Saturday, April 22, 2006

JOE has some questions


Buried among the comments by the Turner retards, a man called JOE asks three questions worthy of spotlighting.

1.Manson had an arsenal of weapons including rifles and a machine gun. So, if he really wanted a massacre -- forget about WHO he sent to the Tate house for a minute -- WHY did he send them with the rickitiest, lamest gun in the cache?
2. The LaBianca's phone lines weren't cut, Leno was tied at the wrists, and Rosemary wasn't even tied up, so why the hell didn't they immidiately call the cops when Manson left them alone?
3. If Ronnie Howard, Virginia Graham and Danny DeCarlo could testify on the stand about what the murderers told them about their crimes, why would -- as Bug wrote in HS -- Joe Sage's testimony about Linda's confession in New Mexico
be hearsay???

MY ANSWERS

1- One of the KEY questions for real scholars of the case. UNLESS it was all supposed to be a threat and it went wrong. Otherwise, who the hell sends teenage girls anyway?

2- No idea. Unless they knew Charlie. OR knew who sent Charlie.
3- The Hearsay exception to the rules of evidence only applies to first generation testimony. So Danny lying about what Charlie told him Charlie supposedly did- Okay. Brooks testifying about what Charlie said about himself- okay. The Whores testifying what Susan said she did- fine. And whatever Linda told Joe SHE did is okay too. But remember, BUG wants Charlie. Whatever Joe SAYS Linda SAID Charlie DID- not eligible. Your answers?

62 comments:

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

"UNLESS it was all supposed to be a threat and it went wrong. Otherwise, who the hell sends teenage girls anyway?"

My theory is, and I could be wrong, Manson sent out those that he felt were the most loyal. Female wise. I think he sent Tex cause Tex owed him a favor...

I also think that he sent out those that he knew, beyond a doubt, would kill for him.

But like I said, I could be wrong. It is interesting that they had a wide variety of guns and they took the worst one...

cortex_jnr said...

Lets do the math:

$30,000 a year to feed/clothe an inmate in a state prison.

Watson, Krenwinkle, Vanhouten, Atkins, Manson ... thats "5"

$150,000 a year for the group for 36 years giving us a total of
$5,400,000 at the bare minimum.

Had all "5" been sent right to the Gas Chamber, all of this money would not have to have been spent.

shoresendz said...

Joe said: WHY did he send them with the rickitiest, lamest gun in the cache?

Ah Jeeze, Joe/Col, that’s easy. It’s disposable (why send your best weapons to get thrown down a ditch after the crime), but more importantly, if ever found, the gun would trace back to Shorty, no?

shoresendz said...

Joe said: The LaBianca's phone lines weren't cut, Leno was tied at the wrists, and Rosemary wasn't even tied up, so why the hell didn't they immidiately call the cops when Manson left them alone?

I think this one is simple too. I’m pretty sure that Manson tied Leno & Rosemary together, back to back by the wrists on the couch before he exited stage left. There were additional leather thongs found at the scene that would indicate that at some point Rosemary was tied up, then untied from Leno to be taken back to the bedroom. Rosemary didn’t put up a fight until she heard Leno’s screams from the living room and by that time she had a pillowcase over her head and a lamp cord tied around her neck. For what it’s worth, from the killer’s testimony, she fought like hell at that point—swinging the lamp at them, blindly grabbing for the knife, etc.

Sharon and Woody said...

Rosemary LaBianca was wearing leather thongs?

How can that be? I didn't think that thongs were around back then.

Even the panties the women wore were nylon and were full figured.

Doesn't make sense to me.

shoresendz said...

Col said: One of the KEY questions for real scholars of the case. UNLESS it was all supposed to be a threat and it went wrong. Otherwise, who the hell sends teenage girls anyway?

Col, I dare say, you’re being a sexist. It’s not a matter of girl or boy, it’s who’s the most blood-thirsty, willing applicant. Like I said in an earlier post, those teenage girls did just fine for themselves on those three nights of murder—the only ones complaining of their capabilities as savage killers were their victims.

cielo drive playboy said...

shoresendz:
>those teenage girls did just fine for themselves on those three nights of murder—the only ones complaining of their capabilities as savage killers were their victims.<

Just take a look at what a couple of young teens can do to a once flamboyant playboy like me.

Joe said...

Shores says:

Ah Jeeze, Joe/Col, that’s easy. It’s disposable (why send your best weapons to get thrown down a ditch after the crime), but more importantly, if ever found, the gun would trace back to Shorty, no?

SO YOU RISK THE BIG NIGHT WITH A WEAPON THAT BARELY/RARELY WORKS? REMEMBER, IF YOU'RE BUYING THE 'HELTER SKELTER' MOTIVE, THERE WERE ONLY TWO NIGHTS TO BEGIN THAT DAMN RACE WAR. WHY TAKE CHANCES ON THE FIRST AND SPLASHIEST?
_____________________________

Shores says:
I think this one is simple too. I’m pretty sure that Manson tied Leno & Rosemary together, back to back by the wrists on the couch before he exited stage left.

SOURCE? I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS ANYWHERE.

There were additional leather thongs found at the scene that would indicate that at some point Rosemary was tied up, then untied from Leno to be taken back to the bedroom.

ADDITIONAL LEATHER THONGS? NOT ACCORDING TO BUG IN HS:
"Patchett took a sample thong from each back to Los Angeles for comparison with THE THONG used to tie Leno LaBianca’s hands."....

"I asked Linda if he was still wearing THE leather thong around his neck. She said she hadn’t noticed, though she did notice, later that night, that he no longer
had IT. I showed her THE LEATHER THONG used to bind the wrists of Leno LaBianca, and she said it was “the same kind” Manson had been wearing."

"Examining the Tate-Sebring rope, she [RUBY] not only said it looked like the rope Manson had, she also supplied numerous examples of Manson’s domination; recalled seeing the .22 Longhorn at the ranch many times; identified THE LEATHER THONG found at the LaBiancas’ as similar to the ones
Manson often wore..."

"One question remained unanswered. Why, on the night of the Tate murders, did the killers bring along 43 feet 8 inches of rope? To tie up the victims? Manson
accomplished this the next night with A SINGLE LEATHER THONG.
________________________________

Shores says: Col, I dare say, you’re being a sexist. It’s not a matter of girl or boy, it’s who’s the most blood-thirsty, willing applicant. Like I said in an earlier post, those teenage girls did just fine for themselves on those three nights of murder—the only ones complaining of their capabilities as savage killers were their victims.

MORE BLOODTHIRSTY THAN BRENDA, RUTH, CLEM, BRUCE, ETC.? LINDA?! WELL, YEAH, LINDA.

I got more questions if any of y'all are interested.

agnostic monk said...

catscradle77 said...
>>he couldn't let the opportunity slide in his HS fairy tale to show that someone supported Linda's story.<<<

cats, Linda's story wasn't really about Helter Skelter at all. She said very little about HS on the stand. The main focus of Linda's testimony was the actual nights of murder.

The witness who supported the Helter Skelter idea more than anyone else was Paul Watkins.

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>LINDA?! WELL, YEAH, LINDA.<<<


Joe, if Manson sent Linda out with the full intention of having her kill for him, because he thought that she would kill for him, then this supposedly perceptive judge of character was actually kind of a dumbfuck, no?

I mean, IF he did send her out for that purpose, that was probably one of his most crucial mistakes.

uncle ace said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
shoresendz said...

Joe said: One question remained unanswered. Why, on the night of the Tate murders, did the killers bring along 43 feet 8 inches of rope? To tie up the victims? Manson
accomplished this the next night with A SINGLE LEATHER THONG.

Joe, you CAN NOT take Bugliosi’s book as the gospel. The book is riddled with inaccuracies, including your quotes. For the truth, look at page 14 of the 1st Homicide progress report for the LaBiancas. Listed under evidence: #9: TWO thongs, rawhide, 42-inch lengths.

uncle ace said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
shoresendz said...

Joe Said: I think this one is simple too. I’m pretty sure that Manson tied Leno & Rosemary together, back to back by the wrists on the couch before he exited stage left.

SOURCE? I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS ANYWHERE.

I guess I shouldn’t quote something unless I have the source in mind. Have to look up the source for that exact situation. But, I think I do remember at least this part correctly. Linda Kasabian said that when Manson returned to the car from the LaBianca house and was instructing Tex et al, he told them that the LaBianca’s were tied up and calm because Manson had told them that they wouldn’t be hurt. ie, indicating that BOTH Leno and Rosemary were tied up.

shoresendz said...

Joe Said: SO YOU RISK THE BIG NIGHT WITH A WEAPON THAT BARELY/RARELY WORKS? REMEMBER, IF YOU'RE BUYING THE 'HELTER SKELTER' MOTIVE, THERE WERE ONLY TWO NIGHTS TO BEGIN THAT DAMN RACE WAR. WHY TAKE CHANCES ON THE FIRST AND SPLASHIEST?

Joe, so many answers AND questions to that comment. First answer, it seems to me that the weapon of choice that night was to be the knives. Manson told the women to grab a change of clothes and a knife—not a gun. To me, the gun was to be used by Tex as a control device, and that’s just what it accomplished, out of the 100 odd wounds delivered, only 6 were with the gun, and the gun only caused one of the fatal wounds with Steve Parent. When Watson told Atkins to kill Woytek, he didn’t hand her the gun and say shoot him—and at that point, it was still functioning—no, he expected her to stab him.

A more important aspect to your question would be, if you buy the Helter Skelter motive-which I for one don’t- and if you’re starting a race war, why DID it end after ONLY 2 nights?

Another important question would be, was Cielo really suppose to be the big night and spashiest? Because in Manson's words regarding the Cielo murders, "Tex lost it, man. He blew it."

shoresendz said...

Joe said: MORE BLOODTHIRSTY THAN BRENDA, RUTH, CLEM, BRUCE, ETC.? LINDA?! WELL, YEAH, LINDA.

Hmmm, I guess a personal interpretation is all I have to offer: Brenda? Wasn’t she in jail? Bruce? I don’t think he was around at the time. Clem? To dumb to be trusted on his own—as he proved in Venice. Ruth? Debatable. Linda? In my opinion, no less than the others. She just happened to be left at the gate. Had she originally gone inside with the others at Cielo, who knows what she would have done. We do know she didn’t do squat to stop them—Unless you think her saying “Sadie, make it stop…” and turning on her heels to run, was productive.

shoresendz said...

Joe said: I got more questions if any of y'all are interested.

Oh, for sure.

Joe said...

Shores said: For the truth, look at page 14 of the 1st Homicide progress report for the LaBiancas. Listed under evidence: #9: TWO thongs, rawhide, 42-inch lengths.
¨
OKAY, GOT IT... AND NEXT PAGE IT REFERS TO THONG/THONGS again:
¨
"#9 ITEM 9 REMOVED FROM MR. LABIANCA'S WRISTS BY DR. D. M. KATSUYAMA."
¨
AND EARLIER, IN DR. K'S AUTOPSY REPORT HE WRITES, "decedent's wrists were tied together behind his back with leather THONGS..."
¨
SO THE QUESTION ARISES, WHY DID BUG SO DELIBERATELY CHANGE IT A SINGLE THONG -- IN BOTH THE BOOK AND THE COURT ROOM?

AGAIN: "His hands were tied behind his back with A LEATHER thong."
¨
AND: "I finally had to show Katsuyama his own autopsy notes, where he’d written: “The hands are tied together with A rather thin leather thong."
¨
ALSO, IN HELTER SKELTER AND TESTIMONY, THE WITNESSES ARE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT CM WEARING ONE THONG INTO THE HOUSE.
¨
HS: All wore dark clothing, Linda said, except for Clem, who had on an olive-drab field jacket. As he often did, Manson wore A leather thong around his neck, the two ends extending down to his breastbone, where they were looped together. I asked Linda if anyone else was wearing such a thong; she said no.
¨
AND: "I asked Linda if he was still wearing THE leather thong around his neck. She said she hadn’t noticed, though she did notice, later that night, that he no longer had IT. I showed her THE leather thong used to bind the wrists of Leno LaBianca, and she said it was “the same kind” Manson had been wearing."

AD NAUSIUM....
...identified THE leather thong found at the LaBiancas’ as similar to the ones Manson often wore...
...To tie up the victims? Manson accomplished this the next night with A SINGLE leather thong...
...He even insisted that she handle THE leather thong that had bound Leno’s wrists...
¨
SO, SHORES, I CONCEDE THAT THERE IS MENTION OF TWO THONGS IN THE HI REPORT, BUT THE MYSTERY REMAINS, WHAT HAPPENED TO IT, DID IT EVER EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE OR WAS IT A MISTAKE ON THE EVIDENCE LIST AND IF IT EXISTED, WHY DID BUG ERASE IT'S EXISTENCE FROM HIS BOOK AND PROSECUTION?
¨
ALSO, IN DR. K'S REPORT HE DESCRIBES THE "ABRASIONS AND SKIN SLIPPAGE" IT CAUSED ON LENO'S WRISTS. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY TYPE OF INJURY ON ROSEMARY'S WRISTS, AND ACCORDING TO MY ADMITTEDLY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE, ANY CONSTRICTION MADE ON THE BODY BY LIGATURE -- EVEN FOR A SHORT TIME -- LEAVES MARKS.
¨
KINDA MAKE'S ROSEMARY'S BEING FOUND IN A "short pink nightgown" OVER "an expensive dress," ALL THE MORE SUSPICIOUS.
_______________________________
¨
Shores writes:
Brenda? Wasn’t she in jail?
NOPE, AT THE RANCH
¨
Bruce? I don’t think he was around at the time.
ALSO AT THE RANCH.
¨
Clem? To dumb to be trusted on his own—as he proved in Venice.
WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON HIS OWN.
¨
Ruth? Debatable.
BUT "BLOODTHIRSTY" AND MORE INDOCTRINATED THAN LINDA.
¨
Linda? In my opinion, no less than the others. She just happened to be left at the gate. Had she originally gone inside with the others at Cielo, who knows what she would have done. We do know she didn’t do squat to stop them—Unless you think her saying “Sadie, make it stop…” and turning on her heels to run, was productive.
¨
I HONESTLY DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING SHE SAYS ABOUT ANY THING.
¨
HERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION/COMMENT: IN HIS CLOSING ARGUMENT, KANAREK POINTS OUT THAT LINDA SLIPPED ON THE STAND WHEN SHE WAS DESCRIBING HER FLIGHT FROM THE RANCH AFTER THE MURDERS. RECALLING HER VENTURE TO THE PARACHUTE ROOM BEFORE LEAVING SHE TESTIFIED: "...I PUT MY MAKE-UP ON, AND I WENT INTO THE PARACHUTE ROOM BECAUSE CHARLIE WAS ASLEEP WITH STEPHANIE AND I TOLD HIM GOOD BYE."
¨
REALIZING HER MISTAKE, SHE QUICKLY CHANGED IT TO: "ACTUALLY, I WENT INTO THAT ROOM TO GET A BAG THAT I HAD STASHED WITH DIAPERS, AND I REMEMBER THERE WAS SOME CANDY AND PENS AND THINGS."
¨
AS KANAREK PUT IT IN HIS CLOSE: "SHE CHANGED [HER TESTIMONY] FOR US; IT CLICKED IN HER MIND THAT SHE WAS NOT TO BE SAYING GOODBYE TO MR. MANSON. SHE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ESCAPING, AND YOU DO NOT SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR CAPTOR BECAUSE YOUR CAPTOR DOES NOT LET YOU GO."
¨
GUESS IT'S NOT CURIOUS THAT BUG LEFT THAT IMPORTANT EXCHANGE OUT OF HS.

shoresendz said...

Joe Said: ALSO, IN DR. K'S REPORT HE DESCRIBES THE "ABRASIONS AND SKIN SLIPPAGE" IT CAUSED ON LENO'S WRISTS. THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY TYPE OF INJURY ON ROSEMARY'S WRISTS, AND ACCORDING TO MY ADMITTEDLY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF FORENSIC SCIENCE, ANY CONSTRICTION MADE ON THE BODY BY LIGATURE -- EVEN FOR A SHORT TIME -- LEAVES MARKS.

First let me say, Katsuyama is totally negligent and I’ll give the first and foremost example—he dated Rosemary’s autopsy Aug 4, two days before her murder. Enough said on him. But, the good doctor does mention on page 3 of his report “Small abraided areas are present on the right wrist area. These have a somewhat ecchymotic appearance.”

I would imagine that Leno had the slippage because his hands were tied as he struggled for his life, where as, Rosemary’s were not.

shoresendz said...

Joe asked: SO, SHORES, I CONCEDE THAT THERE IS MENTION OF TWO THONGS IN THE HI REPORT, BUT THE MYSTERY REMAINS, WHAT HAPPENED TO IT, DID IT EVER EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE OR WAS IT A MISTAKE ON THE EVIDENCE LIST AND IF IT EXISTED, WHY DID BUG ERASE IT'S EXISTENCE FROM HIS BOOK AND PROSECUTION?

My Opinion? Bugliosi “erased” it’s existence because it didn’t corroborate Linda’s star witness testimony- that Manson was wearing only 1 leather thong. If he introduced additional thongs found in evidence, she comes out as a less competent witness.
As far as the evidence really existing in the first place? No doubt, I’ve been through the evidence boxes downtown. I can’t remember how many thongs were in there, but it was more than 2.

shoresendz said...

Joe said: KINDA MAKE'S ROSEMARY'S BEING FOUND IN A "short pink nightgown" OVER "an expensive dress," ALL THE MORE SUSPICIOUS.

Actually the dress is over the nightgown. Nevertheless, you bring up a good point. Why was she allowed to put on a dress? Now, I don’t remember where I read this, but I think there was some talk that Leno had told the killers that he could get them a lot of money if they took him to the Gateway safe. Perhaps the killers were considering taking a drive? But, was it really for money or for something else?

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

I’m no Joe, but here’s a $25,000 question-which actually, Joe’s question reminded me of. Couple years ago, I sent away to Celebrity archives to get Sharon’s autopsy report, but never really read it until recently. As I’m going through it, it hits me, there’s not a single mention of a baby, or even a pregnancy for that matter. So, I figure it must be missing some pages. Oh well, $25 bucks down the drain. I fax the LA County Coroner’s office to obtain all the autopsy reports for the TLM. $800 later, they arrive in the mail. But, here’s the kicker, though it’s the Coroner’s certified copy and a bit lengthier, there’s still no mention of Sharon’s baby. Then, I call the folks of death and ask what gives? Their final answer to me was that back in 1969 they didn’t mention pregnancies in autopsy reports as they do now.
Wrong. On Abigail’s, it clearly states: “There is no evidence of pregnancy” and Rosemary’s has a whole paragraph about her urogenital system.
My question is actually 2 questions: 1 Does anyone have a copy of Sharon’s autopsy report that includes at least a notation of pregnancy? If not then, 2 How in God's green world does Noguchi not mention this in his report?

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>AS KANAREK PUT IT IN HIS CLOSE: "SHE CHANGED [HER TESTIMONY] FOR US; IT CLICKED IN HER MIND THAT SHE WAS NOT TO BE SAYING GOODBYE TO MR. MANSON. SHE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ESCAPING, AND YOU DO NOT SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR CAPTOR BECAUSE YOUR CAPTOR DOES NOT LET YOU GO."<<<

Whether or not Linda said goodbye to Charlie the morning she left the ranch - I'm really not sure how significant that is with regards to her credibility.

If I recall correctly, Linda didn't just leave out of the blue without anyone knowing she left. She exited Spahn under the pretenses of bringing a message from Charlie to Mary, Sandra, and Bobby in prison. In other words, Charlie knew she was leaving, because he asked her to go. So her saying goodbye to him is not that surprising.

And remember, even during all the horrific things Linda testified to, she still testified that she was in love with Manson.

Furthermore, classifying Manson's relationship with Linda as "captor and captive" (or even "fake captor and fake captive") is extremely simplistic. We all know, even given all we DONT know, that Manson's relationship with these people was much more complicated than that.

agnostic monk said...

Now, did she change her story or not? I'd have to review the actual trial testimony that Kanarek was referring to, but my guess is that Kanarek was just being a lawyer, trying desperately to cast doubt on Linda's testimony at all costs. I know enough about the law to know that mountains can be made out of molehills, and vague holes can be made to appear in the hands of a skilled trial lawyer.

Sorry Irving, no sale. If this is the crux of proving Linda some kind of liar, it's fantastically weak.

I think Irving was just bitter and pissed that he couldn't trip her up on anything of true significance.

Joe said...

Monk.

Here's Linda's testimony:

"...I PUT MY MAKE-UP ON, AND I WENT INTO THE PARACHUTE ROOM BECAUSE CHARLIE WAS ASLEEP WITH STEPHANIE AND I TOLD HIM GOOD BYE... ACTUALLY, I WENT INTO THAT ROOM TO GET A BAG THAT I HAD STASHED WITH DIAPERS, AND I REMEMBER THERE WAS SOME CANDY AND PENS AND THINGS."

Bug version from HS:

"That night she packed a shoulder bag with some clothing and Tanya’s diapers and pins, and hid it in the parachute room. Early the next morning she again borrowed Hannum’s car. On going to get the bag, however, she found Manson and Stephanie Schram sleeping in the room. Deciding to forget the bag, she went to get Tanya, but discovered that the children had been moved to the waterfall area. There was no way she could go there to get Tanya, she said, without having to explain her actions. So she left the ranch without her."

Monk, you decide.


Shores:

Was the name "Dick Cunningham" on the Tate coroner's report?

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>Here's Linda's testimony (snip)
Bug version from HS (snip)<<<<

Joe, it's late on a Sunday night and I'm feeling dumb.

Can you please point out to me exactly where the discrepancy is between the two versions?

She mentions saying goodbye to Manson in one, the Bug does not mention her goodbye.

Is that it? I thought we were trying to catch LINDA in a lie, not the Bug.

shoresendz said...

Joe Said: Was the name "Dick Cunningham" on the Tate coroner's report?

No. But Cunningham & O’Connor are listed as the Mortuary on the Death Cert. Why?

shoresendz said...

Joe & Monk: This is from the 1976 Appellate ruling regarding Max Keith. Thought you might find it interesting:
When cocounsel for Van Houten was appointed, he was asked if he would accept the appointment. He replied in the affirmative, but he did not say that he could not argue the credibility of witnesses because he had not observed them while they were testifying. Thereafter, and before he made his argument, he said that he could not argue credibility of witnesses on the basis of witness-demeanor because he had not observed the witnesses. He did not ask to be relieved as counsel.
Appointed counsel argued on behalf of Van Houten for two days and ably covered the whole range of the record evidence involving her. With reference to credibility of Kasabian (a principal witness against Van Houten and the other defendants), he said that she was a sinister person who has never been above practicing fraud, deception, burglary, or theft to get what she wants; her characterization of herself as a little girl lost in the forest was a deliberate falsehood; if she was attempting by her demeanor on the witness stand to lend the impression that she was just a little girl lost in the woods trying to find her way out, that was a facade and she was committing a fraud on the jury; she was wily, opportunistic, and frightfully resilient, and she bounces back every time no matter what she does; when he speaks of her credibility, he speaks also of her testifying here; she testified in expectation of immunity which she received during the trial; expectation of immunity brings into play the strongest of human motives, that is, self-preservation which can turn people into liars; he believed that she had the strongest motives to deceive; the jurors would be instructed that if they found that a witness had testified falsely as to a material part of her testimony, they are entitled to disbelieve all of her testimony.
He argued further that, after analyzing Kasabian's testimony, any interpretation pointing towards Van Houten's guilt is unreasonable. After discussing Kasabian's testimony about riding in an automobile with Manson, Van Houten and others to various places (to look for victims) and stopping near a church in Pasadena, he said that the jury should disregard her testimony on the basis of a reasonable doubt as to its truth; that there was a reasonable doubt regarding Kasabian's testimony about Manson's planning to kill a person who was driving a white sports car; the jurors should remember that Kasabian prefaced her testimony, regarding conversation outside the La Bianca residence, with the words "I think" and "I'm not positive."
Clearly, Kasabian is not telling the truth when she said she did not know about the death of the La Biancas until she read about it in Miami.

Joe said...

Shores writes: "How in God's green world does Noguchi not mention this [baby] in his report?"

Q. For Shoes: What did Noguchi say on the stand? He must have been asked about it.

Bug's reporting re: Noguchi's comments about the fetus are limited to his press conference a day or so after the murders:

"Asked about Sharon’s child, he said that Mrs. Polanski was in the eighth month of her pregnancy; that the child was a perfectly formed boy; and that had he been
removed by post-mortem cesarean within the first twenty minutes after the mother’s death, his life probably could have been saved. “But by the time the bodies
were discovered, it was too late.”

Shores: He doesn't repeat this anywhere in the coroner’s report you have?

Dick Cunningham was involved in the autopsy and has made ambiguous statements about the fetus in the past.

-----------------------------

Thanks for the Keith remarks about Kasabian. Brilliant.

Also, more grist for the mill:

According to Bug, Linda left Tanya with Manson because she thought the child would be safe there -- as long as she didn't go to the police.

Yet, from Taos, SHE dialed the Spahn Ranch phone number so Joe Sage could talk to someone and confirm her story that the Manson Family was responsible for the Tate murders. (Sage told the police she dialed the number for him, handed him the phone, and he spoke to an unidentified female who denied Linda's story; Bug wrote that Sage called on his own and got CM, then Linda called and spoke to possibly Krenwinkel and then Squeaky, both of whom, nevertheless, were aware of Kasabian's spreading the story). So, the unavoidable question, if she thought her child was safe with the Family as long as she didn't go to the police, why on earth would she tell an outsider who was concerned enough to call the alleged killers for confirmation??? And then put that outsider in touch with the killers thereby showing them she had done exactly what she thought could get her child killed!

Another thing, how safe was Tanya with CM when, as Linda told Vince, the night of the LaBianca killings Manson told her and the others that they would soon have to kill kids...and, as Linda also told Vince, the kids at the ranch were kept hidden because CM feared the Panthers would get them. So, she left Tanya exposed to possible Panther retaliation, not to mention Manson retaliation? There are a lot of unwritten chapters in this story.

Yepyep said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
shoresendz said...

Joe said: Shores: He doesn't repeat this anywhere in the coroner’s report you have?

Dick Cunningham was involved in the autopsy and has made ambiguous statements about the fetus in the past.
_________________________________


No, not a peep about the baby, pregnancy, or anything that could be construed as such.
Of Note, on page 3 of the report, Noguchi lists the following “Authorized personnel present during the autopsy: Sgt. McGuinn, of LAPD, and Mr. John Miner, Deputy DA, are present, Autopsy assistant is Mr. Charles Moore.”

I couldn’t find the name Dick Cunningham on any of the autopsy reports.

Where did you find these statements from Dick Cunningham?

shoresendz said...

Joe Said: if she thought her child was safe with the Family as long as she didn't go to the police, why on earth would she tell an outsider who was concerned enough to call the alleged killers for confirmation???
___________________

Excellent Point. Her whole story of leaving her daughter behind and using her daughter’s safety as an excuse for not immediately calling the police and or going to a neighbor the night of the Cielo murders--and probably saving lives-- is a crock. In fact, I’d be willing to be the Bugliosi “led” her to these type of conclusions when she didn’t have a better answer.
_____________
Joe Said: Another thing, how safe was Tanya with CM.
_____________

Joe, Also From the 1976 appellate court: “Paul Watkins, testifying that Manson told him Helter Skelter would start in the summer of 1969, described Manson's plan: "[T]here would be some atrocious murders; ... some of the Spades from Watts would come up into the Bel-Air and Beverly Hills District and just really wipe some people out, just cut bodies up and smear blood and write things on the wall in blood, and cut LITTLE BOYS and make the parents watch.”

It’s obvious to me that Linda Kasabian was running to keep from getting caught with only one person’s well being in mind—Her own.

Joe said...

Shores: I'm going to have to dig for those Cunningham comments.

If anyone has Noguchi testimony can you share what he said on the stand about the baby?

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

shoresendz said...
>>>Joe & Monk: This is from the 1976 Appellate ruling regarding Max Keith.....he said that she was a sinister person.....<<<

oh please, you guys. honestly this almost reads like parody. VAN HOUTEN'S lawyer says Linda is actually Satan in disguise. Typical defense attorney games. That's what lawyers do. I would expect nothing less of a good lawyer acting in the best interests of his client.

It's full of lawyerish supposition, gossip, and spin by someone who has everything to gain by spinning things in a certain way.

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>According to Bug, Linda left Tanya with Manson because she thought the child would be safe there -- as long as she didn't go to the police.

Yet, from Taos, SHE dialed the Spahn Ranch phone number so Joe Sage could talk to someone and confirm her storySo, the unavoidable question, if she thought her child was safe with the Family as long as she didn't go to the police, why on earth would she tell an outsider who was concerned enough to call the alleged killers for confirmation??? And then put that outsider in touch with the killers thereby showing them she had done exactly what she thought could get her child killed!<<<<


Going to Joe Sage was not the same thing as going to the police. It's not the contradiction you're trying to turn it into, at least not in my humble opinion. i don't see this as a violation of her belief that tanya would be ok as long as she didn't go to the police.

agnostic monk said...

shoresendz said...
>>>Her whole story of leaving her daughter behind and using her daughter’s safety as an excuse for not immediately calling the police and or going to a neighbor the night of the Cielo murders--and probably saving lives-- is a crock.<<<

wow it must be nice to be able to read people's minds. Are you a Vulcan? :)

Think about the language bandied about at the ranch. The concepts of loyalty, brotherhood, not committing the CARDINAL SIN of snitching and MOST IMPORTANTLY the idea of retaliation against snitches.

Linda's actions are for sure not the actions that I would personally take in those circumstances, but calling her story a crock is a reach IMHO. *I* wasn't there. She was. I'm in no position to question her assessment of what kind of retaliation she or Tanya might face were she to go to the police.


>>>In fact, I’d be willing to bet the Bugliosi “led” her to these type of conclusions when she didn’t have a better answer.<<<

Geeze, more supposition. Are you a lawyer too? :)

Joe said...

Monk writes:

"Going to Joe Sage was not the same thing as going to the police. It's not the contradiction you're trying to turn it into, at least not in my humble opinion. i don't see this as a violation of her belief that Tanya would be ok as long as she didn't go to the police."

Manson ordered the killers after the Tate murders not even to tell the OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS! Of course Sage wasn't a cop, but Manson wouldn't have known that or, for that matter, who the hell he was -- or who he might tell. He was only a strange voice on a telephone line revealing that Linda was spreading the news about his responsibility for the Tate killings...while Tanya was still at the ranch.

Methinks you are in an incredible amount of denial Re: LK.

agnostic monk said...

shoresendz said...
>>>It’s obvious to me that Linda Kasabian was running to keep from getting caught with only one person’s well being in mind—Her own.<<<

Of course she didn't want to get caught. But if she were 100% concerned only for herself, I doubt she would have driven to New Mexico in a ranchhand's car, found Bob Kasabian and then Joe Sage asking them for help, and returned to Los Angeles to reclaim Tanya.

If she were truly the Viper you seem to want her to be, I doubt she would have come back at all.

Joe said...

Monk writes:
Think about the language bandied about at the ranch. The concepts of loyalty, brotherhood, not committing the CARDINAL SIN of snitching and MOST IMPORTANTLY the idea of retaliation against snitches.

Exactly my point. Your Linda snitched to Joe Sage, miles and miles away from the Spahn Ranch.

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>Manson ordered the killers after the Tate murders not even to tell the OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS! Of course Sage wasn't a cop, but Manson wouldn't have known that or, for that matter, who the hell he was -- or who he might tell. He was only a strange voice on a telephone line revealing that Linda was spreading the news about his responsibility for the Tate killings...while Tanya was still at the ranch.<<<

Sage demanded confirmation of her story before he agreed to help her. How else was she going to provide him with confirmation?

>>>Methinks you are in an incredible amount of denial Re: LK.<<<

Nah I just don't think she's this Evil Witch some people want to make her out to be. I understand the temptation to tear apart her story, especially if you think Charlie was railroaded (which I dont necessarily disagree with). But this "evidence" being presented to make her into a conniving monster is very weak.

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>Exactly my point. Your Linda snitched to Joe Sage, miles and miles away from the Spahn Ranch.<<<

but she didn't snitch to the police, which makes her actions not inconsistent with her statement that she believed tanya would ok if she didn't go to the police.

Joe said...

Monk wrote:

"Sage demanded confirmation of her story before he agreed to help her. How else was she going to provide him with confirmation?"

Say Source that Sage was demanding and searching for confirmation of Linda's story before helping her? I've never seen that reported ANYWHERE. He was, according to Bug



I think you're doing some creative revisionist history. What's your source for Sage's reason for calling Manson? I've never seen that he was trying to confirm her story before helping her -- and, of course, he did help her.

Joe said...

(Accidently cut out of last post) Bug in HS: "Not believing Linda’s tale, Sage placed a call to Spahn Ranch, talking first to an unidentified girl, then to Manson himself. Sage asked Manson-whose reaction can only be imagined-if Linda’s story was true. Manson told him Linda had flipped out; that her ego was not ready to die, and so she had run away....¨ Sage gave Linda enough money for round-trip air fare, as well as the name of a Los Angeles attorney, Gary Fleischman, who he felt might be able to help her reclaim Tanya."

shoresendz said...

Monk said: It's full of lawyerish supposition, gossip, and spin by someone who has everything to gain by spinning things in a certain way.


Monk, of course it does! I print that in retaliation to Bugliosi putting HIS spin on making Kasabian out to be an angel for the world to feel sorry for, especially in that new Helter Skelter movie. Poor “Little Linda Kasabian.” Ugg!

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>I think you're doing some creative revisionist history. What's your source for Sage's reason for calling Manson? I've never seen that he was trying to confirm her story before helping her -- and, of course, he did help her.<<<

Why does it really matter WHY he called the ranch? This hair-splitting is giving me a headache.

I'm not revising anything.

There's very little out there about Joe Sage and his conversations with Linda outside of the Bug's book.

Again, I dont understand why it matters exactly WHY Sage called the ranch. I'm guessing it WASN'T to see if Charlie wanted to come out and play.

shoresendz said...

Monk said: Nah I just don't think she's this Evil Witch some people want to make her out to be.

Monk, I don’t think she’s any more evil than the other killers. I’m just an equal opportunity kind of person. She’s equally guilty as any of the rest of them sitting in jail, but people seem to be sympathetic toward her and it makes me a tad nuts.

Let me try another tactic. Did you ever see the 1988 Interview with Kasabian? As she’s describing the murders, it’s as if she was remembering her trial testimony verbatim instead of reliving a horrible event. When she’s talking about seeing Woytek, she switches her wording from “walking out” to “stumbling out”, then looks up as if to remember the rest of her spiel. “Sadie came running out of the house and said something like, ‘I lost my knife, give me yours,’ or something like that, and I gave her my knife, and the next thing I know, a man comes walking—stumbling-- out of the house covered in blood. He falls down and Tex starts stabbing him. In the background on the lawn, I see a white figure of a lady in a white nightgown and Patricia was on her, stabbing her....” Jeez, it's like she's on the witness stand all over again. And, for God’s sake, how about she use the victims' names at this point? It’s not like she’s not familiar with them.

Now, the kicker for me during this interview was her memory of each of the killers.

On Krenwinkel: “She was really quiet and nice girl. She wasn’t really, you know, out there like some of them were. Earthy, more earthier.”

On Atkins: “She really knew how to talk. –[Linda starts laughing hard] She knew all the right words and was really out there, but when you got to know her she could be very sweet.”

On Watson: “Tall, dark and handsome. Really handsome. Very likeable but mysterious. With very deep, dark, steel blue eyes.”

Call me crazy, Monk, (and you probably will) but if I had watched these three individuals murdering innocent people, my memory and insight of those same people would be a wee bit different.

The points that I’m trying to make are (IMO) 1: Kasabian got away with murder for turning state’s evidence and some people think of her as a hero for that and I STRONGLY disagree.

2: That Kasabian’s personal morals need some work. I know all the excuses for her actions: she was in shock, she worried about Tanya, she didn’t trust the police. I know we all react differently and can’t say for sure how we would react when we’ve never experienced what she did, but Kasabian had SO MANY opportunities to do the right thing, and try to save lives, yet over a lengthy period of time, she did nothing. The night of Cielo, she could have quietly alerted the others in the house when she was separated from the gang looking for open windows. Or, instead of turning over her knife to Atkins, she could have used it to help Woytek. Instead of running away, she could have run to as many neighbors as she could wake. She could have run and hidden and then alerted the neighbors—and the issue about that generation not trusting the police, I think gets thrown out the window when you’ve watched people being brutally murdered. (The cops where I grew up were pretty abusive to teens, we hated them and didn’t trust them, but when I got in an accident and my friend was bleeding to death, I’d never been so glad to see them. Hugged them even.) In fact, Kasabian stated later, “I knew I’d be the one” to tell the police, so why wait until the warrants are out for her arrest? Personally, I couldn’t live with myself if I sat by and watched what she saw and did nothing. And at that moment, especially if I was in shock, the last thing I’d be thinking about was the future (ie the safety of Tanya) and the ramifications of my actions—when in shock we react by gut instinct because our minds have “shut down.”
3: Kasabian’s actions during and after the murders and seeing her attitude first hand during that interview proves to ME that Kasabian is seriously lacking in the morals department, that she’s self-centered, and that she doesn’t have any more remorse or sympathy for the victims than the rest of the killers—and to think, the killer's comments about her aren't nearly as endearing!

As a vulcanized lawyer, I rest my case and anxiously await your rebuttal.

agnostic monk said...

shoresendz said...
>>>>Monk said: It's full of lawyerish supposition, gossip, and spin by someone who has everything to gain by spinning things in a certain way.

Monk, of course it does! I print that in retaliation to Bugliosi putting HIS spin on making Kasabian out to be an angel for the world to feel sorry for, especially in that new Helter Skelter movie. Poor “Little Linda Kasabian.” Ugg!<<<

Really I never understood that perception. I have never gotten the sense that Bugliosi was trying to paint Linda as some kind of angel. Linda was always very forthright about her wild past. The drugs, the communes, the bohemian lifestyle, the sex. The Bug doesn't deny it in his depictions of her, and more importantly SHE never denied. Good God she's on the stand in 1970 and asked if she enjoyed the orgies. If she were trying to present herself as some kind of angel, we'd have been privy to a theatrical "oh no it was horrible and disgusting and I pray that God forgives me for having sex with Tex and Leslie and Snake even though Charlie made me do it, boo hoo hooooooo."

What did she say? "Yes, I would have to say I enjoyed the sex."

Gee, what an innocent white dove she tried to make herself out to be. LOL.

Even in that Helter Skelter prequel she is clearly depicted as enjoying breaking into people's homes and creepy-crawling for thrills, and there are no bones made about the $5000 she stole from Melton, her failure to run to a neighbor or alert the police, and if I recall correctly (havent seen that DVD in a while) instead of covering up the fact that she ran away without Tanya, her abandonment of her daughter is made very clear.

You're talking to the world's second most cynical person here and I just dont see her as being painted as an angel.

agnostic monk said...

shoresendz said...
>>>Monk, I don’t think she’s any more evil than the other killers. I’m just an equal opportunity kind of person. She’s equally guilty as any of the rest of them sitting in jail, but people seem to be sympathetic toward her and it makes me a tad nuts.<<<

Well that's your prerogative to feel that way. I know I won't change your mind and I'm not even trying to. I personally do not agree that she is equally guilty as the creeps who stabbed the victims.

(continued)

agnostic monk said...

shoresendz said...
>>>Did you ever see the 1988 Interview with Kasabian?<<<

Yes, I have it on tape.

>>>>As she’s describing the murders, it’s as if she was remembering her trial testimony verbatim instead of reliving a horrible event. When she’s talking about seeing Woytek, she switches her wording from “walking out” to “stumbling out”, then looks up as if to remember the rest of her spiel.<<<<

well, he WAS walking out and he WAS stumbling. Sheesh, talk about nit-picking. "looks up as if to remember the rest of her spiel"? I think you're projecting. I did not get that impression at all.

>>>>“Sadie came running out of the house and said something like, ‘I lost my knife, give me yours,’ or something like that, and I gave her my knife, and the next thing I know, a man comes walking—stumbling-- out of the house covered in blood. He falls down and Tex starts stabbing him. In the background on the lawn, I see a white figure of a lady in a white nightgown and Patricia was on her, stabbing her....” Jeez, it's like she's on the witness stand all over again.<<<<

So what? That interview was 20 years later, she was on the witness stand so many times over the first 8 or 9 years after the murders. She's just a human being. She had a camera in her face. I see very little usefulness in psychoanalyzing her responses. No matter how she responded, we could probably sit here and pick out things that support certain preconceived notions. You go through 20 years of that and then come back and tell me exactly what would be the proper way to respond in an interview.

>>>>And, for God’s sake, how about she use the victims' names at this point? It’s not like she’s not familiar with them.<<<<

Dunno. Maybe it's hard for her to use their names.

agnostic monk said...

>>>>Now, the kicker for me during this interview was her memory of each of the killers.

Call me crazy, Monk, (and you probably will) but if I had watched these three individuals murdering innocent people, my memory and insight of those same people would be a wee bit different.<<<

C'mon dude, you didn't hear the interviewer ask the question. It sounded to me like he was asking her what her impressions were of these people in the beginning, when the times were good and fun.

I appreciated those memories a lot. It lended credence to the belief that things actually were good and fun at one time. Actually, I would have been distrustful of her had she revised her memories and said stuff like "even in the beginning I knew something was up. I knew they were evil people."

Therein lies part of what makes Linda so interesting to me and why she made such a good witness on the stand; her candidness.

agnostic monk said...

>>>The points that I’m trying to make are (IMO) 1: Kasabian got away with murder for turning state’s evidence and some people think of her as a hero for that and I STRONGLY disagree.<<<

well I don't think of her as a hero.

>>>>2: That Kasabian’s personal morals need some work.<<<<

I think even she would admit to that. In fact I think she has.

>>>I know all the excuses for her actions: she was in shock, she worried about Tanya, she didn’t trust the police. I know we all react differently and can’t say for sure how we would react when we’ve never experienced what she did, but Kasabian had SO MANY opportunities to do the right thing, and try to save lives, yet over a lengthy period of time, she did nothing. The night of Cielo, she could have quietly alerted the others in the house when she was separated from the gang looking for open windows. Or, instead of turning over her knife to Atkins, she could have used it to help Woytek. Instead of running away, she could have run to as many neighbors as she could wake. She could have run and hidden and then alerted the neighbors—and the issue about that generation not trusting the police, I think gets thrown out the window when you’ve watched people being brutally murdered. (The cops where I grew up were pretty abusive to teens, we hated them and didn’t trust them, but when I got in an accident and my friend was bleeding to death, I’d never been so glad to see them. Hugged them even.) In fact, Kasabian stated later, “I knew I’d be the one” to tell the police, so why wait until the warrants are out for her arrest? Personally, I couldn’t live with myself if I sat by and watched what she saw and did nothing. And at that moment, especially if I was in shock, the last thing I’d be thinking about was the future (ie the safety of Tanya) and the ramifications of my actions—when in shock we react by gut instinct because our minds have “shut down.”>>>>

I agree she didn't react the way I would have either. But it's VERY easy for us to sit back at our computers and analyze and criticize.


>>>3: Kasabian’s actions during and after the murders and seeing her attitude first hand during that interview proves to ME that Kasabian is seriously lacking in the morals department, that she’s self-centered, and that she doesn’t have any more remorse or sympathy for the victims than the rest of the killers<<<

Wow. "PROVES"? Ok. I'm not even touching that. "she doesn’t have any more remorse or sympathy for the victims than the rest of the killers"? That's a conclusion I cannot follow you on. I think her remorse was real.

>>>>and to think, the killer's comments about her aren't nearly as endearing!<<<<

Outside of the pure bullshit the girls were offering up during the penalty phase of the trial, I've only heard two of the killers discuss her. Tex and Leslie. Tex I've talked about before. Leslie I just recall recounting to Diane Sawyer about the night in the car on the way to the Labianca's how Linda was terribly upset and Charlie was yelling at her.

I'd love to hear any other comments about her that you've heard coming from the killers.

I wish I knew you in real life, because I would love to sit and talk about this over some beers or something, even though we remain on opposite ends of the Linda question.

:)

Joe said...

Monk wrote:

"Really I never understood that perception. I have never gotten the sense that Bugliosi was trying to paint Linda as some kind of angel. Linda was always very forthright about her wild past. The drugs, the communes, the bohemian lifestyle, the sex. The Bug doesn't deny it in his depictions of her, and more importantly SHE never denied. Good God she's on the stand in 1970 and asked if she enjoyed the orgies. If she were trying to present herself as some kind of angel, we'd have been privy to a theatrical "oh no it was horrible and disgusting and I pray that God forgives me for having sex with Tex and Leslie and Snake even though Charlie made me do it, boo hoo hooooooo."

What did she say? "Yes, I would have to say I enjoyed the sex."

Gee, what an innocent white dove she tried to make herself out to be. LOL.



Monk: I think Shores is talking about a different kind of "bad" when he talks about Bug's whitewash of Linda's moral shortcomings. Correct me if I'm wrong Shores, but I'm assuming you couldn't care less whether or not Linda lived on a commune, took drugs, lived a 'bohemian lifestyle,' fucked with wild abandon, enjoyed orgies, or even, for that matter, creepy crawled people's homes. Your objections, if I'm reading correctly here, are to her specific behavior regarding the brutal slaughter of six or more people.

THAT'S what Bug totally re-wrote. That's the biggest insult to humanity -- and the victims.

agnostic monk said...

Joe said...
>>>Your objections, if I'm reading correctly here, are to her specific behavior regarding the brutal slaughter of six or more people.

THAT'S what Bug totally re-wrote. That's the biggest insult to humanity -- and the victims.<<<

The Bug totally rewrote her specific behavior regarding the slaughter? What did he rewrite? All I've heard when this comes up is wild speculation and gossip, not any hard facts about specifics he rewrote.

And no I am not defending the Bug. I'm not a believer in the Helter Skelter theory, at last not the way it was presented to the jury by Bugliosi, but that has very little to do with Linda.

Yepyep said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
shoresendz said...

Joe said: Monk: I think Shores is talking about a different kind of "bad" when he talks about Bug's whitewash of Linda's moral shortcomings. Correct me if I'm wrong Shores, but I'm assuming you couldn't care less whether or not Linda lived on a commune, took drugs, lived a 'bohemian lifestyle,' fucked with wild abandon, enjoyed orgies, or even, for that matter, creepy crawled people's homes. Your objections, if I'm reading correctly here, are to her specific behavior regarding the brutal slaughter of six or more people.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Tipper Gore said...

I heard they are making a Transformers movie. I won't let my kid see it and I am going to ban it. I hear the man who is making it is a foul man.

grimtraveller said...

It's 2015. In 46 years no one has yet shaken Linda Kasabian's story. Not Charlie, not Sandy, not any other member of the family, not any of the defence lawyers, not George Stimson or the Col or any of the anti HS or anti Linda authors, not a single soul or skeptic on the internet on all the blogs and arguments I've witnessed.
It's ironic that Susan, Leslie & Pat did more with their lives inside prison than she did with her immunity. She ended up a drug sodden wreck, often near incoherent.....but her story has never been broken. Either she was some divinely inspired kind of genius that not one person could break or she was essentially telling the truth.
I don't think she is a genius.