Dear Col. Scott,
You said that
you are not
afraid of the
truth;
only the BUG
should be. What,
exactly,
is the truth?
You certainly don't
seem
to
know. Maybe a
cigar is
just a cigar and
the Tate/LaBianca
murders
were
just robberies gone horribly
wrong or a
bunch of doped-up hippies
who
killed because they did
whatever Manson
told them to do. Manson did
tell the girls to wear dark clothes and
bring knives to Cielo, didn't
he? He went with them to Waverly and
set things up for his kids. This
is conspiracy to murder. He is in prison
where he belongs and the BUG
should be commended, not condemned.
So he expanded the Helter Skelter
theory a little? He stretched the truth a
little? What prosecutor, or
defense attorney for that matter, doesn't?
At least he isn't an
outright liar like the Democratic
candidate for district attorney in
Durham, North Carolina - Mike LIEfong.
This guy is on a mission to
railroad three innocent men to prison
for a rape which never happened.
At least Bugliosi put the right people
in prison.
Regards,
CR
Dear CR,
Yes, Carol, I DON'T know the truth.
I never claimed to. I want to
find it.
I do know that the BUG does NOT know
the truth. He was a stalker
before the
Manson trial. He beat up his girlfriend
and tried to cover it up
after the trial.
It seems clear he perjured himself
during the trial. Why should
YOU care that I want
the truth? The truth will set us
all free.
A cigar wasn't a cigar even when
Freud smoked it. None of the
easy solutions fit.
Charlie probably did know why but
I doubt even he knows now.
But we can and must as
citizens try to find out why.
Why was this ridiculous murder
case where the killers
were obvious turned into this
big deal? Why?
Charlie did not tell the girls
to kill anyone and by their
own admission it is unclear
if he even told Tex.
Worse than that, if I tell you
to kill someone and you do,
who should be responsible?
You're the psycho that did the killing.
There is NO truth ever spoken
by BUG as to WHY the killings occurred.
If Charlie Manson can be sent
to Death Row by a lying DA then you or I can.
This is why the Col's work so
desperately matters.
I do not know the case in Durham.
But MOST lawyers
do not perjure themselves during
trial.
Come with us. Learn. Read the
Blog. You can still
understand. The world is
MUCH worse than you think.
Yours in Truth,
Col Scott
24 comments:
I agree to a point....
Bugliosi didn't have to prove WHY they killed, only that they did...
He had all these kids (Paul Watkins being the first) telling him all about the Helter Skelter theory and nothing else. He went with the path of least resistance... Maybe because he had nothing else to go on....
They all said that they killed these people, they came right out and admitted it like it was the most natural thing to do. Even if another prosecutor had handled the case and went with a completely different theory, they never would have walked away. Manson, possibly, but Pat, Susan, Leslie and Tex were going to prison regardless.
Least that's my take anyway.. It's just too damned hot to disagree with anyone right now lol
=)
Heaven
Agreed 100%.
YOU HAVE THE KILLERS COLD
So why lie to get Charlie?
Well, it depends on what you think the lie actually was...
What if Manson really was preaching the Helter Skelter crap like everyone said he was? What if he really did send them out to kill for him? What if it was all true and the only lost info is the true motive, which I believe to be a drug burn...
Then you have to ask.. Where's the lie? Don't get me wrong, I think Bugliosi seriously embellished the story.. I'm just thinking about the "what if's"...
=)
>>>>The BUG needed to pin this on Charlie cuz it is easier for people/society to view a hippie guru master cult leader programming these kids to do evil things....It is much easier to give a "Charlie" face to what is bad, than to leave it a nameless, timeless evil that we as humanity have helped create.<<<
Hmmm. I don't know if I agree with that Cats, my friend. I think Bugliosi went out on a very thin limb with the Helter Skelter stuff. He was taking a big risk of getting laughed out of the courtroom. I think it would have been 1000 times easier to just blame it on LSD or the counterculture or something and let the kids take the fall on their own.
But there was no way Charlie was NOT getting tangled up in this, because of his role in the group before the murders. From the minute they started talking, it was Charlie this, Charlie that, Charlie's our father, Charlie's our leader - oops but he's not - , Charlie might be Christ, etc. Manson was older with a criminal history and supposedly took them out to Labianca and got that night of carnage started. Sometimes I think Manson secured his own fate.
But when it comes to Charlie's name getting pulled into the mix, the person to really look to is Susan Atkins.
>>>>Thus when Charles Manson fell, he brought the entire hippie movement down with him. That date, Aug. 8, 1969, was a black milestone in world history. Since then, we have been obsessed with a new chemical industrial revolution....<<
Sorry but I think that's a lot of bullshit. Are you trying to say that Manson being condemned prevented the movement to protect the environment from moving forward and led to a "new chemical revolution"?
Please. That's nonsense.
>>>Because the last-ditch effort to save the planet was stopped, the world now stands condemned.<<<
What exactly was the last-ditch effort to save the planet that was stopped because of Manson? I mean specifically?
Who wrote that crap? (No offense Salem).
>>>Is it easier to believe that a hippie guru and crazed LSD trippers are capable of killing than to bring fear into the homes of middle class America by making them see it was their children who were capable of such things?<<<
What I'm saying is it would have been easier to blame it on drugs, and yes I do think middle class America would have swallowed that a whole lot easier than the Manson/Helter Skelter stuff. America was seeing a lot of weird shit in the late 60s. Straight America didn't need a Manson to take the heat off themselves.
>>>Then, why, my dear Monk, did the BUG go after Charlie with such vehemence? Why did the BUG give that list to Farr to stir up more shiat? If the BUG has such a strong case against Manson, why did he cause some of the theatrics in the press himself? <<<
I dont know, Cats. You'd have to ask the Bug himself. Maybe the Bug really did think Charlie was guilty. I really don't know, but I don't think America needed a Charlie to put the blame on.
Charlie sure made it easy for them to do it though.
Bugliosi had how many people telling him that Manson ordered the killings? These people were also willing to testify to that fact...
When you're sitting on a jury and you hear things like that, how do you know that it isn't true?
chasingbunnies said...
>>Columbine, for example, where the hell were the parents when these kids were building shiat in the garage????<<
I have often wondered that myself....
Just try to remember that Bugliosi didn't put anyone away... The jury did... Based on the things they saw and heard...
The jury saw how the defendants acted, that sure as hell didn't help their cause.. They saw Manson threaten and attempt to attack the judge.. Manson was his own worse enemy...
Also remember that the defense rested without ever calling one single witness. So is it really all the fault of Bugliosi?
Yes Bugliosi painted a fairytale, but, Manson and the others helped to sink themselves....
=)
>>>>But still, all we hear is how Manson warped their minds, these lovely middle class, homecoming queens and high school football stars, and we must not forget bible studiers. For if it wasn't for Manson blah blah blah...so in a way, yes, the BUG did need Manson<<<
Dont forget that Bulgiosi, during the trial and to this day, has been adamant that the kids who did the killings did so to some degree because they had murder in their hearts. Something in them, independent of Charlie, allowed them to drive knives into flesh, something that wasn't present in the Lindas, the Pauls, even the Sandys and Lynettes.
Heaven said...
>>>>Bugliosi had how many people telling him that Manson ordered the killings? These people were also willing to testify to that fact...<<<<
True Heaven. Bugliosi had most of this stuff dropped right in his lap. First he's got Susan Atkins confessing AND going off about her messiah/leader/father/lover Charlie to her cellmates and describing being "programmed" by Charlie to the grand jury. She also told the grand jury about "get a knife and do what Tex tells you to do". Then he's got Paul Watkins handing him Helter Skelter on a platter. He's got other people connected to the Family describing Charlie's status within the group. Still yet others are describing how freaky Manson was and how they were afraid of him. And still yet there's Manson visiting Cielo and coming face-to-face with Sharon Tate.
That's just a few examples. I'm just playing devils advocate here. I don't have a stake in Bulgiosi smelling like a rose or anything. But what exactly was Bugliosi supposed to do with all this? Ignore it? Or tie it together and prosecute the people he thinks are responsible for a horrific crime?
catscradle77 said...
>>>Very true...and in the case of Linda, it just makes me really wonder how she ended up out on both nights...what made the others think she had it in her?<<<
Cats, it makes me wonder too. A willingness to follow and a need to be accepted? Belief in all the talk of necessary revolution? A drivers license? Her pigtails?
Whatever it was, whoever made the decision to include her obviously made a huge mistake.
>>>But shouldn't the tie that binds be the truth? Or should it be something that is fabricated in order for it to make some kinda of weird sense?<<<
It should be the truth. Just so we're clear, I do not support fabricating a story to put someone away even if you know them to be a horrible person. Since I wasn't on the prosecution team and I'm not privy to Bugliosi's private thoughts, I really don't know for sure how much of his case was fabricated. Anything's possible. We all have opinions here but none of us really know.
>>>Because the last-ditch effort to save the planet was stopped, the world now stands condemned.<<<
Hey Salem, you still around? I'm still wondering what exactly was the last-ditch effort to save the planet that was stopped because of Manson's conviction? I mean specifically.
catscradle77 said...
>>>It just seems that if the carload that left the LaBiancas were intent on murder, after Nadir's home, they would have found someone else, if these crimes were random and to start the revolution...
That is one of the places the whole HS shiat falls apart...why stop after 2 nights?<<<
Maybe they just didn't have the balls to keep going after that. maybe they wanted to wait and see what kind of reaction they garnered from the world after the first two nights.
Dunno, but it's a very good question.
Salem said...
>>>Indeed.the government wanted a end to the hippies as we * drugs sex rock and roll and anti war..we were rising up to *rage against the machine, and THEY didnt like it.so / weave the tale of horror,
dont pick up a hippie, he might be a killer on the road.
Charlie made the perfect guru.one who used these kids to murder for him. he was angry at the world. wants to start a race war.he was striking back. OMG ....thats so in*uckinsane!~<<<
Thing is, Salem, if the government wanted to use this case to demonize hippies in the public eye they did not need Charlie at all. They already had the "killer hippies' without Charlie. They had Tex, Susan, Pat, Leslie, Bobby, Clem - killer hippies.
"They" didn't need Charlie at all. So why did the Men In Black need to pull Charlie into it and complicate things?
It doesn't really make sense to me.
jollywest said...
>>>.... Somepeople believe that events like these are often either artificially crafted or exploited to bring about a desired solution. I don't know.<<<<
all very well put Jolly. For me though, all the conspiracy theories start sounding more far-fetched than Helter Skelter itself.
Salem said...
>>>cuz Charlie was the so called guru and leader of the group. He was a con man.. he was a drug dealer, he stole cars and etc. so tie it all up and make him look like THE MADMAN.....so Bug could make his fairy tale, which he did.<<<
Nevermind the Bug for a moment. That doesn't explain why THE GOVERNMENT needed Charlie. Again, if they wanted hippies discredited, it was handed to them on a silver platter by the "killer hippies" themselves. All the young suspects were into drugs and stealing cars and stuff. They all took drugs and had orgies. No need to bring Charlie into it.
I understand what you're saying about the Bug needing Charlie for his fairy-tale. But that doesn't explain why the government needed Charlie to discredit hippies. They didn't. The creepy faces of Susan, Tex, etc. blasted across the media did that job just fine.
Whether or not he was convicted for murder or conspiracy - CM was going back to prison. What about assaulting Gary Hinman (which CM has admitted to), the attempted murder of Bernard Crowe (also admitted) and the murder of Shorty Shea, plus arson and also auto theft all are things CM admitted to so he was going back to the can no doubt about it.
Obviously the Bug shouldn't have done what he did but do we know (as Heaven has said) what the whole story is? I don't think that HS tells everything. Plus wouldn't you freak out knowing your kids were hanging out with some ex-con/con man who may or may not inspire others around him to behave in violent ways? I can see middle America flipping out over that.
JMO
Salem said...
"http://perdurabo10.tripod.com/id155.html
good read"
A good read but a lousy article, replete with inaccuracies and doomsday ramblings.
agnostic monk said...
"But there was no way Charlie was NOT getting tangled up in this, because of his role in the group before the murders. From the minute they started talking, it was Charlie this, Charlie that, Charlie's our father, Charlie's our leader - oops but he's not - , Charlie might be Christ, etc"
Charlie never expected to get caught so he was free and easy in the way he was so important to their lives. There are newspaper articles from 1968 that show he was their leader ! In George Stimson's 2014 book "Goodbye Helter Skelter" Charlie more or less says it was his way or hit the road !
But remember, the counterculture turned many things on their head. Leaders weren't the way they were in the straight world. Leadership was couched in mystical terms, even if the practice was as Nixonian as the White House. Comparable is a statement John Lennon made about leadership of the Beatles when he said "If there's a leader of the Beatles, I'm it and if there isn't, it's a democracy.
"
agnostic monk said...
"But when it comes to Charlie's name getting pulled into the mix, the person to really look to is Susan Atkins"
Actually, Kitty Lutesinger and Al Springer might be more appropriate.
Post a Comment