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?
22 comments:
"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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
>>>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 & 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.
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.
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? :)
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...
>>>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.
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...
>>>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: 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.
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)
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.
>>>>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.
>>>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...
>>>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.
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.
Post a Comment