Any predictions on Leslie's chances at release? Personally, I don't think she's going anywhere YET. If she lives to a ripe old age, she'll eventually get out. They'll wait until she's got one marble left in her head, and then, they'll let her go.
If I had to put a number on it, my guess is that they'll "kick her to the curb" when she's around 80-85 years old. By then, what's left of her, will be an embarrassment.
The release of a woman that old, will represent "a grand spectacle of punishment", and that's exactly what the world wants. At that point, society will have their "pound of flesh". The cycle will be complete.
As a side note:
Manson's death would definitely put Leslie and Bruce closer to the door. Once the boogey man croaks, people's thirst for restitution will be quenched (to some extent)... and the world will begin to "move-on" emotionally. The "Manson stigma" will begin to wane. That can only help their chances.
As long as Manson is still breathing, their chances of release are hampered. If I were Leslie or Bruce, I'd be wishing for Manson's death.
That's just my "prediction" of what we can expect, and my interpretation of the surrounding circumstances. That's not my "opinion" of what should happen, but rather, my prediciton of what will happen.
Anyone else, care to take a stab at predicting the future (LOL), just for the sake of discussion?
Shes not going anywhere until Brown is out of office
ReplyDeleteI doubt she'll get out. Although I'm really surprised she & Bruce are still in there. California seems like such a liberal place.
ReplyDeleteRemember though Bruce is on there on two murders
ReplyDeleteYeah, but Bruce didn't do anything to Hinman. All he did was drive Charlie over there. I think that was unfair to charge him with the Hinman murder.
ReplyDeleteMary helped KILL Hinman, and she's running free!
Didnt Bruce give a gun to Bobby? I know Gary wasnt shot but im pretty sure it was taken into consideration by the prosecution and jury, pretty sure Susan had the gun held to Gary while Bobby rifled through his things looking for money
DeleteWhat, Charlie can't drive himself to Hinman's? He can't turn the key and put it in drive? It sounds like Charlie was trying to implicate other people from the get go.
ReplyDeleteI just think it was part of Charlies personality, he wasnt a very brave or ballsy person, he needed Bruce for Hinman, he needed TJ to go with him for Crowe after DeCarlo turned him down, cellmates of Charlies from Terminal and McNeil say he was harmless and scared of his own shadow
DeleteAnd he was always trying to recruit the Satans to have around the ranch for security
DeleteI think the only way we're ever gonna get any answers to our many questions is if one of these people is released and he or she writes a tell all book. And even then, we'd have to just believe it or not.
ReplyDeleteYes i agree
DeleteI don't think she'll ever truly get out. Parole boards might say ok, but I think as long as governors have a say, she'll ultimately be denied...because of the brutality and her years of inability to express why and how this could have happened.
ReplyDeleteI hope she gets some satisfaction for her years served by the decisions of the parole boards...it's likely as close as she's going to get, but maybe not...
As for Charlie, I think he was too stupid to realize that the law would hold him as accountable those doing the killing.
All anyone needs to do is listen to her interview with Marvn Part to get a sense of how depraved and psychotic she really is
DeleteSusan that interview that Leslie did with her psychiatrist is very telling. She was psychotic.
ReplyDeleteBTW I've been reading a lot of comments on different websites that say Leslie should NEVER be let out.
She shouldnt, shes as bad as Pat or Tex in my book
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou know, I find it really strange that Abigail Folger's family says they weren't aware of her relationship with her fellow victims, i.e., Sharon Tate & Voytek Frykowski.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why she wouldn't mention Voytek to her family, because they probably would have said "what the hell are you doing seeing that guy?"
That's completely understandable, seeing that she was paying their way the whole time because he was seemingly a "hanger on" to her.
But why didn't she tell them she was spending time with Sharon Tate and living at Cielo Drive? I thought they were good friends.
Why would she hide that from her family?
Gibbys mom had to know if for no other reason than she called her from Cielo around 10 to confirm the next days flight
DeleteIf she was telling her psychiatrist every day then im sure she was telling her mom, Roman knew he was leaving the two girls in the company of two prople who at the very least were involved in using drugs and more than likely selling them, Roman even made a statement after the murders about how he knew keaving Sharon with Voy and Jay was a bad idea, remember the police report, Voy had met the dsy before with Tom Harrigan at Cielo for 2 hours to discuss delivery of an upcoming MDA shipment from Canada
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYes Susan, she did call her from Cielo Drive that night, but there was no caller ID back then. How would her mom know where she was calling from? That was like calling from a pay phone back then.
ReplyDeleteIts just hard to believe that shed have been at Cielo for months and not told her mom she was living with an actress at the house of a fairly well known movie director and remember also shed been living with Voy on Woodstock over by Mama Cass for awhile too, im sure her mom knew of him but Abigail probably left out the drug activity
DeleteMeet people where they are and not where you think they should be- Pope Francis
ReplyDeleteWhen I use to believe in God, I always tried to believe in a fellow human beings best moment, when they loved and were loved in return. Nowadays everyone wants to point at the ugliness of another. Forgetting the condition of their own soul.
What says urine?
Well, she might have been telling her psychiatrist stuff, doesn't mean she was telling her mom stuff.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, I can see why she didn't want her family to know about Voytek. He was a loser and a "wannabe" drug dealer. They would have grimaced to learn that she was that deeply involved with such a loser, but Sharon wasn't a loser.
Maybe she was afraid that if they let on about living at Cielo Drive, her mother would have guessed the rest. I don't know.
I don't think Gibby was a bad person. In fact, she told her psychiatrist that she was leaving Voytek in the near future, because of the drug stuff and I think she was just tired of being used by him. Which she was, in my opinion.
And yes, I do believe that Voytek was trying to get into a deep drug selling scene.
Hi Tom! Are you talking about the Senate? That's the nastiest group of people I can think of. Well.....the second nastiest. HA HA HA!
ReplyDeleteWhose the first nastiest?
ReplyDeleteHmmm......THE RUSSIANS!! They're the most skanklidoodious folks I've ever seen in my life. Hee hee!
ReplyDeleteThey are, But I'm trying to look at the best in people.
ReplyDeleteThey can play ice hockey! Fuck them hackers.
Yeah, they also make some interesting buildings, and write good stories about it being so cold and bleak and stuff.
ReplyDeleteBTW did you check out any of Aquarius?
ReplyDeleteYeah I find it odd that she wouldn't have mentioned knowing Sharon. That was a statement a news reporter said. I don't even know if it's true.
ReplyDeleteI can see why she'd keep Voytek a secret. She was basically paying for all of their living and entertainment expenses, including the drugs I'm sure. That guy didn't have a job that I know of, at least not a steady job. I'm sure that she knew her parents would not approve of her seeing him, and like most kids who are doing something their parents wouldn't like, they try and keep it a secret.
No I haven't had a chance to watch Aquarius yet but I will when I get time.
Two things ive wondered about Frykowski is why the drive over to Jays to pick up the girl Jay spent the night with on the 7th and why Frykowski was found on the cielo lawn with his pants pulled down?
ReplyDeleteIt is odd that Frykowski went to pick her up when Jay wasn't even there, then he went to his artist friend to get the keys to the Woodstock house, then he had to go to the artist friend's girlfriend's house to get the keys, then he took that girl over there.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't even have a key to his own rent house? And why drag that girl around?
It's also strange that a neighbor said she saw Jay driving like a bat out of hell in the late afternoon and he looked mad. I wonder what that was about.
Frykowski's pants were pulled down???
Yeah its in Atkins interview with Caballero and copsxwere using it as a key clue they were holding back
DeleteAbout the pants
DeleteMy guess about Frykowski going over there is he was delivering drugs to Jay
DeleteI figured Jay was mad because Frykowski took his gal. I don't know if I believe Susan about Frykowski's pants being down. I've seen the crime scene photos and it doesn't look like they're down. Did Susan explain why?
ReplyDeleteWhy would Frykowski deliver drugs to Jay if Jay was coming over to Cielo Drive later?
I meant Caballero was the one who asked Susan about the pants, he asked her if they were around his belly button when they left or lower, she said the only thing she remembered about his pants were that they were a strange color which they were, purple i believe and if you enlarge the crime scene photo you can indeed see that his pants are lowered to a place lower than would come from just running and falling, as far as Voy going over it think it was probably just a miscommunication thing or possibly Voy running behind and Jay getting impatient, the stoppkngbat Webers place looking for Jays place came from Schrecks book, if i remember correctly Schrecks theory was that initially only Sharon, Jay and Parent were killed, Voy and Gibby tied up and left alive then Tex and the girls left in order to go find more drugs at Jays place presumably from him telling Tex he had more there, then frustrated by their inability to find Jays house they high tailed it back to Spahn and told Charlie what happened then Charlie and someone else go back to Cielo and according to Schreck this is when Voy and Gibby are killed but ive never heard who Schreck thinks killed them just that it wasnt Charlie
DeleteThe part about leaving Frykowski and Folger alive and tied up is where i disagree with Schrek, why leave the biggest strongest person there tied up and able to wriggle himself loose from his restraints, his theory was that Charlie went back to Cielo but no gunshots were heard and little Charlie aint killing Voytek by hand, theres a post going right now on manson blog about Bill Garretson and the writer of it knew Bill and corresponded with him in person and by phone in the 90s and his belief is that Charlie and Bruce Davis went back to Cielo and those were the voices the mexican kid witness heard at 4am coming from Cielo arguing, the writer of the post thinks it was Charlie and Bruce arguing whether to kill Garretson or leave him alive, his opinion was that the 2 guys Bill talked about in his E interview knocking on his door around 3am holding the "3 eyed baby" asking to use his phone were Charlie and Bruce making sure the phones were still out of service and then asking Bill if he needed a gun was their way to see if he was armed and would come after them if they left him alive, the "baby" in my opinion was probably one of the cats Sharon was caring for and Charlie being an animal lover picked it up and either took it or played with it, remember also that Bill claims the police took all the letters he wrote that night and he never saw them again and nothing was ever released about them, alot of food for thought but like most things in TLB nothing concrete
DeleteAlso remember the comments the two men made according to Bill, "theres already enough dead bodies here" and "dont you think theres enough people dead?" Both comments that to me would fit perfectly with an argument over whether to kill another person
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOh Susan, what do you think of that new theory that's been floating around for a while that the killers were looking for Jay's house when they stopped and hosed down at old man Weber's place?
ReplyDeleteWhen you look at Cielo the whole thing is so crazy and has so many elements you could write a book on each separate detail i mean think about it, 4 grungy looking young people driving around Beverly Hills at midnight in a beat up 59 Ford that looked ANCIENT compared to 68 snd 69 vehicles, not like comparing an 07 vehicle to a 2017, car styles changed like night and day between 59 and 69, they park, walk up a 1/4 mile hill, kill 5 people with a gun, knives and beating, leave someone on the property untouched, very few immediate neighbors report hearing anything, they run back down the hill unseen, then if you believe like i do Manson GOES BACK at 3 am to a dead end cul de sac, no way out if cops come except repelling down the side of a cliff and is gone by the time the paper boy comes at 5 30, wild shit indeed lol
ReplyDeleteWell the picture of Voytek lying on the ground is a little fuzzy. It's hard to tell about his pants. They don't look "pulled down" to me, but what do I know?
ReplyDeleteAs far as the theory that Gibby & Voytek were tied up and left alive for I guess hours and the others were killed while they went to look for Jay's house is pretty much ridiculous. Forensic Science showed that the victims all died within minutes of each other, measuring the liver function tests, rigidity and rigormortis.
It's hard for "rumors" to beat "forensic science".
The stuff about Garretson is kinda weird. "3-Eyed Baby"? Get outta here. He claimed at first he didn't hear anything, which is ridiculous. Then he claimed he saw Gibby getting chased down by a girl.
Who knows what the truth is with that guy?
Yeah im with you on Schrecks theory about Voytek and Folger killed later, just on the surface it makes no sense at all, the part about the pants is legit though and comes from police as they held it back as a clue to ask suspects, Caballero was told by investigators to ask Susan about it, its never really gained much traction so maybe it was done by Tex or Pat to throw cops off making them think there was some sex or revenge angle, the thing about Garretson and the "baby" like i said in my opinion one of the cats wrapped up in a blanket by either Charlie later on or possibly animal control when they got there in the morning, i believe most of what Bill has said vut i think due to some cognitive issues or PTSD he has the sequence of events messed up like the stuff about getting the ride down to Sunset earlier in the evening and the ride giver telling Bill "i wouldnt go back up there tonight if i were you" and the "van full of hippies" who gave him a ride back up to the house after his grocery trip, he says he wrote the license plate numbers to both vehicles down and left them on the table in the guesthouse but the cops confiscated them and he never found out what happened, Schrecks other goofy theory is that the FBI had Cielo under surveillance the night of the murders and before due to Frykowskis MDA dealings, like theyre going to let 5 people get massacred to keep their surveillance under wraps, uhhh no lol
DeleteSchrecks other goofy theory is that the FBI had Cielo under surveillance the night of the murders and before due to Frykowskis MDA dealings, like theyre going to let 5 people get massacred to keep their surveillance under wraps, uhhh no lol
ReplyDeleteSay What??? LOL.
Yeah pretty crazy, Nick made some good points but that one is just crazy
DeleteI keep trying to gind the book but every plsce i see its,sold out, thing is huge, 990 pages and 85 bucks
DeleteBTW have you heard Tex is being moved to RJ Donovan prison near San Diego? On his site he says its part of "gods plan" for his life lol, also says someone stole his original bible from 1976 during a service, hes asking people to keep a look out for it on Ebay in case someone tries to sell it, that guy is a piece of work
DeleteSomeone stole his Bible in 1976 and he just noticed??? What a maroon!! That guy is a piece of work! He probably has a knife carved into it.
ReplyDeleteNote to myself: Never believe anything that comes out of Tex Watson's mouth!
No someone stole the bible that hes had since 76, apparently it held a special significance for him, what im wondering more is what's the reason for the move from Mule Creek?
DeleteThe crazy thing is the prison theyre moving him to is 1.5 miles from the Mexican border, wouldnt take him too long to get over the border if he managed to escape
DeleteHere's a link to Tex's website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aboundinglove.org/main/monthly-view/2017/285-october-2017
On that page, you'll find his "monthly review".
In this month's edition (LOL), Tex discusses his move to another prison (under the heading "My transfer down South").
Also of note, he mentions meeting Lotsapoppa (before his death) under the heading "What's New".
Evidently, this supposed "encounter" with Lotsapoppa is mentioned in a book called "Redeemed Unredeemable". (I've never heard of the book).
I have to warn you however, Tex's website is a tough read.
It kinda makes you throw-up in your mouth a little bit.
If you don't believe me, try reading that entire page without getting a bit nauseous.
Good Luck!
What do you think the reason for the move is?
DeleteSAG asked:
ReplyDelete"What do you think the reason for the move is?"
I have no idea.
He doesn't specify any reasons.
Tex Watson:
ReplyDelete"I’ve been at Mule Creek for over twenty-four years, so it’s time to move. I have a peace from the Lord about it, and I look forward to the change. Previously, I was at California Men’s Colony for twenty-one years. So now, I’ve been approved for transfer to R. J. Donovan, San Diego.
Through the prison grapevine, I’ve heard the ministry there is excellent with volunteer support from the local body of Christ. I look forward to exhorting the saints, receiving encouragement from them and being part of their outreach to the lost. I believe God has a plan and purpose for me there."
He states "I've been approved for transfer", which suggests that the move was his idea.
But then again, we're talking about Tex Watson's word here, so who knows...
Extrapolate what you will.
Now that he's at Donovan, he can get to know Erik Menendez, also at Donovan, and fill him in on how his brother, Lyle, has been...at Mule Creek for years.
ReplyDeleteThink ol Tex will try to make a "run for the border"? Lol
DeleteErik with a "k"! LOL. Like a Viking!
ReplyDeleteMaybe Erik can school Tex on the new law in CA that if you were sexually abused and it wasn't brought up at your trial, you can get a new one.
Tex can say he was sexually abused by lots of people: Charlie, Clem, Bobby, Kasabian, et al.
Can't you just see Tex at a new trial? A 72 year old man saying "I'm the Devil and I'm here to do the devil's bidness", while leaning on a walker. HA HA.
Has anyone seen Tex's favorite Bible? He was probably working on the book of "Tex". LOL.
The wholr "ministry" thing with Tex is a joke, he honestly thinks people are stupid enough to think hes changed and is a good guy now, his convo with Bruce Davis back when Suzan was coming tobhis parole hearings is all i need to know, telling Bruce "buddy i might be getting out of here very soon due to my ace in the hole, Suzans kids are playing with Patti Tates kid in her yard as we speak"
DeleteId have loved to have seen Col Paul Tate unload a 12 gauge into Tex and just laugh
DeleteSusan I don't think Tex will run for the border. They might put him to work as a drug mule, and he's probably too tard....
ReplyDeleteOr maybe he'd like that.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he can get a "rock hammer" like Andy on Shawshank and tunnel out in 22 years.
Oh wait, he doesn't have 22 years left. LOL.
Lol "Tex crawled to freedom through 1500 yards of smelly foulness i cant even imagine"
DeleteLol "Tex crawled to freedom through 1500 yards of smelly foulness i cant even imagine"
Delete$85 for a book??? Somebody's laughing all the way to the bank! Stephen King's "IT" is over 1,000 pages, and it only cost me $15. Gone With the Wind is over 1,000 pages, and I bought the hardback for $20 a few years ago.
ReplyDeleteI've never paid over $30 for ANY book, on this subject or any subject. And believe you me, $30 is WAY TOO MUCH for a book!
Oh well, if y'all want to keep buying those books, then keep buying them. You're making someone really happy!
How do you laugh all the way to the bank anyway? Do you start laughing in the morning, or do you wait until you get in the car to go to the bank? Do you chuckle or do you do a knee slapping GUFFAW???
I don't know, I never laughed all the way to the bank....
Id never pay that muchbfor Schrecks book especially since listening to Brians interview with him and he basically told his theory ofvwhat he thinks happened, only time i spent that kind of money on a book was college textbooks
ReplyDeletehis convo with Bruce Davis back when Suzan was coming tobhis parole hearings is all i need to know, telling Bruce "buddy i might be getting out of here very soon due to my ace in the hole, Suzans kids are playing with Patti Tates kid in her yard as we speak"
ReplyDeleteWhere'd you hear that?
Restless Souls, Alisa Statmans book
DeleteThe story went that Suzan had her kid "conveniently" enrolled in the same school as Patti Tates kids and had even moved to the same town or area as her, its hard to believe that it was just a coincidence that Suzan would move to the same town as Patti and their kids would be in the same school, one day Suzan and Patti were talking at the school and Patti told Suzan who she was and Suzan replied "omg youll never guess who i am, im Rosemary Labiancas daughter"
DeleteOh okay, I thought that's where you heard it. No proof of any of that stuff!
ReplyDeleteBut let's agree that Tex Watson is a bunko artist from the get go. He was a bunko artist from the moment he landed in California. Selling wigs.
ReplyDeleteYeah ive always believed Tex was pulling off scams while working for Braniff at Dallas airport
DeleteIn fact, he was probably a bunko artist when he was still living in Farmersville.
ReplyDeleteAnd im pretty sure that story has been verified by Patti herself
ReplyDeleteAnd he's STILL a bunko artist. I don't know why he got moved down south, but I have a feeling that it benefits him somehow. I agree with you, the only way he's getting out alive is if he escapes.
ReplyDeleteHow would you know if it's verified by Patti?
ReplyDeleteShe said herself that when she found out Suzan was lobbying for Texs parole she ran over and picked her kids up from Suzans house, im assuming its coming from Patti relaying the story to Alisa so who knows, i dont know why Statman would lie about it but who knows
DeleteWell I only read about that in Statman's book. Statman also said in her book that she knew what Sharon was thinking during the murders, which is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteShe was just really weird, moving into the guesthouse, i think she probably took advantage of Pattis illness to weasel herself in
DeleteKinda odd how Rostau gets killed due to his mail stealing from JFK airport scam and i believe Tex said in one of his books that he stole luggage while working for Braniff and how Tex mentions a "vending machine connection" in his books for drugs and thats what Eugene Massaro did and one of Massaros MOs was "injuring phone lines"
ReplyDeleteHow and why would Tex know anything about cutting phone lines of hed never done it or saw it done? If i climbed a power pole i wouldnt know which wires were which
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTex claims that Charlie told him how to cut the phone lines, but who knows, the guy is such a liar.
ReplyDeleteHe kills people without mercy, then asks for mercy from the parole board to get out. How does that work both ways?
Ahhh, screw that BUM!
Tex and his "Magic Christian Bible". HA HA. He probably believes that Bible is like his "magic carpet" to get outta prison.
ReplyDeleteHes a vile disgusting creature
DeleteTex wants to move to San Diego. Maybe he's got family there.
ReplyDeleteTex better hope when he finally gets to the Pearly Gates that Doris isn't there waiting for him, cuz I think he's gonna have a slippery slope. He can lie his ass off at prison, but you can't lie to Ya-weh about what you've been doing and thinking.
The prison's location near the border has nothing to do with anything. It's a prison. And like his parole efforts, he isn't going anywhere. Ever. Except straight to hell maybe.
ReplyDeleteI never suggested that it meant anything just found it interesting, stop coming off like a fucking pompous know it all, thanks
DeleteSAG,
ReplyDeleteThere's no need for profanity. We're discussing Tex's transfer, the possible reasons for it, and the new location as a group. I don't think Marliese was addressing you specifically.
From what I'm told, 3 of Tex's kids live near San Diego...the girl, and the two eldest boys. (Well, one boy was in the marines, stationed at Camp Pendleton, but I'm not sure if he's still there.)
Could Tex have requested a transfer, in hopes of seeing more of his kids?
Who knows... it's just a guess.
That's probably right Lynyrd also San Diego has great weather for a Texan, Northern California can get pretty cold.
ReplyDeleteSincerely appreciate your comment, Lynyrd. And you're right, I was making a generic statement after reading a few what seemed like half serious comments about the prison's location near the border. My point was it is, after all, a prison. I'm sure they've got it covered. LOL!
ReplyDeleteBack to the point, if Tex requested a transfer to be closer to family...seems fair enough on the surface, but thinking more about it.,.why should he..? California is a huge, diverse state geographically...if Tex's children's lives take them far from him, that's how it goes when you're a convicted murderer incarcerated for life in state prison. It's not a vacation. I won't go into the agonizing, life long separation of Tex's victims with their families.
I'm tired of Tex Watson's whining. And now about his bible being stolen? Again, he's in prison, what does he expect? Lucky it wasn't stolen years ago, and good for him he's still alive to whine and complain about it. Seems old Tex doesn't like being a victim, even of petty theft while living in a prison full of criminals...just like the murderer he is...
He doesn't need a bible in his hands to pray to God.
Marliese said:
ReplyDeleteAnd now about his bible being stolen? Again, he's in prison, what does he expect?
Marliese, that's so true! He acts like he's a privileged member of some kind of country club. HA HA! It really cracked me up when he got all pissy about the language used about him on Wiki.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
ReplyDeleteAll anyone needs to do is listen to her interview with Marvn Part to get a sense of how depraved and psychotic she really is
Is....or was ?
She said and believed all that stuff before you were even conceived. And you're currently on the road to being old ! You hadn't even started school when she turned her back on Manson and and that life.....and you're not that far off from thinking pensions and retirement.
It comes quicker than we think !
Yet paradoxically, it's a lot of years. Time enough to have changed ~ if one really wants to.
Hate to burst your bubble but shes not going anywhere this time and shes gonna die behind bars
DeleteHey Grim, I don't really agree with your philosophy.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I am only 3 years younger than Leslie and the things she said back then chill my blood. I find the things she was saying and doing psychotic. Before the murders, after the murders, and during the trial. These are things I would never have even contemplated. She thought killing was funny.
You hadn't even started school when she turned her back on Manson
When exactly did she turn her back on Manson? Was it during the murders, after she was caught, during the trial when she thought Manson ruled and was somehow gonna make things right now matter what the jury said?
Or was it years later when she found it was a drag to be in prison and decided maybe she should clean up her language if she ever wanted to get out of prison?
Leslie has changed her story over and over again for each parole hearing. She has tried every trick in the book.
My opinion is that she's the same old Leslie Van Houten that joined up with the Manson family and "begged with her eyes" to go kill people she didn't even know.
TomG said...
ReplyDelete"Meet people where they are and not where you think they should be" - Pope Francis
I agree with that but with a caveat. Meeting someone where they are is one thing, but in doing so, are you obligated to stay there or be happy that they stay there ad infinitum ?
Nowadays everyone wants to point at the ugliness of another. Forgetting the condition of their own soul
'Twas ever thus. When God asked Adam if he'd eaten the one fruit he was told not to eat, Adam replied "that woman that you put here to be with me gave me the fruit and I ate it," subtly shifting the attention from his own being to that of God and Eve. As David Bowie would have said, he had medals !
It's part of the human condition. Bruce Cockburn sings in the song "Justice" that "everybody loves to see justice done........on someone else !"
He's got a point.
katie8753 said...
I do believe that Voytek was trying to get into a deep drug selling scene
I agree with that, the operative word being "trying."
Frykowski's pants were pulled down???
Atkins' lawyers ask her {on that Dec 1st interview} if she can remember how his trousers were. Looking at the photo of how Wojiciech was found, his trousers are a little way past his buttocks, kind of how they might be if you wore trousers without a belt but crawled along the ground....
Marliese said...
about his bible being stolen? Again, he's in prison, what does he expect?
That's got to be one of the funniest statements I've seen this year. Priceless ! It's like an Eskimo complaining of the cold !
He doesn't need a bible in his hands to pray to God
True, but it would be invaluable for checking up on bits of scripture he may need to remind himself of. It's interesting how people do get really attached to their bibles, especially if they've had them as long as he had and have highlighted lots of bits of it.
katie8753 said...
he got all pissy about the language used about him on Wiki
In that regard though, he's not really a million miles removed from us {you & I in particular} in wanting the correct information out there. You know how we get pretty irritated about writers and programme makers getting information wrong because they haven't looked into things at the depth of many of those that are interested in the case. He's not really any different, murderer or not. If you're going to have information out there, especially on Wikipedia, at least strive for it to be the right info.
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
We're discussing Tex's transfer, the possible reasons for it
It may have something to do with the aftermath of when Tex was attacked some time before his 2016 parole hearing. In that hearing, when talking about the attack, one of the panel members commented that Tex had put in for a transfer to Chino prior to the attack, to which Tex replied that he'd been merely thinking about it but now felt Chino would be less safe for him. So he'd at least been thinking about it.
He was attacked in Feb 2013
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSusanatkinsgonorhhea said...
ReplyDeleteHate to burst your bubble but shes not going anywhere this time and shes gonna die behind bars
Bubble ?
I wouldn't at all be surprised if the Guv'nor nixed her approval again. After all, Bruce has been done 5 times.
Neither would I be surprised if she died behind bars. There's prior form on both your statements so the surprise would be if any Guv'nor had the balls to actually ratify what the board, whose job it is to determine suitability, went with.
I never thought id agree with a man with Browns political leanings but i do here, she physically took part in a killing she belongs where she is
DeleteAnd before you bring up the hundreds of other murderers released i disagree with their release as well, murder IMO is a one time fuck up and you dont get a chance to do it again unless its behind bars but thats the way it goes in the penitentiary
Deletekatie8753 said...
ReplyDeleteI don't really agree with your philosophy
Fair enough. But I know differently. People can change. Especially over 48 years. As I've stressed tons of times, that doesn't mean that anyone, if they've committed murder, has a "right" to parole. But if part of the law states that within a person's sentence there is a possibility of it then you have to determine whether or not that person has undergone change. To put it another way, Charlie isn't going to be paroled simply because he sees no reason why he should change. So he's never bothered.
the things she said back then chill my blood. I find the things she was saying and doing psychotic. Before the murders, after the murders, and during the trial. These are things I would never have even contemplated. She thought killing was funny
The only two words that really matter in what you say are 'back' and 'then.'
katie8753 said...
ReplyDeleteWhen exactly did she turn her back on Manson? Was it during the murders, after she was caught, during the trial when she thought Manson ruled and was somehow gonna make things right now matter what the jury said?
Or was it years later when she found it was a drag to be in prison and decided maybe she should clean up her language if she ever wanted to get out of prison?
It doesn't really matter. By 1972 she was contemplating the possibility that "Helter Skelter" wasn't coming down, let alone fast. In that same period, authorities within LE were making a concerted effort to bring her back to some semblance of right thinking because she now faced the possibility of both a lifetime in jail and the possibility of parole one day. She was being re~educated by Black and female lecturers, among others, who challenged and ripped to bits the premise of much of Charlie's stance & philosophy and being separated from the whole Family Schtick, as well as reconnecting with her own family and taking the decision to stay away from hallucinogenics {because they were available in jail and she did try tripping} in conjunction with facing the reality of life {and the guilt and shame that came with what she'd done} rather than a quick death in the gas chamber combined to open her eyes. That wasn't going to happen overnight and it didn't. Suffice it to say, by 1977 she had completely renounced Manson.
Even if finding that jail was a drag was the defining moment, does that invalidate any turnaround ?
Leslie has changed her story over and over again for each parole hearing
That's simply not true. You should actually take the time out to read and digest some of them. Cielo's site has a bunch.
She has tried every trick in the book
What I would say is that various panels would give her something different to focus on in rejecting her suitability. 19 kickbacks is pretty hefty. She had little choice but to address those "concerns." That meant that she's had to go "round the houses." She's had to explore whether she was mentally ill, angry with her Mum and Dad, pissed with Bobby Mackie, disillusioned with Haight~Ashbury when she thought it was Mecca, bombed out on acid, a psychologically loaded gun etc and the role all these and more may have played or if they did play any role at all.
My opinion is that she's the same old Leslie Van Houten that joined up with the Manson family and "begged with her eyes" to go kill people she didn't even know
I know you think that. If you were saying that about Charles Manson, I wouldn't disagree. Tons of people can be more or less the same person at 87 that they were at 9, with just a little more {or less !} sophistication. Sometimes, biographies are fascinating in that regard. You look at someone as they are now or at the height of their fame/infamy and then you read about when they were kids or teenagers or young adults or whatever and you can see the dots join up fairly easily.
But similarly, some people go through near 180° shifts. But I think that even if one thinks she should die in jail {and it's a valid belief as long as there are good reasons to back it up though I have to say, I rarely see them}, and hating what she did, to say she's the same in 2017 at coming up to age 68 as she was at 19 in the 1960s when she's jumped through hoops to demonstrate otherwise, isn't even remotely reasonable.
Every human being who wants to grow and evolve has to do some self reflection and soul searching not just killers
DeleteWow he wanted to go to Chino, that place is a cess pit, the prison in Ione must be really terrible and someone is mighty pissed off at ol' Tex.
ReplyDeleteSusanatkinsgonorhhea said...
ReplyDeleteAnd before you bring up the hundreds of other murderers released i disagree with their release as well
That's fair enough. There are quite a lot of laws in different countries that I don't agree with or that I think are ludicrous. But they are still laws that are currently enshrined. I can't change them, you can't change them and therefore in discussions of this nature, while our opinions are important {after all, they keep the conversation going}, we can't just ignore the reality of the law. The reality of the law in California is that some inmates have life sentences that carry a possibility of parole. So one can't just pretend that the release of loads of prisoners that committed murder that served less time and in some instances, way less time than Leslie, even when they too were originally sentenced to death, is irrelevant to the conversation.
It's hugely relevant.
People all over the world look at some of the laws in the USA and the way they are applied and conclude, rightly or wrongly, that they are not applied fairly.
He was attacked in Feb 2013
That was sometime before 2016 !😀
Charlies personality, he wasnt a very brave or ballsy person
Makes one wonder if when he went to the apartment Crowe was in, he just expected to find Lotsapoppa and Rosina.
Marliese said...
ReplyDeleteI don't think she'll ever truly get out. Parole boards might say ok, but I think as long as governors have a say, she'll ultimately be denied...because of the brutality and her years of inability to express why and how this could have happened
When one looks at the totality of what she's said down the years, the truth is that no matter what she has said, the Guv'nor has had his mind made up and therefore looks for how to justify his decision because he can't just say 'no.' Many of us on the blogs on all sides of the fence that choose to listen to the Family killers are not in any confusion as to how and why this all happened, same way we're not in any confusion how Germany got from the treaty of Versailles to WW2. The answers are there and plain as one desires to see them.
All Brown has to say is Marliese suggested, the brutality of the crimes and her inability to explain why it happened, if part of the reason was the copycat motive, which in my opinion is the reason she wanted to go because of Bobby then she should have come out from the beginning and just said it, i think this whole saga of Hinman/TLB/Shea frustrates the parole boards in all the perpetrators cases because no one has been able to explain the reasons, i know youll say they believed it was HS, well then it stands to reason that everybody would have just said that at every single parole hearing since they were locked up
DeleteIm not on a parole board but common sense would tell you that 2 huge things they look at is 1) some GENUINE expression of remorse and empathy and 2) an unwavering ecplanation for the crime not a changing story every 2 hearings then on top of it Tex and Susan writing books giving conflicting stories
DeleteSusanatkinsgonorhhea said...
ReplyDeleteEvery human being who wants to grow and evolve has to do some self reflection and soul searching not just killers
We're definitely on the same page here. It's not the prerogative of murderers. I would argue {and have done} that we generally as human beings do this for much of our lives. You can see it just in the advice an older person will give a younger person.
i know youll say they believed it was HS
Actually Dave, if you were to go through the bulk of stuff I've commented on this saga {not that I'm suggesting that you do !}, you'd see that I don't come to simplistic conclusions like that. A belief in HS was certainly a major part of what motivated the actions of the Family circa '69 {including their willingness to murder} but there was much more to it than that. That's what used to really fox the parole boards, they couldn't seem to grasp the nuances of and paradoxes within what various of the killers were saying. You can even see it in the Watson hearing last year. Bobby's case has been a lot easier to deal with.
As an aside, it's important to recall that initially, Atkins and Van Houten didn't even regard what they did and saw as murder, just killing to further their ordained cause. What was confusing for LE was that for them to be classed as insane, they had to believe that what they did wasn't deemed to be wrong by society. But they knew it was ~ it was them that didn't see it as wrong. Their problem wasn't in seeing things how society did, their big switch was in how they came to see it and that is when the move away from Charlie began. It was also the start of their difficulties with parole boards. It's really only now that Leslie and LE's thoughts fully match up and that's the price one pays for going along with the thoughts and ways of someone for whom "no sense makes sense."
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
ReplyDeletecommon sense would tell you that 2 huge things they look at is 1) some GENUINE expression of remorse and empathy
I agree. And those have been forthcoming for a long while.
That said, some people can appear unempathetic just by their mannerisms even though they actually do have empathy. I wonder how many parole board members down the years have felt empathy for the victims and families of the victims of crimes. I mean real, deep seated, "I am standing here with you feeling what you're feeling" empathy.
Also, it's genuinely difficult to cast someone off as having no remorse when they are telling you that they do have it.
and 2) an unwavering ecplanation for the crime not a changing story every 2 hearings
The general tenor of their explanations don't actually change. As they are asked more questions and told that they don't show enough insight, naturally they would have to dig deeper. There comes a point where you just can't go any further.
Bottom line is that none of the convicted killers like jail or have ever been comfy there. So any worries about them being a danger to the public have been pretty moot for a good 39 years or more because would any of them have been stupid enough to ever be involved in crime again ? Has Steve Grogan ? That's not to say any of them should have been paroled in that time, just that the reasons often given smack to me of attempts to justify an already made up mind.
And now that's what'll happen with Leslie & Bruce. Neither are suddenly going to become in old age unsuitable for parole, having been found suitable.
then on top of it Tex and Susan writing books giving conflicting stories
On the other hand, what Susan said in one story should have no bearing on whether Tex gets or doesn't get parole.
But it's only last year that Bobby sort of encapsulated the dilemma of the conflicting pieces when he said in his hearing "you know, Charlie was a liar. I mean, he just lied to everybody. He manipulated people by telling different people different stories. And you know, the story that he told the other people would have been a story to one set of person, would have been a different story than he told to someone else."
That said, I'm surprised that anyone would be surprised that there would be discrepancies between two peoples' stories. You get that even with people that have been through wars together. And we see that in recent times with Charlie spending years with George Stimson, Nicholas Shreck and AC Fisher Aldag and telling his side of things ~ and yet with more contradictions and mysteries among them than the original killers.
Should have said gave conflicting stories of their own earlier stories
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGrim, bottom line is this...Leslie admitted that she thought killing was fun. She laughed about it in court. She threatened the jurors.
ReplyDeleteThen when she started living her life in prison, suddenly it wasn't "fun" anymore. Then she started trying to find a way to get out of prison.
If she hadn't been found guilty, I have no doubt she still would have been very dangerous to society, whether with the Manson family or with some other cult. Because she "got away with it".
Anyone who thinks/thought killing is/was fun should just understand that they don't have a place in society and should remain in prison for the rest of his/her life. PERIOD!
katie8753 said...
ReplyDeletebottom line is this...Leslie admitted that she thought killing was fun. She laughed about it in court. She threatened the jurors
She did. Now, given that you want to remain stuck in a statement she made before 1971, are you prepared to at least attempt to understand her rationale behind that statement and what she actually meant and was trying to convey ?
No one is denying or justifying what she did in court circa 70/71.
Then when she started living her life in prison, suddenly it wasn't "fun" anymore. Then she started trying to find a way to get out of prison
You continually say this as though her actual crime is in realizing that there was nothing good in what she had done and in finding herself in a situation of her own making where facing the consequences of it somehow negates her realization.
If you follow her case there's a heck of a lot more to her wanting to be out of prison than just her finding it wasn't fun, including a successful appeal and 2 further trials and importantly, the law stating she was entitled to apply, not be granted, apply for parole after 7 years. And by the way, 39 years on after that eligibility to apply, she's still there.
If she hadn't been found guilty, I have no doubt she still would have been very dangerous to society, whether with the Manson family or with some other cult. Because she "got away with it"
That may well be true. I could argue it both ways actually. I could say that the trial and 18 months incarceration would have put a sufficient scare into her to turn her away from crime or I could argue that having gotten away with it, she would have thought of herself as almost fireproof and may have escalated to worse things.
If one looks at members of the Family that were involved in heavy duty criminal activity, including murder, there's a mixed bag of outcomes. Some like Gypsy, Mary, Sandy, Larry, Brenda & Squeaky {plus wannabes like Dennis Rice} never learned their lessons and did jail time while the likes of Ouisch and Paul W turned their backs on that period, as did Clem once he got out.
Anyone who thinks/thought killing is/was fun should just understand that they don't have a place in society and should remain in prison for the rest of his/her life. PERIOD!
This is where we often part on the mountain road. You live in the past and consign people that have done wrong to that past. I weigh that past with how it reflects now. There are soldiers that committed atrocities during war and never had to face any retribution....but by the same account, many of those soldiers, despite hating their enemy and enjoying what they were doing at the time, once out of that situation, never went close to that kind of behaviour.
People change. Especially from teenage to virtual old age pensioner.
When you begin a statement or sentence with "bottom line is...." what you're really saying is that there's no conversation to be had and you're not even going to examine what you think in the light of the present, just state it.
Well, I do make exaggerated statements like "bottom line is" and "Period". I attribute that to the way I talk. I shouldn't use those statements in a debate. So my apologies for that. My fault.
ReplyDeleteBUT...I'm not just focusing on the past. Leslie has made statements like, when asked if she's sorry that Rosemary is dead she said something along the lines of "why feel bad for her? A lot of people are dead". She's talking about a woman she didn't even know that she helped to make dead.
Which leads me to think she has no empathy, and no empathy tends to lead toward sociopathic tendencies. And I don't think you get sociopathic tendencies from smoking weed or other drugs and listening to some wack job rap about Helter Skelter.
I think there is something really wrong with Leslie. Something serious and dangerous.
I'm trying to think of an example of what I'm trying to describe, and I won't go to the last days of "The Bunker" to describe this behavior, but I will bring up Bonnie & Clyde. They certainly thought they were having a great time killing people and stealing. The last pics of Bonnie & Clyde showed them laughing and whooping it up, right before they were blasted to Kingdom Come by the Feds.
I really think Leslie has some serious problems. I don't know exactly what caused it, but I'll state again, anyone who thinks it's fun to kill people needs to be locked up away from society.
I know a lot of people try to figure out what Leslie has been thinking all these years in prison, has she taken responsibility for what she did, has she changed, is she better?
ReplyDeleteThe question I would like answered is this:
What made Leslie Van Houten at 19 years old be not only able but willing to go on a killing spree against people she didn't even know?
I would love to have that question answered, and I don't believe Leslie has answered it even one time....
BTW Harvey Weinstein may be fleeing to Europe like his pal Roman Polanski. We'll see what happens.
ReplyDeleteHannity eviscerated Polanski last night on his show
DeleteHannity eviscerated Polanski last night on his show
DeleteGrim attempts to equate death in war with murder, and the fact is, there is NO moral equivalency. I have seen many senseless deaths in my time, all forthe sake of committing either a petty crime or a perceived slight. That is far different from killing in war. In regards to atrocities, ther are rules of engagement which have resulted in convictions when violated, so that dog don’t hunt....
ReplyDeleteI know Susan. I saw that. I think it was Tuesday night.
ReplyDeleteI saw that also, he cut the hypocrisy of far left liberal Hollywood wide open in that monologue. It was brilliant. And Crooked Hillary...five days to come up with her "I'm appalled" comment on pig Weinstein. And when asked if she's going give back the dirty money he gave her, she said "there's no one to give it to" then shrugged it off that she gives ten percent of her income to charity anyway so it'll be in that...that's Hillary...greedy to the core. No one to give to...how can she say such a thing? And at least Weinstein 's wife is choosing to leave her perv, unlike Hillary. But she's 25 years younger than the fat old pig, and, unlike Hillary, doesn't need him to feed power and codependent corruption.
ReplyDeleteYeah I saw where Hillary said that Marliese. Knowing who she's married to, she probably just accepts sexual harassment of women as "the new normal". After all her pontificating about women's rights, her being the first woman to run for President and recently saying that any woman who voted for Trump is stupid, she's proven that she's a woman voter's worst enemy.
ReplyDeleteOn another subject, I just watched the devastating video of the wildfires in CA, sweeping through that area and devouring everything in its path. I hope our California friends are all safe! It's just heartbreaking to watch that and I hope they get that fire out soon!
katie8753 said...
ReplyDeleteBUT...I'm not just focusing on the past. Leslie has made statements like, when asked if she's sorry that Rosemary is dead she said something along the lines of "why feel bad for her? A lot of people are dead"
Which was way back in the past.
no empathy tends to lead toward sociopathic tendencies
That's a stretch. You may find more people you know that empathize than those that do. Incidentally, lacking empathy is neither a crime nor particularly unusual. There are situations where I lack it myself.
I think there is something really wrong with Leslie. Something serious and dangerous
I think there certainly was.
I've long felt that it says a lot for America that your systems are both robust and forward thinking enough to be able to incarcerate a killer whose thinking simply did not fit any real known or standard patterns yet simultaneously enable that killer to turn on the very thought process that got them into problems in the first place. That's not an easy thing to accomplish.
There are a number of countries on this earth that could learn so much from the US, despite the sometimes poor reputation that America has in various parts of the world among various groups.
anyone who thinks it's fun to kill people needs to be locked up away from society
No one's disagreeing with that, providing that person has killed. The key word there is "it's". Present tense.
Dilligaf said...
Grim attempts to equate death in war with murder
I most certainly do not.
and the fact is, there is NO moral equivalency
That, I guess, depends on whose rules you choose to follow. Armies in war that butcher unarmed but oppositional civilians are committing murder.
In regards to atrocities, ther are rules of engagement which have resulted in convictions when violated, so that dog don’t hunt....
There are also atrocities in war for which soldiers haven't been convicted.
That a soldier is trained to kill in combat if necessary does not make said soldier immune to some of the darker aspects of human nature any more than being the leader of a nation makes one immune to some of the darker shades of activity that leaders of nations of all eras and hues and colours from time to time may have engaged in.
Classic pointing to one bad behavoir to justify other bad behavoir, the reason that dog wont hunt is that the two situations are completely unrelated
DeleteThis is the definition of a Sociopath:
ReplyDeletenoun, Psychiatry.
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
Leslie showed neither moral responsibility or social conscience for her active participation in invading the home of Leno & Rosemary, for struggling with Rosemary, for helping kill Rosemary and for hearing the sounds of Leno dying, which she definitely heard because she has said that many times.
It didn't bother her one bit. Didn't hurt her appetite at all because she raided the fridge. And it didn't stop her from rummaging around in Rosemary's closet looking for a "cute outfit" to take with her.
I would definitely describe her as a Sociopath. Same goes for Pat, but we're talking about Leslie now.
As I said before, I don't think someone just turns into a Sociopath because of drug taking and listening to some ex-con rap about a race war and a bottomless pit. I think a Sociopath is born that way.
Leslie can probably easily hide her sociopathic tendencies while in prison, but if she's released, what would be the point anymore? I still say she's better off just living her life in prison.
Shes a piece of shit and shes not going anywhere
DeleteWhat does that mean?
ReplyDeleteTalking to me?
DeleteBTW you forgot to end your sentence(s) with a period. Plus it's a run-on sentence. And you didn't put an apostrophe on "won't".
ReplyDeleteSo...whatever...
I never use punctuation on the net.....if it was me that your comment was directed at
DeleteOf course I'm talking to you. Who else would I be talking to? Do you see anyone else around?
ReplyDeleteI was talking about Grim comparing soldiers killing people in war to Leslie participating in RLBs killing
DeleteI was talking about Grim comparing soldiers killing people in war to Leslie participating in RLBs killing
DeleteOkay Susan,
ReplyDeletethat reminds me of a funny story. Years ago I took Gregg's Shorthand at college and I got a job and told them I knew shorthand. And when the man tried to give me dictation, I just kept saying "can you talk slower"?
Have you seen that stuff? It's like hieroglyphics.
Anyway long story short, the man fell in love with me and he gave me a promotion.
That's the way life was in the 70's!
Just kidding, he fired me. Actually he didn't fire me, he "let me go". You couldn't fire people in the 70's.
Actually he didn't even let me go, he sent me to the mail room. That's where you learn from the bottom up.
Well, I guess I made this whole story up because I'm just trying a little "comic relief". Not that we need any, but I thought I'd try some.
Actually I did take Shorthand, but it sucked so much I quit after two months. Or maybe one month, can't remember...
ReplyDeleteIsn’t shorthand something you get from a midget hooker? Maybe it’s just a California thing....
ReplyDeleteDill!!! HA HA HA!!
ReplyDeleteSusanatkinsgonorhhea said...
ReplyDeleteI was talking about Grim comparing soldiers killing people in war to Leslie participating in RLBs killing
Did you not see my reply to Dil ? I'm not comparing the actions and business of a soldier to Leslie Van Houten at all. That's just daft.
But even Dil recognized that there have been soldiers that have gone outside the rules of engagement in war. Many wars have seen soldiers commit atrocities and in many of those instances, once back on civvy street, those soldiers did not behave in that way. My point about some of the things people do in certain circumstances was answering Katie's point about "if you did such & such in 19whatever, you are always that person." I dispute that because life carries way too much nuance to simplistically tie everyone to black and white notions like that.
That said, I think Guv'nor Brown has already made up his mind and it's just a matter of the wording he uses to publicly justify his decision.
Theres a huge difference between an American soldier killing some little camel jockey with bombs strapped to his body and a 19 year old airhead stabbing a defenseless woman in the back 16 times during a home invasion, one deserves a medal and the other deserves imprisonment and a lifetime of ridicule
Delete1,2,3,4,5,6,7...all good children go to Heaven....HA HA!
ReplyDeleteSusanatkinsgonorhhea said...
ReplyDeleteTheres a huge difference between an American soldier killing some little camel jockey with bombs strapped to his body and
For the final time, I am not talking about a soldier that kills someone in war that is about to kill them or riding towards them with a bomb attached to their person. Killing someone that is about to kill you is hardly an atrocity. Cold bloodedly wiping out civilians and raping women has nothing to do with rules of engagement of war. That is the kind of person I'm referring to. It is that kind of person that will commit those kind of atrocities in war, yet who would not follow that mindset back on civvy street that demands that one questions the notion that Katie was espousing.
katie8753 said...
1,2,3,4,5,6,7...all good children go to Heaven....
You never give me your money !
A Boy name Sue said...
ReplyDeleteYou watch too much TV, multinational media companies are jew controlled propaganda machines
Who in the world is that addressed to and what did they say ?
Sorry for the fat finger typos
DeleteI have a degree in Holocaust Studies the Holocaust was not made up.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think the Holocaust was made up? Do you think World War II was made up?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the Holocaust is nonsense?
ReplyDeleteSix million Jews died in Western Europe another million died in the East mainly in the USSR and the most in the Ukraine. Six million more people that Hitler didn't like such as Gypsies, Gays, and Catholic also were murdered. Of course Hitler was not the biggest butcher in history that would be Mao.
ReplyDeleteAnti-Semitism....add it to the list..
ReplyDeleteI thought the six million was an estimate of ALL the people that Hitler rubbed out. I didn't hear about six million other folks being added to the list. Where did you read that if "any disagreement to the facts" have been conveniently removed from the earth.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of footage from WW II showing the starving German prisoners being shot to death so they would fall into a big hole, along with other nefarious activities the Germans thought were funny. I guess you think they faked all that back in the 40's. What an elaborate scheme!
I guess Anne Frank just made all that stuff up in her diary from sheer boredom...
And BTW, I'm not Jewish.
I’m not Jewish either. Many books on Holocaust now explain the six million others. I’ll try to recommend on to you soon.
ReplyDeleteThanks Beauders!!
ReplyDeleteWell Susan, it's apparent that you're just trying to cause trouble. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I'll just start deleting your comments if you make fun of our bloggers. You are welcome to blog about this case any time you want, but when you start this nonsense of insulting our bloggers that has nothing to do with this blog or this case, I will delete your comments.
ReplyDeleteAm I clear?
grimtraveller said...
ReplyDeleteA Boy name Sue said...
You watch too much TV, multinational media companies are jew controlled propaganda machines
Who in the world is that addressed to and what did they say ?
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
To you, everything youre fed on "war crimes" and civilian deaths is fed to you by the jew mass media, the jews control the narrative on what the sheep like you believe, you believe Bugliosi and his jew masters why eouldnt you believe in My Lai, the "holicaust" andcall the other made up jew bullshit?
Actually, I had other wars in mind as well. There have been wars galore throughout history.
But that doesn't address my point, you're not really interested in much other than using any subject you can to divert off into your agendas. I don't actually know why I feel embarrassed for you, but I do.
Well David {good Jewish name there}, as they say, it's been real.
And you've just revealed yourself as......obvious.
Luckily last night when I went to publish my comment to SAG it didn't go through.
ReplyDeleteKatie, Marliese, Bueders, & Grim did justice to my thoughts.
Problem is when people like SAG read conspiracy bullshit about JEWS running the world and believe it there is no changing their minds. Part of the holocaust denier shict is the 6 million # anyone can read up on that one. So I can't argue with SAG.
I can tell him that he pisses on the graves of all the men & woman who died stopping a mad man.
http://www.299thcombatengineers.com/MainHome.htm
I for one am a Christian ( not good at it) Who is happy for all the hard working prosperous Jewish people and their success. Just take a look at what they created in the middle east since WWII.
I rest my case. Look at the website I attached. My dad is listed. Leon G Proctor, unfortunately his obituary is not up yet. Wake up up white man ? He was a white man and you are a very sick man. Until you are removed from this blog I will not have anything to add. Bless you and I prayer for you to get some relief from your hatred.
ReplyDeleteWe've gone from discussing Leslie's parole chances, to sharing opinions on Jews.
ReplyDeleteGood grief.
Don't worry LS, i'm done & gone.
ReplyDeleteHi Bob,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to hear that.
As for myself, I don't get much offended by anything SAG says, simply because, I find it nearly impossible to take most of his comments seriously.
He's a guy who invests considerable effort into defending Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler.
Take a few moments, and let that sink-in.
He's also a guy who calls Grim a "mulatto", because he doesn't like his opinion.
Hi SAG,
ReplyDeleteTo your credit, you do seem well-versed on several details (i.e., facts) about the TLB case.
You often draw different conclusions from those facts than I would, but that's not a problem.
When you stick to the TLB case, I don't have a problem with your participation.
In fact, there are times, when I agree with your insight.
The problem arises, when you intersperse your TLB comments with inflammatory language that my bloggers find offensive.
The other problem, is that you sometimes stray completely off-topic with subjects that are seemingly from left field.
There are blogs and discussion groups on the internet that cover all topics.
I'm not well-versed in Jewish War participation in the Middle East, nor does the topic interest me, a whole lot.
I was content to simply ignore your inflammatory (and off-topic) comments, because quite frankly, I just skim most of the comments on here, anyway.
But...
Grim, Marliese, Katie, Beauders, and now Bobby, are offended by your posts.
It wouldn't be fair of me, to simply ignore their opinions.
Bob has been a participant on this blog, since day one.
He's been through everything this blog has ever endured... and he's a very "easy going" guy at that.
If he's offended, then there's obviously a problem.
You've forced my hand SAG, and I'm taking two actions.
#1) I'm deleting all of your inflammatory off-topic comments from this thread.
#2) I'm turning-on the "comment moderation" tool. Going forward, your comments will not post until/unless they are approved by Katie. (I simply don't have time to "moderate" all the blog comments myself).
I really didn't want things to come to this, but so be it...
LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...
ReplyDeleteGrim, Marliese, Katie, Beauders, and now Bobby, are offended by your posts
I was never offended by SAG. I thought he used to tie himself in knots. To be honest, people like that give those of us that like to discuss plenty of latitude to do so !