Thursday, September 08, 2005

Followup- Monk Speaks!


Agnostic Monk Speaks---

Linda, Linda, Linda! LOL to Col. :)

But actually that is a good question. I would lean towards the drivers license reason for her inclusion (and not because I'm Linda's official P.R. person, more because it sounds like the simplest explanation). There may have been some other folks at the ranch with drivers licenses but maybe they were unavailable for Cielo due to various reasons (wasn't Patricia Krenwinkle trying to sleep off an acid trip that evening when Charlie woke her? Maybe others had been tripping that day and judged too messed up for the mission?)

Being stopped by cops with a licensed driver in the car would be far better than not having a licensed driver in the car (no matter who was driving). And they were of the mindset that if they were stopped they could throw knives and a gun out a passenger window without a cop noticing, most likely they figured switching drivers could be done without the cop noticing, prior to his initial approach towards the car.

But who knows, maybe there are deeper reasons. Weren't there rumors that Tex and Linda had been dealing together?

We could always go by Sandra Good's reason as stated in the Manson documentary (with rifle in hand). Something about Linda had been to the Tate house before so they all got in the car and Linda drove them to the Tate house?



So if you and I are driving drunk today to Magic Mountain Amusement park and they pull me over and I don't have a license I can say "Don't bother me, Mr. Man, because da Monk here has a license."? I don't think so. And that was just drunk driving. Can you imagine Tex, stoned out of his face on speed, saying, hey, don't hassle me, the tiny blonde in the back has a license? Nope, me neither.

That is the point of the post. WHY send Linda? The given reason doesn't compute, and, since she didn't drive, isn't true. Then why?

And to the post that reads that Charlie had been to the house the night before, this isn't true at all either- you are getting that from Tex's Helter Skelter 2004 review. Charlie seems to have been there before with Melcher on at least three occasions, and maybe once while Sharon lived there if you believe the Bug book. Tex didn't know about that visit. That is what he is alluding to. HS 04 is so full of inaccuracies from the first scene (wasn't Brunner at Hinman?) that it could confuse anyone.

Sorry to hear about Nelson. I am sure the families of the twelve year old girls he "massaged", the family of Patti Tate and the family of Steven Parent and Angela Smaldino are praying for him as are Barbara Hoyt and Sandra Good.

6 comments:

GLH said...

I wasn't alluding to Tex's HS '04 review. That is what he told me. He also said Manson had been there with Melcher and earlier in '69 after Melcher moved out and the night of the killings.

ColScott said...

Okay
He never told you Charlie was there the night before...

Charlie claims in his book that he was there with someone (Bruce?) the night of...

He was there with Melcher and ccording to BUG was there once afterwards

agnostic monk said...

So if you and I are driving drunk today to Magic Mountain Amusement park and they pull me over and I don't have a license I can say "Don't bother me, Mr. Man, because da Monk here has a license."? I don't think so. And that was just drunk driving. Can you imagine Tex, stoned out of his face on speed, saying, hey, don't hassle me, the tiny blonde in the back has a license? Nope, me neither.

Hi Col, your scenario sounds fun (except for the drunk driving part - what are ya trying to kill me?), but what I really meant was that if the cops stopped them and someone in the car had a license, it might have SOME effect on how the cops treated them. No license, the car isn't registered to anyone in the car, I'd imagine they'd all be arested on suspicion of auto theft. With at least one licensed driver in the car, maybe they figured they'd get in less trouble. I don't know, I'm just guessing what they might have been thinking. These people didn't think everything through very clearly on more than one occasion. Setting out for Cielo with murderous intentions in the first place wasn't exactly a stellar idea.

But if there is a deeper reason for Linda's inclusion, it would be great fun to learn what it is.

GLH said...

Well, when I met with Watson last month, he told me Manson had been to Cielo the night BEFORE the murders. I debated that with him, saying I'd heard that Manson had been there in March '69. He stood firm on his claim that Manson was there on August 7th (in the evening). You just have to believe it or not. I just relayed what Watson told me.

ColScott said...

and WHY was he there?

GLH said...

I don't know why Manson was there the night before. There are as many possibilities (if not more) than why Kasabian went along for the ride. All of us have heard rumors as to the connection between Manson and Cielo's residents. There was also claims made regarding a call placed from Spahn Ranch to Cielo on August 8th. In an interview I watched, Doris Tate thought Folger and Frykowski were the intended victims and stated that Sharon wasn't supposed to be there. Watson told me Manson had been there the night before, and Manson was agitated the next day. This information tends to lean towards Manson knowing who was there, being there and getting angry over what transpired the night before. It has been a long standing rumor that there was a drug burn between Manson and Frykowski that culminated in the murders. I've also heard that Kasabian's stolen $5,000 was part of the deal. There are many theories, but as we have all found, there is little hope of ever knowing what key role Kasabian played in these events and even why these particular places were targeted.