Mary Brunner with her Mom and Michael (her son "Pooh Bear")
Michael Brunner - July 4, 2015
Note: There was a baby in the kayak with Michael.
The baby was cute as a button, and obviously Michael's child or grandchild, because the baby looked just like him.
I removed the baby from the photo for obvious reasons.
Note: There was a baby in the kayak with Michael.
The baby was cute as a button, and obviously Michael's child or grandchild, because the baby looked just like him.
I removed the baby from the photo for obvious reasons.
Mary Brunner as a baby.
79 comments:
Thanks Josh.
Cool pics!
You ROCK Brother!
Wow, interesting photos. So I guess Charles Manson is Michael Brunner's father? It's been a long time since I looked this up. Wasn't this the birth where Charles Manson supposedly tied off the umbilical cord with a guitar string? I think I read in a transcript on another blog once however, that Susan Atkins claimed the guitar string thing never happened and that she (Atkins) delivered the baby.
Apparently, there was an appeal that Brunner won when they tried to imprison her for the Gary Hinman murder. She was supposed to receive immunity for testifying against Bobby Beausoleil which she did and Beausoleil was convicted. Later, the states attorney tried to renege on the immunity deal but the appeals court ruled in Brunner's favor. I'm pretty sure that opinion and the facts of the case are posted online or at least they were.
It seems to me that Brunner and Sandra Good were arrested on the morning Aug. 8, 1969 when they attempted to purchase "items" as a Sears store with a stolen credit card. I've often wondered what precisely those items were. (I suspect ammunition for a firearm).
That was all a long time ago however, I don't know when these pix were taken but these people look like they have fared reasonably well in the years since. More so than some other people did.
Im sure Mary is elated that current photos of her and Micheal with relatives has been submitted
Altra Lee!!!
Wow! First glimpse of Pooh Bear since that Manson Kid special years ago... nice find Josh...
Glad to see he's a family man... (no pun intended)... lol
The one with his ma and grandma was probably before 2009, as grandma passed in 2009...
Those Brunner's sure have strong genes! Would have thought brown hair and eyes were dominant, so much for what we were taught in high school science!
Great find. Josh did you get this from Mary or Mary's family? If so, do you know how she feels about Manson nowadays? Thx again!!
Bratt hi bro hows life?
I got them from someone who is not associated with Mary. From what I've noticed, seen and observed, she seems to be like the other girls in that she's distanced herself but not necessarily renounced everything. Mary is a back n forth type in my eyes so it's hard to get a grip on her thoughts and motivations. Michael interests me because he has his dad's features in certain spots. I would love an interview with a lot of these folks today. That would be the best. Have a family reunion via satellite feed. THAT would be cool!!!!
Life is grand as ever Candy. How have you been?
Josh Bratt said...
"From what I've noticed, seen and observed, she seems to be like the other girls in that she's distanced herself but not necessarily renounced everything. Mary is a back n forth type in my eyes so it's hard to get a grip on her thoughts and motivations"
I know it's a flawed book and her stories changed too often and 'trustworthy' was not a word or concept readily associated with Susan Atkins but what do you make of the section in her first book "Child of Satan...." where she says Mary was pretty venomous about Charlie and told her that Michael was no longer to be known as Pooh Bear. She seemed to have renounced him then. I'd be less inclined to believe it except that the same was said of Gypsy and that turned out to be bang on the money.
Been fine Josh tx
CANDY!!!!
Hi lynard😃
Grim, in my eyes the girls, for the most part, seemed to use CM as much it is said that he used them. They were with him when it suited them and left when that was in their best interests.
Do you think they would've drank the kool aid had CM been JJ?
Oh yes.....
Hello Katie. I must be a big figure in your life for you to spend so much time talking about what you think of me. It's cute really, but not all that accurate.
If you really want to know my life, just ask sweet heart. All the angst and anger just lives in you honey. Everyone is fully aware of who and what you are. Funny calling people drug addicts when you're a hopelessly damaged, raging alchoholic, huh?
If you got something to say to someone, you should say it to their face and not behind their backs like a coward.
PEACE
Hi Josh,
Katie says she'll discuss this situation with you, on her own blog.
(I've left a link to her blog below).
I'm really not sure what she expects to accomplish through more anger and fighting, but at this point, it's not my business.
For the record, I tried my darndest to make peace between the two of you, but it didn't work.
I can't understand why you can't co-exist (here), by simply "ignoring" each other... but again, so be it.
I don't have a problem with either of you, and you're both welcome here.
But at this point, I wash my hands of the fighting.
You guys can argue to the death, just don't do it here.
If either of you want to discuss "TLB" or "Manson", you're always welcome.
I enjoy blogging with both of you.
I told Katie tonight:
"The best thing you can do, is come back to LSB3 and participate as you've always done... and simply "ignore him".
Evidently, she thinks perpetuating the arguing and insults, will prove more productive.
Good Luck with it.
http://blogaboutnothing7.blogspot.com/
Katie's a blog friend. To me, and to many others here.
We must always bear in mind that her full-on, feisty and sometimes vitriolic blogging comes from a good place.
That is... she just WILL NOT accept sympathisers, admirers and excusers of sociopaths like Manson, people who lure away vulnerable girls & young women and whore them out and turn them into thieves, home-invaders, killers.
And, I'd agree with Katie's general thrust that people who buy into some idea that Manson & Bobby are cool counter-culture philosopher musicians, and that CM's environmentalist schtick is anything but a con, are deluded and somewhat dangerous in encouraging others to think likewise. For instance, by inspiring the 90k+ that "Like" the Star/Greywolf (Manson Official) facebook.
If "The Family" were a a bunch of thieving, drugged, killing-babies-in-the-womb-crazies from Columbia or the Congo, instead of 60s California slippies, I don't think they'd be getting any peace, love & understanding from Josh or anyone else. Most everybody would be up-in-arms about those who express support for such low-lifes.
And trying to pin the worst parts on Tex, and painting Bug as a villain, whilst idealising Manson and crying foul over his sob-sob unfair trial is, to be blunt, fucking laughable.
Ok. Your opinion is valid Cease. I only came here to talk about Katie because I didn't know where else to go. She is way too serious about this shit. I got things to do and no time to visit her (likely very lovely) blog.
I will Cease to defend myself. :)
Cease2 said...
"And trying to pin the worst parts on Tex...."
Well, that will always be one of the over arching paradoxes of TLB. If you happen to believe Manson guilty of conspiracy {and under California law, the murders} then you have this unique situation where the worst parts are on Tex, yet at the same time, it is doubtful or certainly arguable whether Tex would have just gone out and committed murder on his own of own free will and volition.
I think people misunderstand what Watson means when he talks about "Charlie's tape recorder whirring in his head." He's trying to get across the extremely difficult point that a follower does what they are told {I've observed this all my life, especially in the Nigerian culture my parents grew up in, many third world cultures and also with Kids of all ages} yet at the same time, are responsible for what they go on to do. And that's why it's a paradox as opposed to a mutually exclusive situation. There are at least 9 people that would have lived beyond July and August 1969 {we don't know any of them would have made it to 1970} had it not been for Charles Manson. Of that I have no doubt. But equally, seven of those people {8 actually and 9 if Watson truly was involved in Shorty's murder}actually died because of Charles "Tex" Watson. So, pinning the worst of it on Charlie is not inaccurate. And pinning the worst of it on Tex isn't inaccurate either.
I just think there is SO much misinformation and that the trial was so all over the place that confusion reigns. I do not think CM is a great guy or a role model.
Don't let opinions piss you off :)
Tex got off big time and is still able to hide behind the myth of Manson
CEASE!!!! HUGSSS!!!! :)
Hello Cease2... and Everyone...
I agree with most of Katie's opinions regarding TLB specifically... not all, but most.
The thing is...
I just don't see any point in insulting everyone who disagrees with my opinion.
There's an old saying:
"You get more with honey, than you do with vinegar".
If Katie would invest the time and effort required to "talk" to the "Pro-Manson people" respectfully, she might actually change (some of) their minds, and enact some change... but that takes time, and it's a process.
You have to earn someone's respect, before they'll consider adopting your philosophy.
The bottom line: You'll never change someone's mind, by simply insulting them.
Moreover...
We're running a public blog here, and everyone should feel welcome to participate.
If Katie wants to be an administrator here, she has to start behaving more professionally.
It's up to our administrators "to be the bigger person" sometimes (in fact, most times), and lead by example.
Case in point:
Josh got a little "snarky" with Grim Traveller, on Grim's thread about drugs.
Josh said:
"How many of you acid experts have actually dropped acid?
I just scanned through, but I wonder if grim traveler has traveled that grim road.
You can only know so much from reading...."
Grim Traveller remained calm and professional.
He responded to Josh respectfully, with real information.
In short, Grim Traveller "diffused" the situation.
Lastly...
Although I believe Josh's defense of Manson is off-base in many areas, I'm sure there are STILL some things Josh knows about the case (and Manson specifically), that I don't.
(And that's the value of having new people here).
For me, this is not about "Josh" specifically.
This is about LSB3, learning to "accommodate" people with differing mindsets.
Katie has a "fight or flight" mentality.
If she can't scare someone away through incessant insults, she quits.
This is a pattern that I've endured since day one... and it hurts the blog!
I can usually get along with 96% of the folks who come through the door, regardless of their opinion.
If I can do it, Katie can too.
For me, quitting is not an option.
Katie has the "luxury" of running and quitting (when she makes a mess).
I don't.
Peace!
Wise observations & food for thought there (as ever) by Grim.
Josh Bratt said...
Tex got off big time and is still able to hide behind the myth of Manson
True. That big lummox is knee deep in blood, and Charlie gets ALL the evil-killer tabloid headlines.
Oh, and... HEY Katie! {smooch}
I was not intending snarkiness with Grim. It was an honest question. You cannot understand another's mindset without experience. My "off base" opinions are based on generalities instead of specifics. I think in general this whole fiasco was handled poorly, from top to bottom. Also, it continues to be handled poorly, top to bottom. From the offenders pandering to parole boards to parole boards and governor's following along nonsensical conclusions. The whole thing is driven by personal motivations. CM's, Bug's, the girls, victim's families.
I'm not sure anyone really knows my opinions or conclusions on all this stuff as I've never really stated them entirely. People definitely misunderstand certain sympathies I supposedly have. There's too much confusion regarding this case and these happenings, I say happenings to encompass arson, car theft, drugs, sex, conspiracy, yada yada yada. In the end I have a whole life that I lead and this stuff factors into it very little these days. I used to have many friends within this scene but personal agendas and opinions seem to get in the way.
Someone should do a post about all the hanger ons around this subject and maybe get to the bottom of why, when it comes to CM, everyone is so strongly defensive of their opinions and stance. It's a 40+ year old crime and everything is said and done, regardless if it's right or true. It's all over. They're all super old and they're all going to die inside a cell while others never had a chance. Sadness all around.
I have no issues with anyone here, and never intended any snarkiness or disrespect towards Grim traveler. My apologies. As for the rest......you get what you give....
Off to work!!!! Yay
Josh said:
"Also, it continues to be handled poorly, top to bottom. From the offenders pandering to parole boards to parole boards and governor's following along nonsensical conclusions."
I can definitely see Josh's point, regarding the parole process.
The process has become a farce.
Bruce Davis comes to mind...
The man has done everything in his power to meet parole requirements.
He's been "approved" several times.
And yet... he remains behind bars.
The truth is, "the system" fucked-up when they reduced everyone's sentence to "Life with the possibility of parole".
They never had any intention of EVER letting these people free... and now, they've got a problem on their hands.
Yes...
I know the governor can legally deny Davis parole FOREVER, but is that really the intent of "the possibility of parole"?
If parole is an unattainable goal, then why are we doing this dance?
Oh yeah... because "the system" fucked-up... and we're back to my point.
It really IS stupid.
Josh said:
"They're all super old and they're all going to die inside a cell while others never had a chance. Sadness all around."
As I've said on this blog before...
In a situation like this, there are no winners.
I don't understand why anyone would think it was wrong of Bugliosi to write a book.
This guy prosecuted some of the most notorious killers in American history. And the free-for-all circus during the trial, due in a large part of all of the defendants' behavior, was stuff that needed to be published in a book. Not to mention all the characters involved. You can't even make this stuff up!
If he hadn't written a book I think I'd have been ashamed of him for not letting us in on all the gory details. LOL.
I wish Tex had been tried with the others too. It would be interesting to see if he would fall right in line with the shaving and "x"ing with the others. I kind of think he might have. He had a definite advantage not being jailed with the others at first. He was in a completely different atmosphere than the others.
Either way I agree, Tex should have been the one to be remembered as the most notorious killer of all. Because he definitely is.
Yes, it's an all-around tragedy, Lynyrd.
Josh Bratt said...
I'm not sure anyone really knows my opinions or conclusions on all this stuff as I've never really stated them entirely. People definitely misunderstand certain sympathies I supposedly have
For the record, I don't consider Josh "pro-manson-people". This whole sorry CM saga is complex and does have folklore-ic qualities, so that our reactions to it are probably deep-seated, and sometimes heated.
Different perspectives on it from various bloggers do make me check my conscience, and ponder things anew. Which is a good thing.
As for Bug's HS book, Katie, I'm sure we'd all be interested if a new book came along to rival it, or challenge it. By a good, objective, independent-minded writer chronicling & taking a fresh look at the multiple trials.
Josh Bratt said...
"I was not intending snarkiness with Grim. It was an honest question. You cannot understand another's mindset without experience.....
I have no issues with anyone here, and never intended any snarkiness or disrespect towards Grim traveler. My apologies"
To be honest with you Josh, I never perceived it as being snarky towards me. I think it was a valid question.
Stating the obvious, the internet is a funky place. On the one hand, it's brilliant in the way various forums promote contact and conversation with people from all over the world, people that 20 years ago, it would have been unlikely one would have been aware of. It's more immediate and expansive than the old pen pal system. But paradoxically, partly because of that immediacy and expansiveness, it can bring out the worst in us. And because there's not much chance of someone flying out to another state or country to go and boof someone on the nose, people can get away with all kinds of verbal mischief. And although the concept of "they're just words on a screen" is often used in defence of lousy behaviour, we're all wiser than that now. Speech {writings} is self revealing and words are carriers of thoughts and feelings.
When I saw your post on the drugs thread, I thought the comment you made before the specific question you asked me was aimed at someone else. It takes a while when one is new to the blogs but bit by bit, one picks up on the pre~existing relationships. Personally, I don't get involved in internet wars because if I did, it might bring out parts in me that I prefer to keep under control and not let see the light of day !
katie8753 said...
"I don't understand why anyone would think it was wrong of Bugliosi to write a book"
There's an old African proverb that goes: "Until the lions have their own storytellers, history will always glorify the hunter."
It's become more and more surprising to me just how many books were written about TLB before HS came out, starting with that Laurence Schiller one from Susan Atkins' "confession." Bugliosi's one is, to me, as close as one can get to definitive ~ but it's important to stress that it's by no means definitive. In deed, the very fact that Watson {twice}, Atkins {twice}, Van Houten, Manson, Paul Watkins, even Pat & Squeaky all wrote books or had books written about them or in which they contributed or gave their opinions after, shows that HS wasn't definitive. It's still a fantastic book but not without some flaws that in some eyes, go a long way towards discrediting it. I would describe it as "incomplete."
Cease2 said...
"Yes, it's an all-around tragedy, Lynyrd"
My take has long been that I feel sorry for many of the players on all sides of the fence. There is an obvious sympathy towards the families of the victims but I also feel for some of the family members of not only the killers, but Family members who never killed. And then there's the Family themselves. How can one not feel at least something for someone like Gypsy who had actual and adoptive parents committing suicide ? I also feel for the killers in some ways. And some of the lawyers.
Cease2 said...
"'pro-manson-people'. This whole sorry CM saga is complex"
It is. I'm neither pro nor anti Manson or any of the killers because of that very complexity. I have a certain affinity towards some of them and a shared understanding of where some of them are or were at. There's aspects of what they were about that I don't like at all and I think the right people received the right verdicts as far as guilty goes. I personally am against the death penalty though I've long been of the opinion that they were fortunate to miss the gas chamber.
My different feelings towards them come out at different times, depending on the point being discussed but my bottom line is that they are human beings and so am I.
Cease2 said...
"As for Bug's HS book, I'm sure we'd all be interested if a new book came along to rival it, or challenge it. By a good, objective, independent-minded writer chronicling & taking a fresh look at the multiple trials"
I don't think a book could ever rival it in that sense, simply because of the point of view that HS was written from. What makes it so unique and set apart from the others is that the guy writing it was right there in the eye of the storm. HS is as much about Bugliosi's personal journey from being totally in the dark about anything relating to the "Sharon Tate murders" to ending up with so much information that he was able to literally prosecute the perpetrators to death. To his credit, in the 30+ years before he died, even though he'd appear on various documentaries and be ever so annoying at times, he did modify some of his positions that he took in the book. He had to. The killers were so damn relieved to have escaped death that it took a while before they got to start coming out and saying "this didn't happen" or "that's not accurate !" Many on the blogs are really critical of the fact that their stories have been revised and changed and it feels like we're left with a cake that can't be unbaked into flour, sugar, eggs and butter.....but I'm not because while it can be problematic {especially with Susan and Bobby}, it's understandable. If, to look big and baaad you boasted that you'd tasted a pregnant dying film star's blood but you hadn't really, when you come back to your senses, you might want to revise that ! You might run into a Sharon Tate obsessive inside.....
But I digress. I think that all the books or many of them, need to be taken together in my view. None of them can be definitive and I don't believe objectivity is possible at this stage. HS certainly wasn't objective. Nor is "Goodbye HS." Nor Nuel Emmons' book. And often, the "objective" writers get info wrong which skews their books somewhat. And on the list goes...
Grim should write a book!!! Man, you are well spoken.
I think the book looks funkier and funkier as time goes on. Over on another site there's a post regarding the Bug putting feelers out for book deals before the trial was over. There's the Farr thing. He kind of just seems like a slimy lawyer. My personal bias lies in his lawyery, lawyerness. Some people take issue because of other books he's written or that he used the CM name for his lifetime and made a lot of money off of it all. I think if he had taken out little things like the watch stopping and a lot of the over dramatized stuff. Seven waterfall on the way to Barker is an example of exaggerations and such. In my opinion it's what started it all. I think the problem with the book is that created a hugely negative monster in the world without thought for consequence. The Bug made MANSON. How big would all this be without Helter Skelter? Would we be here typing? Would this site be here?
Cease.....I'm not pro-manson or anti-manson. I'm anti trial by media and sadly that happens more and more. I think we, as viewers, voyeurs, whatever lose truth when the media gets involved. CM is a good example of that. Too much misinformation and sensationalism doesn't lend itself to a real trial as intended.
Wow I don't know how anyone can think Manson's trial verdict was determined by the media. The jury was sequestered. Or am I missing something here?
The jury was privy to every outburst that Manson & his followers performed. I would think that would influence their decision a lot more than a newspaper that said Nixon said Manson was guilty.
I've said this 100 times before, but will say it again. If Manson had just come into the courtroom wearing a suit, hair nicely combed, and folded his hands in his lap and said NOTHING, I'm pretty sure the jury would have said "not guilty".
The claim that he was controlling these kids was so wild, it was unbelievable. And if he had just watched his p's & q's, he would have walked. I have no doubt about that.
But being Manson, he had to act up, pretend to hang on a cross, interrupt constantly, threaten people, shave his head, carve and "X" in his head, get the other defendants to do the same thing.
What's the jury gonna think about that stuff? Manson screwed himself on that deal.
Remember the OJ trial? That was a big media circus. A lot bigger than the Manson circus, mainly because it was on TV.
But OJ's counsel told him just to SIT STILL AND DON'T TALK! And if you've watched the trial, OJ pretty much just did what he was told. He made faces sometimes, but he just sat still and didn't talk.
And he walked.....
And as far as the defense team being worthless, Manson is the one who picked and chose them all. He was hiring and firing left and right. So that's his fault.
Abe Lincoln said: He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”
My final comment. Manson wanted to represent himself. That's an ego thing. We can see with Ted Bundy and Warren Jeffs it doesn't work.
Has anyone noticed Pooh Bear looks like he has not one ounce of Manson blood in her, fortunately he looks 100% Brunner.
I didn't mean her but him.
Beauders, you're right. How do any of these girls know who the Daddy of their children are anyway?
Katie said:
"Wow I don't know how anyone can think Manson's trial verdict was determined by the media. The jury was sequestered."
That is an excellent point.
The jury had complete control over the final outcome of this trial.
It was the jury who found Manson and his cohorts guilty... not bloggers, or the gawkers on the street corner (where the girls held their vigil).
And as Katie said... the jury was completely isolated from the general public and the media.
As soon as each day (in court) was finished, the jury was transported to their private rooms (where they couldn't leave).
The influence of the media is often overstated on these boards... and if you stop to really analyze it, it doesn't make sense.
Katie said:
"The jury was privy to every outburst that Manson & his followers performed. I would think that would influence their decision a lot more than a newspaper that said Nixon said Manson was guilty"
Again, I agree.
The defendants tied a big noose around their own necks, with their courtroom "performances".
Their own behavior in the courtroom was MUCH more damaging to their case, than the media frenzy outside the courtroom (which the jurors weren't even exposed to).
Josh said:
"The Bug made MANSON".
In some regards, this is definitely true.
I mean...
Bugliosi's book has sold over SEVEN MILLION copies.
So, no one could ever dispute your point.
But it's worth noting:
The story was very interesting, even BEFORE Bugliosi wrote his book.
There are dozens of "interesting elements" to this case... and that's really what made the story (AND Bugliosi's book) interesting.
My point:
"The Family" (in many regards) wrote their own story, and Bugliosi simply shared it.
One might say, the book wrote itself.
Bugliosi had plenty of fodder.
And that "fodder" was provided (primarily) by "The Family" themselves.
As the saying goes:
"The story had legs."
Bugliosi himself, is really not that interesting... nor is murder itself (when taken at face value).
Beauders said:
"Has anyone noticed Pooh Bear looks like he has not one ounce of Manson blood in him, fortunately he looks 100% Brunner".
Yeah well...
If you saw the photo of the baby that was in the kayak, you'd say the exact same thing!
The child looks just like a miniature "Mary Brunner"!
It's uncanny.
Three generations of the exact same face!
Is there any "proof" that Michael is actually Manson's son?
That's been the "accepted story" on all the TLB blogs, for as long as I can remember.
But, is there any actual proof?
With all the fucking that was going-on, how can anyone really know for sure?
And as you said Beauders, Michael looks like he was "cloned" from Mary's genes ONLY, so there are no physical clues.
Just wonderin...
Josh Bratt said...
"Over on another site"
Would you believe, I've been more or less banned from that site ! About 2 or 3 weeks ago, I noticed a post of mine had disappeared so I rewrote it, saw it turn up in the thread then about two hours later, it was gone. And I e~mailed them about it because I thought there might be a glitch of some kind. No one replied but I thought they were just busy but every post I wrote would show up and then an hour or so later get deleted. Then I noticed that a few posts in different threads leading up to the first one I'd noticed was gone had also been deleted. So I started doing test posts, where I'd write a one liner and within an hour, they'd be deleted. But there was never any of that "Post deleted" notice. They literally just disappeared ! What was really daft was that other contributors had seen some of them and then replied to them but as they no longer exist, it gives a number of those threads a rather lopsided look. I spent 9 or so days asking if I'd done anything amiss and got no reply so I did one final e~mail to ask what was going on and then I gave up. Just after I'd decided to cut my losses, one of the administrators e~mailed me and said she'd been told that apparently, I was confrontational and people felt like they were being attacked and had threatened to leave the site if something wasn't done about that nasty old grimtraveller.
I post on a couple of other TLB sites {that's how I recognized D LaCalandra's style as I've encountered him in a couple of places} and my manner and style doesn't change. But because no one will tell me who the objectors are or what was in my posts that got canned, I've no idea whose thin skin and feathers I've ruffled.
Josh Bratt said...
"there's a post regarding the Bug putting feelers out for book deals before the trial was over"
I can't see the problem with that. As the investigation and trial went on, it must have gotten pretty interesting. He couldn't have known the outcome but he would know that it could be an interesting book, especially as he had so much contact with Manson himself and many of the major players. It was part way into the trial that the juror, William Zamora got the same idea, to write a book. He spent much of his spare time while sequestered putting the book together.
Josh Bratt said...
"He kind of just seems like a slimy lawyer. My personal bias lies in his lawyery, lawyerness"
There are only two sides in a court of law, the winning side and the losing side. He was a lawyer. Even the honest lawyers resort to using every scrap of the law and an appeal to the baser instincts of mankind in order to make sure they don't end up on the losing side because they know their adversary sure will too. Kanarek believed Manson to be innocent. Bugliosi believed him to be guilty. Neither changed their mind in the 45 years after the trial. Both were pretty much identical during the trial. They dissed each other, they sought to keep out stuff or questions from the other that they felt were damaging to their case, they tried every psychological trick they could. I'd have to say, both men were genuine and honest~ish in terms of how they did their jobs in the Tate~La Bianca trial. But there could only be one winner.
Josh Bratt said...
"he used the CM name for his lifetime and made a lot of money off of it all"
But did he ? He wrote a book then went on to do other things. He became a defence lawyer and won all his cases. As a prosecutor he only lost one trial out of 106. People often forget that the TLB trial is only one drop in the ocean of his existence and can he be held responsible if programme, film and documentary makers sought his opinions and input if they were making shows about the Family, the late 60s or murder ? Just think how programme makers of the last 50 years would have loved to have utilized Hitler, Churchill, Kennedy, Stalin, Jesus, Mohammed, James Dean, MLK, Malcolm X and a whole host of others if they were still alive to contribute to programmes and documentaries. Catch the punters while they're still alive and get them on film ! And pay'em something.
Josh Bratt said...
"I think if he had taken out little things like the watch stopping and a lot of the over dramatized stuff"
I do agree that there's some overly dramatic stuff in HS and stuff that in retrospect, was of little, if any, relevance and was unnecessary. But I wouldn't include the watch story among those things. I think it's a rather interesting story, the prime function of which is to demonstrate how easily a magical conclusion can be ascribed to something completely coincidental. Bugliosi doesn't ascribe magic or Manson power to it. He states that it was a coincidence. Sandy Good would probably have ascribed something other to it, like in Robert Hendrickson's book she reiterates the story of Charlie bringing a bird back to life. The watch story plays the part of showing that in the rational world of the law, there is no place for magic or the spiritual realm, unlike the counterculture. Let's face it, the Beatles used to have people who read "the signs" to guide them in making business decisions. Bugliosi was in effect saying "you aren't fooling me with your crap."
hi all lynard and the lovely bitch katie who reminds me greatly of myself and probably knows seinfeld more verbatim then i do,i watch it four times a day on tbs ,,,,ive not commented here much in the last yr or so mainly because the threads have gotten so long and either off point or discecting every sentence i firstly check the number of comments if it is 100 or more i just pass i have had my own things with katie and ive grown to know she has a point and well keep typin all night ive done it but shes kinda a part of this blog and it would be boring without her as far as josh he and i spent alot of time on this case and as he said opinions and agendas got in the way of friendships josh knows me long enough i dont talk behind backs why im mentioning this now anyways opinions like assholes we all got one
and hi leary
grim im not sure what other site you are referring to do you mean mansonblog? they are all pretty cool people there,,,if any complaint i could make of you is that you get bloody long winded which maybe your style but it tends to overenvelope the topic at hand
Josh Bratt said...
"I think the problem with the book is that created a hugely negative monster in the world without thought for consequence. The Bug made MANSON"
Well, authors don't often think of consequences unless they can see them. I think a book is rather like a song, it gets written and the writer/artiste hopes it will be successful but once it's out there in the public domain, they have absolutely no control over where it goes in the public consciousness. They can't tell who will love it or hate it or ignore it. I bet Bugliosi didn't envisage when he wrote the book that some 15 year old Black British kid living reluctantly in Nigeria would buy the book as a present for his sister, read it just to make sure it was suitably interesting and end up having an interest with the case that has thus far spanned 38 years and shows no sign of abating. It's like tossing a stone in water, it's impossible to predict exactly how the ripples will look.
As for making Manson, I think that's really selling Charles Manson short. Whether folk that met him back in the day liked or feared him or perceived him to be dangerous or love itself, to a significant section of people he made an impact. And long before the murders, his place in many peoples' memories, whether to a greater or lesser extent, was pretty much cemented.
Once those cameras and microphones started pointing his way, he became like many that emerged as media savvy in the 60s and showed that he had charisma by the bucket load, that he was articulate, pretty charming, interesting, magnetic, dynamic, forceful....he just made people want to listen to him. He still does because when he's on song, he's a lot more interesting to listen to {and has been for decades} than many sports people, politicians, actors, celebs, people in the music biz, even other criminals.
If anyone really fuelled the legend that has become Charles Manson, it was Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian and the jury that convicted him. Followed closely behind by the various members of the Family, in particular those that followed his lead in shaving their heads, being disruptive in court, X~ing themselves from the world and attempting to rob the gun store to break him out of jail. This was followed hard on the heels by Squeaky pointing a gun at the POTUSA, the rumour Charlie started about decapitating and beheading Shorty and his own rap sheet, all of which {excepting the Squeaky episode} happened long before HS was ever published. There is no doubting that the book explained the dubious aspect of Charles Manson and certain others, but CM really didn't need VB to 'make' him.
Josh Bratt said...
"How big would all this be without Helter Skelter? Would we be here typing? Would this site be here?"
If anything, it's the rise of the internet that has done much of what you ask about there. The net has been beneficial in some ways in the way it's brought people who have a common interest together to chat and argue and fight and laugh and debate etc.
Personally, I have loads of different interests. TLB is only one of them. Even if I only hang around for a year, it's been good to discuss various aspects of the case with so many different people. In the previous 38 years, I talked about it a few times with my younger sister....no one else. I never knew anyone that was interested.
OK, HS is definitely the wheel on which TLB turns, that's true. But I see more from the sum of all the other books and interviews out there in blogsville than I do from HS. I'm an avid reader of different things but much as I dig HS as a book, I have long been curious to discover what other authors {both pro, anti and neutral} have had to say. I also find that bloggers often make points or come up with things that haven't occurred to the varying authors.
grimtraveller said...
one of the administrators e~mailed me and said she'd been told that apparently, I was confrontational and people felt like they were being attacked and had threatened to leave the site if something wasn't done about that nasty old grimtraveller
And here we were thinking you were reasoning, respectful and articulate. What fools we've been! LOL
Shoe doesn't fit. Don't wear it, grim. That's shoddy treatment you got there. Don't let it spoil yer weekend.
that puzzles me about grim why the other site mansonblog that josh ref to as posting letters from bugliosi
,,,confrontational,,,i guess i missed that?
and I will say in josh bratts defense he was-is friends ,with many people who know and have met manson et al he does have hands,on knowledge
candy and nuts said...
"grim im not sure what other site you are referring to do you mean mansonblog?"
Yeah.
candy and nuts said...
"they are all pretty cool people there,,,"
I agree. Which is why the events of the last couple of weeks have been somewhat surprising to me.
candy and nuts said...
"if any complaint i could make of you is that you get bloody long winded which maybe your style but it tends to overenvelope the topic at hand"
I can't argue with that because it's how you feel, it's your opinion and as such, it's valid. By your own admission, you like brevity, not length. You'll pass on a thread if it has more than 100 comments. I'm the opposite. If I see a thread has 100 comments, I'm getting a drink and something to eat and settling down to a good hour's read ! Many conversations between groups of people stray from the topic at hand, I think. Different points, words or phrases spark off different things in different peoples' minds.
When I write, though I may be answering a specific point that a specific person has made, I think of others that may be reading and hope that whatever I'm saying will speak to them. I think there's room on a forum for the different styles and types of writers that there are.
I accept that a long winded post can be off putting, but then, for some, a short generic post that doesn't really tell you much can be equally so.
grim in all due respect i understand btw where in uk u at?
however you tend to digress alot thats not opinion tis fact lov
i lived in scotland for a year loved uk lovely place
candy and nuts said...
"that puzzles me about grim why the other site mansonblog that josh ref to as posting letters from bugliosi
,,,confrontational,,,i guess i missed that?"
To be honest, my post about what happened there was kind of a passing comment. People say to me that I have a story about everything, like if a train crashed at Hendon Central, I'd have a story about how, in my younger days, I ran across the train tracks at the station before to avoid paying the fare there or something like that. So when Josh mentioned the site with the Bugliosi letters, my storyteller's mind just got going.
But I don't dispute that I can be confrontational. Anyone that asks a question can be seen that way. If someone says something that I feel is inaccurate or untrue and I point that out or give what I think is true, I suppose that can be seen as confrontational. But unless someone tells me whom I have upset and what I had said to upset them, I can't really do anything but give my one sided account.
I was surprised that I was pegged that way because I see "confrontational" there all the time. I see it here. I saw it daily on Home Recording.com for 5 years. I see it on Amazon reviews. I see it on pretty much every forum I've ever looked at. Even the nice ones about cooking and DIY !
candy and nuts said...
"btw where in uk u at?"
North west London, a place called Kingsbury. It's only claim to fame is that the late Chris Squire of Yes sang and learned harmony in a church choir in Kingsbury.
candy and nuts said...
"however you tend to digress alot thats not opinion tis fact"
Even I could not dispute or deny that. I'm not aggressive, I'm digressive !
candy and nuts said...
"i lived in scotland for a year loved uk lovely place"
I've had an affinity with the Scots since I was about 4. I was kind of hoping they'd vote 'yes' to independence last year.
I've had two glorious holidays there with groups of kids I used to work with.
The picture of Michael in the boat really reminds me of a footballer that used to play for the club I support {Liverpool} when I first got into football. my first thought when I saw the picture of Michael was "blimey, he looks like Alec Lindsay !"
Hi Candy! Gotta love "The Sein"!!! LOL.
Grim, I'm surprised to hear that. You've got to be one of the least confrontational people I've ever talked to. Your posts are more analytical. I'm puzzled about that one! Your posts here are always calm and collected. Even if you disagree with someone, you're calm and logical.
In fact, I could call you "Spock" or "Data". LOL
Either way, keep the comments coming over here. We love them!!! And we love you!!! :)
Grim you posted this comment: There's an old African proverb that goes: "Until the lions have their own storytellers, history will always glorify the hunter."
I saw that and started thinking about it. It's really a cool proverb, and so true. That's what I love about your comments. I can glean so much from them.
Those are the tidbits I love picking up on these blogs. Lessons in life! Good stuff!!
grim i agree on the scot vote,,,,mansonblog always been ok with me ,,,,,katie,,,holla
grim better to deal with mansonblog people privately just saying dont run them down here
Candy I didn't run them down. I just said I was surprised. And I am.
katie noio i didnt say u ran down mansonblog i meant grim yu fkn hollaback love u!
Oh okay, that looks like hieroglyphics. But I think we're okay. Good! :)
For the record, I don't think Grim was running anyone down. I think he was just relating what happened.
Okay I'm watching boxing. Night.
grimtraveller said...
The picture of Michael in the boat really reminds me of a footballer that used to play for the club I support {Liverpool} when I first got into football. my first thought when I saw the picture of Michael was "blimey, he looks like Alec Lindsay !"
I thought it was Ed Sheeran after a long night with that Taylor TwoTitties.
candy and nuts said...
"grim better to deal with mansonblog people privately just saying dont run them down here"
I tried dealing privately for around 9 days and in the end one did get back to me. I'm still in the dark about specifics.
I wasn't running anyone down. I like the people there. I grew quite fond of some of them, particularly Robert Hendrickson, D LaCalandra, St Circumstance, Austin Anne, MHN, Equinox, Christopher Butche and Mr Humphrat. For the most part, I found the posts and threads there a really great read and I was happy to be involved in them. Even where I didn't agree, things people would say would cause me to go and do some research and that gave me stronger armour in the end. I'd say the same of Truth on Tate, Cielo Drive, Col Scott's and here. I like discussion and debate and you can't have that without two or more sides. I've noticed that there are quite a few people that post or have posted on multiple sites over the years.
I don't run people down publicly.
katie8753 said...
"In fact, I could call you 'Spock'"
If I had to pick my top ten TV or film characters from the moment I first started watching TV, Spock would effortlessly sail into my list. In fact, he might sail effortlessly into the top 3.
@candy and nuts:
Incidentally, one of my favourite blog statements came from you a few months back when you said "Grim in overthought." I laughed so hard at that. I don't know why it so appealed to me, but it did.
Grim - YNWA
You're right there Kevin !
My cousin {poor guy supports Chelsea}and I used to substitute the word "again" for "alone !"
Grim I remember saying you were in overthought. Im guessing because you just started to study about the Manson case, you're going thru every little detail of things, I think we have all done that at one point or another-but one can also "overthink" and try to find some mundane, normal answer to the riddle of why it happened, etc. Why I said when I see a post hit 100 comments, Im kinda like, Im sure there is nothing new I can add to this-so I just don't. It is easy to become obsessed and almost drown in all the tidbits, books, movies, transcripts, etc. As much as I have the same interest in this case, a lot of times Id like to throw all my Manson related shit in a bonfire and blow it the fuck outta my memory. Its a sick lesson in history, that wont go away . So I wont ramble anymore on it. TC
We may find some things out about motives and other key info in the next few years from deathbed confessions I suspect. Til then a few of these folks won't say everything so as to not ruin any tiny chance they have at parole. imho of course.
mr s yes that could happen,,,who knows, and maybe they dont even have one motive they all agree on,,,,btw RIP Gunner Hansen, the original Leatherface💀
grimtraveller said...
"To be honest, my post about what happened there was kind of a passing comment"
I'm pleased to say, it's all now been sorted out.
Well, as Shakespeare said: "All's Well That Ends Well".
Grim, I'm glad you're "back on the horse"!
Does anyone here know how to contact Mary direct? I knew her pretty well when I spent time with the family...not under this name. Emily is a pseudonym. If you can contact her, please tell her "Jenny" - from Duarte house - would like to touch base.
PS Mary told me Pooh Bear was Charlie's child. I see no reason for her to have lied to me.
Hello.Tell me,why Mary don t make abortion? I hate her!!!
If i was in manson family i can beaten shit Poor Beah...Children are shit..
Post a Comment