Saint, I knew/know that Country Sue came aboard after Manson was jailed, but her dedication/fanaticism makes me believe she would have killed on Manson's orders post-TLB.
For me personally, I refuse to believe that my favorite Ella Jo Bailey would have ever killed and there is great supporting evidence to that conjecture....but again. who can day for certain.
As a seasoned veteran of the LSD lifestyle, I can only say this for certain - ALL IT TAKES is one really bad trip and the constructs of reality that prohibit murder are quickly skewed and colored.
Point being we are not talking about reasoned or logical people, so speculation from a reasoned and logical vantage point seems....well, somewhat silly.
In January 1969 no Family member was a killer.
By August 1969 they were killers.
In 1969 either you escaped Charlie or you would become willing to kill.
Well there were 15 or 20 who stayed with Charlie through 69. Of them, 7 would never leave prison alive. The other 8-10 who remained with Charlie through 69 escaped murder convictions by turning states evidence or lack of evidence saved them from murder wraps
The patriots went 11-5 or 10-6 with Matt Cassell at QB and made the playoffs when Brady was out one year- thats about the same as they will do this year with him if you ask me...
Did Hitler kill anyone personally?
Did Stalin? Did Oswald? Yet as I have said many times these three guys and Charlie are probably on the Mount Rushmore of Evil.
The ten women in my list by themselves are the biggest group of killers in the 20th century.
Those are honestly the two most ridiculous statements about this case I have ever heard anyone outside of JimNYMonkey make...
Saint,
There's no need to bring Jim into this situation.
He hasn't visited this blog in 6 months (or longer).
That comment was uncalled for...
Gentleman,
Please don't allow this conversation, to deteriorate into personal attacks.
No worries, LS. Personally I like making the odd ridiculous comment just to keep things lively. What I meant by the Hitler/Stalin comment was only that actual killing is not the only barometer for evil. Personally I think nancy Pitman was allot more "evil" than Leslie but of course there is no way to 'prove' that.
The Saint and I are just never going to be sympatico on the "degree" of Manson's influence/responsibility. I'm fine with that.
Maybe we should be specific in arguing who might have killed.
For instance....
True or false....
Under optimum circumstances would Gypsy have killed on Manson's instructions? My answer - yes.
Under optimum circumstances would Cappy have killed for Manson? My answer - yes.
Under optimum circumstances would Ella Jo Bailey have killed for Manson? My answer - no.
And so on.
They're all just guesses. Like I said, ain't nothin but campfire conversation.
Cease 2 says :
You said ...
"I am not an have never been trying to engage in a speculation of who MIGHT"
In fact, you have been SPECULATING that people who didn't kill-on-command IN SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, wouldn't ever.
Same thing. Speculation
Hmmmm-
Charlie told TJ to pull a gun from Charlies pants and shoot Crowe. TJ did not. Charlie had to shoot Crowe himself. TJ fled within 24 hours only to return when Charlie was safely locked up. TJ did not kill for Charlie in anger or revenge when Charlie was convicted or sentenced to die. in the 40 years since TJ has not killed for Charlie for not being released at parole hearing after parole hearing, or for any other reason...
When do you suppose it is safe to say it is no longer speculation he would not kill for Charlie???
"SPECULATING that people who didn't kill-on-command IN SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, wouldn't ever."
Leary said 15 to 20 people would kill for Charlie undeniably- The whole goddamn point was that if Charlie had complete control over that many people there would be no specific examples. You were one of the ones who said all of them would kill on command. If there are ANY specific examples of people would NOT kill on command it makes my point....
L/S- I apologize from the bottom of my heart for saying that another blogger who is not around to defend himself and who made himself known to me by calling me names that were a tad bit more hurtful than ridiculous- says things which are ridiculous. He is not part of this and I simply was trying to remember the last time I was so exasperated by such utter ridiculousness...
:)
St C here is the group of nine women which by theirselves is the largest group of killers in the 20th century. Name me another group that has more killers from the same address in the 20th century.
1 Krenwinkle-convicted murder.
2 Sadie-convicted murder.
3 Ruth Ann-nearly tried for attempted murder of a witness.
4 Gypsy-ditched Shorty's car after his murder. Involved in shootout.
5 Nancy-involved in Willet murders.
6 LuLu-convicted murder.
7 Kasabian-involved in eight murders.
8 Cathy Gilles-set out with Manson to kill Granny.
9 Squeaky-convicted attempted assassin
Cappy Gilly was going to kill granny huh- at Charlies command...
Deed to a ranch- security and safety for the family- roof over there heads...
Alot to like and gain about that- right about the time they really needed it. But Charlie had so much power and Cappy is
one of the " biggest group of killers in the 20th century."
SO- along with the man who belongs on the Mt Rushmore of evil- killing an old women for the benefit of the entire family seems like an easy task for these two monsters...
but oh wait they were stopped by:
a flat tire???
not very resourceful or persistent for such dangerous folks lol
:)
Granny is lucky she didn't have a granddaughter who believed in Firestone instead of H/S
Mr P- I am about to get kicked off this site over you...
Last time...
There is only 1 person on your list who actually killed anyone directly them self.
The others did and said some criminal things, and some sadistic and terrible things. A few participated in what -to me- amounts to torture.
but you have 3 people on this list who directly participated in murder and only 1 who directly did enough to kill another human...
Threats makes a person the most dangerous in the last century?
Where do you possibly get the idea this is the worst group of women in the last 100 years???
She tried to do this
she said she would do this
She watched someone do this
lol are you kidding me???
criminal and dangerous- o.k.
the LARGEST GROUP OF KILLERS IN HISTORY????
sigh...
Take Tex and Bobby away and your group of women kills nobody- that's how dangerous they were...
I really think, that this entire situation between Saint, Leary and Cease2, is simply a case of miscommunication.
I'll try to offer my opinion, in an effort to resolve this situation, if/when I have the chance.
Unfortunately, that opportunity probably won't present itself, until (at least) wednesday evening.
As for Poirot's opinions... I really can't comment.
St C I will cut my list of women killers in half. Now name me another group with even 5 female killers from the 20th century in the US. Can you do it?
I'll be even nicer. Name me a group with 4 female killers from the 20th century. Let's see if you are being genuine or not.
Why- I think the Manson Family contained 1 real female killer- Pat
She is as dangerous as anyone- I grant you that.
BUT
There are literally thousands of women who are more dangerous than the rest of them. There is a cable Chanel I watch late at nights sometimes which has a show called women who kill or something like that- I am usually hammered- but it is literally a show which features two or three women per episode who have done really heinous things personally.
They didn't help someone else- they didn't watch someone else- they didn't threaten someone else
These women all did things from killing there own children- to lovers to spouses to family- for things like lust, money, greed. Diabolical schemes to destroy others.
Cappy and Ruthie lol
Just because they hung out in a group and tried to impress each other and the older guys with tough talk doesn't make them dangerous- or more of them would have wound up in jail at some point, or killed someone at some point.
Most of the girls on your list- save the few who really did actually get there hands involved- have grown into kindly sweet old ladies.
Seen pics of Nancy or Ruth lately?
's okay. You win.
Yea I've seen pics. That's what Leary and I spoke about the other day.
The pic of Nancy leaning against that old Woody with 3 other females with their faces blotted out is a pic of Nancy, her gdaughter with Stephanie Schram and her daughter. The van belongs to Nancy's brother. It's a pic of a family gathering on a sunny day. I wonder if Stephanie is married to Nancy's brother today?
BTW, Pat is a kindly old lady today also. She trains guide dogs.
Not for nothing, but before killing JFK, oh yes he did, Oswald also tried to kill that General what's his name but missed. Oh, and after killing Kennedy he also killed Dallas Police Officer JD Tippett before being apprehended.
Serial killer, serial schmiller. It was business as usual.
Saint,
With all due respect Saint... I disagree, with most of your points.
This was a group of criminals.
This entire criminal group collectively, and each individual there-in, was "potentially dangerous".
This was an unpredictable, volatile, "potentially dangerous" group.
From Crowe, to Hinman, to Tate, to LaBianca, to Shea, to the Willets... (and maybe even Zero)... there was a different "sub-group" of this criminal "macro-group" involved.
If Manson et al, had not been apprehended, there's absolutely no way of telling with 100% certainty, where this group was headed. And, there's also no way of telling (with 100% certainty), who would have emerged to participate in the next (potential) crime (i.e., sub-group).
C'mon Saint...
You knew Tex was going to participate at Cielo and Waverly before the fact?
You knew Leslie was going to ask to "go along" before the fact?
You saw all the warning signs and red flags, which specifically painted Pat Krenwinkel as a dangerous murderer, before the fact?
You knew exactly who would participate in Beausoleil's torture and murder, before the fact?
You knew who would participate in Shea's demise before the fact?
Of course, you didn’t.
So, how could you possibly know, what WOULD HAVE happened, or who MAY HAVE participated going forward?
The arrest and apprehension of Manson (et al) brought this “family” to a halt.
If the arrests never happened... there's no way on earth, that you could ever possibly know for SURE, if there would have been more crimes committed.... and MOREOVER, who those participants would have been.
The thing that you have to understand Saint, is this:
Past behavior, does not always dictate future behavior.
Allow me to elaborate:
You’re Correct…
It's an ABSOLUTE FACT, that TJ chose NOT to kill Bernard Crowe on one specific day. But that specific choice... (on that specific day)... does NOT necessarily ENSURE with 100% certainty... that TJ would NOT HAVE been capable of murder... EVER... for the rest of his entire life.
TJ's decision during the Crowe incident, strongly suggests, that he was a pacifist of somewhat sound mind (at that specific time)... and he PROBABLY was not going to be a killer in the near future. As I said... "PROBABLY".
BUT... with continued exposure to drugs, insanity, fear, peer-pressure, criminal activity, paranoia, etc... who knows, where he could have ended-up?
Point being:
You really can't exclude TJ COMPLETELY from a list of POTENTIAL killers, without speculation... regardless of the Crowe incident. In fact... you really can't exclude ANYONE (who was physically at the ranch) on any given day FOR SURE... because, past behavior, does not always dictate future behavior.
TJ may have deteriorated morally, mentally and emotionally, over time. It’s not probable (I agree)... but it's POSSIBLE. And that's the point Cease2 was trying to make.
Bottom line:
TJ COULD HAVE participated at Waverly Drive... and Saint, you would be whistling a totally different tune right now. Saint… you have to understand, that you have the benefit of hindsight!
Here's an Example:
What if Susan Atkins never squealed... And “the family” was never arrested? AND furthermore... what if there were MORE murders at MORE locations? How can you say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, that TJ wouldn't have made a poor choice, going forward?
None of us can predict the future, based on past behavior.
You can only “surmise” (or speculate) what would “PROBABLY have happened“, based on past behavior.
Look…
Leslie and Pat had no prior indications that they were vicious killers... nor did Tex. When does a killer become recognizable, as a killer? How does one spot a murderer before the fact? Every murderer commits murder for the first time, at some point… and prior to that, he/she was not a murderer. LOL
These people didn’t even KNOW Charles Manson five years prior to these murders. When does that light switch flip, turning a common pacifist into crazy whacko? At what point did each murderer, actually become a murderer? On what day, at what time? When would you have first recognized Tex Watson as a murderer?
Heck...
TEX HIMSELF, avoided the Crowe incident completely! Based on that information, one might conclude, that Tex was a pussy... a pacifist... and not a killer (at all). Harold True described Tex as a "Mama's boy". Tex was the All-American high school football star. By ALL PREVIOUS ACCOUNTS, Tex was NOT LIKELY to be a murderer! But, he surprised us all… didn‘t he?!!
**You can SURMISE that TJ was PROBABLY one of the LEAST LIKELY to kill for Charles Manson GOING FORWARD (based on his track record with Crowe)... AND I MIGHT AGREE. BUT, you can’t exclude TJ completely from a list of "POTENTIAL killers" with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, based solely on the Crowe incident... and furthermore… state your conclusion as fact.
If you want to formulate a list of "lesser likely" potential killers... I'd gladly include TJ on that list (based on his history at the Crowe incident) . But to exclude TJ COMPLETELY (as a potential "Charlie killer") based on past performance alone… is speculation.
As I said… I love ya Saint… and, I‘m not trying to “gang-up” on ya… but, if we’re gonna split “hypothetical hairs” on this thread (and, that’s exactly what we’re doing)… I gotta be upfront.
None of us has a crystal ball. We can only speculate at the DEGREE of potential hazard, each of these "family members" MAY HAVE (or, may not have) posed, based on their track record. I would place TJ as "less likely" to become a killer (than others), based on the Crowe outcome. Saint… I'm with ya 100% on that point... but, that’s as far as I can take it. Anything beyond “less likely” is speculation.
In plain English (let‘s call a spade a spade): TJ was a quack.
There's no telling what he (or, any of these assclowns) were (or were not) capable of, on ANY given day. And you know, that's the Dogs-honest truth.
Saint… I think pride is obstructing your objectivity.
Manson was in-charge of these bozos. Regardless of which motive theory you adhere to... i.e., drugs, money, revenge, gambling, or HS... Manson was calling the shots. He "conspired".
Leslie approached Manson to "go along" that night (not George Spahn, LOL). Manson is the one who said: "Do what Tex, tells you to do". Manson is the one who said: "Leave something witchy". Manson tied-up Leno. Manson was a conspirator… and these ass-clowns were feverishly loyal to him. It really WAS a "gaggle" of feverishly loyal kids (predominantly girls). Leary is right.
Note:
Leary SHOULD NOT have thrown down the gauntlet at exactly 15-20 killers (specifically). That was presumptuous. That was speculation. That was his mistake. Just as you have done, Leary was stating speculation as fact. But short of that mistake... Leary was pretty accurate. His general outlook, had merit.
That’s my two cents…
Excellent points Lynyrd! Thanks!! :)
: )
I try... LOL
('Course, they'll all hate ME now)
That's how it works ya know...
Other people debate for days (and, I stay out of it)... but when it's all said and done, I'll end-up the bad guy. LOL
Oh well...
It comes with the territory, I guess.
"there aint no baaaaaaaaaaaaad guys, there aint no gooooooood guys, its just you and me and we just cant agree..." who sings that?
everybody is tired of arguing today because congress continues to digress. lets get on with it yall...we the people and all that...
Dave Mason
GREAT freakin' song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8_FOQ7-P30
Thanks Patty.
There was a fantastic cover version of "people get together" (I THink) on Breaking Bad. I am terrible at looking things up. I could ask the wonderful Carol who can find anything but I will try first.
LS, as I said in previous post I wish I had worded my now infamous "15-20" projection differently because OF COURSE it is just speculation and opinion. I apologize if it came across to anyone as me stating a fact - I don't do that. I was just trying to do like the 'over/under' bet in football. The exact number of Family members who coulda/woulda killed will ALWAYS be unknown and a subject of speculation.
We should all be able to speculate without the throwing of sand in the sandbox. And we should just assume that whatever is said is speculation unless otherwise noted.
When TJ is dead will it be fair to say he wouldn't kill for Charlie?
I think he had his orders he didn't obey them and he has gone through his entire adult life without killing anyone..
There is telling what he is capable of- he has lived 40 years since being told to shoot crowe and he still hasn't hurt anyone. Quack or not- not a murdering quack.
I am going to say this one more time then going to get some beer and roll a few joints.
If anyone else wants to pile on - feel free- 5 6 7 people want to argue - I will go on all week.
:)
I never set out to say who wouldn't and who would kill for Charlie- I gave some examples of those who either refused when ordered- or who got the hell out before being put in the situation.
Even if I am willing to concede for the sake of fairness that the ones who never had to make that choice WOULD HAVE...
BUT to sit here and keep arguing that the ones who flat our refused- still might have is not me being too proud- its you being too stubborn.
You mentioned alot about TJ- except the one thing you need most- who did he hurt at Charlies orders- then - now or ever?
is the answer nobody?
was he told to shoot Crowe??
is the answer yes??
So to understand that he was told to kill by Charlie - and didn't- and never did anything harmful for Charlie then or in the 40 years since...
yet still insist he would have or could have or anything else-
is not really me being proudful- its me pointing out exactly what has transpired....
I cant argue if that means nothing to you.
Everyone can think what they want after all. If you chose to belive that those people would have murdered at Charlies orders- think what you wish.
When he got the death sentence I am sure he was pretty pissed- with a group of killers and the most dangerous group of women in our century- sorry have to smile when I say that :)
Bruce/Clem/TJ- all the girls still loose- wouldn't a few people have been killed???
L/S your a bright guy- TJ has been around a long time and still hasn't hurt anyone. It is fair to say he wouldn't Kill For Charlie by now. he had a direct order and much time since- at some point you have to say he was harmless...
or you can say whatever you want- its your blog.
for me for the last time- I am not trying to guess who wouldn't and who would- I'm trying to judge by who did and who didnt...
We all seem to be using different paramters for whatever reason.
the whole thing started by me pointing out I knew of more specific examples of who did not want to get violent for him than I knew of those who did.
I never intended to get into it over those in the middle who werent in the spot of doing one or the other.
Some went all out and said all of them would- and some still believe that is so. If you wont accept the facts as they occurred, or they don't matter to you- then I guess you can go on forever.
but life cant- and many of them are near the end of theirs and for the most part they haven't hurt a soul..
To sit here and say what they might have done 40 years ago is one thing- but don't they get the benefit of acknowledging what they have and have not done ever since???
TJ died in a wreck a long time ago.
St C when are you going to name a group of killers bigger than The Family? Put up or shut up.
Brooks and Paul Split
TJ said no and had to hide until Charlie wasn't around
Linda went to the wrong house and - then linda testified against the others
Stephanie and Diane Ran away
Simi Sherry fled in the night
These guys were not brainwashed and not into hurting people...
You can say they would do whatever you wish- but WE KNOW what they did
its not speculation. They said no or they left. None of them has killed in the 40 years since...
But if 8 of you keep screaming they might have under different this or if that went down like such,,,
maybe that makes it so???
Who knows??
I jsut keep thinking of the old quote on the side of Cols blog about Charlie being no good and being made into more than he was...
wouldnt he be making hit records and sitting in a hot tub with the stars if he had all the power they say or something like that...
If I am downplaying his powers- a few of you sure are pumping them up.
L/S- are we aloud to talk like that?
Mr.P- I dont think you know what your talking about so I am not going to give you the respect of taking you seriously.
Tex and Pat are as bad as any two out there- the rest of them could be beaten off with a wiffle ball bat
Saint...
It's really pretty simple.
This group (for all intents and purposes) lost momentum, when several of it's members became incarcerated.
When Manson, Bobby, Susan, Tex, Pat, Leslie, Clem and Bruce were permanently sentenced, the group slowly began to disband.
Can we agree on that much?
With the group disbanded, these folks (well... most of these folks, because there's no accounting for Lynn and Squeaky)... began re-acclimating to "normal" society.
I agree:
History demonstrates to us, that the VAST majority of these folks were harmless outside the context of this group.
Heck...
History demonstrates to us, that the vast majority of these folks were harmless BEFORE this group even formed!
So...
It seems the vast majority of these folks were harmless before and after this group experience.
Yes... before and after.
(It bears repeating)
But...
History also tells us, that WITHIN the context of this group, many of these folks were potentially dangerous.
Can we agree Saint, that while this group was still together, crimes just "seemed to happen" now and then? LOL!
When these folks were together, they got into crime... up to, and including murder.
And... if you pause and think about it Saint, they had a hand in murder, at quite a handful of locations.
It wasn't just one location.
One might even say, that they were killing "periodically", or even "regularly" by the end.
('Course, who could put a definition on a "regular" killing schedule?).
But, you get my point.
And... if you pause and think about it Saint,... there were different participants at each location.
Heck... at Hinman's torture/murder scene alone, there were quite a few folks who had a hand in it (in one form or another).
Bottom line:
I don't think, that anyone could ever sell me on the notion, that Tex and Pat were the ONLY dangerous (or potentially dangerous) folks in this group.
I also don't think, that anyone could ever sell me on the notion, that Tex and Pat were the ONLY one's who deserved to be jailed for murder.
That notion, seems to be what you're suggesting Saint, because your list of "potentially dangerous" family members, keeps shrinking by the minute.
This criminal group disbanded, and history has demonstrated to us, that outside the confines of this group, these folks recovered.
I agree with you.
BUT...
If the group had NOT disbanded... I personally believe, that there were (indeed) more "potentially dangerous" folks within this group, than just Tex and Pat.
The group itself, was "potentially dangerous" while intact.
History backs my assertion.
We'll never know for sure, what further crimes may have been committed by this group (IF the group had not been disbanded).
We'll also never know for sure, which members would have participated in those further crimes (because historically, the strike team varied at each incident).
For what it's worth...
I think both Poirot and Saint are presenting somewhat extremist views.
Somewhere in the middle (between their completely diverse arguments), lies reality.
There's a whole lot more "grey area" in this world, than black-n-white.
It seems, Poirot and Saint (both) keep moving further and further to the left and right (respectively), just to get each other's goats.
Saint, you said:
"Most of the girls on your list- save the few who really did actually get there hands involved- have grown into kindly sweet old ladies. Seen pics of Nancy or Ruth lately?"
I gotta be honest with ya Saint...
That point doesn't resonate with me.
Pat Krenwinkel has grown into a kindly sweet old lady too.
I agree, that Nancy Pitman is a MILF.
She's an attractive woman, and she seems comfortably prosperous.
But c'mon Saint... she was a quack in 1969.
Ted Bundy was a good-looking man.
I've seen photos of him too.
What these folks look like today, and what they've become, has little bearing on what they may have been capable of, 40+ years ago.
Leslie is looking like a librarian these days too.
I'm just not getting your point, on that one.
Lynyrd, will check emails shortly.
Mr Poiret, take a look at the RAF (Red Army Faction).
In a nutshell: in the late 60s a group of mostly students became involved in protest against the state, the establishment, the generation gap, the Vietnam War, USA imperialism, etc.
They then formed a leftwing guerilla group that went on to fund themselves by robbing banks and were responsible for bombings, shootouts, kidnappings.
What is of interest is that the group was mostly made up of young women, even the leadership was pretty evenly split between men and women.
When you ask for examples of other groups beside the Manson one, I am reminded of them.
in 1971/72 Imgard Moller (seriously cute) at 25 had by then already killed a policeman in a shootout aided by Margrit Schiller, and then with Angela Luther walked into a police station planting pipe bombs. Then with others she drove a car bomb into a USAF base in Heidelberg killing 3.
Others like Ingrid Schubert, Ulrike Meinhof, Astrid Proll and Gudrun Ensllin all took part in freeing their leader from custody, followed by car thefts, arson and bank raids.
By any means they were a dangerous group comparable to the Manson one in age, numbers and gender split.
Unlike those around Manson, when their leader was jailed, they broke him out. When all the leaders were jailed those still free formed a second generation (referring to Lynryd's point that the Manson Family was unable to achieve this).
In an attempt to free the leadership they kidnapped a prominent business man to ransom for their comrades release. When this failed they executed him.
They are regarded mostly in political terms rather than moral ones. Well worth a look-see (youtube Baader-Meinhof Complex for example). They did exist as a gang living together, sleeping together in a self-declared war against their own country.
The Manson Family always strike me as rather badly organised when compared to them in the context of the RAF had a vision and could continue to work to achieve it, whereas the Manson Family seems to react to one bad move after another with an equally poor choice. Almost as though one person was not the brains behind everything and that like Nazi Germany everybody was supposed to be "working towards the will of the Furher" whilst not knowing exactly was being asked of them.
Oh, as to the list, didn't Ella Jo Bailey (with Brunner) wipe down the fingerprints on Hinman's vehicle when it arrived back at the ranch? Knowing why she was doing it as well.
Thanx Christopher. Did you know that Sandra Good was a member of the RAF?
I'm not familiar with the RAF...but they sound similar to the Weather Underground?
PS I've always considered Blue to be the most dangerous and unpredictable of all the Manson Women.
I was kidding about Sandra being in the raf but she is very unpredictable no doubt. Jeff Bravin says her zeal is what got Squeaky to go after Ford.
Poirot Patty doesn't mean to be snarky at all when she says it's Jess (not Jeff) Bravin. His "Squeaky" is on Patty's top five list and she also has a little crush on him too.
Happy Friday to you
"What these folks look like today, and what they've become, has little bearing on what they may have been capable of, 40+ years ago".
I'm just not getting your point, on that one"....
Well- if they didn't kill then and haven't since- is it still possible to call them the most dangerous group of anything in the Century or whatever it is? I just think that if Mr. P is going to give examples of them making threats and SAYING what they were going to- counts as being dangerous- it is only fair to point out what they DID or DID not do over the course of their lives in making a fair assessment of their dangerousness.
Is that out of line?
"In plain English (let‘s call a spade a spade): TJ was a quack.
There's no telling what he (or, any of these assclowns) were (or were not) capable of, on ANY given day. And you know, that's the Dogs-honest truth.
I beg to differ- there is a way of telling- he was asked - said no- and lived his whole life without killing anyone. what else do you need to know to decide a guy wouldn't kill anyone? I guess if he was cornered on a dark street by thugs and had a gun on him he might have- but was that really the point any of us were talking about??
I just feel it is only fair to point out the ones who wouldn't go too far for Charlie- just as we scorn the ones who would. I have done posts on TJ ripping him to shreds and same with Linda and Brooks- who regularly made a fool of himself for Charlie- but none of these people ever did anything to make me believe they would kill for him- and there are facts which support just the opposite.
There are many groups of women in this country who are ore radical and much more dangerous than the group of unwanted teenage wannabees at Spahn Ranch- to start naming groups is the give Mr. P the chance to start arguing over numbers and who actually had how many who would kill which is just what he wants. I am not going there.
The weatherman is a good example of why. I know he is just dying to point out to me the exact number of women who were charged or killed, so he can name more M women who were involved- but the problem is that the weatherman females were intelligent and well thought out, and had real goals and purpose. This makes them infinitely more dangerous to me than people like ruthie and Cappy- saying to a group of older guys what they are GOING to do.
It is just is two different things to me. so why argue each individual group to count who actually killed versus who Mr. P thinks would kill. OR- argue if those who helped 's total against people who were building bombs, or putting chemicals in people food or drinking water?
finally- L/S- you pointed out a whole list of things I could not know before the fact- and i never said once that I did. you then said
"Of course, you didn’t.
So, how could you possibly know, what WOULD HAVE happened, or who MAY HAVE participated going forward?"
Well- we do know that dont we?
Charlie asked TJ and Linda when he was still out and he said no. They didn't kill for him. They didnt kill since, so in my opinion you cannot call them killer or say they would kill or Charlie or anyone else.when asked they didn't- and haven't since. Is it speculating to look at a persons whole life and reflect on what they did or didn't do?
I do agree that they lost momentum and slowed down- but it doesn't change what happened before that. TJ not only said no- he split so he wouldn't be asked again. He only went back when Charlie was not around to force him back into that situation. It wasn't like he was going to keep getting pressured until he finally did it- he left entirely. that should mean something.
And finally- even if they lost momentum due to a few people getting locked up. Lets be fair.
PLEASE. Even if disbanded- if they were the most dangerous group of girls in the century- wouldn't a few more killings have occurred at some point?
I dont want to argue with half a dozen people over this. I have written post after post defending the victims against all of these scumbags. I don't like or want to defend any of them.
This started and will end for me the same way- I dint believe there were 15 to 20 girls in this group who would kill for Charlie undeniably.
obviously it is just me. Thats o.k.
Have a good weekend anyway :)
ok one last shot :) lol
To consider red, blue, purple, or pink more dangerous than Pat Krenwinkle is something I will never understand...
I dint care what Sandy ever said she was going to do ever. I have seen the robotic look in her eyes in the Hendrickson documentary- and it is scary as hell- she looks lost. But Pat did some shit you will never convince me Sandy or anyone else had in them.
But lets just say its me. I must not get it on this one.
I am not too vain to think everyone is wrong and I am always right- for so many to be coming at me there must be something I am missing on this subject.
I'll work on it ;)
Mr. P you got personal with me a couple times before I got to buzzed to want to deal with it. I apologize for over reacting to you, and I enjoy you most of the time.
I really disagree with you about this though....
Peace !
Mr. P ...
In all sincerity if you want to take a look at the most dangerous group of people in the last century- who have done the most harm to the most people...
you should spend a weekend reading what was going on for the last 30 years in the Church of Scientology.
Its another subject for another blog- but is says more than anything else about how really scary they were/are- that to this day most of you have no idea what has been happening...
L.Ron hubbard had women penetrating and working in IRS offices and setting up congressman in extortion schemes. They were and are after control of the entire planet and have the cash and faces in popular culture to make ground in that direction. Families shave been shattered- hundreds of people have gone missing, and girls have been forced to have sex and into marriage in teenage years. Kids made to work slave hours for no wages, and not allowed to see their own parents.
This organization has money- connections,and very famous front men/women out there drawing more in every day. They number in the thousands and literally own there own town ( Clearwater)where they film anyone who goes through and people will walk right up to you with a camera and snap your photo if they don't know you. They have cameras on the street corners in that town. They have had the power to control politicians, and even change laws, and there own tax status.That is real power.
Truly scary stuff....
An with that- on the nicest most positive note I could muster...
I am out :)
I'm simply gonna re-post one comment, because it covers it all:
Saint...
It's really pretty simple.
This group (for all intents and purposes) lost momentum, when several of it's members became incarcerated.
When Manson, Bobby, Susan, Tex, Pat, Leslie, Clem and Bruce were permanently sentenced, the group slowly began to disband.
Can we agree on that much?
With the group disbanded, these folks (well... most of these folks, because there's no accounting for Lynn and Sandy)... began re-acclimating to "normal" society.
I agree:
History demonstrates to us, that the VAST majority of these folks were harmless outside the context of this group.
Heck...
History demonstrates to us, that the vast majority of these folks were harmless BEFORE this group even formed!
So...
It seems the vast majority of these folks were harmless before and after this group experience.
Yes... before and after.
(It bears repeating)
But...
History also tells us, that WITHIN the context of this group, many of these folks were potentially dangerous.
Can we agree Saint, that while this group was still together, crimes just "seemed to happen" now and then? LOL!
When these folks were together, they got into crime... up to, and including murder.
And... if you pause and think about it Saint, they had a hand in murder, at quite a handful of locations.
It wasn't just one location.
One might even say, that they were killing "periodically", or even "regularly" by the end.
('Course, who could put a definition on a "regular" killing schedule?).
But, you get my point.
And... if you pause and think about it Saint,... there were different participants at each location.
Heck... at Hinman's torture/murder scene alone, there were quite a few folks who had a hand in it (in one form or another).
Bottom line:
I don't think, that anyone could ever sell me on the notion, that Tex and Pat were the ONLY dangerous (or potentially dangerous) folks in this group.
I also don't think, that anyone could ever sell me on the notion, that Tex and Pat were the ONLY one's who deserved to be jailed for murder.
That notion, seems to be what you're suggesting Saint, because your list of "potentially dangerous" family members, keeps shrinking by the minute.
This criminal group disbanded, and history has demonstrated to us, that outside the confines of this group, these folks recovered.
I agree with you.
BUT...
If the group had NOT disbanded... I personally believe, that there were (indeed) more "potentially dangerous" folks within this group, than just Tex and Pat.
The group itself, was "potentially dangerous" while intact.
History backs my assertion.
We'll never know for sure, what further crimes may have been committed by this group (IF the group had not been disbanded).
We'll also never know for sure, which members would have participated in those further crimes (because historically, the strike team varied at each incident).
I must say Saint...
I'm a bit surprised at your stance.
You're minimizing Manson's level of influence?
Aren't you the one, who always argued, that HS was a viable theory?
Aren't you the one, who always argued, that until hard facts are presented to support alternate theories (drugs, etc)... HS will always remain the most viable theory?
Well Saint...
"HS" as you know... paints Manson in a VERY influential role!
If you support HS... you're also supporting the notion, that Manson was a very influential component, within this group of criminals.
You can't have it, both ways.
And hence... down-playing Manson's level of influence, is something of a 180 for you.
-------------------------------------------
ALSO...
I'm a bit surprised, that you are downplaying the criminal potential of every "family member" except Tex and Pat.
Really Saint?
I thought you were the bleeding heart, who crusaded tirelessly against all these crazy animals?
Now, everyone except Tex and Pat is harmless?
I doubt Debra Tate (the other person you've always defended) would agree.
At any rate...
You have a right to your opinion... and, if that opinion contradicts your past opinion(s), that's your prerogative.
I've changed my stance on various issues through the years, myself.
Peace...
And with that... I'm done.
SaintC has every right to his opinion, and that's cool with me.
I don't feel the need to throttle every blogger, into agreement with me.
In fact... it's impossible anyway.
#1)
I simply feel, that the behavior these folks exhibited BEFORE and AFTER this criminal group was functional, cannot be used to measure (with 100% accuracy) what "could have"... or "would have" happened within the context of this functioning criminal group.
#2)
I simply feel, that past behavior does not always dictate future behavior.
That's my opinion.
I have said that Charlie is Overrated as a mass murderer, and that Tex scares me more as you never would have seen him coming.
I have said Pat is an animal. I have said that LULU is my favorite as she was too dumb to realize this wasn't all a big game and even after she was arrested- she still couldn't grasp what she had done and that she was in big trouble for a very long time.
I have said that I think Susan was loud and liked being the center of attention, but had a bark worse than her bite.
I have said that I believe Charlie had enough influence to get a select few of them to harm others for him ,and although I am still not sure what motivation he used to get them to do so, I have seen more actual proof of H/S than anything else up to this point. Although, I am not sure that I believe H/S is the actual motivation he used- I haven't seen any real proof of anything else.
That is what I said and what I believe.
I have never said anywhere that I think he had enough influence over all or many of them to kill for him. I do not.
He asked Linda and TJ to kill and they said no. They did not kill anyone then or never. We can go on for 5 more days over weather or not they might have anyway then or ever. but in itself the fact that a couple of them said no at least once and several others never killed then or ever- just makes it hard for me to accept that either:
15 to 20 of them would have killed undeniably for Charlie
or
that they were the most dangerous killers of the last century..
Tell you what- lets just say you all win- I am wrong, and we can end it like that??
#1)
I simply feel, that the behavior these folks exhibited BEFORE and AFTER this criminal group was functional, cannot be used to measure (with 100% accuracy) what "could have"... or "would have" happened within the context of this functioning criminal group.
#2)
I simply feel, that past behavior does not always dictate future behavior.
1- never was trying ast any point to say who would or could have. trying to remind people of who did and who didnt.
2- not trying to predict future behavior- looking back at past behavior and at 40 years of current behavior and evaluating that behavior and presenting results.
we don't even seem to be on the same page- so lets just get onto a new chapter...
:)
Have the last word dude- enjoy your football, Sox playoffs and the weekend
:)
"15 to 20 of them would have killed undeniably for Charlie"
or
"that they were the most dangerous killers of the last century.."
=============================
For the record Saint:
Neither of the quotes (or notions) are mine.
The first quote was Leary's.
The second quote was Poirot's.
I described Leary's quote as presumptuous speculation.
I described Poirot's quote as an extremist view.
Just to be clear.
It's all good Saint.
I really don't give a shit, about any of this stuff anyway.
Truth be told... every minute on these computers, is a complete waste of time.
And THAT'S the honest truth...
Go enjoy your day.
St C picture Jan Brady with her head shaved and an x carved in her forehead while holding a shotgun with a snake around her neck.
Picture Alice armed with an upraised knife chasing a mortally wounded Mrs Brady around the back yard.
Mr P says, Manson family is the biggest group of killers in the 20 th century. I disagree, that distinction goes to the U.S. Government.
FYI, I couldn't get the link that Sunset was kind enough to provide for The Family to work, but if anyone else is having this issue I have been watching blockbuster movies on YouTube, World War Z, Insidious, Olympus has fallen, there's allot of good movies on there, you just have to try a few to get one that has a decent picture and audio.
Post a Comment