 |
| AP Photo |
Are these people just trying to outdo each other making Charlie & followers look crazy and evil? This movie seems to have a different twist, as it looks like it's more about Susan, Leslie & Pat finally realizing the gravity of what they did. That might be worth watching if the film ever gets made.
I think that's the most interesting part about these crimes, how young girls became bloodthirsty killers. It didn't seem to bother Susan or Mary at all that Gary Hinman was killed. How do you go from a librarian and church choir singer to killing a good friend and not even caring?? It's not a simple mistake. It's not like getting drunk at the office party and making an ass out of yourself. This was mindbending.
Eddy's right, they're going to make movies that will get people to watch them. I personally wouldn't go see a movie about Sharon Tate. I think I know enough about her to last me a lifetime.
But I would like to see that Jay Sebring documentary. I don't really know that much about Jay and I'd be interested in knowing a lot more about him.
40 comments:
Thanks, Katie. I wish someone would make a movie about the life of Sharon Tate instead of the murders. Venus, when is the Jay documentary coming out?
You guys mind me putting my two cents in every now and then? I see my good buddy Maudes Harold comes over once in a while and she didn't lock the door behind her so I snuck in too!
Carol I agree with you about doing a film on Sharon Tate and have some of the spotlight off of her killers and the murders. But you know, Hollywood is about making money and unfortunately the crimes/criminals have continued to upstage the victims.
Hi Carol. Hi Eddy. Welcome to the blog!!
I was thinking the same thing when I saw this. Are these people just trying to outdo each other making Charlie & followers look crazy and evil? This movie seems to have a different twist, as it looks like it's more about Susan, Leslie & Pat finally realizing the gravity of what they did. That might be worth watching if the film ever gets made.
I think that's the most interesting part about these crimes, how young girls became bloodthirsty killers. It didn't seem to bother Susan or Mary at all that Gary Hinman was killed. How do you go from a librarian and church choir singer to killing a good friend and not even caring?? It's not a simple mistake. It's not like getting drunk at the office party and making an ass out of yourself. This was mindbending.
Eddy's right, they're going to make movies that will get people to watch them. I personally wouldn't go see a movie about Sharon Tate. I think I know enough about her to last me a lifetime.
But I would like to see that Jay Sebring documentary. I don't really know that much about Jay and I'd be interested in knowing a lot more about him.
Hey Thanks Katie! Seems kind of odd to be typing here because I've read all of you for so long. What do they call that? Lurker?
Yeah, I'm looking forward to the documentary on Sebring too. It's still coming our way. Also heard Beautiful People with James Franco will still be filmed as well.
Thanks for the heads up Katie!! Hey Eddy!
This one sounds a bit like Pat's newer doc. Is that why Sanders put out that "new" book?
I read Karlene's book. It'll be interesting to see this one.
Katie, the girls and how they got there is what first really drew me into this case. As a 12 year old, I couldn't figure out how anyone could 'convince' someone to kill a perfect stranger for them......I'm not 12 anymore. lol
*ps. I'm not a robot......yet
Hello Eddy.
Welcome to the blog.
Maude I agree, I was 16 when this happened and when we found out who did it, and I saw their pics in the paper, I was shocked. They were just a few years older than me, and I couldn't understand how in the world they could have done something like that.
Congrats on being humanoid and not robotic. LOL.
I have a hard time with biopics. They bore me to tears, especially if I'm familiar with the story. I couldn't stand the ones on Ray Charles and Muhammad Ali. The one on Frank Sinatra was pure tripe. The one on the rise of the Beatles was infuriating. The one on Malcolm X was limp. When I saw "Helter Skelter" I asked myself "who made this film ?" What a waste of electricity.
I can't really watch them because it's always uppermost in my mind that this is primarily meant to entertain and the real import of the story is often sacrificed towards that end.
I prefer books. You can take them to the loo !
katie8753 said...
I think that's the most interesting part about these crimes, how young girls became bloodthirsty killers
Though not a popular view, I don't believe they were bloodthirsty killers. For Leslie and Susan at least, I think the blood brought home some realities that they had never entertained while they sat around soaking up revolution. Except by August '69, they were stuck. I think they definitely believed in all that the Family stood for but certainly with Atkins, it should be remembered that on the first night she didn't know killings were going to take place and on the second, she pleaded with her eyes not to go into the LaBiancas'. I don't think anyone knew Gary Hinman would end up dead. Atkins was dangerous but I don't think she was a tough girl. It was her wanting people to think she was that made her so dangerous !
Pat was the one who really stepped up to the plate, as it were. She was the one woman that showed that she was pretty ready in murder. Susan said in '69 that it was Pat that told Tex to kill Sharon and Tex said the same thing in '78. Interestingly, Susan said Pat couldn't kill Sharon. She'd had enough trouble killing Abigail and Rosemary the next night.
Susan, Leslie & Pat finally realizing the gravity of what they did
You could include Tex, Bobby, Bruce and Clem in that too. I think they all had to go through that. People often characterize them as blaming Charlie and not taking responsibility but in truth, part and parcel of realizing the gravity of what they did involved assessing Charlie's part in the crimes. I've not caught any of them denying responsibility. Interestingly though, at parole hearings, when they try to describe Charlie's part, they're told they're not taking responsibility and when they take responsibility they're told they're trying to minimize the Manson connection. Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't !
maudes harold said...
I read Karlene's book
I think it's a fantastic book. I was pleasantly surprised by it. Best penny I've spent since my banana chew days of '73.
Blogger LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
Hello Eddy.
Welcome to the blog.
Thanks Lynyrd!
Wow! Have been offline for awhile and am trying to catch up. Great blog as usual. Question - who is Karlene and what is her book? Sorry for being out of the loop...I will catch up eventually!
Karlene Faith and her book is The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten
MARY!!!!! Good to see you!!!!!!!!!! :)
Thanks Eddy!
Thanks Katie...glad to see y'all still going on. Give Lynyrd my best!
Mary said...
who is Karlene and what is her book?
It's one of the better TLB books. It's one that I would file under "underrated treasure", a bit like "Five to die" and "Trial by our peers."
MARY!!!
Great to see you!
Thanks Grim - I am definitely going to check it out.
Hey Katie, I was rereading Gilmore's book, "Manson: The Unholy Trail Of Charlie And The Family, and when I came upon chapter 13 the first sentence said that Terry Melcher subleased the Cielo house. If you have not read this book, do so because it has quite a bit of information on Beausoleil. Get the one with the orange cover, it will be cheaper and some of the other editions don't have the Beausoleil information.
Thanks Beauders, I'll have to check that out. I think that's the biggest problem with this case, one person says one thing and another person says the opposite. I can't figure out how Altobelli sued Sharon's estate if he wasn't leasing to her and Roman, but I don't know how that works.
I read Candice Bergen's autobiography and I don't remember her mentioning Melcher subleasing to Sharon & Roman, I think she just mentioned that in late 1968 Melcher was working day & night trying to fix the financial fiasco created by his stepfather, and in December he suddenly announced they were going to move to his mother's beach house without really explaining why. If they left in December and Sharon & Roman moved in February, I wonder who paid January rent.
beauders said...
I was rereading Gilmore's book, "Manson: The Unholy Trail Of Charlie And The Family....If you have not read this book, do so because it has quite a bit of information on Beausoleil. Get the one with the orange cover, it will be cheaper and some of the other editions don't have the Beausoleil information
It's a really interesting book. I absolutely hate the title though ! It originally came out in 1971 as "The Garbage People" ¬> a much better title.
Of note is that John Gilmour did a series of interviews with Charlie in the county jail in the latter part of '69 and bits of '70 and they form much of his dialogue in the book. This is the book where Bobby says that Gary Hinman was meant to finance a recording session for Charlie.
The book shows how I've changed in 20 years. I first bought it under it's original title in a strange little shop in Hackney back in 1995 and I found it a hard read. When I got to the photo section I was flabbergasted to see the death and morgue shots of the victims. I was particularly moved by the picture of Wogiciech Frykowski on the mortuary slab, having been shaved with all those stab wounds and the one of Leno LaBianca with WAR carved on him. I was so disgusted that those pictures were printed that I actually threw the book away. I ripped it up and chucked it ! I can still see the grey bin I threw it in.....
But now, I can happily look at the pictures and not feel that someone's private grief is being sensationalized and intruded on.
Well, maybe not "happily".....
I remember more about Bobby from that reading than about Charlie or any of the others. At that point I'd only read "Helter Skelter" and "Without conscience" {the Nuel Emmons one}.
Well, I reread it about 3 months back and it's a good read, if still a little hard in parts. Like many TLB books there are inaccuracies {like saying Linda joined the Family while they lived at Dennis Wilson's house} and some of the characters are given pseudonyms {like Mary Brunner is Marie O'Brien !} but it's one of the earliest books and therefore has both an innocent and ignorant slant to it that is particularly interesting in the light of the many books that have come latterly {some of them really excellent, it must be said} that can afford to be wise after the event.
Mary said...
Thanks Grim - I am definitely going to check it out
Initially, I thought it was just going to be a feminist rant so it was a while before I read it.
It is a bit of a rant but it's a feminist rant that springs forth from and is encased by TLB and that gives it an edge that, at least for me, swings it securely into new and enlightening territory.
Thanks Grim. The problem I have with any book that has one mistake, I keep thinking “what else is wrong?”
I read part of the book about Leslie’s Long Journey online, and frankly I got bored with it. The author is obviously leaning to the left (which rubs me wrong), and she characterizes the girls as "laughing and making merry", which they did during the trial.
She comes up with an analogy of a man and woman breaking into a poor couple’s house and brutally killing them, then the man yells at the woman to help him kill, so she just stabs away. All of this is to make Leslie look innocent.
Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. The author is right, assuming that no one cares if a poor guy gets WAR carved on his chest, but she’s miles away from the LaBianca murders. Leslie wanted to go that night and was an active participant in those murders. Not only did she kill that night, she wiped for prints, stole Rosemary’s clothing, stole Leno’s coin collection, stole cheese and chocolate milk and flirted with a guy for a ride home.
A far cry from the analogy the author gives. She actually said at one parole hearing that she took Rosemary’s clothing because Tex wanted her jeans. OMG!!!!!!!!!!!
And why just write about Leslie? What about Pat & Susan? Those girls laughed and loved the limelight during the trial. The cameras were on them! Suddenly...THEY were the pigs and it was funny! Then the trial was over, the cameras shut off. Then it wasn't so funny anymore.
And I don’t need to know anymore about Bobby. To me, he’s more unscrupulous than Tex Watson. Not only did he kill a good friend so he couldn’t go to the cops, he stole his cars, any of his pocket change and even his bagpipes. He even went back later and laughed because Gary had maggots on him.
Tex didn’t steal anything during the TLB murders. He could have stolen an expensive Porsche, a Firebird and a Camaro. But he didn’t. The only ones who stole during TLB were Susan ($72 from Abigail), Leslie (Rosemary’s clothes and a coin collection) and Charlie (Rosemary’s billfold).
Now someone is trying to again make Gary look like a drug dealer. But we have Susan and Mary BOTH relating to the police that they went to Gary's house to get money, and when he refused, they killed him. Susan and Mary both taking turns smothering him.
Why change the story now? Is it because Susan is dead and Mary is MIA?
These people want out of prison. Boo hoo. Ain't gonna happen. They made their beds....now they can lie in it. When you sleep with PIGS, you wake up in the mud....
That's why I LOVE facts. You can't take them away. You can't make them disappear. They are there until the end of time. No matter how much you want to alter the ending, it just doesn't work...
katie8753 said...
The problem I have with any book that has one mistake, I keep thinking “what else is wrong?
I don't find that to be a problem anymore because I've come to realize that it is impossible to write the definitive TLB book. Sometimes though, the errors are the writer's own suppositions and sometimes they are repeating erroneous information that they've been given.
All of this is to make Leslie look innocent
To be fair to Faith, with statements like "she was 19 years old when she participated in murder", "we discussed Leslie's crime and it's effects", "in the mid 70s....she then began the hard work of realizing what she'd done and of doing penance" and "Leslie is not looking for anyone to serve as her apologist. In her interactions with others she is humble, never forgetting her part in a crime she remembers all too well" among many others, I wouldn't say she held the view that Leslie was innocent. Brainwashed and under Charlie's madcap influence, yes, but not guiltless. The innocence she speaks of where Leslie is concerned is recovered innocence.
And why just write about Leslie? What about Pat & Susan?
You did say you read only part of it. Actually, Pat & Susan are mentioned quite a bit. There's even a section called "More about Susan" and one called "About Pat.
katie8753 said...
Tex didn’t steal anything during the TLB murders. He could have stolen an expensive Porsche, a Firebird and a Camaro. But he didn’t. The only ones who stole during TLB were Susan ($72 from Abigail).....
From Tex's book:
"I want all the money you've got here," I barked, and Abigail took Sadie into her bedroom and gave her the money in her wallet. When they came back with only seventy dollars, I shouted: "You mean that's all you've got ?"
"How much do you want ?" Frykowski asked.
"We want thousands !"
Sharon had pulled herself together enough to say that they didn't have any more money in the house but that they could get us some if we'd give them time. "You know I'm not kidding," I asked, and she murmured, "Yes, I know."
Both Danny DeCarlo & Linda spoke of Tex acquiring $70 after Cielo, Linda expressing shock that Tex had killed "people for money."
Now someone is trying to again make Gary look like a drug dealer
It's factually documented that when arrested in 1968, Sandra Good told the police she'd gotten her pills from Gary Hinman.
In a 2009 documentary, Vincent Bugliosi stated quite brazenly that Gary used to furnish the Family with drugs.
Also, though not commonly known, mescaline, which Gary is supposed to have also sold, wasn't even an illegal drug in 1969. It didn't become so until 1970 in the USA.
Why change the story now?
A number of reasons. One for example, I think sometimes, when people are looking at serious jail time or death, their concentration is on minimizing that current danger so they lie. Then one gets caught in that and other related matters and as one gets older and wiser, one may just sit down and think, "my bullshit has just put me in more and more bother. Maybe it's time to just come clean." Of course, by then you may run into the very problem that Bobby and Susan when she was alive, ran into ~ few people with or without clout believe you.
That's why I LOVE facts. You can't take them away. You can't make them disappear
But the thing with facts is that they are not final and matter settling forever more. Facts are spinable. A court of law is a great example of that. Facts are presented but both sides put their spin on those facts. Example; Pat Krenwinkel's fingerprint is found on a door at Cielo. Prosecution contends it's part of the proof she committed murder. Defence says it's not inconceivable she was there as a friend. The fact hasn't changed.
It's not a great example but it illustrates that opposing sides use the same sets of facts to bolster their agenda. Politicians do it all the time. 250,000 immigrants come into a country in any one year. It's an undeniable fact. One side says it's proof that immigration is uncontrolled and too many people are coming in the country. The other side says it demonstrates wonderfully the concept of free movement of labour. Both are convinced they alone are right.
Same facts though.
I usually don't care for fiction books but Sway is a pretty dam good book it connects Kenneth Anger Beausoleil & Brian Jones
Hi William! Kenneth Anger. That's a name you don't forget. Who would name someone that? KENNETH ANGER. HA HA. It's funny that he has the last name Anger and the first name Kenneth. You'd think he would have the first name "Thor" or "Butch" with the last name of Anger. Just saying...
Hi Katie I guess the names fitting he's a homosexual sexual deviant a Satanist Did you catch the lifetime movie ? Not to bad for a made for T.V movie in my opinion the plot seemed to follow George Stimson's motive for the murder's of free Bobby it wasn't totally accurate but I don't believe it ever claimed to be either it's definitely worth a watch in my opinion
I was curious to see what the Brolin gir looked like having a life long crush on Diane Lane she's definitely easy on the eyes the whole cast was nothing like the busted look of the real Manson women
Katie, Anger's real name is Kenneth Wilbur Anglemyer.
Beauders any update on your book
William that movie sucked! Sorry, but it did. Thanks Beauders, I was just kidding. That's a weird & stupid name. LOL.
Hey William, just wondered if you thought that Diane Lane was the mom of Eden Brolin? She isn't. Diane was her stepmom.
Thanks Venus! I'm looking at James Brolin. He's fine!
Grim is right on it when he talks about the spinnability of 'facts'. But it's more complex than that. When we talk about facts we should perhaps be wary, as it may not be clear that we and our interlocutors understand the same thing by a ‘fact’. Facts in law differ from facts in science and both differ from facts in philosophy. Etc.
In science a fact is an objective and verifiable (replicable) observation, contrasted with a hypothesis or theory, both of which are intended to explain or interpret facts. Scientific facts are modifiable: water boils at 100Cº [at sea level] [when not in a vacuum], and as they are based on observation can be modified when observation techniques become more efficient.
A fact in philosophy is what makes a true sentence true; something that ‘is the case’, and there need be no burden of proof; furthermore, despite what is often felt by non-philosophers, it is not easily possible for statements about what ‘ought to be the case’ to be derived from statements of what ‘is’ the case. Clearly facts in philosophy may not correlate with what we observe in ‘real life’.
A fact in law is rather different, and may hinge on precedent (jurisprudence). Recourse is often made to a ‘trier of fact’ (aka ‘finder of fact’), this being one or more persons charged with determining facts in legal proceedings. ‘Determine’ in this context is to decide from evidence presented the existence of something, the occurrence of an event, etc. If these are not contested they may become the "facts of the case" without the need for a ‘trier of fact’. These findings may or may not correspond with the ‘absolute facts’ (what really happened), this in any case frequently being unknowable.
Thanks so much Frank. I love it when you come on here and share your knowledge.
The facts I was talking about are very simple. Fact #1: The victims are dead. Fact #2: The killers admitted to killing them.
It seems in all the years after these murders, stories keep changing.
But if the story changes by a killer, you would have to suspect it's an attempt to look less guilty in order to get out of prison.
If the story changes by people OTHER than the killers, I would suspect it's a way to sell a book.
Just thinking out loud....
Katie I know you were just kidding--I thought his real name is just as bad. William the book is done but I don't know how to publish it without getting sued. I'm actually thinking of publishing it out of the U.S. If anyone has any ideas please let me know.
Hello Venus yes I thought Eden Brolin was Diane Lane's daughter Beauders I for one am excited about the book being finished any thoughts of just making a few copies & selling them privately to us in T/L land just a thought
william marshall said...
Beauders I for one am excited about the book being finished any thoughts of just making a few copies & selling them privately to us in T/L land just a thought
Should you consider this with any seriousness, put me down for a copy.
Grim, the book is 1200 pages, I am scared that you would write 3600 pages in comments.
Ha ha ! I've just seen this.
I can handle 1200 pages {I've read the bible many times from Genesis to Revelation}.
You may well be right about the comments though. Take it as a backhand compliment !
Post a Comment