Monday, February 20, 2006

The Minotaur is Your Friend


Labyrinth 13 is a book available by Curt Rowlett at LuLu.com. The Col bought it upon its release in December because he read about it on Amazon under the review of another book called Sex and Rockets. The Col really liked Sex and Rockets. So he bought Labyrinth 13.

The Col enjoyed reading Labyrinth 13, but then the Col enjoys reading any book that questions reality and the status quo. The information on Jack Parsons was a repeat, and some of the points made about the Zodiac Killer were, umm, off the mark. But it wasn't a bad book. No, a bad book would be something by Adam GoRightly.

If you have a few dollars to spend, try the book. Here. It will make some good bedtime reading for you.

So anyway, Curt doesn't know that the Col read his book already. Hell, I was on his email newsletter reminding me to buy it. But he likes the Blog. Everyone likes the Blog except Oogly and Debra. And Curt wrote me an email.

Hello Col. Scott:

I am writing a book on the Manson case and am hoping that you might be able to assist me with some information.

I found a comment on a thread on your blog that mentions a possible gay relationship between Steven Parent and William Garretson that I found to be quite intriguing (see www.tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/01/
off-thread-upon-odd-thread.html)

Can you supply me with any more information about this? Maybe even some sources?

Also, would you have any objections to my mentioning your blog in my book? If not, I would be interested in learning a bit about your background as you seem to be very involved in researching the case.

I also wanted to let you know that I have just discovered your blog and have spent the last couple of days reading through most of the archives. You have some very interesting and well-thought out information there. I thought I knew a lot about the Manson case, but learned several new things since having been to your blog.

Thank you,

Curt Rowlett

Now, there are only two books the Col wants to read about this case- THE BUG, the unauthorized biography and The Manson Family Encyclopedia. The Col is too lazy to write either, so he hopes that is what Curt is writing. The Col DID want to read Tom O'Neill's book and Gypsy's book and Linda's book and so many others. But they don't come out and GoRightly's did. Life sucks. Hard.

So Curt, I don't know what you are writing but you can have my $15 now if you want it. I need to keep my shelves complete.

I don't know about a comment on a thread on my blog... did you read the whole blog? You need to research thoroughly in this case. No one but me does. There is a posting somewhere- google it- with a photo that reads "Homophobia is so Gay" In it we learn that two cops and Aaron Stovitz told me that Steve and Bill had a tryst. They investigated everything those cops. But don't take my word for it. Do your homework and read the police reports. They are on CM .com or Bret's site. Or buy it from Aesnihil like I did. William G was a "known homosexual" like they used to say. And Steve was experimenting I guess. Don't know. Doesn't really matter in the long run. It had nothing to do with being slaughtered.

Or I guess you could believe that a young boy from El Monte was visiting guest houses in Bel Air at midnight to sell clock radios to a virtual stranger.

I still believe Paul McCartney is gonna invite me to join the Beatles to replace John.

As for mentioning the Blog, no worries, please do. Just note that we are the only OFFICIAL TLB Blog on the worldwide web.

As for background, I am Col Scott, originally from the Ronson Board. co-opter of the name Harold False from an unmitigated douche bag who hates me, a disbarred attorney from Torrance California, a private investigator from New Rochelle or a little known film producer. I annoyed the piss out of the Yahoo RTV group as well as Linda Mann's board and later Mark Turner's first board. Ultimately I met my match with the Yahoo KTS housewives, who, after accusing me of horrible things, beat some sense into me and found internet friendship. I am mentioned in the closing chapter of that GoRightly book but please do not buy a copy. Like Charlie, everywhere and no where is my home. I adore Bobby and think he should be free. I hope SA and PK and TW never see daylight again, and do not think they ever will. I think CM made a deal with the devil to be famous and has to live with that deal. And, more that anything, I want to know WHAT HAPPENED that weekend in 1969 and WHY. The truth.

I am whoever you say I am. If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?

550 comments:

1 – 200 of 550   Newer›   Newest»
agnostic monk said...

I swear, God willing, one day I will have a beer or a scotch with The Col.

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Pristash said...

Perhaps you should seek out John Kaye, the author of "The Dead Circus" which includes some interesting twists on the Manson case.

4Sharon said...

Interesting..never pondered the Link of Steven and William being cozy...now there's a thought. Seems reasonable.

Satori said...

Hi Col:

Thanks for the post and for the book plug.

You caught me with my promotional pants down as I had absolutely no idea that you were on my original mailing list for the release of Labyrinth13! (Thanks for buying it and sorry that you found the Parsons chapter to be less than what you expected. Only the basic elements about Parsons were presented in my book, mainly as a platform in which to introduce Michael Aquino’s speculation that he was the actual outcome of the Babalon Working).

Thanks for your short bio and the Parent/Garretson research tips. I’ll let you know if I find anything new, but it sounds to me like you have pretty much uncovered all of the “smoke” that might have been present at the Steve Parent/William Garretson gay fire. (FYI: My only interest in that rumor stems from the fact that I am including a chapter in my Manson book that discusses “Manson trivia” and other rumors that remain either unexplored or unanswered. As for the Parent/Garretson love tryst angle, like you, I see little of importance to that as far as the overall case in general is concerned, but since such a story has a real juice factor - and tends to show that Bugliosi’s portrayal of Steve Parent as some sort of wayward boy scout was off the mark - I wanted to try and track down the source of the rumor).

Another FYI: My Manson book, sadly, will not be the unauthorized biography of THE BUG, nor will it be the One True Manson Encyclopedia. But it will be along similar lines to my approach in Labyrinth13, i.e., that I will attempt to avoid either the usual anti or pro-Manson stances and instead, try to seek a real middle ground in an attempt to get at the real truth in a few select areas.

While I have the soapbox here, I might add a short “Manson case bio” of my own of sorts:

GoRightly’s book: The only book that I ever actually returned to Amazon.com for a full refund.

Mark Turner’s old message board: After butting heads with Turner over his refusal to reign in some of the more obnoxious responders to some of my posts on his board (I dared to suggest that Leslie Van Houten had earned her right to parole), I emailed him to complain and ended up just calling it quits on that board for good. (I learned quickly over there that objective opinions were not welcome and that one had to tow the “kill ‘em all for Jesus” party line or be damned).

Cheers,

Curt Rowlett
“Satori”

Deb B said...

My problem with the Turner board was that he allowed obvious trolls - someone would just repetitively post things like "Manson is so cool!" "I totally agree with Charlie's philosophy!", and ignore questions like what is Charlie's philosophy.

nellieoleson said...

Satori there is a part of the manson case no one is investigating, it happened during the trial, there was a commune that was from chicago that moved to la called naturalism lsd rescue they were led by a man called dr george peters he had alot of girls in his group like the family, durning the trial there was a power move one of the guys tryed to oust george peters and take over, george wanted to take everyone and join sandy and squeaky merge with the family the other guy wanted all the girls himself, so he murdered dr peters, it was a big trial in la,the george peters murder case got a lot of press in the la times in 71
if u want to learn something about the manson case u dont know read about this case u will learn alot.

Satori said...

The Col wrote: So Curt, I don't know what you are writing but you can have my $15 now if you want it. I need to keep my shelves complete.

Save your money. When I get the book published, I'll send you a review copy.

4Sharon said...

Curt, I am not familiar with Mark's board, however, the "kill them all for Jesus" party line, offends me as I love Jesus, and that is NOT how he operates. God is forgiving, when people are TRULY repentant, and turn from their errors. So, they are in error, if they have that view.
But, funny thing is...it sounds JUST LIKE the official Paige/Debra board. We hear if you don't agree with every sickeningly sweet falsity concerning Sharon, you are kicked off thier board. You cannot say ONE TRUTHFUL thing. Sharon was a human being - full of mistakes, as are all of us, but not according to her Highness Paige - everything has to be phony and sickening there, or you can't be on. Don't you just hate boards like that? No wonder members leave! Good luck with your book.

4Sharon said...

P.S. ARE the women truly sorry for slaying though? There is a big hoo ha going on, about them NOT being sorry or never having apologized to the victim's families - that was MY reason for them remaining where they are.

Dok said...

4sharon, I believe the Jesus remark was just a figure of speach, not meant to be taken literally. Sartori welcome and please let us know when the book comes out. I would be very interested in purchasing a copy.

Savage, I have very much enjoyed your comments lately.

Salem said...

And, more that anything, I want to know WHAT HAPPENED that weekend in 1969 and WHY. The truth.

Col Scott

Truth is .it was all because of a drug burn. You and I know that CM didnt order any murders. Tex Watson was angry. Linda K knows the truth if you could ever get it out of her. And Tex too.
I dont even know if SA ot PK knew what was going to happen that night. One thing for sure Tex was in CHARGE.
Also, for SA to come back to the ranch a gloat about how they really got some *piggies* and delighted in her part of the murders is sickening.
Cm went back to clean up the horrible murders scene , remember the unknown footstep the cops couldnt make a match too? A barefoot print that did NOT match Sadie's???( but was female)

another point to the guy posting about Steve Parent.what if he was gay? No one needs to exploit that!
It had nothing to do with the murders. So what if he was gay. Did that mean he deserved to be KILLED?
Its been said they went to rob at Tate's home.( or get the drugs they were promised.) Tex just got murder happy! That night I dont think murder was in minds, they always did the *creepy crawls* at night with knives before and never KILLED, but took money from homes.
Moved furniture around Etc...
and for Manson's vest.YES , CM tore it to pieces many years ago.
I don't recall Sandy telling me she was upset about that though.

Satori said...

4Sharon said Curt, I am not familiar with Mark's board, however, the "kill them all for Jesus" party line, offends me as I love Jesus, and that is NOT how he operates. God is forgiving, when people are TRULY repentant, and turn from their errors.

Hi Sharon:

Let me clarify a point:

I don’t know if “kill ‘em all for Jesus” was the official sentiment on Turner’s old board, but at times, I sure got the impression that it was.

I recall a number of people there who seemed to be all too willing to deal out death to certain people, notwithstanding the fact that the Manson killers have, by way of the rules of the American justice system, all been re-sentenced to life terms. Like it or not, dems da rules, as they might say in Brooklyn . . .

What I was really trying to point out is the seeming irony in those who would readily condemn others to death who killed for Jesus (the Manson followers) and those who want to kill the re-sentenced Manson followers in the name of Christian justice (Jesus). (Am I making even one iota of sense here?).

As a kinda sorta practicing Buddhist, I just find that killing people in order to demonstrate that killing people is wrong, is, well . . . just plain wrong.

Satori said...

Salem said: another point to the guy posting about Steve Parent. what if he was gay? No one needs to exploit that! It had nothing to do with the murders. So what if he was gay. Did that mean he deserved to be KILLED?

If your post was directed at my own, let me reiterate:

I am seeking to inform, not exploit.

My only interest in that rumor stems from the fact that it tends to show that Bugliosi’s portrayal of Steve Parent was not a completely accurate one, i.e., that there was something more than Parent simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, as Bugliosi seems to imply Helter Skelter.

As other posts to other threads on this blog have pointed out, Sebring, Frykowski and Folger were daily narcotics users. While that fact doesn’t mean that they deserved to be killed, it does provide fodder to speculation about a drug motive for the crimes.

Deb said...

I keep seeing mention of debra/paige's website. What is the url address so I can check it out?

Love your column/blog by the way!

Satori said...

Dr.Dodopariti said: Sartori welcome and please let us know when the book comes out. I would be very interested in purchasing a copy.

Thanks, doc, I’m happy to be here and to have found a forum where one can actually discuss some of the more controversial aspects of the Manson case without fear (and with the sort of intelligence and objectivity that many of the unanswered questions demand).

Re the new book: It still has a long way to go, but I have a good working manuscript together and have most of the chapters outlined in rough draft. (And I found this place while doing some research on a couple of areas; to my utter delight, I’ve discovered a gold mine of sorts). I hope to have the book completed in the next six to twelve months, after which the real work will begin (editing, proofreading and last minute fact checking, etc.)

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
4Sharon said...

I love this blog too and appreciate the kind discussions, and explanations, in a civilized way. Unlike boards that, as one blogger said raise up and smack ya, when you don't say phony things to agree with them. You can't speak the truth or you get shot down. I am enjoying all the posts and thanks for clarifying things Dr. and Curt...this is a great blog.
I agree that Steven didn't deserve to get killed due to being gay. I just want to clarify that it was interesting as I never considered that aspect...really thought he was trying to sell that radio. LOL
It would also make sense to ME, that the deaths at Cielo were due to a bad drug transaction, rather than the Terry Melcher thing. I agree with that. Or, maybe it's both - Manson being burned by Melcher and a drug thing gone bad. I like hearing all of your views on it.

Bren said...

Do you mind me asking why you were disbarred?
Bren :)

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Salem said...

As other posts to other threads on this blog have pointed out, Sebring, Frykowski and Folger were daily narcotics users. While that fact doesn’t mean that they deserved to be killed, it does provide fodder to speculation about a drug motive for the crimes.
*
yes and the fact that Fry had the drugs. Tex and Lil Darling got burned. Meclcher is dead so he can't and never did say he gave Linda money that day and TOLD them to go to Roman's house.
Wasnt Manson that got burned.

agnostic monk said...

salem, did you hear this stuff from Sandra Good personally?

This Tex/Linda drug-burn thing is interesting in that I cannot understand why it would not have come out at the time of the trial. I would imagine Sandy and Squeaky would be shouting the story from the rooftops to anyone who would listen (and lots of people, including tons and tons of press, would listen). But it never did come out.

If the girls had this juicy bit of "truth" which could possibly have gone a long way to exonerating Charlie, why did they have to make up all that stupid shit during the penalty phase about Linda masterminding the murders as well as the copycat/free Bobby theory?

Based on the many interviews I've read and watched of Sandra, I think she has molded all sorts of weird conspiracy theories about different motives to serve her own grand purposes. "Oh they did it to show America how the killing in Vietnam was bad!" "Oh they did it free Bobby!" "Oh they did it to save the environment!"

Which is it Sandra? I think she's a liar with a twisted sense of right and wrong and a lose grip on reality. I also don't think she knows as much as she has wanted people to think she knows. She wasn't in on it, she was peripheral, but she fancies herself central, a spokesperson, and "I'll take responsiblity for ALL the murders!" she said on the Bertrice Berry show.

salome said...

Another reason Steve Parent might have gone to see Garretson that night is because he was hoping to see some Hollywood starlets. Maybe, he was hoping there would be a party going on, what a cool way for a young guy to spend a night and tell all the other kids about, or it could have been something else that has been implied. I don't know. I just don't believe the clock radio story.

agnostic monk said...

oh and then there's "I was there, Vince! Charlie never said anything about murdering anyone that night when they set out to the Tate house!" (I'm paraphrasing from the Bertrice Berry show).

No, you weren't there, Sandy. You were in jail that night with Mary by your own admission.

I'm merely speculating, but I detect a sense of jealousy from Sandy. She wasn't involved with the murders. She didn't get the opportunity to show off for Charlie and the family like Sadie and Katie did. This bothered Sandy. Competition for "The Soul's" attention. She couldn't admit to herself that perhaps there were things going on at Spahn that she didn't know about. Plots, plans, and alliances that she wasn't a part of.

The reason I'm going off on Sandy is that I dont trust ANY of her so-called explanations for what really happened, explanations that kept pouring from her little mouth decades after even Gypsy admitted they were lies.

agnostic monk said...

Steve Parent *was* a victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, whether he was there to sell a clock radio to Garretson or there to play Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhal with him.

Satori said...

I took Col. Scott’s suggestion to do some research into the Steve Parent/William Garretson gay liaison angle of the story and came up with this:

Steven Earl Parent, male Caucasian, 18 years, 6-0, 175, red hair, brown eyes. He lived with his parents at 11214 East Bryant Road, El Monte. His main occupation was that of a delivery boy for Valley City Plumbing Supply Company in Rosemead, California. He also worked part time at night for Jonas Miller Stereo, 8719 Wilshire Boulevard. On Friday morning, 8-8-69, he told his mother to have a clean change of clothes for him when he came home for lunch from his job at the plumbing supply company. He told her he was going to work at his second job and didn't want to come home after work before going to Hollywood for his second job. Parent has an arrest record as a juvenile for burglary. The chief object of attack during the five burglaries he was caught at was electronic equipment. He served two years in the California Youth Authority program. He was described as having both sadistic and homosexual tendencies by a probation officer. (Italics supplied).

Source: First (Tate Murders) Homicide Investigation Progress Report, DR 69-059, page 27.

Couple that (no pun intended) with the fact that Garretson also admitted to having gay sex in the past, and one can begin to see that there may have been much more than radios on Parent’s mind that night.

What does all of this prove as far as the murders themselves are concerned? Nada. But if it is true that Parent went to visit Garretson that night for a quick hookup, then it absolutely shows that Helter Skelter is not the definitive investigation into the Manson case it purports to be.

Salem said...

salem, did you hear this stuff from Sandra Good personally?

no. altho I did ask sandy what happened that night in 1969, her answer was, * well honey you have to remember that was a long time ago and things were so different then*

I asked nothing more.
Instead we talked of other things.

Salem said...

Curt

If you do a little research, you will find out the Beach Boys won a settlement from a lawsuit against Capitol Records early that year (1969)
Of course The so called Family knew about it, and wanted the money owed to them. Also it's interesting to hear Manson says he WAS not even in Ca. the morning that Tex and Linda left. It was Linda and Tex that went to Melcher for the money and got 8 grand I think.
I guess alot of things were NEVER brought out in trial, the trial was a farse.

Salem said...

I don't know but it looks to me like Terry Melcher went to his grave with whatever he knew. *

yes he did! He and mom had Cypress Inn in Ca for a while.
Dennis Wilson never spoke either.

Satori said...

Pristash said, Perhaps you should seek out John Kaye, the author of "The Dead Circus" which includes some interesting twists on the Manson case.

I had never heard of this book until you mentioned it on here. I took a quick look at the Amazon.com listing for it and see that it is a work of fiction.

Are you recommending this one because it uses a factual information mixed in with the storyline?

Heaven said...

If you can go by anything he says, Garretson said on his polygraph test that Parent arrived at the guesthouse at about 11:45, and he left just about 12:15... During that time (the whole whopping 30 minutes), Garretson said that Steve had a beer, unless he swigged it down in two gulps, I'll assume that took a few minutes.. Then he said Garretson plugged in the radio and showed him how it worked.. Then, Parent made a phone call..

So, during those 30 minutes, Steve arrived, they probably made small talk, he had a beer, demonstrated the clock radio and made a call..

I honestly don't see how there was a whole lot of time for a gay sex fest... Unless Steve arrived naked and they jumped right into it...

I've heard of quickies before but if I was either of them, I'd be insulted lol

You also have to remember that this is the story Garretson told for the polygraph test, and he passed...

Why couldn't Steve have gone there for the sole purpose of selling a radio?

Just because two guys just happen to each be bi sexual doesn't mean they had an interest in each other....

Just a thought

=)

salome said...

True Heaven. Even if Steven was gay doesn't mean he was attracted to Garretson. I just wondered if Garretson embellished his duties at the guesthouse and made it sound like he had closer contact with Sharon than the others than was true when he got a ride from Steven. It isn't hard to see Garretson as a liar! :) I think maybe Steven could have been a little star struck and wanted to tell people he had been to Sharon Tate's house. Again, maybe not! :)

Heaven said...

He served two years in the California Youth Authority program. He was described as having both sadistic and homosexual tendencies by a probation officer.

I'm sure being in a California Youth Authority Program is enough to bring out the worst in anyone..

These is no record and no proof at all that Steve Parent was a homosexual. Garretson? I'm sure he was bi, but again.. It doesn't mean that they were hot for each other.

=)

Heaven said...

I better clarify my last statement...

A probation officer saying you have homosexual tendencies does not make you a homosexual...

There, hope that is clearer...

=)

agnostic monk said...

salem, where did the Tex/Linda drug burn theory come from?

Every time this comes up from various people I ask and I cannot recall ever getting a satisfactory answer.

it's definitely an interesting and valid path to explore but I wonder from whom and when the rumor came about. Tex never mentioned it in any of his writings or interviews (yes, I know he benefits from withholding it because it lends credence to the "Charlie controlled me" line). Linda never wrote her book and has really never done any in-depth interviews. It's obvious why Bugliosi wouldn't want her to mention it on the stand. Everyone else rumored to be involved is dead, and NONE of the Family members mentioned it to anyone in the press back in the day or since.

Heaven said...

Some people assume that people in the Tate house stole the $5000.00 that Linda says she stole from her husband and gave to Manson to prove herself...

But it's only speculation.. Linda herself said she took the money from her husband and gave it to Gypsy, who in turn, gave it to Manson...

Tex (who seems to be more truthful than Susan) even supports this..

Tex has said that he had no idea who the people were in the Tate house. Tex admits to slicing these people up, only makes sense that he'd admit to knowing them if he did.. Why admit to killing someone buy deny knowing them?

=)

agnostic monk said...

also, wouldn't it be a HELL of a lot easier for the District Attorney's office to tie Manson to a drug burn than it would be to tie him to the Helter Skelter motive?

If it was all about nailing Manson for the murders, it seems the drug burn would have been far easier to prove to a jury. There was so much speculation in the early days that the murders were drug related that it seems it would have been a slam dunk. Tate's friends burned Charlie's "family" for lots of money, so Charlie initiated revenge. Boom. Guilty. No need for all this fanatical apocalyptic mumbo-jumbo that was a long shot from a legal standpoint.

agnostic monk said...

Heaven, I agree with you. Tex admits to having spent time at the Melcher house, admitted to knowing the directions to and from, admitted to knowing the layout, admitted to cutting all the victims up, but can't admit to having known Frykowski/Folger?

Doesn't make sense.

(by the way, who is that in your pic? is that you? it looks like Pam Anderson)

Heaven said...

It's not Pam Anderson lol

What I think could have happened is, Manson probably was burned out of the $5000.00...

Linda testified for days, and she was grilled by Manson's attorney.. If she personally knew the victims, I think she would have said so...

I have no doubt that Manson knew Voyteck and probably Jay...

All the killers all tell the same story... Melchors house, kill whoever is there... No one has said "we were told to kill Voyteck and Jay".. Again, they all admit to their actions (well, except Susan) they all admit to breaking into the homes and butchering the victims.. Seems odd that they wouldn't mention knowing them...

Equally odd is that IF this was a drug burn (and I think it could have been) the killers didn't seek anything other than murder.. All they left with was Abigails measley $70.00.. Strange to kill 5 people for 70 bucks...

Manson told them to take all their money.. Jay had money in his wallet, not to mention his $1500.00 watch... They didn't ask Parent for his money...

So it seems to me that they weren't there for any other reason then just to kill them and leave... Even Manson when he returned, took nothing...

Murderers but not thieves... Strange...

4Sharon said...

Do you think Manson really went back to that house on Cielo? I know that is the rumor, but is there proof?
Man you guys LOL Each time I hear a theory...you have another one that sounds great too! LOL Just when you think you have it figured out, another thought or proof is added and now I just can't make up my mind. LOL Love to read your ideas on it - it's all very interesting. Wish Col. could be on to give his input too!

4Sharon said...

I also liked the point someone brought up of "just because they were gay, doesn't mean they were attracted to EACH OTHER". That is so right on. If each was gay, it doesn't mean they are in heat for ANY and EVERY male out there...like people assume ignorantly. Just like men and women, there has to be chemistry! So, just because they both MIGHT have been gay, does not mean Steven went up there for the sole purpose to have sex with William!

agnostic monk said...

The defense attorneys are a big reason why I don't buy the Tex/Linda drug burn angle, for the very reason you just mentioned.

Fitzgerald, Kanarek, etc. were not stupid. They were skilled, if eccentric (or kooky in the case of Kanarek). Fitzgerald developed somewhat of a close relationship with some of the girls on the outside such as Squeaky. I have no doubt that if this Tex/Linda burn occurred, it WOULD have come up at trial exactly when you said it would, during Linda's cross. I think it also would have come out in the press, with the girls flapping their gums on the corner.

The lawyers *did* try to insinuate that Linda had been in the Tate house, by using some statements she made to someone later on about "being in big houses," but it didn't go anywhere (there's a lot of big houses in LA).

I am not denying that a drug burn could have had something to do with the murders, but the Tex/Linda scenario as described doesn't wash.

Looking more closely, I can tell it's not Pam Anderson, but the pic is purty.

agnostic monk said...

4sharon I dont think there is any hard evidence that Manson went to Cielo Drive after the murders, to "see what my children had done."

If I recall correctly he has both admitted to going back and denied going back, depending on which interview and which conversation.

The blood details on the front porch were a big reason to believe someone went back and moved bodies around. Either Sharon or Jay's blood was found on the front porch in amounts that most likely couldn't have been the result of the killers movements around the property.

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Yup, I firmly believe he went back...

It's not just Sharon and Jays blood on the porch that makes me believe it...

Steve Parents car was wiped for prints so well, even his own were gone.. With all the screaming and shots fired, Tex and them did not take the time to wipe it down, especially that well..

The glasses were planted there, also wiped down of prints...

Neighbors reported loud arguing coming from the property around 4AM..

The blood though, does speak volumes....

You can't go by anything Manson says... He'll say anything if someones listening.. Ya have to look at the evidence...

agnostic monk said...

Heaven, do you recall reading/hearing that Brenda McCann was a member of the party that went back after the murders?

I can just picture that snot-nosed little brat galavanting around the bloodied Tate house, thinking what they were doing was soooo cool, man.

She said in the 1973 documentary that she didn't give a shit about Sharon Tate or her baby. "My brother was killed in the war, it's the same kind of love." I wanted to jump through the screen at her. Her disregard for the victims is even more alarming if she indeed was one of the people that drove up to Cielo after the killers returned to Spahn.

agnostic monk said...

oh but my question was, do you know where the idea that Brenda was among the clean-up crew came from?

I know some have said that Brenda was present and hanging out with Manson when the murder crew returned to Spahn and told Manson what they had done, the "no remorse" conversation, before the clean-up crew drove up to Cielo, but Kasabian in her tesitmony doesn't recall seeing Brenda there.

Satori said...

4Sharon said, I also liked the point someone brought up of "just because they were gay, doesn't mean they were attracted to EACH OTHER". That is so right on. If each was gay, it doesn't mean they are in heat for ANY and EVERY male out there...like people assume ignorantly.

A valid point, but I might also point out that during the time period (mid-60s), not very many people - even in "liberal" Los Angeles - were "out" as being gay.

As such, finding gay partners was not as easy as it is today (or, uh hmm, so I've been told, heh heh).

Accordingly, gay people during that time period (or so I've been told, cough, cough) took advantage of the availability of a partner whenever they were fortunate enough to find one (or so I've been told, of course).

Just a thought . . .

Heaven said...

I have heard it was either Brenda, Bruce Davis or Clem... I personally think it was Manson, Davis and Clem...

Tex has confirmed that Manson did go back, he just won't say who with...

Manson's "love", Stephanie also testified that Manson left late that night and didn't return until early the next morning..

Hmmmm, wonder where he went?

4Sharon said...

Man, they were pretty ballsy to go BACK to the crime scene! I would think anyone would be scared to return, for fear of being caught or something happening, anyway. How eerie it must have been up there!

4Sharon said...

That would make sense and being as demonic as they all are, I am SURE demons told them it was safe also. LOL

Heaven said...

I have talked to a few people who live in the area and they've told me that Manson would have been able to tell if the crime scene had been discovered without even going up..

I guess from down below you have a clear shot of the property...

If no one was there an hour or two after Tex and them left, no one was going to discoved them until morning. So technically, Manson knew he was safe...

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Yes, the blood on Sharon was smeared, indicating she'd been handled after her death...

I think they did hang her, least for a minute or two.. Her autopsy said she'd been hung after her death...

agnostic monk said...

I'm glad you cleared that up, Heaven. I've often wondered how the clean-up crew could make that long drive up the canyon towards the house not knowing if they'd be greeted by a team of cops or not. How would Manson have explained himself? "Oh sorry, made a wrong turn."

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
agnostic monk said...

I've always been confused about whether the hanging was done on the front porch or from the rafters in the living room or both (not counting early on when Tex pulled the rope so tightly that they were forced to stand on their toes).

I'd like to believe it was on the front porch because that would mean it was definitely post-mortem. If Sharon could have been spared one experience while still conscious, at least it could be the hanging.

But then I thought I remember there was some speculation in the coroner's report that she quite possibly could have still been alive when she was hung, which means she could have experienced it, which is too horrific to contemplate.

Another gruesome detail I have wondered about was her exact position when she was being attacked with the knife or knives. Was she partially standing/being held up in a standing position by Susan? Was she lying down on the couch? The killers are quoted as recalling her "falling to the floor" after being stabbed, but how could that be if she was already laying down on the couch?

Not pleasant details to contemplate, I know.

ColScott said...

for what it is worth my research and conclusions jibe with Heaven's- Charlie DID go to the house after- the glasses were left behind for ages at the Ranch and he brought them to throw people off (and they did!). My research indicates that Clem and Davis attended. I believe Pittman/McCann was dancing in the nude at the ranch with CM when the killers returned and was sent away so he could quiz them. Having been to the house, I believe that Charlie and crew made a RIGHT directly opposite the private drive Cielo becomes leading up to the Tate house, a right that goes straight up culminating in the entrance to FALCON'S LAIR, Valentino's mansion. From midway up that road to the top at any point you can clearly see the back half of the Tate property. If there were not cops everywhere then it was safe to proceed. If there were, you turn around by Falcon's Lair, come down the road and turn RIGHT again and head to the Valley. Instead with no cops there they went STRAIGHT and up the private drive.

If anyone is keeping score on the gay front, factor in that the house owner and employer Rudi Altpbelli was an MAJOR queen (and still is) and was very out of the closet. Gay owner, gay (or bi) houseboy.

Also the Col has a LOT of gay friends. Most actually do not go in for casual anal. But a quick BJ is very much enjoyed by them. Thirty minutes is enough for a beer and a blow in my experience with women, at least when I was single.

Furthermore, I point out (and will someday in a more detailed post) that Steve was a thief of ELECTRONICS equipment who was allegedly peddling a clock radio. I know that Karen Mc Monty claimed he had just bought it, but again, when did YOU ever go into Best Buy and buy a VCR and visit a stranger with a VCR to sell? Did you make a profit?

My 2 cents? They met on Sunset earlier in the week (the evidence supports this) and fancied each other, two young, good looking gay boys. They talked about hooking up. Steve set up a late night booty call and brought some loot to show off and break the ice (was he going to accept a credit card if he did sell it?) They either did NOT fancy each other, or someone got a hummer and Steve, with over an hour drive ahead of him, decided to come back another time. He left and the poor guy got killed. MEANWHILE, William goes back and CRANKS some tunes and hears nothing (again a major Col Note- William NEVER thought that the screams he must have heard or the door handle moving were Steven? C'mon!)and is arrested the next day. NO WHERE do we learn what Rudi thought when William was accused. He doesn't bail him out. That is telling too.

The point in all this disucssion is not quite what Curt says (That Helter Skelter is flawed). HS is a fucking work of fiction where if it didn't fit BUG's reality he was thrown out. I have spent hours with Aaron Stovitz to learn things. BUG was gonna win no matter what he had to do. Charlie et all helped him. The point is, if the official version is provably illogical multiple times, we must distrust everything and re-prove it before we accept it.

Fact is Steven Parent, a poor innocent victim for certain, was NOT at the crime scene for reasons that (and here I vehemently disagree with Heaven) make logical sense in the human experience.

Just ask yourself when you last tried to sell a piece of electronics to an acquaintaince at midnight.

And if it makes no sense we must question it, posit other possibilities and see where it takes us.

Thanks for listening. U'm cold.

agnostic monk said...

Doesnt it also make sense that maybe the police and even Bugliosi, Stovitz, etc. knew exactly why Steven was there, but the details were covered up out of respect for his family? In 1969, it would have been utterly scandalous for the Parent family to have their murdered son be outed as having been there for sex with another boy.

If there were oral sex given or received, there might very well be evidence that could be discovered by the coroner during the autopsy. For all we know this could have been hushed up due to it being such a public crime. I'm sure stuff like that went on all the time.

Now if Steven's real reason for being at the Tate house was necessary to support the Prosecution's theories about the murders, then it would not have been hushed up, much to the embarrasment of the Parent family.

Dok said...

I've read that they hung Sharon upside down. Heaven, do you know where I and others can go to read Sharon's autopsy repot?

I agree that it would have come out through cross exam about any drug burn. And it would have been easier to prosecute on those grounds It's a provocative theory and more logical then to start a race war. And I agree that Manson and crew went back to crime scene.

I like the question asked about Melcher moving out so quickly. Does anyone have thoughts about this?

On Turner's board someone mentioned (when it was up) that Manson knew Folger. And that Sandy was part of the San Francisco High Society scene and possible the two women knew each other or of each other. Any imput on these ideas?

agnostic monk said...

I think there is speculation that Manson and Folger might have met at a spiritual retreat like Esalen.

Sandy was from San Diego, not San Francisco. She lived here in San Francisco (I say here because that's where I live) for a time when she was a student at San Francisco State University, dropping out to join the Family after a visit to Malibu.

One amusing coincidence is that in their early teens, Sandy and Prosecutor Steven Kay were set up on a blind date by family friends or relatives or something. Steven Kay described Sandy at the time as "stuck up".

Dok said...

Thanks Monk for the infor. It's nice to see you back. Your comments have always been interesting. I live in San Diego and never knew Sandy was from here. All this time I thought she was from San Francisco.

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
agnostic monk said...

Savage, you make a good point but I dont think Steven Kay's opinion of Sandy was known at the time of the trial to anyone but him. He described the teenage lunch date and of thinking her "stuck-up" during that lunch date in a newspaper interview in the 80's (the article was about his ongoing appearance at parole hearings).

So, he made the comment about her 25+ years after the lunch date, looking back. I'm not sure how anyone would have known he had that feeling about her at the time. Not sure if even Sandy herself remembered him.

Heaven said...

Col,

Good post... You could be right about the BJ part.. That I won't dismiss.. It was the other parts that I questioned...


Dr. Dodo,

You can see Sharon's autopsy report through-out the web.. It states somewhere in it that she was hung (I hate the word hanged) sometime after her death.

When she and Gibby were in the living room, she wasn't actually hung, she was never suspended off the floor, she was more like being strangled.. Since she was alive at that point, the blood was still pumping and bruising and abrasions would be different then those she recieved post-mortum...

According to evidence, Sharon was seated in the couch, facing the fireplace when Tex began his dirty work on her.. Blood on the couch cushions supports this...

It's only natural that Manson would return.. He gave his orders and natural curosity would have him go there to make sure those orders were carried out..

He also told Tex to kill everyone on that street and take their money, but Tex didn't, for whatever reason..

I still find it very strange that no one took any of the drugs, money and expensive personal items that were laying around..

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deb B said...

I don't think it's that strange that Steve Parent showed up with a clock radio at midnight. If someone like me had shown up with clock radio, now that would be strange. But this guy loved fiddling with electronics and his second job, which he worked at that night, was at an electronics store. He was a teenager - maybe being out and about late after his second job wasn't that unusual - and it was a Friday night. If he was there for sex, he sure didn't stay long and why even bring the clock along? And he plugged it in and set it to demonstrate that it worked. The time it was stopped at shows that - why bother?

As far as him being gay - he may have been, but he was only 18 and a lot about him seems pretty straight laced - if he was gay, he likely wasn't very out - maybe not even to himself. He certainly noticed the women in the house. "Who are those 2 girls in the house?!"; "You mean Polanski has a wife and a girlfriend?!"

I don't think Manson would have risked going back to the crime scene. He's too cagey of a criminal to do something like that.

Sharon appears in the position that Tex/Susan left her - I think it would have been hard to move her, try to hang her (upside down!?) and then put her back into a position like she was originally. I haven't actually ever tried to move a body (and don't ever want to be in such a position), but wouldn't rigor have been setting in at 4:00am? Would her body still have shown the lividity (along her left side from lying on the floor) it did if she had been moved around?

The smeared blood on Sharon - I think Susan may have done that, and/or that may have ocurred while she was being held and killed. I don't think Susan's been entirely honest about what she did in that house that night. She sure did seem entralled at the sight of Sharon's dead body. She tasted her blood and soaked some up to write on the door.

Where did Tex say that Charlie went back?

Savage - are the same Savage from a couple of weeks ago?? Dare I mention this, but you haven't use the "L" word in some time now.

4Sharon said...

I don't know why, but I never could imagine Manson going back either. I just think he's too chicken and I can't imagine they would CHANCE that. If anything, fear of a cop roaming around and stopping them and I think Charlie would be too scared, period. I think when the killers left, that was it. That is just my opinion. I also think they didn't hang Sharon on the porch. I think she collapsed on the floor and that's how they left her and any smearing was done by the struggle that ensued. I know they TALKED of WANTING to do other things, but I don't think they did.

Pristash said...

A couple of things: John Kaye's "The Dead Circus" is indeed fiction, however it, along with its prequel of sorts, "Stars Screaming" are both very interesting and informative takes on life and the culture of Southern California in the time after WW II. (Think LA Confidential) I've heard that sometime in the future a third book will come out which I believe will focus on the late 80s and 90s. I believe they are insightful, and as for the Manson angle, intriguing as well...

Anyway, Kaye is a filmmaker as well. He has written American Hot Wax, Where the Buffalo Roam, and wrote and directed a movie with Patrick Swayze and Melanie Griffith which I can't recall the title. He grew up in LA and has lived the life, some of it tragically.

Of further note, it may be of interest that he acknowledges in one of his books his friend, the stepson of Van Johnson, who apparently lived in the Cielo guest house for a time, as one of his contributors. This guy is the brother of the woman who recently wrote that she lived at the bottom of Cielo Drive and saw the killers car there that night, thinking it was kids making out.

Finally, for satori: You and the Col are right, Helter Skelter cannot be allowed to be the definitive work on this case, and Bugliosi must be confronted! If he could have proved a drug burn, believe me he would have, but anyone who thinks those seven people were killed those nights because of the Beatles and a race war and all that is sadly mistaken. I wish you all Godspeed. in these endeavors.

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deb B said...

Savage,

That all sounds good to me!

Salem said...

It's only natural that Manson would return.. He gave his orders and natural curosity would have him go there to make sure those orders were carried out..

I disagree.....Manson did not order MURDERS!
He went back to clean up. He was upset at what Tex and the others had done!
and to Col its was me not Heaven that made this post.

And, more that anything, I want to know WHAT HAPPENED that weekend in 1969 and WHY. The truth.

Col Scott

Truth is .it was all because of a drug burn. You and I know that CM didnt order any murders. Tex Watson was angry. Linda K knows the truth if you could ever get it out of her. And Tex too.
I dont even know if SA ot PK knew what was going to happen that night. One thing for sure Tex was in CHARGE.
Also, for SA to come back to the ranch a gloat about how they really got some *piggies* and delighted in her part of the murders is sickening.
Cm went back to clean up the horrible murders scene , remember the unknown footstep the cops couldnt make a match too? A barefoot print that did NOT match Sadie's???( but was female)

another point to the guy posting about Steve Parent.what if he was gay? No one needs to exploit that!
It had nothing to do with the murders. So what if he was gay. Did that mean he deserved to be KILLED?
Its been said they went to rob at Tate's home.( or get the drugs they were promised.) Tex just got murder happy! That night I dont think murder was in minds, they always did the *creepy crawls* at night with knives before and never KILLED, but took money from homes.
Moved furniture around Etc...
and for Manson's vest.YES , CM tore it to pieces many years ago.
I don't recall Sandy telling me she was upset about that though.

Dok said...

Well put Savage! I may have been hard on the kid too. Sorry about that.

Hey am I the only one who ever heard of the hanging upside down deal? I try not to make many comments, because I am new to discussing this subject. And I don't want to sound like a total idiot. Well, if at all possible LOL. If that was an erroneous comment, please let the Doc know. I swear I read that somewhere.

Salem said...

as for the female that went.
wasnt it Gyspy that was back at the ranch dancing?not brenda

footprint in blood was much smaller size than
any of the women that went to tate's that night.
But it did fit one of the girls back at the ranch.

Salem said...

Equally odd is that IF this was a drug burn (and I think it could have been) the killers didn't seek anything other than murder.. All they left with was Abigails measley $70.00.. Strange to kill 5 people for 70 bucks...*

Well, they(voy and abby) did have the money Linda had left for drugs, but Voy never gave the drugs nor money back that day. recall the phone call from the ranch the Tates home that evening , before, Tex and crew left out? Could it have been from LIL darling asking if the drugs where ready? Or to tell them that they( Tex and Linda) were coming back for the money* So abby alerts Sharon and Sharons decides to call off her gathering she had planned for that night. Also Sebrings stays to be with Sharon.
think about it.

Salem said...

I think there is speculation that Manson and Folger might have met at a spiritual retreat like Esalen.
*

Abby gave Manson and the girls money at times and sure she knew some of the girls from visits at the clinic.

4Sharon said...

No offense, but I hate the word "siblings"..it sounds like baby pigs.
What was "cleaned up" at Cielo? Cause the blood sure wasn't and the evidence was not either. Just curious/something to ponder.

Heaven said...

Deb,

Manson himself said he went back...

Sharon and Jays blood was in pools on the porch.. Not just drops, pools....

That is not the position Sharon died in.. Tex stabbed her 8 times in the back.. Hard to do if she was laying on it.. The way he tells it, Sharon fell to the floor face down.... Sharon was obviously moved, they're blood was in places they weren't...

Manson wasn't risking anything. He could tell if the scene had been discovered before he went anywhere near it...

=)

Heaven said...

Salem,

I think it's pretty obvious that Manson set this whole scene up..
This was his baby, he just didn't have the nuts to do the dirty work..

If Manson's hands are as clean as you say, why'd he tie up the LaBianca's and tell Tex to kill them?

It was Brenda dancing naked with Manson when Tex and them returned.. That's a pretty well known fact...

Heaven said...

Oh, and if that's not Susan's footprint in the blood, someones walking around with her fingerprints...

It matched her's..

Heaven

4Sharon said...

Heaven, that could be! But, I wouldn't take MANSON's word for anything! LOL But, yes, it could be that it happened the way you say.
However, Sharon was on her side, wasn't she and I heard Tex pulled her to him and stabbed her...that is what I heard, which would be possible if she were on her side. I am not trying to prove anything, as I don't know. I am just wondereing.

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Does anyone honestly think that if Linda had any involvement in these murders other than being there, that Manson's lawyer would have made it known at the trial?

The girls were all trying to pin this on Linda, but no evidence ever came up to suggest Linda was involved in anyway. So I'd like to know how some people are so positive that it was Linda that got burned and not Manson... Where is the proof of this?

=)

Heaven said...

Tex says he ran back and forth to Jay and Sharon, stabbing each of them, just to make sure they were dead...

You can tell just by looking at the pictures that Sharon had been moved.. For Susan to have caused all that smearing of blood on Sharon, the couch and the rug, she would have had to roll around with her..... The did their deeds and got the hell outta dodge.. With the screaming and shots fired, does anyone really think they stuck around any longer then they had to?

A lot of people don't believe Manson returned, and that's fine.. Believe what ya like. But the evidence says different...

=)

4Sharon said...

Yeah, I don't dispute the evidence, I just found it hard to believe they would do back, I guess because I sure woudn't risk being caught lurking around, if it were ME. But, being the dummies they were, it could very well be. It is interesting to hear all this though, as I never thought about anything being diff. then the Helter Skelter story and I like to hear this new information!

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Think about how secluded the Tate house was.. Think about the late hour this all took place..

If the house and bodies hadn't been discovered by 3AM, who was going to find them before morning?

Manson had a clear shot of the property without even going there.. They parked way down the hill and walked to the house. Being as seculded as it was, if anyone came up, they could have easily slipped away unseen.. It was surrounded by trees, brush and other stuff.. Plenty of placed to slip into the dark and POOF, disappear..

Like I said, I have friends from that area and they tell me this was easy to pull off...

Tex has recently said on his website that Manson did go back..

Danny DeCarlo, Stephanie Schram, and Paul Watkins also tell the same exact story, and they're not accused of killing anyone...

It's not so hard to believe if you really think about it.... Manson actually thought by sending these kids to do his dirty work, then he wouldn't be punished if they got caught. That shows you the amount of common sense he had...

Besides, they weren't up there very long.. But long enough to fuck with an already fucked up crime scene.. He wanted to be sure Tex and them didn't do anything that could be traced back to Spahn...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

I'm also curious as to how anyone can say that the bloody footprint was too small to match any of the girls that were there..

The print wasn't a whole foot, all it was was the toes and the ball of the foot, there was no heel..
So how you going to match up the size accurately without the whole print to go by?

Susan was the one who was barefoot because of the VD.. It caused sores on the bottom of her feet that broke open during the stuggle with VF.. She says she stepped in all the blood and had to wipe some of it off on the grass..

Heaven said...

Savage,

It's anyones guess who went with Manson to the Tate house.. No one seems to wanna say who it was...

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Audio Magic said...

I believe Manson went back there. I thought it was because Susan Atkin's told him what happened and what they did. This pissed Manson off and he told Susan that she just sent him back to prison. So he went back there to try to make sure nothing-- as is being posted here, could lead LE back to the ranch.

SiebenzumSterben said...

I apologize that this is a little off-topic, but has anyone ever read "The Seven Degrees of Charles Manson"? Is this far out stuff or what? The connections are amazing, if they are to be believed. Since you folks know so much about this topic, I thought I'd ask about it here.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/wtc13.html

Heaven said...

Manson said he had a few reasons to go back.. One was to see what they had done.. Another was to make sure the scene resembled the Hinman house so the cops would think someone other than Bobby killed Gary and they'd release him...

Manson obviously didn't realize that Bobby's prints were found in Gary's house and he was arrested driving Gary's car with the murder weapon in the trunk.. Manson lacked common sense...

He also said he wanted to create a scene that would make it look like a black/white retaliation crime.. But claims he didn't have the heart to carry it out..

He did admit to wiping away all the fingerprints, tucking the towel over Jays head and leaving the glasses...

Manson also placed himself in the LaBianca house.. Saying that he needed to show Tex how to do it right cause the Tate house was too messy..

How would Manson know how messy it was if he was never there?

Danny DeCarlo testified that on the night of August 8th, Tex, Manson and Clem disappeared and returned early the next morning.. Stephanie also said Manson left and returned around dawn.. DeCarlo asked Clem where they had been and Clem said "We got five piggies last night"...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
4Sharon said...

That all makes sense, yeah, I could see it happening. Didn't think about all those angles.

Pristash said...

From just the first few pages of Bugliosi's book, things become muddled. Mrs. Kott heard the four gunshots that killed SP. But then nothing else...Tim Ireland heard screams presumably from VF...and both those happened at thr right times as we know it, and Bugliosi wants us to know it. After that? Dogs barking at 3am? Shots fired at 4am? The security guy who calls in the shots he heard has the dispatcher say to him, "Hope we don't have a murder, we just had a woman screaming call come in from that area." What's up with that? How come no follow through? Perhaps there was, but Bugliosi doesn't tell us.

I had to read the first Tate Homicide report myself before I ever found out about the boy across the canyon who heard shouts and arguing from that area around 4am. What's up with that? Why didn't the Kotts hear anything either? Hmmm, maybe they should be asked again, along with Garrettson?

Anyway, the blood pools, the glasses, and the towel wrapped neatly and tightly tucked under the rope around JS head is what really has me believing that somebody went back there and tampered with the scene. If not CM, then who?

And again, if Bugliosi could have proved any of this stuff at the time, I think he would have, but because it would have been hard, perhaps he didn't want to muddy the waters any further. The defense had their own problems and probably had their hands full just dealing with what VB was throwing at them anyway, so there was never a need to put up a defense about something which they were never accused.

Oh, could it be an urban legend about the phone call from Spahn to Cielo that day, or the day before? Where is that proven exactly? See that is the kind of thing VB would have been all over and I've never seen that difinitively stated, other than in these notoriously unreliable web blogs (although I think we're closer to the truth at this one than any others).

Heaven said...

I never heard of any of that... Doesn't mean there's no truth to it...

I know that Linda arrived at Spahn on July 4th 1969 after meeting Gypsy.. Linda had just come back from Mexico...

Anything is possible during those 30 days she was with the family..

But my point is, if Linda was directly involved with these murders in any way, shape, or form, it would have come out during the trial..

Everyone was trying to pin this all on Linda..

Manson's attorney grilled that girl for days on the stand and nothing ever surfaced about her having any involvement with anyone at the Tate house. If it existed, it would have come out. Linda was only with the family a short time before this all happened.

Even Tex said the $5000.00 that Linda stole from her husband was given to Gypsy who gave it to Manson.

But let's just say that she did know VF.. Why kill a pregnant woman who knew nothing of any of this? Why kill Steve? An innocent person who didn't even know these people.. Seems strange to take your anger for one person out on 6 others.

What the Leno and Rosemary have to do with any of it?

I personally don't believe that Tex, Susan, Patricia or Linda knew the victims.. All have said they didn't.. Like I asked before, they admitted to first degree murder but would deny knowing them? Odd don't ya think?

Here's my take...

Manson knew either Voyteck or Jay or even both.. I think the $5000.00 was in Manson's possession and something between all them went down...

Manson was involved with people that his followers knew nothing about... Manson came and left the ranch all the time, and no one knew where he was... Manson knew what was happening out in the world, but kept his followers ignorant..

I do believe there was a Helter Skelter role in this, but only as Manson's way of pulling the whole thing together. He used it to brainwash these kids... But I don't believe that's why the murders took place. Only as a means to get the kids to do his bidding..

So, I think that Tex, Susan, Patricia and Linda were there on the Helter Skelter theory, not knowing of any dealings between Manson and members of the house..

Police records showed a phone call was place to Cielo from Spahn the morning of the murders, but the killers deny knowing these people.. So who made the call? Manson perhaps?

It's all like trying to fit square pegs into a round hole.. Nothing adds up to make perfect sense...

I believe all the answers lie with Manson. He's the only person who knows why.. I also believe he'll take it to the grave with him...

Heaven said...

Pristash,

You make very good points...

The shots and screams were checked out, but the sounds stopped and no one knew where they were coming from.. 10050 was very secluded, that's why Tex feels that house was chosen..

As for the phone call, it's in the police records...

As for Bugliosi.. I don't think he needed to bring in Manson returning to Cielo.. He had enough evidence against him..

Bugliosi didn't need to prove why Manson was involved, only that he was...

He had a ton of testimony from members of Manson's followers and he had Linda.. That pretty much sealed Manson's fate... No need to worry about Manson going back to the scene...

Bugliosi painted a fairytale, but with that fairytale, he got the convictions that were needed to put these people away.. So personally, I don't care if he used the boogyman defense.. The convictions were just... To me, that's the most important thing.. These dangerous people were no longer a threat to society...

In my opinion, this case was fucked the moment the police arrived on the scene.. You have idiot cops who walked all through the blood, tracking it inside the house.. You got an idiot collecting blood samples but skips over many of them because he "assumed" they all belonged to the same person... Then you have my all time favorite, the dumbass who saw the bloody print on the gate button, but pressed it anyway, erasing the print...

True geniuses at work...

Pristash said...

Hi, Heaven,

Where are these police records about the phone call? And CM didn't show up at the ranch with his new love (returning from Esalen?) until later that day, correct?

Ithink you're correct as to Helter Skelter's role, and CM having things going with people no one else knew about. That's why I think the LaBianca's were a contract killing...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Manson's love do you mean Stephanie?

Manson arrived back at the ranch with her the morning of August 8th... But he had been there a few days earlier with her and left again...

As for the phone call, it's in the later police investigations report. It's not in the first police report...

Some people believe the Linda/Voyteck drug burn theory cause that's what Adam GoRightly said in his book..

Audio Magic said...

It seems to me, though I was only 12 going on 13 at the time, that the police thought this murder was a drug burn at first. "A drug deal gone bad." That this is what freaked out Tinsel Town, and why everyone flushed their stashes down the toilets. I'm thinking Bugliosi wanted a more salacious motive to support his book that he knew he would be writing. I have read that BUG coached DeCarlo and others in order to support the HS theory.

Heaven said...

Danny DeCarlo didn't want any part in testifying against these people.. But there were charges pending against him that would have put him in jail with Manson if he didn't co-operate...

His was not the only testimony Bugliosi used, Paul Wakins also testified.. Paul was just a horny teenager looking for sex.. He wasn't into murder and slaughter... So he proved to be a valuable witness... His story matched every other story told...

Bugliosi had everything he needed to get a conviction against Manson...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

I know what White Rabbit said, he quoted Gorightlys book word for word.. "they burned her on her bread".. That's the exact same wording Gorightly used...

It's not Buglios that would have brought out Linda's involvement, if she had any... She was his baby, his ticket to convicting Manson...

Kanarek would have been the one to use it against Linda.. He found no evidence to use.. If the evidence existed, I have no doubt that Kanarek would have used it for all it was worth..

I'm not saying there wasn't a drug deal between Linda and Voyteck, I'm saying there's no proof to back it up... But there's plenty to back up Manson and Voyteck...

Voyteck and Jay were involved in some pretty serious dealings, and were known for ripping people off..

But even still, Manson, Tex or Linda wouldn't have known that Jay was there that night.. He wasn't supposed to be.. He had a girlfriend who he was in bed with most of the day.. It was just bad luck on his part that he was there...

Sharon had been home only two weeks, she had family and friends there all the time.. No mention of Manson or any drug dealings during that two weeks.. So who knew that Voyteck was still there? He and Gibby were all ready to move out the next morning...

Is that why the white van was parked outside Cielo for a few days? Was someone keeping tabs on who was there for Manson?

Hmmmm, lots to ponder...

Audio Magic said...

Another rumor is...Voyteck pissed off Tex and Linda when they came to get their money back. They threatened to go to the cops, and he said go right ahead who do you think the cops are going to believe. A bunch of filthy hippies or rich, famous, beautiful people living in a big beautidul house.

But that makes no sense to me because why would anyone go to the cops over a drug burn? lol

Heaven said...

What makes no sense to me is all of the killers deny knowing any of the victims...

Think about it.. You admit to slaughtering them, knowing it's a crime that'll send you to the gas chamber, but you deny you knew them, for any reason..

Susan was asked in jail if she knew the victims, she said no.. Tex to this day still says the house was chosen because it was secluded. That the crimes were done to get Bobby out of jail..

I honestly believe that these kids had no idea who these people were... VF words to Tex were "Who are you, what are you doing here?"

Tex replied with his Devil comment..
There was no "Tex, what are you doing here?" It was "Who are you?"

Also, like I said before, nothing was stolen.. Jay had Cocaine in his car, not taken... A $1500.oo watch on him, his wallet had plenty of cash in it. Not touched...

The theory is, they burned Linda out of $1000.00, but the thought to get that money back never occured to anyone? How is killing the person who owes you money going to get your money back?

They're still out the money, only now you have first degree murder charges to worry about...

Not trying to recoup the loss makes no sense to me.. Unless I'm right, the killers didn't know these people... But I'm betting Manson did...

But even Manson left empty handed...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Ok, where is it documented that Linda was raped by Voyteck?

Where are you getting this from?

Heaven said...

Meant to also say, I have read everything there is to read on this case, every book, article, parole hearing, trial transcript, police records and killer websites. Not once in all my travels have I ever read where Voyteck raped Linda.. So, where did this come from? Where is the source of this information?

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Ok, where is the proof of that? Without proof, it's speculation...

As is with most of this case. The only thing we can prove is that Tex, Susan, Patricia and Keslie killed 7 people..

=)

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Like I asked before, if their target was only Voyteck, why'd they kill 6 other people?

Rosemary and Leno were in no way connected to any people living at the Tate house...

How'd they know Voyteck was still living there? If he was the intendede target, they had inside information that he was there. Manson hadn't been on the property since March.. Voyteck was set to move out the following morning..

So who was the spy? And where is the proof?

Heaven said...

All I wanna know at this point is where is the proof that Linda and Voyteck were in a dope deal together and where is it documented that Voyteck raped Linda...

Him raping her is a new one to me...

=)

Audio Magic said...

Well CM's philosophy was "No sense makes sense" People have tried to make sense out of what appears to be such a senseless gruesome crime. There is sense in there somewhere and a lot of people have tried to find it. Back in those days getting burned could really piss a person off. To me it makes more sense than Vicent Bugliosi's motive.

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Savage,

You're avoiding my question hon...

Where is it documented that Voyteck raped Linda? What source did you get that from?

If it was Susan, I don't believe a single word of it..

If it's not Susan, where'd you come by it? I wanna read it for myself...

=)

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Salem said...

Where is it documented that Voyteck raped Linda? What source did you get that from?

ya. where did that come from????
I know she did a few lines of coke with abby that day.but never heard of Linda being RAPED.

Heaven said...

Savage,

I'm sorry but I don't buy it...

If Linda personally knew VF then it would be documented, and it isn't.

Susan is the only person to have ever said anything about Linda and Voyteck having a drug deal together, and I don't believe nothing she says...

At the trial, Susan tried to pin this whole thing on Linda, but nothing ever became of it. There was no proof anywhere.

In trial transcripts, Susan was quoting linda, Susan is quoted as saying "You remember the thousand dollars I had? I told her yeah, and she said well, I went up to some people in Beverly Hills for some MDA... anyway, she went up thyere to buy something and they burnt her for her bread."

That is Susans exact quote during the trial.. She was trying to pin all this on Linda, probably because Manson told her too...
It was $5000.00 that Linda had, not $1000.00. Tex and Gypsy both said that money was turned over to Manson. As was all the valuables within the family.

Many many MANY books have been written about this case and the only person who has this theory, is Susan. So I don't buy it...

But you're free to believe what ever you like...

And Sandy Good? The one that worshipped Manson and believed him to be Jesus Christ for the last 37 years is, in your opinion, credible?

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

I suspect Savage heard these things from Susan, but isn't telling us because he knows no one believes a word she says...

If Linda had direct dealings with VF and was raped by him, it wouldn't be classified information. Kararek would have looked into it and it would have come out at the trial...

That's my opinion...

Salem said...

Also, does Charles Manson have any siblings or step-siblings? Didn't Kathreine Maddox adopt a little girl after Charlie was convicted?

yes

darwin had a son named Tommie Scott ,also, which would make cm his half brother. NOTE.Darwin Scott had NO brothers, only sisters.
Darwin was murdered the same summer that The so called Family went to Ala to visit Pat K mom.(May 1969)

CM's mom couldnt have any more kids after cm because of STD. She did adopt a lil girl in 1967 I think. or 1966.

Heaven said...

Savage said
if you look at the pieces that i've laid out, you'll see that this story begins to come together.

No hon, the story doesn't come together. All I see is a bullshit story that was told to you and you believe it...

This story will never "come together".. The ones who know the truth aren't here to tell us.. The ones that are left, wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the ass. Especially Susan Atkins..

Salem said...

Voyteck pissed off Tex and Linda when they came to get their money back. They threatened to go to the cops, and he said go right ahead who do you think the cops are going to believe. A bunch of filthy hippies or rich, famous, beautiful people living in a big beautidul house.

yessssssss
that is TRUE!

Salem said...

But it's only speculation.. Linda herself said she took the money from her husband and gave it to Gypsy, who in turn, gave it to Manson...

THAT WAS WHEN LINDA FIRST CAME TO THE RANCH.MELCHER GAVE HER THE MONEY THAT AUG DAY.IN 1969.

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

You all can say whatever you want too.. But I'd like to start seeing some proof of all this... Again, without it, it's all just speculation..

There are many many publications dedicated to this case, so please, start giving out your sources so the rest of us can read this for ourselves...

I'm not dismissing it, but I just like to read things for myself.. Opinions are great, but facts need to be backed up

=)

Heaven said...

If this was Linda's deal, why was she hiding outside instead of inside getting her hands dirty?

If this was Linda's deal, what did the LaBianca's have to do with it?

If this was Linda's deal, why wasn't it brought out at the trial?

Lots of questions boys and girls...

=)

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Savage,

Linda was only there for 30 measley days... In that time all she ever did was garbage runs and creepy crawls..

Are you saying she was so far into the inner circle that Manson was going set the wheels in motion for mass murder to defend her honor?

Manson handed his girls out to other men like candy, he even used them to attempt to lure more men into the group.. You honestly think he would have cared if Voyteck got a piece from her.. Assuming he did.

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
agnostic monk said...

No offense intended towards you Savage, but this "Linda was raped by Voytek/the murders were revenge" sounds almost as far-out as Helter Skelter.

I simply do not buy it. And for reasons I've detailed earlier, Sandra Good is the second-to-LAST person (second only to Susan Atkins) from whom I would EVER believe ANYTHING about this case. Sandra has lied, manipulated, and evaded her way through so many interviews she's become a joke. Her telling Laurence Merrick in the documentary that "Linda had been to the Tate house" is about as credible as her telling Merrick that she watched Manson bring a dead bird back to life.

Sandra has proved that she is perfectly willing to lie to turn the tide in her favor and/or in Charlie's favor. She has zero credibility, I'd believe the horses at Spahn before I'd believe Sandra or Susan Atkins.

This just sounds like so much garbage that the girls were tossing around out on the corner and on the stand during their perjured testimonies.

But the main reason I do not believe it is that it NEVER CAME UP, not once. Paul Fitzgerald and Irving Kanarek would have NEVER let something like this slide.

There's no way those three zombied beyotches would sit next to Charlie in the courtroom and NOT be shouting this rape/drug burn story from the mountaintops. Squeaky and Sandy sure would have, too.

I think it's naive to think it wouldn't have come out. There were so many reporters and hangers-on digging around Spahn and befriending Family members to get a scoop.

Linda Kasabian was literally the talk of the country and possibly the world during the weeks that she testified. The word "Star" (as in Star Prosecution Witness) was practically invented with Linda. There's no way it wouldn't have surfaced.

But even among all the many different lies the girls told to pin things on Linda and turn the jury against her, this particular one never came up.

I'm with Heaven. Until there's more evidence, it's a fairytale on the level of Helter Skelter. And I am not just saying that because I believe in and tend to defend Linda Kasabian. I'm saying it because it just makes zero sense.

Heaven said...

Protect her from what? There is no proof that Voyteck raped her. You can't porvide one piece of evidence that can back this up...

Again, Manson handed these girls out all the time.. IF Voyteck scored with her, I really don't think he'd care.. Remember, according to Manson, women have no souls.. The dogs were higher than the women..

I personally think you're giving him too much credit, but that's just me...

agnostic monk said...

Also, Tex and Pat have owned up to their roles (to varying degrees) in the murders. I can't believe for five seconds that they wouldn't, in more recent years, have come out with this motive.

Why would Pat keep this hidden? Linda is responsible for Pat's conviction. If Pat had something like this, we'd have heard about it and not on this message board.

catscradle77 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
agnostic monk said...

The Salinder Nader incident proves NOTHING about this Linda rape/revenge scenario. It doesn't "tie it together" at all. Not even a little.

And Linda's "I'm sorry" to Voyteck proves nothing either. She was sorry for being there, sorry for what her friends were doing to him, sorry for it all. She didn't need to know Voyteck for her "I'm sorry" to make sense.

Heaven said...

Agnostic Monk,

Excellent post...

It does sound like a fairytale... The Helter Skelter theory is more believable...

This whole Linda/Voyteck thing would not have been classified information. It would have come out and the media would have ran with it...

Linda was the best witness for the prosecution and the worst for the defense. Susan, Leslie and Patricia were trying to prove that this was all Linda's doing... Their lawyers would have ripped Linda apart. But nothing even remotely close ever surfaced...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Audio Magic said...

Among some of the things I have on this case is that old Tom Snyder interview with CM, where he starts to talk about his dealings with the Hells Angels, and CM tries to talk a bit about Bobby Beausoliel and what happened. But of course Tom Snyder told CM to "get off the space shuttle" several times, and changed the subject. Nobody wants to listen to CM because they think he's insane and disgusting, but if they'd let him rant they might find out a thing or two. I've read many book about this crime and the trial, and still nobody has come up with a motive other than Vincent Bugliosi's. I even read Adam Gorightly's book with the MK-Ultra conspiracies, which as far as I'm concerned aren't any more far out than that entire Helter Skelter and Revolution 9, rap. If you re-read the HS motive it's almost laughable. But because the DA said it was true--then it must be true. It's record...so that is what mainstream society believes. Also, I wouldn't be surporised if that thing about Linda and Voyteck is true. Polanski himself said the biggest mistake he made was allowing VF to stay there as long as he did. The only difference in the lifstyels between CM and the family and the Hollywood jet setters--was money. There were orgies and drug dealers in Tinsel Town big time. They had it all. Charles Manson didn't.

Heaven said...

Since some people claim that Susan knew Voyteck, why did she refer to him as "the big guy who pulled her hair"...

Tex said (I believe Tex before I believe Susan) that he didn't know these people. Even to this day, locked far away from the other members of the family, he still says he didn't know them...
He is telling the same story today that he told 37 years ago, unlike Susan..

Why wouldn't he admit it if he did? What are they going to do? Try him for knowing them?

Isn't it funny that Susan is the only one with all this inside information?

I think I'll go re-read Susan's most recent parole transcripts.. Wanna bet she still says that she didn't know why they were going to the Tate house? Although she swears she did know at the Grand Jury and she also swears she was telling the truth.

It's almost impossible to keep up with her changing story...

Now, if Patricia or Tex come forward with this Linda/Voyteck/rape/drug burn theory, I'm more apt to believe it...

But I'll still say there is no way Manson would set up the whole mass murder thing for a woman with no soul he only knew for 30 days...

Heaven said...

Audio,

If you read Romans words about Voyteck all the way through, you'll know he said that because Voyteck was a mooch and a freeloader who ran over Sharon's dog... Basically, he was more trouble than he was worth.

Roman never implied it had anything to do with the people who killed Sharon... He was simply tired of Voyteck always hanging around..

Sharon was tired of him cause he was stoned more than he was sober and she had her baby to think about...

nellieoleson said...

there is a part of the manson case no one is investigating, it happened during the trial, there was a commune that was from chicago that moved to la called naturalism lsd rescue they were led by a man called dr george peters he had alot of girls in his group like the family, durning the trial there was a power move one of the guys tryed to oust george peters and take over, george wanted to take everyone and join sandy and squeaky merge with the family the other guy wanted all the girls himself, so he murdered dr peters, it was a big trial in la,the george peters murder case got a lot of press in the la times in 71
if u want to learn something about the manson case u dont know read about this case u will learn alot. ya'all forgot a importent link dr george peters

agnostic monk said...

Actually, Savage, the rape/revenge story doesn't explain at all why Linda was sent along with the killers to the Tate house. You can mold it to fit the picture you are promoting, but it doesn't explain it. If they were exacting revenge for Linda's rape and drug burn, she need not go along for the revenge. She could have sat back at the ranch while the killers did their thing.

It doesn't explain why she went, and it also doesn't explain why she stayed outside.

catscradle77 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Thats very true Monk,

If this was all because of Linda, she would have been inside with the other killers.. She was only sent away to listen for sounds because she didn't want to take part in the killings... I think she was originally sent to participate...

If this was all about defending Linda's honor, why the Hollywood hit list? With names that included Liz Taylor, Frank Sinatra, Tom Jones and Steve McQueen...

Heaven said...

The brutal slaughter was not just applied to Voyteck.. He only got it worse cause he tried to get away... Abigail was hacked up pretty bad...

So if all the hatred and rage was only at Voyteck, why chop up everyone? Especially a pregnant woman?

Why not catch Voyteck alone and take your dealings out on only him?

I notice no one is answering me on why the LaBianca's were killed. If the Tate house was only because of Voyteck, whats the deal with them?

agnostic monk said...

Tex Watson watched the entire 2004 television remake of Helter Skelter and wrote a very detailed critique of it. He corrected a lot of parts that he says were not accurate. He cleared up the issue of who at the ranch Linda actually delivered the $5,000 to (the movie has Linda giving it directly to Charlie). He watched this movie present cute little Clea Duvall as Linda going to the Tate house thinking it was a creepy-crawl, and having never been there before.

I believe Tex would have corrected that, too.

agnostic monk said...

Linda was sent back to the car while the killers invaded the Tate house because watching Steven Parent get shot freaked her out so much that Tex didn't trust her to keep her cool. TEX confirms this himself.

He did originally send her to the back of the house to look for any open doors or windows. She came back around and said there were no open doors or windows. Tex didn't believe that she really looked. She testified that she didn't really look, she only wanted to stop what was happening. This is backed up by hard proof; the cops on the scene found the nursery window open. If Linda was there to participate in or witness her friends exacting revenge on her rape, she would have found the open nursery window and told Tex about it. "Go get that Polish rapist pig bastard, Tex!"

Linda was not sent back to the car to be a getaway driver as so many people like to call her. She was sent back because she wasn't the killer the other three were.

Audio Magic said...

Heaven--If you haven't before and If you ever get the chance. Watch A&E's biogrpahy on Roman Polanski, it's quite good, and sadly very scary--it is a 2 hour long bio. But, this bio is cleaned up and doesn't go ito how Polanski felt about Voytek's overstaying his visit. The belonged to an organization of fellow Polish Jews who survived Treblinka. They were great friends. But even if he wasn't talking about VF overstaying his welcome in regards to the murders... I can see how one would want the guy to leave. His wife was almost ready to have her baby...he probably didn't want drug dealers living there.

Heaven said...

http://www.aboundinglove.org/sensational/sen-008.php

Watson speaks about the crimes, his involvement, the motive as he knew it, and Manson's orders..

It's an interesting read..

But no where in there does it say anything about Linda and Voyteck...

Heaven said...

Audio,

I agree with you... With a new baby coming, who wants a drug dealer living in your house?

catscradle77 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
agnostic monk said...

What about Susan blabbermouthing to Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard? She told her jailhouse buddies TONS of intimate details about these murders. Why would she leave out the Linda/Voyteck/Rape/Revenge part if that's why they were there?

Graham and Howard never heard anything from Susan about any rape or revenge for rape.

agnostic monk said...

Heaven, I have never heard a good explanation for Manson tying up the LaBianca's if it wasn't to subdue them for the killers.

Manson admitted on camera to Diane Sawyer that he entered the house and tied them up and then "split. I jammed out of there."

Sawyer asked him something to the extend of "so you knew what they did the night before at Tate's, and you'd been talking all this time about apocalyptic stuff, but you didn't expect them to kill the Labianca's?"

Manson: "Whoa, whoa, woman. I don't live in the realm of expectations. I live in the NOW."

No Chuck, you live in an alternate universe of evasions that a three year-old could see through.

Heaven said...

I think the whole rape thing is a crock, another one of Susan's bullshit stories.

Linda wasn't with the family long enough for anyone to give a shit about her.

The girls weren't tight with each other, there was a lot of jealousy and pettiness among them... Even Manson said at one point he got sick of listening to them bitch about each other...

Manson sent out those he believed were expendable to him.. Most of the other family members didn't like Susan cause she was always trying to be the boss..

Tex was not the right hand of Manson that everyone thinks he was. Bruce Davis was in charge of things when Manson was away...

Tex "owed" Manson for the whole Bernard Crowe deal. That was all the fault of Tex... Manson sent Tex out to repay the favor owed to him...

If Manson was going to send out his most loyal and faithful, he would have sent Lynette, Sandy, Bruce and Clem. They were more devoted to him... But they were not expendable...

I think Manson sent those he knew he could do without...

Heaven said...

There are a lot of theories about the LaBianca's, but I think the true reasons lie with Manson. He's the only person who knows why they were killed...

catscradle77 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Manson had sex with one of the children of Dennis Rice.. a mere child, younger than 10.. That's when Didi Landsbury split the ranch. She wasn't into child molesting...

Diane Lake was all of 13 when she joined the family.. Manson had sex with her too.. He was a pedophile, so I can't see going through all this just to defend the honor of a girl he barely knew...

Manson obviously had no morals, so why would he care if someone boned Linda?

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

That's true, Roman did accuse John Phillips of doing this. Roman figured he had motive cause he slept with John's wife...

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Salem said...

Voyteck was coming down from a methadone high. It could very well be that he didn't recognize Tex when he came into the living room.


But yet he could rape Linda? With Abby in the house and Sharon? I doubt that. Lil dirty hippies types when he had Abby?
I think Sharon and Abby would have called someone / or asked Voy to leave.
Oh , and Tex outside in the car waiting?
seems to farfetched.

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
agnostic monk said...

Heaven, is that the little blonde girl in the Manson documentary? I think her picture is also in Bugliosi's book. That's really quite sad.

I find the idea that Manson would put his own neck, and the necks of some of his friends, on the line for Linda Kasabian to be fairly laughable. I doubt one could earn that kind of loyalty from Manson and the gang by merely bringing some money and being cute and blonde and willing to sleep with everyone for a few weeks.

Heaven said...

Very far fetched...

Even if he didn't reconize Tex at first, he would have sobered up quick when he realized he was about to die..

The will to live is funny that way.

Heaven said...

Agnostic,

I personally think Manson was a hypocrite..

He preached oneness, love of brother, die for your fellow brother.. But when the shit hit the fan, he dropped these kids like a bad habit.

He wanted the girls to accept all the blame so he wouldn't go back to prison.

Manson only had loyalty to himself.. To this day he still says he had nothing to do with any of it. That the kids acted on their own.. Leslie said she took offense to that.

If Manson had no involvement, why'd he tie up the LaBianca's?

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Salem said...

Diane Lake was all of 13 when she joined the family.. Manson had sex with her too..

I thought( pretty sure) she was a bit older. I know Snake had a sister that wanted to have sex with CM , but he declined. I thought Ruth Ann was the youngest of the group.

60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Diane Lake was Snake lol

http://charliesfamily.tripod.com/snake.html

She's also the one that Manson beat on a regular basis...

35 year old man beating on a 13 year old girl and I'm supposed to believe that he gave a shit about Linda....

Salem said...

So if all the hatred and rage was only at Voyteck, why chop up everyone? Especially a pregnant woman?


Because Tex was RAGING that night!
He was after VF and Abby. And with Sharon and Jay as witnesses
how could he leave them, they (sharon and jay) saw them and probally had seen them before!

Heaven said...

You missed my question, I asked why not wait and catch Voyteck alone? He was moving out the next morning. The next night Tex could have had just Voyteck and Gibby, if they were his targets...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

Savage,

If you can't back any of this up it's not worth posting about...

I'm always happy to listen to the opinions of others. But it's another thing when opinions are trying to be passed off as facts...

Post a link or a book or any source we can all go to so we can read this for ourselves.

If you can't, you're starting to sound like a broken record...

Susan is not a source, she's a liar..

Everything known about this case has been written down somewhere.

Heaven said...

Just because you "believe it to be true" doesn't make it so....

Facts need to be seen... Can you provide them?

Anything will work. A book, a parole transcript, a killers website.. Anything...

You have said in other posts that you "know Susan".. So I'm sorry to tell you but all this sounds like something Susan made up and you're buying...

That's fine if you are, it's your business. But I'd like to hear it from someone else before I believe it...

=)

Heaven said...

Savage,

You've also avoided all the questions asked of you about this theory...

But I'll ask you again.. If this was all about Linda, why didn't Linda participate? Do you need time to ask Susan before you answer lol

=)

Heaven said...

http://charliesfamily.tripod.com/gypsy.html

Gypsy had her son Phoenix on January 5, 1971; she has said that fellow Family ember Steven Grogan was the father. She bounced back from the birth just in time to perjure former friend Kasabian on the witness stand, saying that Linda was the orchestrator of the Tate murders and not her beloved Charlie. In a 1994 interview with prosecutor Bugliosi, Share said that she had only said what fellow cult members told her to say after dragging her behind a truck as a threat.

So, if Linda was behind all of it, why would the need to force people into saying so?

Your story doesn't jive...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
60skid said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Heaven said...

No Savage, it doesn't explain anything.. You're twising things to fit the story you want to believe..

You can't explain why Linda wasn't in the Tate house with the others.
You can't explain why the LaBianca's were killed...

You can't explain why none of this came out at the trial. It was brought up by the girls in order to protect Manson, but was dismissed by the defense attorneys, you can't explain it...

You can't explain why Manson had sex with a 13 year old child that he used to beat up on a regular basis. One who'd been with Manson for a couple years, but masterminded mass murder to protect a girl he only knew a month.

You can't explain why Voyteck would wanna screw dirty, smelly, VD infested girls when he had Abigail and plenty of other better looking women at his disposal..

All you can keep saying is why Tex did what he did.. Tex himself has already explained this, hundreds of times and not once did he ever say it had anything to do with Linda...

You're not explaining anything...

closed blog said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
agnostic monk said...

The Salindar Nader event "shows" nothing of the kind. You're drawing conclusions to fit the theory you're promoting.

All the Nader event "shows" is that they went looking for a third murder scene. You are inferring the stuff about Charlie wanting something back for Nader sleeping with Linda.

But along those same lines, why would Charlie need something back from Nader? Nader gave Sandy and Linda a ride down from Malibu and fed them lunch. Heavily pregnant Sandy took a nap in Nader's apartment while Nader and Linda had sex. Nader essentially already "payed" for the sex, so to speak.

4Sharon said...

I could see Manson wanting revenge due to things like a drug burn, but more likely being thrown off the Ceilo property...etc. BUT, I cannot see Linda tied to the cause. No way. I am not buying that. I have to agree with Heaven too in that V. could have had "clean" girls, rather than nasty VD ridden stuff.

agnostic monk said...

-Then it proves my point that Charlie sent the group to the Tate house to settle the drug burn with frykowski and to get back at him for taking liberties with Linda.-

Savage, no personal offense intended, but you have an odd perception of the word "proof".

Just because you can squeeze something we already know into your theory doesn't make it "proof" of anything.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 550   Newer› Newest»