Wow, just wow... what can I say?
After many years of researching, meeting folks involved (including law enforcement)... reading all the books I could get my hands on, visiting first hand the places involved, I had come to a conclusion and personal belief that the TLB murders were committed "To get a brother out of jail"....meaning of course, Bobby B....
When George Stimson's book came out last year "Goodbye Helter Skelter", I was in TLB heaven.....I thought finally, someone who knows the original Family members, knows Manson very very well, has verified what I always concluded was the motive! So I was satisfied, finally!
I'm confused --- honestly---- it wasn't only Paul Watkins that believed and told Bugliosi the same tale of Helter Skelter...
I'm thinking twice now.......maybe three times...not done yet...I know, I am nobody...but Lynyrd lets me post here, lol...
61 comments:
Kimchi, you ROCK!
This square is really big. HA HA
Gregg Jacobsen also had a very detailed knowledge of Manson's view about these subjects. I was surprised at just how much he knew- at least according to his interview with Vincent B. which was given prior to the trial. He said when he first met Manson in the spring of 1968 and that he was already talking about a black white war- but that his talk about it became more intense after he heard the White Album later that same year and that was when he started referring it to as Helter Skelter and comparing the music in the White Album to passages in the bible, and how it related to him, etc. Much of what Jacobsen says to Vincent B. mirrors what Leslie is saying here. Jacobsen said Manson really seemed to believe what he was preaching at the time. I have no idea how much his talk of " Helter Skelter" had to actually do with the murders, but it was obviously talked about quite a bit regardless. From what I have read anyway. I also used to think the motive was more of a copycat plan more than anything but now I have no solid opinion. I'm starting to think the crimes were due to a number of factors but it doesn't seem like anyone will ever know for sure at this point. I don't even think most of the actual killers know.
Thanks Kimchi and thank you so much Cielo Drive for all the interesting info you provide for all of us!!
Krissy said: I'm starting to think the crimes were due to a number of factors but it doesn't seem like anyone will ever know for sure at this point. I don't even think most of the actual killers know.
Krissy I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think the only one who really knows why is Charlie and he most likely will never say.
Leslie says at that time, not only does she not have remorse for killing, she would willingly do it again if she was asked by Charlie. Now, of course, it's a different story. That's how much control Charlie had on her and the others.
I think they should put the victims' photos of the crime scene and also the morgue photos up at the parole hearings. But not where the family members can see them. Maybe a video screen by the killer(s) seat and also by the parole board members seats, with a montage of photos that change constantly. That way, the victims can be present and although voiceless, they can still tell their stories. I think that would be a great tool to help the parole board have a greater understanding of the carnage that these killers caused. And maybe prick some consciousness of remorse from the killers....
Leslie also mentions that these killings were supposed to appear to be "random and without any reason", to strike fear and paranoia, which they certainly did.
These murders were not random, each victim was hand picked by Charlie. But the killers didn't even know that. I wonder if they do now...
In 1968 Leslie was not violent in any way but yet she clearly had become incredibly violent in a matter of months in 1969. The reason? Charlie started preaching violence. Gypsy stated that when things got rough that it happened very quickly. Charlie started preaching violence in Dec 68 and by July 69 the Family had become violent. In only 6 mos the Family went from peaceful to murderous.
The Family was issued knives and were taught how to stab people. Decarlo was brought in and put in charge of the Family's firearms. Lots of gunfire-even automtics- were heard by neighbors around the ranch in 69. This was not happening in 68 prior to Charlie hearing the White Album.
Bugliosi stated in his opening statement to jurors there were multiple, complicated motives behind the murders. Bug has NEVER said Helter Skelter was the ONLY reason the Family murdered. In fact NOBODY has ever said HS is the only motive behind TLB. I think the fact that Bug's famous book is named "Helter Skelter" caused many people (including Charlie) to falsely claim Helter Skelter was a fictional creation of Bugliosi's which had nothing to do with the Family descending into murder.
Here are some motives:
1 Insanity. Charlie had an active flare up of his schizophrenia which led to him hearing voices on the White Album telling him of a coming apocalypse. Hearing voices is a symptom of schizophrenia. Helter Skelter is a derivative of Charlie's mental illness. Charlie himself has stated he had a nervous breakdown.
2 Robbery. Beausoleil went to rob Hinman because he believed he had a money windfall.
3 Revenge. Anger over the arrests of Family members.
4 Failing to get a record deal. Charlie arrived back from Easelen from a failed audition. Stephanie Schram said Charlie slapped her shortly after coming back to the bread truck at Easelen. Charlie was stressed. He has previously been turned down by terry Melcher.
5 Copycat. The girls had watched a movie describing copycat murders designed to make cops release a suspect.
6 Charlie feared he had murdered Crowe.(this motive is even more pronounced than copycat)This fear predated the hinman murder and could have led to Charlie's breakdown.
7 Snitching. Shorty Shea was murdered for supposedly ratting and causing the disasterous Aug 16,69 raid on Spahn Ranch.
8 Drug deal gone bad. Hinman may have sold bad mescaline to Beausoleil and couldn't return the cash to Beausoleil.
9 Helter Skelter. Within this weird ideology taught in 69 was a powerful violent message that had radically contrasted from the Family's peaceful hippie ways in 67 and 68. This motive was the over arching theme to it all because it is what caused the violent mindsets developed by all the members of the Family. The girls that murdered believed in Helter Skelter and may have killed exclusively due to HS. Even the men who committed murder for other motives had developed violent thoughts due to Manson's race war rants so no one was exempt from the HS motive. leslie is one of the killers; she should know why she killed. She still today maintains this motive. Notice that Leslie does not mention any motive but Helter Skelter.
Some claim Charlie didn't believe in HS at all and that he merely used HS to control his Family but yet Charlie exhaustively searched for the underground river in the desert after TLB.
She says its all perfect,,,,the girls in Manson saying it was all perfect,,,as perfection is,,,,Tex saying in some letter,,,it was perfect ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I agree wholeheartedly, Kimchi. Wow.
First off, is that CieloDrives's voice doing the intro? I've always thought it was the sexiest voice I have ever heard. Any of you guys met her?
Very few, if any folk, buy or sell Helter Skelter as the clear and sole motive for TLB. It was a clusterfuck of motives and psychosis. But it does blow the mind to listen to this tape and then contemplate the fever with which many have denounced HS as nothing but a Bug myth. I've just never understood the vehemence that the anti-HS crowd showed and how they would denounce and belittle anyone who bought even a small part of HS. I mean in addition to multiple testimonies you have the words written in the victims blood! How can anyone dismiss that fact as happenstance.
Candy is right on as usual. 'Killing piggies' was, for a core group of 12-15, an accepted part of the path to perfection. Are there any tapes of Pat from the same time period echoing Leslie's thoughts?
Lulu in 1969....she was both seriously fucked and fascinating at the same time.
From day one, I've always enjoyed Leary's posts.
He's intelligent, insightful, and most of all, completely unapologetic with his opinions.
MrPoirot said
"Bugliosi stated in his opening statement to jurors there were multiple, complicated motives behind the murders. Bug has NEVER said Helter Skelter was the ONLY reason the Family murdered."
This is so true and it's something that gets frequently overlooked on just about every blog I've seen on this case. It's kind of ironic that one of the chief complaints of those who discount Helter skelter is that it keeps being bandied about by the media and DAs office at parole hearings even 46 years later.......when in actual fact, they are doing exactly the same thing by not putting it in it's correct context when they attempt to discount it.
Bugliosi in his opening statement actually says "We believe there to be more than one motive." He then further goes on to refer to Helter skelter as "a further motive for these murders." And later still he calls Helter skelter "one of Manson's principal motives."
That said, long before Bugliosi started running with it in 1970, it just kept on coming up in the varying strands of investigation that were going on. In one way or another, Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard, Danny DeCarlo, Susan Atkins, Brooks Poston, Al Springer and now Leslie Van Houten all spoke of Helter Skelter or alluded to it in connection with the TLB muders to someone, be it police or lawyer or Grand Jury or cellmate. Just the wide scope of people who spoke of it {especially outsiders that never really understood it} and the people that were made aware of it and the circumstances under which they were made aware of it, points to there being something there. Or at least warranted further investigation.
I think it would have been irresponsibly reckless if the prosecution had followed Aaron Stovitz's thoughts and dumped it. It is pretty easy to continually lambast Vincent Bugliosi for pursuiing it; in my view, he took the far harder route by trying to get convictions with Helter skelter as part of the motive because whenever I read someone like Steven Kay {who, down the years I have to say has been pretty embarrassing} or DDA Patrick Sequeira trying to block paroles based on their reading of it, it sounds so stupid. It really does.
But if you put it in the context of the times, the circumstances and the continual LSD usage, it's not stupid at all.
Acid coupled with repetitive suggestion helped the incredulous seem not only credible, but real. People really believed some, ah, interesting things back in the mid to late 60s and early 70s.
Thank You Grim Traveller.
I enjoyed reading your post.
I agree with all of you. ( See Mr. P., as long as we're not discussing Jodi Arias we could probably be friends!) :)
I've never been completely convinced that the Helter Skelter motive was 100% the reason for the murders- ( well, maybe when I first saw the movie/ read the book but I was still really young back then. No older than thirteen or fourteen.) I've also never understood why the whole idea is dismissed so easily by people. There were plenty of people who were around when these crimes occurred who spoke quite openly about it. Both devoted family members and those associated with them. It definitely wasn't something Vincent B. just made up. I have read Helter Skelter several times over the years, and there is PLENTY of talk throughout about Manson's obsession with the upcoming black/ white revolution- ( that was " just around the corner" according to Sandra Good.) In late December of 1968 after listening to the White Album he started referring to it, from what I read anyway, as Helter Skelter and it was talked about a lot by Manson & crew as was most of the White Album over that winter and into the spring and summer of 1969. I recently started listening to HS again on a audiobook. ( It's 26 hours long!) As many times as I read that book in the past ( although it's been a while now) I still learn or pick up on something new. I was just listening to the part where Vincent B. was talking to Gregg Jacobson when I saw this thread. ( I know the interview is also on CieloDrive's site which is a great source for information. TY) Gregg J. knew all " Helter Skelter" and so did a lot of others. He said he was told about it from Manson himself. Does that prove it was the motive for murder? No, of course not but nothing has been proved as the motive. I do think it was definitely a part of the story regardless and shouldn't be completely dismissed or laughed off as many people seem to do. I think some of them just don't like Vincent B. to tell you the truth. Whatever the motive or motives these people have their own actions and behaviors to blame for being where they are. A part of me can almost feel a slight bit of pity for one or two of them after all this time- but you can't just butcher people the way they did, laugh and giggle about it in front of victim's family members and expect to be forgiven and let free into society again. Not in my opinion anyway.
I think I still have about twelve or thirteen hours left to listen to on the book. If anything else comes up that I had forgotten or seems relevant to what you're talking about here I'll let you know. :) ( Even though I realize you have all read the book yourselves- it's funny how much you can forget!)
PS. I forgot to thank Kimchi for starting this thread- sorry about that! Thanks to both her and CieloDrive.
:)
Brian Davis aired the Van Houten audio footage on his radio program tonight.
I hadn't listened to any of it yet... so I was glad to hear it.
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing has really changed for me.
I've always believed that "HS" was discussed at the ranch, and moreover, I've always believed that some of the members/perps believed it. (not all, but some)
-------------------------------------------------------
I found this section of the audio footage particularly interesting:
MR. PART: Now, you say that you all used to sit around Gresham and the desert and talk about this philosophy of going down to the center of the earth.
Could you name some of the people that used to talk about it?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Gypsy and Brenda and myself and Katie and Charles and Tex and Clem and Snake and Rachel.
There was — we’re the ones that usually talked about it the most. Sadie did sometimes; but I don’t know if she actually believed it or not.
But all the rest of us, we really believed it.
LVH herself, knew (or at least suspected) that some of the members didn't really believe the "HS" stuff... while others did.
I found it curious how she singled-out Atkins.
------------------------------------------------------
A quick question:
Does anyone know for sure, if Attorney Part "pre-planned" this interview with LVH, for the sole purpose of leveraging an "insanity plea"?
OR,
Was this interview with LVH conducted impromptu, as part of regular "attorney business"?
My point:
I'm wondering if Leslie knew upfront, that this tape would be used to pursue an insanity plea.
---------------------------------------------------
Leslie's testimony is so "detailed", that I can only conclude one of two things:
Either A:
This interview was "pre-arranged" by Attorney Part (for the purpose of an insanity plea), and LVH was privy to that fact beforehand.
Or B:
Leslie really believed the "HS" stuff.
I'm leaning towards "B".
As I said...
I've always believed that "HS" was discussed at the ranch, and I've always believed that some of the members/perps believed it.
-------------------------------------------
*Thanks again to CieloDrive.com for providing this audio footage.
Thanks for your input Krissy.
Lynyrd said: A quick question:
Does anyone know for sure, if Attorney Part "pre-planned" this interview with LVH, for the sole purpose of leveraging an "insanity plea"?
Lynyrd I'm no lawyer but I don't think he could use this tape in a court of law anyway, so it would serve no purpose in an insanity plea. But I'll defer to Dill on that one. Dill???
Hi Katie,
I'm pretty sure Brian said (last night), that Attorney Part submitted the audio tape to the judge (in an effort to demonstrate that Leslie was mentally incompetent).
From there, the judge handed the tape over to a psychiatrist for evaluation.
Evidently, the psychiatrist found her competent.
Unless, I missed something... LOL?
I'm pretty sure that's what I heard, unless I'm hallucinating. LOL
Hey L/S, I'm Irish so it is against my constitution to apologize for opinions. Without opinions the Irish would just be, well, English.
"Some totally believed while others didn't".....that is the dynamic that has always fascinated me. What were the factors that caused some to dive into the deep end and others, like my girl Ella Jo, to keep one foot on the shore. That's the part that I have always wanted to understand better.
thanks for the kind words, L/S...you're the tops.
kinda like if Archie Bunker didn't have opinions he would be, well, Lawrence Welk.
Leary, you crack me up!
Thanks Lynyrd I guess I missed that part. Probably running my mouth. LOL.
Krissy I agree with you totally. Even VB said that Helter Skelter wasn't the only motive, it's just the one he used to convict Manson. I think Helter Skelter was a means to an end that Manson used to get these people on board for his purposes.
And Leary I agree, it is fascinating that some people just ate this stuff up with a spoon and others said "ahhhhh maybe not...". I think being brainwashed is like being hypnotized. Some people are susceptible and others aren't.
"kinda like if Archie Bunker didn't have opinions he would be, well, Lawrence Welk."
Lmao! So true Leary... So true!
And "Archie" was Irish too! (Carroll O'Connor)
My buddy used to say:
"America. The Jews own it, and the Irish run it".
Lmao.
That's an "Archie opinion", if ever there was one... but hey, it's pretty accurate nonetheless. ; )
Krissy I also agree with you that a lot of people (especially now for some reason) just flat don't like VB and therefore diss the HS theory. I think VB did a brilliant job prosecuting these people, although I don't particularly care for him personally. I don't like that book he wrote about not believing in God, that goes against my grain, but that doesn't affect my opinion of his work on this case.
Some people like to think Manson didn't get a fair trial because President Nixon said he was guilty. For some reason, they don't say nobody else got a fair trial, it's just Manson that didn't get one(Huh?). The majority of the publicity of this trial was generated by the Manson Family themselves. All of their antics on the street and also in the courtroom, including Manson himself. They wanted to shock the world with these murders, and they did. So they have no one to blame for the publicity of this case but themselves.
Lynyrd, I watched an episode of All In the Family yesterday and I thought of you. It's the one where Irene gave Edith a St. medal and Archie was afraid she was going to "turn Catholic". It was hilarious!!!
It's all right there, in your "Book of Generous". LOL! (Genesis, LOL)
I love All in the Family! I know the show centered around Archie but Edith was my favorite character.
Leary your crack about if the Irish didn't have opinions they would be English made me laugh out loud. My father was of Irish descent, my Mother is English so I can really appreciate the humor.
Katie, I didn't know Vincent B. wrote a book about there not being a God. I hadn't heard about that one although Helter Skelter is the only book of his I have ever read. I didn't agree with him 100% in that either, although I still think overall it was a very good book. He tried too hard to make Linda K. look too much like a innocent bystander for one thing. I know he needed her testimony and she hadn't killed anyone but I don't think she was the naïve flowerchild he sometimes made her out to be. IMO anyway. Better for her to walk than Atkins though (obviously!)
Krissy Deen said;
“I've never been completely convinced that the Helter Skelter motive was 100% the reason for the murders- ( well, maybe when I first saw the movie/ read the book but I was still really young back then. No older than thirteen or fourteen.) “
I reckon that if one was young when first reading “Helter Skelter” then you’d tend to take all of it as is. I was 15 when I read the book and though there was much I missed or didn’t understand, I had no reason to doubt any of it. As one gets older, perhaps a little cynical of ‘the system’/establishment and realizes that all is not as it seems, then of course, awkward questions get asked. As a Black guy in England, I’ve seen firsthand {and historically long been aware} how the judicial system has been sometimes used to squeeze and oppress those the State finds ‘undesirable.’
It isn’t limited to the West, however.
Krissy Deen said;
“I've also never understood why the whole idea is dismissed so easily by people. There were plenty of people who were around when these crimes occurred who spoke quite openly about it. Both devoted family members and those associated with them. It definitely wasn't something Vincent B. just made up.”
I think part of why it’s so easily dismissed is simply because it seems utterly ridiculous that anyone could kill a load of people that they didn’t know for something as nebulous as trying to show Black people how to bring the White world to it’s knees and destroy it.
I have to say, if they had really known anything about Black people, they would’ve known that probably most ‘conscious’ Black people would be insulted at the idea that yet again, the White man’s lead {in this case, the Family}would be necessary in order for the Black man to get up and do something effective.
But that’s another discussion for another time.
It also seems to a lot of people, almost inconceivable that anyone could seriously be convicted of crimes that had HS as part of the motive. And added to this, pretty much from just after the time of the arrests at Barker, when the name of Charles Manson first hit headlines, he became something of a, dare I say it, folk hero to many. He was funny, he said a lot of things that were true and resonated with those prepared to listen with both ears, he posed awkward questions, he fit with much of the cynical questioning ouvre of the times. It’s one thing to read about Robin Hood and think “what a great story” but here the biggest world power had a real live human being who actually spoke their own thoughts. Americans didn’t get an opportunity to parlez with Bonnie & Clyde. But Charlie could be asked questions and he’d answer them. As Robert Hendrickson has pointed out, here is a real living historical figure. And from his 30s right up to being 80, he was and is damn charismatic, even when playing the weirdo.
As the decades have continued, he’s been much loved and because he’s always maintained he was wrongly convicted, I think that has led scores of writers to examine the case and the rise of the internet and the blogosphere has taken what was often localized discussions among a few interested parties {if you were lucky !} into a whole other world where one can connect with loads of people all over the planet who have an interest in the case and are able to share/swap all kinds of thoughts, theories, agreements, disagreements, ideas and arguements.
Once group dynamics are in place, you get to~ing and fro~ing and as is often the internet way, once a particular strand of thought takes hold, especially if it appears to debunk a previously held certainty, it becomes really hard to get those that are dismissive to turn back to a piece of thinking that they’ve left behind.
Krissy Deen said;
“I have read Helter Skelter several times over the years...As many times as I read that book in the past ( although it's been a while now) I still learn or pick up on something new.”
I must have read it more than 20 times since 1978. I bought it that year as a present for my younger sister and I read it just to make sure it was suitable and I couldn’t put it down. Even when I had given it to her, I had it more than she ever did ! My present copy is one I bought cheap in a market in 1982. And I’m always gleaning something new from it. I tend to do that with most books though.
_____________________________________________________________________
Krissy Deen said;
”Does that prove it was the motive for murder ? No, of course not but nothing has been proved as the motive. I do think it was definitely a part of the story regardless and shouldn't be completely dismissed or laughed off as many people seem to do. I think some of them just don't like Vincent B. to tell you the truth. “
In “Goodbye Helter Skelter” Charlie calls Bugliosi a real slick guy who didn’t care if he framed an innocent man. I just don’t buy that. There are definitely areas where Bugliosi got things wrong but I can’t think of any of those areas that were actually detrimental to any of the defendants. It is often overlooked that he was very willing for Charles Manson to be his own lawyer. He even went further by stating he was happy for Manson to act as his own lawyer with an experienced lawyer beside him to help. What is even more interesting, for me anyway, are his reasons. Yes, he was worried that Manson not being his own lawyer could loom large in any future appeal. But the main reason he gives is that Manson would be able to cross examine witnesses, especially main prosecution, ex Family witnesses, with more effectiveness than what he called ‘straight’ attorneys.
I think people should think on that for a moment.
As for the motive, leary7 puts it as succinctly as I’ve seen when referring to “a clusterfuck of motives and psychosis” because in truth that’s what has come out. If you take on board everything that has been said over a 46 year period by all the perps and other interested parties in interviews, articles, trials, hearings, books, websites and whatever else, it becomes more than apparent that there was a variety of motives. There simply were different things in different peoples’ minds and that makes the convictions all the more remarkable. The idea that the jury were somehow suckered into swallowing cleverly presented drivel just doesn’t have legs, in my view. The case was really wide and so much was in there to consider.
It reminds me of the Police song, “Too much information.”
_____________________________________________________________________
Krissy Deen said;
“A part of me can almost feel a slight bit of pity for one or two of them after all this time- but you can't just butcher people the way they did, laugh and giggle about it in front of victim's family members and expect to be forgiven and let free into society again. Not in my opinion anyway.”
I agree in part. I believe in forgiveness but I’m also acutely aware that it wasn’t my loved ones that were butchered and whose lives were/are still being dragged through books and blogs with every move they made coming under scrutiny and being concluded upon. I’m also conscious that the world at large doesn’t have the capability of seeing my loved ones in photos of incredible savagery with stab wounds and carvings all over them. And I didn’t have my loved ones taken from me just like that and have some of the perpetrators laugh and giggle and call the trial to determine their guilt a play or have my wife who begged for her life and that of my child told “shut up, bitch.”
So when I say I believe in forgiveness, I’m not pretending that I’ve passed through what any of the victims’ families and friends have. And I hope I never do. But I do believe in forgiveness. And I do feel pity for the women and Bruce Davis. I feel a certain amount of pity for Bobby and Charlie. Having spent much of my adult life working with kids, some from really difficult backgrounds, not being wanted by your parents, particularly the only one you’ve got is something I would wish on no one and I mean no one. It’s no small thing. Not when you’re a child. Although we often think kids are really savvy, especially technologically and sexually, the fact remains, they are children and they may operate in the adult world.....but it’s without adult tools. You don’t tell a young Charlie Manson “oh man up boy ! You’ll get over it....” Finding mitigating circumstances in someone’s background for the path they have gone on to take in no way means that the person is not responsible for what they may have gone on to do. Neither does it mean that they should escape justice if they commit crimes. But in my opinion, it is both naive and irresponsible to just toss aside those mitigating circumstances or to say they have no bearing on future events. It’s no justification either to say “well, such and such had just as tough a life and they didn’t go on to do these things.”
Everyone is different.
One of the psychiatrists referred to Leslie as a psychologically loaded gun that went off “as a consequence of the complex intermeshing of highly unlikely and bizarre circumstances.”
Everyone reacts differently to this complex intermeshing. Even on a safe and basic level, two kids raised by the same parents in the same household with the same set of relatives, neighbours, schools etc, going through the same events and circumstances are going to be very different people.
On a side note, Vincent Bugliosi got it seriously wrong in the book Helter Skelter when he predicted the kind of people Leslie, Katie and Sadie would become.
__________________________________________________________________________
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said;
“I've always believed that "HS" was discussed at the ranch, and moreover, I've always believed that some of the members/perps believed it. (not all, but some)
-------------------------------------------------------
I found this section of the audio footage particularly interesting:
MR. PART: Now, you say that you all used to sit around Gresham and the desert and talk about this philosophy of going down to the center of the earth.
Could you name some of the people that used to talk about it?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Gypsy and Brenda and myself and Katie and Charles and Tex and Clem and Snake and Rachel.
There was — we’re the ones that usually talked about it the most. Sadie did sometimes; but I don’t know if she actually believed it or not.
But all the rest of us, we really believed it.”
I found that part really fascinating too. I was actually surprised. I blew out my cheeks.
_____________________________________________________________________
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said;
“LVH herself, knew (or at least suspected) that some of the members didn't really believe the "HS" stuff... while others did.
I found it curious how she singled-out Atkins.”
What I’m about to say is a real stretch and I almost hesitate to say it, but I think one of the main reasons Charles Manson has always publicly distanced himself from Helter Skelter as one of the motives for the murders is that he’s embarrassed by it. It’s one thing to discuss it in those acid reveries when you’re with people who hang on your every word and concept and are clearly trying to understand what you’re saying; people to whom you are the dominant influence in their lives whose thoughts you can influence and in that isolated situation where you’re all flying and you’re pushing people to see just how far they will go and you’re comfortable with them and importantly, with your position in their lives. It’s another thing altogether, when you’ve come back down from your own Spahn/Barker/Gresham freedom and you are in the world of ‘the Man’ with his jail, his routines, his thinking, his overt opposition and you have to cop to something like Helter Skelter that, when looked through most peoples’ eyes is ridiculous. It’s not even necessarily insane, it seems to a lot of people simply dumb, laughable. And though there were Family members that liked to give the impression that they were so much part of an alternative that they didn’t care what straight society thought, I think in certain times of slightly more sober reflection, some did care. It’s just a hunch on my part, but I think Charlie was and is embarrassed that he ever put that about, much less believed it. Far better to be thought of as the loving, courageous brother that shot Lotsapoppa to defend those in your circle......than someone who purportedly believed all that HS stuff.
Anger, confrontation, hostility and enmity are so much easier to live and deal with than ridicule, especially on the national scale. Imagine going to jail, any and every jail, and having the guys in there pointing at you and laughing at you because you think there’s some underground city where you shrink to mini size and never age that you access via a bottomless pit in the desert........
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said;
“A quick question:
Does anyone know for sure, if Attorney Part "pre-planned" this interview with LVH, for the sole purpose of leveraging an "insanity plea"?
OR,
Was this interview with LVH conducted impromptu, as part of regular "attorney business"?
My point:
I'm wondering if Leslie knew upfront, that this tape would be used to pursue an insanity plea.”
I don’t know if Leslie thought so {although she alluded to this in the trial when she said Part had ideas on how to get her off} but the prosecutor thought that he was laying the groundwork for an insanity plea. But Part really did seem to think she was insane. In Bugliosi’s book, he quotes Part as saying to the Judge that she was “insane in a way that is almost science fiction.” He fought really hard to block her decision to fire him and he seemed pretty manic in trying to get the Judge to listen to this interview. Ironically, this interview ended up being really damaging to Charles Manson.
_____________________________________________________________________
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said;
“Leslie's testimony is so "detailed", that I can only conclude one of two things:
Either A:
This interview was "pre-arranged" by Attorney Part (for the purpose of an insanity plea), and LVH was privy to that fact beforehand.
Or B:
Leslie really believed the "HS" stuff.
I'm leaning towards ‘B’.”
The funny thing about the HS stuff is that if you look at it through the lens of the LSD {and other stuff} enhanced mind, it’s not really so far out. As a Christian, there are plenty of things contained within the various documents that make up the Bible that I have no problems {well, not anymore !} believing. I’m able to separate stuff that is symbolic from stuff that sounds equally fantastic {or, some would say, nonsensical} but which for me is factual. Also, having Nigerian parents and having lived there for part of my teens {that’s actually where I was when I first heard of Charles Manson and Helter Skelter and read the book}, there are all manner of spiritual happenings there that are business as usual to people there but which are never believed or even acknowledged in the “more enlightened West.” Some of it is superstitious crap, yes.
Some of it is not.
So to me, I can see why Helter Skelter was believable. I can also see why it was nonsensical. Life is filled with paradoxes, the concept of which we have lost sight of in the modern age, in my opinion. The sort of things that LVH was saying in this interview would not necessarily be strange to a number of people from the Eastern world, parts of Africa and Asia and even South America and the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Certain Jewish people down the centuries people might have an understanding of where she was coming from. These are all peoples for whom the transcendent, spiritual and demonic are part and parcel of their lives. Thinking about it, tunnelling out of POW camps during WWII could be just as ‘fantastic’ to the acid enhanced or ‘believing in realms beyond that which we can see’ mind as HS would be to the straight, rational mind.
Krissy Deen said;
"He tried too hard to make Linda K. look too much like a innocent bystander for one thing. I know he needed her testimony and she hadn't killed anyone but I don't think she was the naïve flowerchild he sometimes made her out to be."
From the point of view that she didn't attack, fight with, round up, hold, chase, bludgeon, stab or kill anyone, she was an innocent bystander.
But legally, she was as guilty as Tex, Katie, Sadie and Charlie. It wasn't until she had testified truthfully and the prosecution petitioned the Judge for her to be granted immunity and he signed her off that the charges against her were dropped. She was pretty much in the same position as Mary Brunner in the Beausoleil case {remember, Susan Atkins got life for that even though she never killed Gary} or Susan Atkins with her Grand Jury testimony. In fact, Atkins recanting her grand jury stuff effectively signed her own death warrant. Which is why she comes across as being a little miffed in "The myth of Helter skelter" when she compares Linda and herself in regard to testimony, participation in the murders and the prosecution's choice.
In "Goodbye Helter Skelter" Charlie calls her a 'nasty little witch.' In Helter Skelter, VB does not leave out any of her flaws. He is rightly flowing with praise on one point and one point only ~ that she was honest about what happened on the two nights of murder {and the lead up} and told all. Given what happened to Barbara Hoyt, I think she was pretty gutsy.
But I'd be embarrassed to have it revealed that she was my Mum. She really was no angel of light.
Jeez Grim Traveller... I'm impressed.
You write extremely well, and you make several good points.
I agree with 90% of your commentary... maybe even 100%. (I'd have to go back and re-read a few things closely, to put an exact number on it. LOL). There's a lot of material there.
Suffice it to say, your posts are excellent.
Good Job Brother, and Thanks!
Grim said:
"As for the motive, leary7 puts it as succinctly as I’ve seen when referring to “a clusterfuck of motives and psychosis” because in truth that’s what has come out. If you take on board everything that has been said over a 46 year period by all the perps and other interested parties in interviews, articles, trials, hearings, books, websites and whatever else, it becomes more than apparent that there was a variety of motives. There simply were different things in different peoples’ minds and that makes the convictions all the more remarkable. The idea that the jury were somehow suckered into swallowing cleverly presented drivel just doesn’t have legs, in my view. The case was really wide and so much was in there to consider.
I agree.
Helter Skelter was not the only motive for TLB but it was the only title to Bug's book. This is what confuses the anti HS groupies. They use an all or nothing logic Since HS was not %100 the motive for the murders then it must be zero per cent so therefore the Bug book is total BS. Therefore they win the argument by demanding absoluteness.
The fact remains that until Charlie started preaching Helter Skelter the Family was not violent. Where does the anti Helter Skelter groupies think the violence came from?
In 1969 the Family morphed into violence because Charlie started preaching war. In 69 Charlie started carrying a sword. He was dropping machine gun magazines onto the highway out of his Dune buggy. All the girls started carrying Buck knives in 69 which they did not do in 68 because Charlie did not preach helter Skelter in 68.
When Charlie mixed the book of Revelations with the White Album he metaphorically mixed matter with anti matter and blew up his world and everybody in it with him.
"When Charlie mixed the book of Revelations with the White Album he metaphorically mixed matter with anti matter and blew up his world and everybody in it with him."
Lmfao.
I read Shreck's book, the last one, I had a hard time with the drug motive... I wanted to believe it, I guess.... I'd heard all the behind the scenes talk about the Underworld, the ones that actually knew and talked with Charlie...it was just too bizarre...
The "get a brother out of jail" was the most logical to my simple mind...
I had gathered that Paul Watkins, Brooks, etc.. were so hopped up on mind altering drugs that the HS motive was just too weird...plus most of the Manson Famlily were threatened with the gas chamber unless they played along...
I read the stuff Mr. Hendrickson writes... "the revolution, the Viet Nam War, etc.."...if that was a motive for these murders, what a bunch of idiots they were...I honestly think Charlie himself could have cared less about the war in Viet Nam at the time... the dude was a gangster/criminal car thief, pimp, ID theft, you name it...at that time...
Why would he care (at that time) what was going on 10,000 miles away? Bobby too for that matter...
Thanks Grim...good stuff!!
Mr. P, I agree with you totally. Charlie got pissed off in 1969. Things weren't going as he planned. People were getting restless. They wanted to know why his "prophecy" wasn't coming true. They couldn't find "the hole" and were grumbling about Helter Skelter coming down. He thought he killed Crowe and the Black Panthers were after him. He needed money to get outta Dodge. So he orders Bobby to get Gary's money because he thought he had money. Like Gary would just hand over his house and everything else for these freaks. And when Gary said no, Bobby killed him. And they took his cars. It's a little harder to steal a house.
So on August 8th, Charlie orders them to start "Helter Skelter". And there are people who say Charlie wasn't there on August 8th, BUT HE WAS THERE! There are lots of witnesses who say that.
These murders were not copy cat murders. There's nothing the same about any of them, except knifing people. Otherwise, they're all completely different.
Charlie used the White Album, along with other things, to completely mesmerize these people and control them. Charlie probably didn't give a crap about the Beatles, but he used them for control. And it worked.
Hi Kimchi! Thanks!!!
Kimchi said: I read the stuff Mr. Hendrickson writes...the revolution, the Viet Nam War etc.."...if that was a motive for these murders, what a bunch of idiots they were...I honestly think Charlie himself could have cared less about the war in Viet Nam at the time... the dude was a gangster/criminal car thief, pimp, ID theft, you name it...at that time...
First off, don't pay any attention to Hendrickson. His brain was fried a long time ago. Secondly, I agree that Charlie didn't give 2 shits about the Vietnam war, nor "The Revolution".
Charlie was just having a good time until (1) he didn't get a recording contract and (2) he had to start putting his money where his mouth was, and he didn't have any money.
Cult leaders have to prove their predictions at some point. Unless you're Jim Jones and you just tell everyone to drink poison because that's it, that's all there is....
And Charlie couldn't prove any of his junk. And when a cult leader can't prove his junk, he has to move forward and cut his losses, and hope that his stupid followers won't figure it out.
Interesting thoughts Kimchi, Thanks.
Kimchi said:
"I read Shreck's book, the last one, I had a hard time with the drug motive... I wanted to believe it, I guess.... I'd heard all the behind the scenes talk about the Underworld, the ones that actually knew and talked with Charlie...it was just too bizarre...
The "get a brother out of jail" was the most logical to my simple mind...
Well...
The "Brother out of jail" motive IS a more simple theory, than the drug motive. In order to prove the drug motive, one must string together many intricate facts, several people, and detailed timelines. It's difficult. Not to say impossible, but difficult. So, you're right there.
-----------------------------------------------------
The only motives that I've ever seriously considered are:
1) Drugs
2) Manson's mental state and bitterness towards society
3) Leno's gambling debts (at the LaBianca site)
4) Copycat... i.e., spring a "brother" out of jail
5) Helter Skelter
Not necessarily, in that order.
Kimchi said:
I had gathered that Paul Watkins, Brooks, etc.. were so hopped up on mind altering drugs that the HS motive was just too weird[end quote]
Mr Poirot replies:
It isn't too weird. It is the reason you follow this story. Charlie was the ultimate philosophical alchemist of the 1960s. Brooks and Watkins had left the Family before the murders; before Bugliosi. There have been many failed attempts to
claim Bugliosi managed to get all of those kids to do exactly as he wanted in court by doing things like threatening everyone with the gas chamber or offering draft board exemptions.
All Bugliosi had to do was just tell the true story in court. Bug knew very well it was the 20th centuries most bizarre criminal case with the most bizarre criminals in the most bizarre decade right in the middle of the geographical ground zero hippiedom. His fellow attys would even antagonize him by telling him the case was not going to be that famous. Bug would go nuts when they teased him. He knew he had ended up in a spot that had aligned with all the planets. He knew he had won the lottery of fate. In a town where writers come from all over the world to try and sell the wildest fiction for the silver screen here was fate walking up to Bugliosi handing him a script already written.
And Gary Hinman gave them a "pink slip" on those cars? What the HELL is a pink slip???? A Bill of Sale? Did the guy not even have the titles? Which means they weren't paid for???
Boy that's a quite a haul for a bunch of dumb hippies who wanted some money.....
The should have just driven up and hot-wired his cars and took them. Bobby would only have been guilty of auto theft, not murder.
Katie said:
"And Gary Hinman gave them a "pink slip" on those cars? What the HELL is a pink slip???? A Bill of Sale? Did the guy not even have the titles? Which means they weren't paid for???
Boy that's a quite a haul for a bunch of dumb hippies who wanted some money.....
The should have just driven up and hot-wired his cars and took them. Bobby would only have been guilty of auto theft, not murder."
It must be a full moon, 'cuz Katie is actually making some sense to me.
There's gotta be an easier way to rob a person of their possessions, without torturing and killing them... and yeah, burglary/theft is a lot less jail time than murder.
Right Lynyrd. Gary was leaving for Japan in a week or so, so why not just wait until he was gone and hot wire those cars and take them? Or if they thought he had money stashed around the house, wait until he went to Japan and search the house for money?
It goes back to Ella Jo, who said that Gary owned a house, and therefore he had money. Well, you don't get a house with a snap of a finger. First of all, if Gary was buying that house, the mortgage probably wasn't paid off. And even if it was, you don't sell a house in 1 day. That just doesn't happen. So the whole Gary Hinman thing was a dumbass bust. Bobby killed that guy for no reason at all.
I think that's why Charlie moved to Phase 2: Cielo Drive.
Why would Bobby kill for inheritance money that Charlie wanted? Bobby killed to get his money back. Bobby could care less about getting Charlie money to buy dune buggies. Bobby could care less if Gary joined the Family or not. Bobby was not robbing Hinman for Charlie. Gary sold Bobby bad mescaline and figured he'd be long gone to the Orient out of Bobby's reach and so get away with burning Bobby. That thousand dollars would buy a lot of ceramic Buddhah statues on vacation.
Oh PLEASE Mr. P. That is so much BULLSHIT and YOU KNOW IT.
Gary didn't sell a fucking thing to Bobby. Are you pulling this out of your ass or Bobby's?
that bastard went in and tortured Gary for no reason, and then stole his cars, because that's the only money he could get from a poor guy that didn't have any money.
Mr. P, didn't you read what Ella Jo said?
Oh I get it, you just zero in on bullshit and disregard the facts!
MrPoirot said;
"Gary sold Bobby bad mescaline and figured he'd be long gone to the Orient out of Bobby's reach and so get away with burning Bobby"
I have just two observations here. Presuming that Gary did sell bad mescaline {if there is such a thing}, did Gary know it was bad ? If he did, then he risked all kinds of wrath because it had to have been with forethought.
Secondly, if the bikers came and roughed Bobby up and Gary died around 27th July and Bobby wasn't arrested until August 6th, why didn't the bikers come in those 8 or 9 days for their money ? Or for more violence ? The last thing we hear of the bikers is before Bobby went to Gary's. The two vehicles Bobby got were never actually sold. One was given away, the other Bobby had.
Both points cast considerable doubt on Bobby's story. The first point presents Gary Hinman as an unscrupulous Tex style drug burn merchant {I've yet to hear anything like that come up in relation to him}, the second presents these bikers as numbskulls with very short memories......
MrPoirot said;
"Charlie was the ultimate philosophical alchemist of the 1960s"
&
"All Bugliosi had to do was just tell the true story in court......He knew he had ended up in a spot that had aligned with all the planets. He knew he had won the lottery of fate. In a town where writers come from all over the world to try and sell the wildest fiction for the silver screen here was fate walking up to Bugliosi handing him a script already written."
Helter skelter has a certain irony to it in so far as Charles Manson used it as and when it suited him and it got for him what he wanted. And Vincent Bugliosi used it as and when it suited him and it got for him what he wanted.
MrPoirot said...
"Helter Skelter was not the only motive for TLB but it was the only title to Bug's book."
"Rise", "Pig" and "Political piggy" would've all been rubbish titles as would "Get a brother out of jail" {though it has the best rhythm} and "Copycat killings."
Realistically and artistically, the only catchy titles that could've been used were "Helter Skelter" and "Death to pigs."
I'm being facetious, of course !
Grimtraveller-
I've really enjoyed your comments. I'm sorry I haven't responded to any of them yet ( although like Leary I think I agree with pretty much everything you say) I haven't had the time to respond properly-(which usually means I will write too much!) but I look forward to talking more with you in the future.
Grim in overthought
A couple of idiot questions...
1. I've been traveling so I've just been on the computer sporadically but holy crap this grimtraveller is a sharp guy. I love his thing about how HS makes a fair amount of sense both from a LSD and Christian perspective. As a veteran of both worlds - LSD just in my teens but a whole lot of it - I totally agree. The alteration of the mind - both chemically and spiritually - is the thing that fascinates most about TLB, I believe.
Has the grimtraveller been around a while or is he new to the show? And nobody beats Candy for astute summations - Grim in overthought - cracked me up. I've been persecuted for 'overthought' ten thousand times, mostly by exasperated girlfriends.
2. Lynyrd always gives me something to think about. Can a psychotic sociopath really be embarrassed??? That one is a thinker, L/S. I do my best thinking on the toilet so the next time I have Mexican food I will chew on that one a bit.
3. New movie coming out about the Beach Boys. We all know what Charlie thought of the Beatles but is he on record anywhere with an opinion of the Beach Boys music? Or Dylans?
4. Katie, did the floods get ya? Have you ever got together with AustinAnn? Man, I wish I was still in Austin so I could set up something with you two. I missed my chance with Candy this past year when I was in Duluth but still have a rendezvous planned with Seattlejohnny this summer out there.
I still think we need a Matt vs Lynyrd softball game and barbque. Or maybe we'll all just meet at Charlie's funeral.
Hi leary:)
leary7 said...
"Has the grimtraveller been around a while or is he new to the show?"
New to the TLB blogs {I've looked at them sporadically over maybe a three year period} but into the case itself from 1978. I actually first heard of Charles Manson in '77 when he was one of the entries in a book I bought my younger sister called "Infamous murderers" but I was more interested in the other entries. The way it was written, at the time I wasn't interested in a guy that supposedly thought he was Jesus.
You know, I only remembered this the other day, but I remember when Squeaky pointed the gun at President Ford. I was only about 12 at the time and although in London we were well acquainted with all things American, not many things in the news interested me. I recall various bits of news from the late 60s and through the 70s but only as an adult was I able to put things into perspective. For example, I couldn't understand the fuss surrounding Nixon, Cambodia or Vietnam or even South Africa when I was 11. When Chairman Mao died, I remember reading about it on a train but I didn't understand the gist of it. Nor did I care to. And as for Squeaky, I probably just thought "why is she called Squeaky ?" It wasn't until years later that I joined the dots.
A couple of years before I read HS for the first time, I fell in love with the Beatles' music so that may have given the book some added edge. I was an atheist for a long time but when I made the switch, I couldn't wait to read Revelation, especially chapter 9.
I was quite disappointed, actually !
leary7 said...
"HS makes a fair amount of sense both from a LSD and Christian perspective"
To put it succinctly, if one can believe in the virgin birth or the parting of the Red Sea or Baalam's donkey actually talking, then HS isn't such a leap if your mind is in the 'right' place.
While tripping, Brian Wilson was driving Mike Love around one day and he said all he could see before him was this black hole {John Densmore of the Doors said a similar thing}. It freaked Mike Love out ! Love saw no hole. But Wilson did. HS wouldn't be such a great leap to that mind, eventually.
____________________________________
"Can a psychotic sociopath really be embarrassed??? That one is a thinker"
Such an individual may not be embarrassed by the same things most others would be embarrassed by and may feel embarrassment in a totally different way to most people.......but I think so.
Besides, there are lots of feelings or thoughts that you have or have had that someone like Charles Manson might share or have had once upon a time. And I'm interested in his almost dogmatic insistence that HS is BS. It could be because it is BS. It could be because he got caught & prosecuted then convicted partly for what he once thought was a grandiose vision which kind of looks daft in the cold hard light of most peoples' day, even those who don't subscribe to straight society's confines.
Hey, who knows ?
Mike Love may be my least favorite person on the planet. A complete and utter asshat.
Love your stuff, Mr. Grim. YOu seem to have a fascinating background.
I never saw a black hole either, but I do recall several multi-colored fissions. Do those count?
Charlie's 'dogmatic insistence that HS is BS' is what keeps me fascinated. I fancy it has something to do with Stonewall Jackson and Geronimo - Charlie wants to be remembered as a guerilla fighter rebel, not a sicko perv like Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy. TLB didn't have the revolutionary effect he longed for so he basically disowned it. Just a thought.
Hi Candy...still would love to superior with you someday.
yeah, maybe "mortified by its (TLB) ineffectiveness" is akin to embarrassment. Just semantics, L/S had it right.
Post a Comment