Wednesday, January 09, 2008

TexASS Tea


I've been getting a lot of feedback as to what really happened. It's kinda fascinating.

The most thought provoking (doesn't mean they are real)

-->Tex was dealing methamphetamines, cocaine, and other forms of "speed". Frykowski was his loyal customer. Leno LaBianca was a supplier. Which would make your DeLorean theory correct. Everyone else was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Frykowski owed money to Tex, who owed money to LaBianca.

--> The "Devil's business" is a reference to the motorcycle club.

--> Next night, Watson gets the bright idea to go kill the drug supplier, steal all the cocaine, and life will be merry and bright.

--> You are looking at the wrong connection- how well did Tex and Manson know ROMAN?

--> Have you considered that Joe Dornan actually WAS dealing with Tex and they expected HIM at the LaBianca house?

These are all thought provoking ideas. Some of them are breathtaking.

Still, riddle me the obvious...

Rather than THIS, Tex prefers a race war motive? Is he afraid STILL of something?

More discussion please.

----------
Angelos criticizes my world view of CM without reading previous posts. We have new members so maybe I need to summarize succinctly.

Charles Manson was a punkass loser. He was not a leader, a guru or the "Most Dangerous Man alive." He certainly did not organize or mesmerize anyone to commit murder. He should be mocked and laughed at for being a short, stupid, fuckwit. Instead he is held up as the embodiment of evil to make a treacherous DA look good. The real BAD guy is Tex Watson who fucking stabbed and killed seven strangers to death. Whatever the motive, HE is the devil, not CM.

56 comments:

Scramblehead said...

Why does Manson have to be a "punk-ass loser" in order for all this talk of MOTIVE to be closer to the truth than HELTER SKELTER?

Why does Manson HAVE to be anything negative in anyone's mind regardless of the fact that it is well known and not disputed who the actual murderers are/were?

Why do people constantly NEED to reassure everyone else that they still judge Manson while exploring the guilty parties' motive(s)?

Why, why, why are you all so addicted to standing on your own pedestal and pointing the finger at people who you don't even fucking know nor have you ever met?

FrankM said...

Why does Manson HAVE to be anything negative in anyone's mind ... ?

Well, could it have something to do with the fact that he has spent most of his time in penal institutions?

That very often it's true that there's no smoke without fire ...

That he hiself has admitted to many things that have to be negative (e.g. tying up the La Biancas)

That so many people have reported negative things about him (sexist and racist behaviour, physical violence, sexual abuse of males and females, obsession with guns and knives, etc.)

That in so many written comunications and filmed interviews he appears to be at best deranged and more likely clinically insane

Maybe, just maybe, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can be reasonably sure it is a duck ...

Why, why, why are you all so addicted to standing on your own pedestal and pointing the finger at people who you don't even fucking know nor have you ever met?

You have a good point here. Perhaps, like the Col, we just want to know the truth and think Charlie could tell us if he chose to. So, consciously or subconsciously, we hold him responsible for our uncertainties.

Me, I doubt Charlie can remember what he had for breakfast. And certainty is something I abhor in people - never trust a person who can not conceive he may be wrong.

Frank

deadwoodhbo said...

Charles Manson was a punkass loser. He was not a leader, a guru or the "Most Dangerous Man alive." He certainly did not organize or mesmerize anyone to commit murder. He should be mocked and laughed at for being a short, stupid, fuckwit. Instead he is held up as the embodiment of evil to make a treacherous DA look good

Dam Col! Charlie never wanted to be labeled Most Dangerous Man .To me He is the MOST KINDESS MAN ALIVE!!!!!!! and i am very offened by your statement.
And you frank for your information charlie does remember what he has for breakfast ,his mind and memory are working just fine.your talking about a man you know nothing about other than though the media it makes you look very siily.
anyone eles care to comment on the man they no so well.
I never get mad on this blog ,but slaging of a man whos inner beauty you dont know has pissed me of.
AC over to you.
Believe it or not charlie has a ALOT!!!! of love in his heart for those he can really trust.

FrankM said...

No offense intended to anyone. Scramblehead asked why anyone would have a negative view of CM and I suggested some reasons. Doesn't necessarily imply I subscribe to them.

Deadwoodbho: when I said I doubt Charlie remembers what he had for breakfast it was a manner of speaking, an idiom, I didn't really mean that I think Charlie can't remember what he had for breakfast. I doubt he gets much variety for breakfast. But like most of us I imagine (you're right, I don't know him) that as he gets older his version of what really happened would be unreliable.

That is what I was trying to say - not to insult him, you or anyone else. I came here to make friends, not fight strangers.

May I politely plant the seeds of the idea that that there may be more of the sinner than the saint in Charles Manson, and for those of you looking for his beatification and subsequent canonization may I echo England's Republican leader Oliver Cromwell: in the bowels of Christ, I beseech thee: bethink thou may be wrong.

As I said in my previous post, people who are certain frighten me - certainty led (and leads) to religious and secular persecution, and we can see the results all around us today. Let's all keep an open mind, and as Col suggests, look for supporting evidence to back our beliefs.

Have a good day.

Frank

deadwoodhbo said...

Dam frank i dont fight honest i dont and not with anyone on this blog i promise .Has for the old ironsides Oliver Cromwell he was a regicide dictator who hated Irish Catholics .Of with his head after he is dead.

I echo England's Republican leader Oliver Cromwell: in the bowels of Christ, I beseech thee: bethink thou may be wrong.

ahhhh you already misjudged me and thou may be wrong
peace frank and trust me its all in good taste.

Scramblehead said...

FrankM said...

Well, could it have something to do with the fact that he has spent most of his time in penal institutions?

That in so many written comunications and filmed interviews he appears to be at best deranged and more likely clinically insane


You got some nerve, Frank, judging him to be "at best deranged and more likely clinically insane."

Perhaps you just haven't reached his level of consciousness and therefore you are unable to read between the lines and GET what he's saying. What you don't understand scares you into needing a villain to write it all off on.

It's not difficult to understand the language manson speaks, if you'd only open your mind and override the judgement programs that run in your ego-brain.

By the way, great work Col. - MOTIVE MOTIVE MOTIVE - there is an answer.

Let's stick with motive and free ourselves from the namecalling addiction. We will get much further much faster.

FrankM said...

You got some nerve, Frank, judging him to be "at best deranged and more likely clinically insane."

Well I would have , if I had said that ...

In fact I said that "in so many written comunications and filmed interviews he appears to be at best deranged and more likely clinically insane".

I'll grant this is a subjective opinion, but surely one that can be adduced by some of his (perhaps staged?) 'performances' before the camera.

If you remember, Scramblehead, I was trying to answer your question by showing why some people might think negatively about CM, and was not giving my own opinions.

And, when you write urging me to override the judgment programs that run in your ego-brain, are you not yourself making an unfounded judgment about what I think, something which must so far remain a mystery to you as I have not so far ventured any opinions other than as to what might be behind the thoughts of some people who think negatively about CM.

There are, for example, people who find it hard to accept that after the events at Cielo Drive and in full knowledge of these events CM subsequently went to the La Bianca's home with people whom he knew had killed at Cielo Drive and tied up two people before leaving the trussed bodies with these known killers. CM hinself has admitted this. Without my being judgmental, can you at least see why some people might entertain negative thoughts in their mind about CM?

Note that I am not saying this happened (I don't know) or that it was good or bad (who am I to judge?) but that CM says or said it happened. But there will be people who believe this scenario and they will (in my opinion) think negatively about CM.

Wow, I make an innocent post in answer to a question posted by a fellow list member and get flayed not for what I have said but for what I have not said ... maybe I'll just go back to lurking.

Have a nice day

Frank

augusteigth1969 said...

Colonel Scott I do hope that your informative blog will not become a breeding ground for the mentally challenged and the disturbed members of the insane Candygramma yahoo group. You were correct in your assessment that the losers hang out there. It appears that forhavensake is quite perplexed that she is not one of your chosen people. For people who don't like you or your message here they are quite obsessed with you and your blog.

Heaven said...

Excellent post Col Scott but my only question is, how does anyone know that Manson and Tex did know Roman..

Is there any proof that they had ever known each other or even met before the murders? Roman wasn't at Cielo very often. He was a very busy man in those days...

Hello to all the new folks just joining us!

=)

deadwoodhbo said...

augusteigth1969 said...
Colonel Scott I do hope that your informative blog will not become a breeding ground for the mentally challenged and the disturbed members of the insane Candygramma yahoo group. You were correct in your assessment that the losers hang out there. It appears that forhavensake is quite perplexed that she is not one of your chosen people. For people who don't like you or your message here they are quite obsessed with you and your blog.

3:16 AM, January 10, 2008
augusteigth1969 that is unfair i am not a so called candygrammer nutcase like raven or rabbitt,has it happens my beautiful man has been charlies best friend in prison for 9 years he is in 50 charlie was in 51 till he moved last month,i have great respect for the Col and he knows that,before you point your finger at me and call me a looney ,you just needed to ask me.I hate telling people i know charlie its none of their business but mine but these insults about me or others that are true friends of charlie need to stop ,we are not all lieing mental idiots.....
if you really think im a raven call here i dont lie .Derral G. Adams, Warden
4001 King Avenue
Corcoran, CA 93212

P.O. Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309
(559) 992-8800
and frank you need to be able to take negative and positive replys,its all in good form.

FrankM said...

frank you need to be able to take negative and positive replys,its all in good form.

Deadwoodhbo, thank you for this good advice. I shall try not to be so sensitive. I felt I had been misunderstood.

And I do not think you are a looney.!

Frank

deadwoodhbo said...

FrankM said...
frank you need to be able to take negative and positive replys,its all in good form.

Deadwoodhbo, thank you for this good advice. I shall try not to be so sensitive. I felt I had been misunderstood.

And I do not think you are a looney.!

Frank

8:05 AM, January 10, 2008

No WAY!!!! Frank your comments and thoughts are awesome and never misunderstood.We all have or own opinions on this matter ,dam if i dont go to work people will think im a loony:P
have a GREAT DAY FRANK.

Pristash said...

Hmmm, how much more may we have known about this case had Tex been tried at the same time as CM?

augusteigth1969 said...

deadwoodhbo I don't recall saying you were Raven? It's a bit strange that you would even make that assessment. I wasn't aware you were a member of the group. Are you always this paranoid about things that would have no direct connection to yourself? If you are indeed a member of the group my post was in no way directed at you. The looneys are the ones who are so obsessed with our Kernal that they can't keep his name from their conversations. Forhavensake is obsessed with him and his team members. Unless you are Forhavensake, Jim, Larry or Christie my words are not about you. I'm sorry if we had our wires crossed.

Brian Davis said...

I, for one, do not call Charlie or any of the family members names as I don't know any of them personally and I don't personally have anything against any of them.

I probably would feel different if those murders were my family or friends.

I actually like a couple of the family (Sandy and Lynette).

I certainly do not condone, support, or agree with the murders.

I hate that the family or anyone else would ever commit murder, assaults, robbery, rape or any crime for that matter.

But, I can not judge anyone for anything because I live in the proverbial glass house myself.
(I've never committed murder but I have made mistakes in my life)

So, I do not judge any of them. GOD will do that for sure.

In the meantime, I am obsessed with finding out the truth. The REAL motive or motives(I think there are multiple motives here)of these heinous crimes.

Scramblehead said, "Why, why, why are you all so addicted to standing on your own pedestal and pointing the finger at people who you don't even fucking know nor have you ever met?"

FrankM replied- ".... Perhaps, like the Col, we just want to know the truth and think Charlie could tell us if he chose to. So, consciously or subconsciously, we hold him responsible for our uncertainties."

Well said FRANK M, I too think Charlie could tell us if he so chose to. And I agree we hold him responsible for our uncertainties in this case.

Pristash said, "Hmmm, how much more may we have known about this case had Tex been tried at the same time as CM?"

Great question Pristash, as I have often wondered the same.

And the only question I would have for Tex is "Why ?"

Because like Charlie, I believe Tex could tell us the motive(s)if he so chose too.

Thanks everyone for all this great discussion ! And as always, Thank you COL SCOTT !

Heaven said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Colonel Scott said: "Charles Manson was a punkass loser... He should be mocked and laughed at for being a short, stupid, fuckwit."

Col, I respectfully disagree. I believe that Charles came from a humble beginning, all cards stacked against him, and went on to facilitate a utopian society and create some incredible music. Being victimized by so-called friends and martyred by a corporate and governmental establishment that was desirous of obliterating the "hippy" movement wasn't exactly on his radar. I defy anyone to survive, let alone triumph, against such blatant media obfuscation and political corruption.

Frank said: "Well, could it have something to do with the fact that he has spent most of his time in penal institutions?"

As did Nelson Mandella and Lech Walensa.

Frank further said: "I doubt Charlie can remember what he had for breakfast." (which he later explained as a figure of speech).

And with you, I respectfully diaagree as well. I'm considered by many folks to be reasonably intellegent and successful. However, every conversation with, or letter from Charles Manson requires that I go running for the dictionary, the world atlas, or the encyclopedia. His knowledge and interpretation of history, current events, politics, music, the environment and human behavior is phenomenal. Never ceases to amaze me.

That said, I can see his foibles as well... every man has them. Frank wrote: "those of you looking for his beatification and subsequent canonization..." Um, why the Christianized dichotomy of good vs. evil, sinner vs. saint? All human beings have both beneficial and baneful qualities. Charles's analogy utilizing Abraxas is much more accurate. Meaning, the elder version of that legend, about the entity who looks forward and backward, who is grey rather than dark or light... NOT the Xian devil vs. angel mythology, which hopefully will die a well-deserved death within my lifetime.

Sorry to keep pickin' on ya, Frank: "...That in so many written comunications and filmed interviews he (Manson) appears to be at best deranged and more likely clinically insane".

With the limited resources of my family's small, struggling media company, I could film any corporate board meeting, political rally, or rock concert, then take the raw footage, cut and paste and splice, edit and take things out of context, and make ANYone look utterly mental. If we filmed a heated discussion between my esteemed colleagues here at the OTLMBlog, we could represent any one of you as "deranged". I'll bet that the mainstream media is quite capable of similar deception. Their goal is to sell products, not speak truth.

Charles likes to argue. He has a musician's temperament. And a shaman's vision. None of which plays well on the six o'clock news.

"It's not difficult to understand the language Manson speaks, if you'd only open your mind and override the judgement programs that run in your ego-brain." Well said, Scramblehead. Our society doesn't encourage this type of extra-rational, post-logical thought. Some, I am told, even find it annoying.

"Why, why, why are you all so addicted to standing on your own pedestal and pointing the finger at people who you don't even fucking know nor have you ever met?" Yeah, this happened to me recently, too. Sucks, dunnit?

Deadwood: Maybe Warden Adams would appreciate it if you sent him a crate of antacid tablets. I am about number five on his sh*t-list right now. Must be all those 2142 Citizen Complaints. Hee hee.

Pristash: The separate trial of Tex... Politically orchestrated, perhaps?

Ladies and gentlemen, please keep it real. We are speculating on a criminal case, theorizing about motive and intent, not arguing with each other, right? On my skin.

Marliese said...

"fuckwit"...great word...

Has there been any word from Suzan LaBerge in the last ten or 15 years?

Marliese said...

"Wow, I make an innocent post in answer to a question posted by a fellow list member and get flayed not for what I have said but for what I have not said ... maybe I'll just go back to lurking.

Have a nice day"

Frank



Frank, please don't go back to lurking...your posts are intelligent, thoughtful and beautifully written.

Brian Davis said...

Heaven - Hi ! And thank you for the kind words ! And much respect to you as I certainly enjoy reading your posts because of your opinions, insight and knowledge of this case!

To all, the first line of the great Col's post -

"I've been getting a lot of feedback as to what really happened." -

got me thinking (uh-oh, everybody duck!) Is there anything to the fact that ALL of the people(6)actually involved in the TLB murders are still alive, yet none have revealed the truth of motive in these cases for 38 years now ?

Pat, Leslie, Susan and Linda probably did believe it was Helter Skelter at the time.
Tex claims he believed it was Helter Skelter.
But, based on other facts, I have my doubts there.
And Charlie, who does and will always know why, probably will never tell. I hear he hates snitching.

These days, from what I have seen, the girls think that HS was Manson bs. So I wonder, have any of those four ever tried to figure out the true motive as to what they were really pawns for ? I think I would be picking it apart.

I wonder, can any of those four recall ANYTHING during that time period they may have overheard in regards to Tex getting "burned" or did they ever hear Charlie madly ranting about Melcher, Wilson, bikers or anyone else ?
Did they ever see or hear anyone in the family reference Charlie or Tex with Voytek or Roman ?

If I were any of those four I would be racking my brain for anything that I may recall...is it safe to presume those four have already done so over the last 38 years ?

And if they have, is it odd that none of them have come up with anything or they just arent revealing ?

Again, I do think Tex does actually know the real motive(s).

Thanks again everyone !

FrankM said...

AC writes

Frank said: "Well, could it have something to do with the fact that he has spent most of his time in penal institutions?"

As did Nelson Mandella and Lech Walensa.


OK, AC, but I respectfully suggest this is not a fair comparison. Gandhi-inspired Nelson Mandela's imprisonment was political: the aim of those who imprisoned him to thwart the ANC and prevent emancipation of a rising and struggling Black population in South Africa.

Lech Walesa took on the might of the USSR in its heyday - nevertheless he spent just one year in prison in 1980 for 'anti-social behavior' after industrial action aimed at toppling an imposed USSR government in his native Poland.

Now let me check CM's rap sheet. In fact you can check it out at http://www.cielodrive.com/family/manson/
rap.pdf - it's interesting reading, petty offence after petty offence, but nothing especially noble or uplifting.

And all this is before Tate/La Bianca ...

So, AC, I invite you to consider whether the comparison with two statesmen like Mandela and Walesa is really valid or poorly chosen.

why the Christianized dichotomy of good vs. evil,

'Saint' and 'sinner' was an arbitrary choice; don't read too much into it. I tend to stick to what I know, and Paganism is not a strength of mine. That said, I think the analogy is probably resonant to most readers of this blog.

Pace all the above, I especially value the plea for open and civil argument. And to answer your question, yes, the pic is genuine.

Frank

Brian Davis said...

And FRANKM - I echo what Marliese said:

"Frank, please don't go back to lurking...your posts are intelligent, thoughtful and beautifully written."

agnostic monk said...

Brian I really don't think that Pat, Susan, Leslie, or Linda had any idea about motives. They were just (stupidly) doing what they were told. I don't even think on that first night they knew that murder was the plan when they set out from Spahn. Helter Skelter, saving the world, starting a revolution, I think these were their best guesses.

Leslie did tell Larry King on his show that she didn't know about the "bum drug deal" until much later, and that she really had no idea why any of the victims were chosen.

But as you suggested, I'd be willing to bet all of them have given it plenty of thought over the last 38 years.

agnostic monk said...

sometimes I wonder if we give Tex too much credit. maybe I'm biased by that incredibly goofy mugshot from his belladonna arrest, but he seemed to me to be sort of a big moron, so hyped up on various drugs (take your pick) most of the time that he could hardly tell one day from the next.

I also doubt very much that either he or Manson knew Roman personally.

agnostic monk said...

AC I have to side with Frank on this one: comparing Manson's situation to that of Nelson Mandela or Lech Walesa is not fair. It's important to remember that while the media played a huge part of the demonization of Charles Manson (probably more so than Bugliosi himself ever could, and prior to Bugliosi ever getting his hands on him), Manson HIMSELF played a big role in his own demonization by the way he acted. The performance he put on during the trial served only to confirm his casting. bald heads, bloody x's, lunging at/threatening the lives of judges, doing his best Christ imitation which threw all the girls into a tizzy (inside and outside the courtroom). I understand that he was frustrated by his situation, but there were probably better ways to handle himself in the courtroom than that. I think he enjoyed the attention and enjoyed scaring people, and most of all enjoyed the effect he had on the girls on the corner. He could finally lash out at the system he felt screwed him over his entire life, and defile the daughters of the system as well. He probably loves it that so many disaffected youth have written to him over the years. yes this is all pure conjecture on my part, but it is educated conjecture IMHO if there is such a thing.

btw Frank great post and please don't go back to just lurking. And Becca you're not a loon.

deadwoodhbo said...

Heaven said...
Hey Becca, I don't think you're a looney...

I think that AugustEigth was talking about specific people over there.. It didn't look like he/she was referring to you..

Least that's my take on it..
YOU!!! ROCK!!! and thats my take on of you

deadwoodhbo said...

whoops you too monk.although we have different veiws on inocence and linda lol.:P

agnostic monk said...

we do, although I have never maintained that she was innocent.

: )

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Agnostic Monk wrote: "I don't even think on that first night they (the female perps) knew that murder was the plan when they set out from Spahn."

One would think that the prior incidents which involved Mr. Hinman and Mr. Shea would've given them their first clue. Especially Sadie, who'd participated in both escapades.

Frank wrote: "Now let me check CM's rap sheet (w/ URL) -- it's interesting reading, petty offence after petty offence, but nothing especially noble or uplifting.

As was Malcolm X's... larceny, grand theft, petty theft, B&E's, pimpin', car theft, even one for loitering, of all things. That was before those unsolved Nation of Islam incidents, for which he was never formally charged.

Agnostic further wrote: "Manson HIMSELF played a big role in his own demonization by the way he acted." (in court)

Yeah, if ya know you're going down anyway, on the wings of a shabby public defender... you may as well practice protest as performance art.

Note to Frank, et al... please don't go back to lurking or quit in despair. It's just starting to get good.

Anyone heard any word from Cat's Cradle?

agnostic monk said...

AC: Donald Shea lost his life to Family madness *after* TLB, so that doesn't factor. (His murder is estimated at around August 26, 1969, the day Manson was released from a marijuana charge if my timeline is correct. So if you don't believe that Manson was involved in his murder, I won't be able to convince you and won't bother trying).

My point is the girls had no reason to believe this was anything but a hyped-up creepy crawl. Family folks went on non-murder creepy crawls quite often, so driving off into the night with some weapons didn't necessarily mean murder. In fact most of the time it did not. I maintain that whatever was going on was a Tex/Charlie thing, the girls were clueless and just following along. I am absolutely not defending their behavior - they behaved like assholes and, to different degrees, criminally - just stating what I believe to be the situation. Obviously once shots rang out into Steven Parent's car, as Linda described, or discussion of murder started in the car on the way, as Susan described, they knew murder was the game.

agnostic monk said...

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...
>>>>>Yeah, if ya know you're going down anyway, on the wings of a shabby public defender... you may as well practice protest as performance art.

First of all, Paul Fitzgerald was far from shabby. Same can be said for some of the other defense attorneys. They tried to do the best they could for their clients who made it nearly impossible for them with their crazy behavior.

And if Manson wanted to go practice protest as performance art while his life and the life of his friends was on the line, he even more so has NO ONE to blame for the outcome than himself.

jm30 said...

Hello friends. Another new member here. I've been reading this blog for a couple of months, but I have actually gone through all of the archives and read it back to day one.

As a casual TLB student, I have found this blog to be both highly entertaining and informative. I don't think there's anything wrong with finding entertainment in all of this. The crime is almost 40 years old; we might as well have a good time studying it.

I believe the Bug is a fiction writer. Contrary to many of you, I found Sanders to be a very fun read (where else would you learn the inventor of Barbie liked to do dead people?!)

I think all of the documentaries I see on TV are just a bunch of shit. I actually saw one the other night that said CM actually drove Tex and the girls to Cielo!!! I was in news for 10 years and can't understand how such shoddy reporting of facts makes it onto cable TV these days. But, I shouldn't be surprised.

Here's my 2 cents on this thread:

I find the organized crime/drug angle interesting. I read somewhere where Leno left a sizeable debt to Gateway Foods from alleged embezzlement. It's obvious he was doing a tight rope act financially at the time of his death. I'd really like to dig further into that stuff. Googling Gateway Foods not long ago, I found an article on a DeSantis fellow who was a director of Gateway until it was sold in 1975. He might know something.

On the other hand, the Struthers gal defies explanation. How in the hell can she make herself a bit player in the Tex sympathy show? I would agree that maybe she knows something.

My real question is this. Helter Skelter is stupid. I don't know about the drug/crime business. But, what about the good old fashioned copycat crime to get BB out of jail? In the past two years or so, that's kind of what I started to settle on.

Honestly, I just don't think any of these people were smart enough to calculate their own age, not to mention any kind of murder conspiracy. I understand that Tex lies at the heart of it, but by this point, wasn't he capable merely of crawling around on the sidewalk going "beep beep" to passerbys? And, having just watched the original Hendrickson film I ordered online, my takeaway from this group is that they are all just plain dumb

agnostic monk said...

hi jm and welcome. I agree with you that HS is stupid, BUT if a bunch of disaffected college-aged kids take enough drugs amid the turmoil of the 60s and are exposed, willingly, to a shitload of anti-establishment rhetoric by a hard living ex-con, it might not be so tough to convince them that it isn't stupid.

The copycat theory has always been intriguing to me but the main reason I hold it in suspicion is that it wasn't much of a copycat. Granted, as you say, these were not rhodes scholars, but couldn't they have made it MORE of an actual copy, were that their goal? They did a pretty lame-assed job if freeing Bobby was really the main goal.

FrankM said...

Faith is a curious thing; blind faith a dangerous one. I have always wondered why religious fundamentalists are happy to reject physical evidence in favour of an irrational belief, dogmatically held and defended despite palpable evidence to the contrary.

AC; your apparently principled defense of CM in all circumstances and on all occasions disturbs me, as does your willingness to adopt facts selectively insofar as they support your belief framework and conveniently ignore those that don't. Adopt, yes, and even adapt the facts when it suits your purpose.

This has been apparent in your postings on this blog for some time now. Let me ask you a simple question: can you accept that Charles Manson was ever guilty of any criminal activity or has he always been the victim of others' desire to thwart and manipulate him?

No offense intended in the question, but I have long learned not to waste my time in arguing with those whose faith overides their ability to reason, and if this is the case then I shall bother you no further with such queries.

Frank

deadwoodhbo said...

No offense intended in the question, but I have long learned not to waste my time in arguing with those whose faith overides their ability to reason, and if this is the case then I shall bother you no further with such queries
Frank your so polite,take of your shirt and get in the ring with the rest of us.Have a great day:P:P.
awesome post jm

deadwoodhbo said...

sorry just wanted to see if my new picture was afoot:P

Pristash said...

Ah, but Col, if the theories are correct, then at least some of these people were not strangers to Tex...

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Welcome JM 30.

Agnostic: You are correct, I had the date wrong for the Shea murder... either my horrid memory or a visit from the typo fairy had me thinking that it occurred earlier. However I am of the considered opinion that Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan were the primary participants.

I also think Sadie knew all along what was planned for the nice folks inhabiting that lovely home on Cielo Drive... whether drug burn or copycat.

Any record on how many victories Fitzgerald enjoyed? Not calling any witnesses in a capital murder trial is, in my opinion, poor practice. Ditto not ensuring separate trials. Or insisting on admitting evidence about the vics' financial records. And the list goes on.

My point about "performance art" is that if you're going down anyhow, may as well go with a bang.

Frank: The press hath no principles. ;-)

Seriously, petty crime does not = premeditated murder. Check CM's record again. Anything in there look the slightest bit premeditated to you?
"Let's steal a car, go to California and get married".
"Okay."
"We're out of gas. Let's use this guy's credit card".
"Sure."
"Honey, let's go to Vegas. I'm 18years old, I swear it"
"Fine."
"This is pretty good weed. Want some?"
"Okay".
And so forth. I imagine that critical thinking, logic and debate skills were not taught in the foster care system during the 1930s and 40s.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

OMG Becca, I so totally get it, finally, about the picture... on the motorcycle!!! Wow, that looks like fun!

Brian Davis said...

AGNOSTIC MONK said,
"...I maintain that whatever was going on was a Tex/Charlie thing, the girls were clueless and just following along."

Nice line Agnostic ! That is where I am at with this case.

deadwoodhbo said...

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...
OMG Becca, I so totally get it, finally, about the picture... on the motorcycle!!! Wow, that looks like fun!

8:38 AM, January 11, 2008

one day AC one day.take care

Jean Harlow said...

Hi

Welcome to Brian Davies, Frank M., Augusteighth, and JM30. If I have welcomed you before, I am stoned on cold medication.

Frank - don't go back to lurking; you have some very valid points.

Becca, you're not a loon.

JM30 - I don't find HS to be fiction so much as I find it leaves so much information out.

I don't think Roman knew CM or TW - or even met them for that matter because he would have told the police. He was so out of him mind with grief that he broke into his friends' garages to look for fingerprints and blood stains. He sent writing samples to an expert in NYC. I think that he would have admitted to knowing them if it meant that the killers would be caught. It appears that he suspected that Voytek was up to something but having been out of the country for almost 6 months would have left him out of the loop.

I wonder how close he really was to Voytek to begin with. I know that Voytek's father gave RP money to make "Knife in the Water" but that doesn't mean they were bosom buddies. I have read that Roman was especially kind to any Polish emigres that he met in the US. Thoughts?

hi to monk and heaven.

:) Cheers

agnostic monk said...

it is my understanding that Manson *wanted* a united defense. theoretically, severed trials meant more possibilities of defection.

I don't know Fitzgerald's exact record but he went on to have a long and successful career. Kanarek was a loon but even Bugliosi admitted that he scored points. I agree it seems odd that the defense didn't call any witnesses, but it seems the reasons were complicated. Or was that a conspiracy against the Wizard as well?

hi jean
:)

angeLos said...

The Col said :

talking about CM...

He certainly did not organize or mesmerize anyone to commit murder.

Col, Ok, true , by now, you have to have a lot of knowledge about this murder case,
not like me, but you must be very shure of yourself with this statement, while if there is a doubt with the first night, allthought CM said ...go to where TM... etc...etc and make it as gruesome... etc...etc...for the second night CM has no excuses, and doubts exists, at least for me, that he organized and mesmerized ( how can a young woman carve with a fork the letters W A R on the stomac of one agonizing men ? ) some of his friends to commit murder.

Again, nothing personal, just trying to understand.

Pristash said...

Sunday's Book Review in the New York Times will include a review of the new book, SWAY, a fictionalization of the connections between Bobby Beausoleil, Kenneth Anger, and the Rolling Stones. They call it brilliant. Read it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/review/Taylor-t.html?8bu&emc=bu

agnostic monk said...

jm I'm in agreement with you that Sanders is a good read. I was just commenting that one should keep in perspective how much of it is gossip and rumor. It's like Bobby B himself said about the book, there is truth in it but there's a lot of bullshit too.

I'm also in agreement with Jean that HS is not so much fiction as it is incomplete.

: )

agnostic monk said...

angelos I'm with you about night #2. I fully believe that manson played an organizing role. there is no way I buy that he wasn't fully aware of and encouraging what happened.

btw the History Channel is right now (in SF Bay Area) showing a doc about hippies and the rise of the counterculture narrated by peter coyote. AC, they were talking about something you would find interesting: Nixon's campaign to destroy the counterculture.

Pristash, awesome link! thanks!

agnostic monk said...

AND they just got to the Tate murders on this doc. "the dream of a communal utopia seemed within reach, but on the west coast events were unfolding that would put that dream forever to rest.." (images of the Tate estate and cut to commercial). And now they are talking about the coverage of the manson family by the conservative press of the time, how the hippies of the time suspected a frame, but that as the evidence mounted even "die-hard conspiracy theorists had to admit that a hippie could be a murderer" (I'd say the History Channel producers should visit the blog!). Cut to images of Ronald Regan (shivers) wagging his finger in the face of the counterculture. Bad hippies! Bad drug-taking, bloodthirsty hippies!

angelos I like you disagree with the Col on that one point you mentioned, but like you it is nothing personal. I love the Col even though I don't think he loves me anymore.

Sorry for all the posts, too much coffee. As my friend Cats would say: paste, I need to eat more paste...

: )

agnostic monk said...

p.s. the history channel is following up the "hippies" show with that dreadful documentary about cults which starts off covering the manson murders - a segment so over the top and exaggerated it makes even ME want to defend charles manson from it's allegations and descriptions, lol...

: )

deadwoodhbo said...

LOL MONK!!!!!!

jm30 said...

Thanks for the welcome, friends.

AM: Let me clarify my position on HS. When I say it is fiction, I am not saying that the entire read is worthless. There's some great background information in it. HS as a motive is where I hit the exit.

What I like about Sanders is the guy had the passion to cover the damn thing from the beginning and the tenacity to visit all these sites and track down all of these ancillary people. I can imagine being around in 1969-1970 with enough financial security to just dive into a project like that. How exciting that must have been. My biggest criticism of the book, however, is all the useless time spent on Satanic groups and other non-related activities.

The latest worthless documentary I referenced in my first post WAS that episode of "Cults". Practically unwatchable.

agnostic monk said...

yup jm, how many times can you superimpose an image of an armageddon explosion behind an image of Charlie and keep a straight face?

Now the History Channel is on to "True Crime Authors: Vince Bugliosi" which 10 minutes in seems much, much more restrained and sensible. I am now taping it but not watching it, though.

I'm telling you all this in case the schedules are behind in other areas of the U.S. and you want to curl up and be entertained for a spell. These History Channel docs can be ridiculous but sometimes good. I swear the manson segment of "Cults" was the most over the top of them all. I can see why Manson supporters get frustrated.

agnostic monk said...

jm, my view that HS is not fictional but rather quite incomplete is in regard to both the book and the motive. There really was some truth to it for those involved, IMHO.

Marliese said...

I initially liked the Sanders book but as time goes on, like so much that's written on this case, find some of his 'facts' more opinion than absolute fact...at least unsubstantiated, and probably just me personally but his writing style seems disordered, for all that's there. I sincerely admire his compassion though...for Sharon especially, and the longstanding personal relationships with some of the players...like Fitzgerald et al.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

DRAT! Hope that segment is re-broadcast at some time when I am not here at work, um, manipulating someone else's media. Thanks for the heads-up anyway, youse guys.

Dragunov said...

It'll now sound all stupid, but when I first read Watson's "I'm the devil and etc." phrase, I though that it had something to do with motorcycle "clubs"...