Thursday, June 04, 2009

Dave Edwards is a Spazz


Okay, so we let the Pugh guy post here, and join here and he doesn't like it here. He can stay or go that's up to him. But first I want to get to the bottom of something? Can he read?

--------------
Back in May there was a comment in the section that reprinted the original article- by member Force 17. It read...

Simon Wells has written a book called Coming down fast and he has done some original research on this rather than another cut and paste job. Dont think it has a US release yet.

In the letter Dave Edwards wrote us, he defensively states that his article is not a cut and paste job. Fine. The comment is clearly referring to other books like the GoRightly one and two others.

-------------
Dave responds to my comments. One of his comments is

Of course newspapers aren't necessarily right but they've always been, and remain, forums of free expression. Sure, sometimes articles are skewed to toe a particular line but this wasn't the case with my piece.

Dave- If you've taken a look around you will see that this site, Bret's site and Cat's site all have one thing in common. We want the truth. A tabloid newspaper wants to be sold. It doesn't, by definition, care about the truth. We do....

I'm sorry, but nothing in my piece expresses admiration for Vincent Bugliosi. Incidentally, didn't Susan Atkins refer to him as the 'Bug'? I really, really hope that you haven't taken to quoting her. That would suggest this is a pro-Manson site rather than something more even-handed.

...And we have been able to, via research and actual free thinking, establish that someone who stalked his milkman thinking he was his son's birth father, who assaulted his mistress and who made up a bullshit motive for the crime of the century should not be trusted, cited or referred to. The moment you cite BUGliosi you lose. Because he is the cause of all the lies out there. His win at any cost ploys helped him to win (although ironically tied him to Manson for life) and helped us lose out on understanding what really happened. And you stand corrected- all of the Family referred to him as BUGliosi (not just Susan, even though BUG dwells on her in his novel). We are not pro Manson. For the record I once again state- Charlie Manson was a short, charasmatic, con artist, a punk who had spent 18 years taking it in the ass. When he got out he continued a life of petty crime. And he never KILLED anybody, so painting him as Satan, as Bug does, is just bullshit. So face that truth, Mr. Edwards. It's where the facts actually start.

If British tabloids really are as bad as you suggest, why on earth are you reprinting my loathsome, inaccurate and sensationalist article? And as far as a response goes, how about sending something to the letters page? It's not hard to do. Try google. Alternatively, there's a forum for comments on the paper's website.

Well Dave, I reprinted it so we can examine and dissect it- not because I assumed that it was the truth because the great Dave wrote it! And why do I care to respond to the paper? Are they official? We are! And why comment on the site? I don't care about the site at all.

This has me at a total loss. And what's with the swearword? This blog follows every twist and turn of the Manson story, happily devoting thousands of words to unsubstantiated rumours but then gets its knickers in a bunch when someone goes out and does some investigative reporting. The reason I looked into Joel's life was because I wanted to tell his story which, as far as I'm aware, had never been properly told. Why has that created such animosity?

Total loss? No doubt. Swear word? Aren't you a grown up? Unsubstantiated rumors? Not sure what you mean but if so I will FUCKING swear that I labelled them as such. Unlike- well, you. Telling Joel's story is a good idea... the question we are discussing is, did you? It appears many people think not. Sorry.

As far as 'sticking around' and learning the truth goes, rest assured, I'll do just that but I'm starting to thin this isn't the place to do it.

Ah, well, there you go. I'm sorry we didn't bow down and accept your tabloid article as God's word.
But at least we got that picture out of it!
Oh and as far as your "truth" goes, Cats from the other great site has a letter for you- she don't think much of your shit either-

Dear Mr. Dave Edwards,

I take note of your presence here yesterday reading this thread, then alas, you appear on the Colonel's site addressing what we have posted here concerning your article.

I take offense to what you said concerning us here, and we do not have hostility nor think we know everything about the TLB case. We just call bullshit bullshit and I am sorry that you did not deem it necessary to address us here on the points made in this thread. You are a member and can post.

The autopsy report has been seen, and Simon too has spoken to Joel's brother Daniel.

The infamous letter with the line about what happened to Joel not happening to the writer is reproduced in full in Simon's book, and when taken into proper context and seeing the letter in full, that single solitary line doesn't mean what has been gathered all these years.

Cats

----------David Gets Snarky in The Comments, Col Dissects----------

Gosh, my own thread. I’m honoured.If the guy could READ he would notice this is his THIRD thread.

Colonel,It's COL thanks I’ve read your comments and, after due consideration, I want to apologise. The points you’ve raised are not only pertinent, beautifully put and well argued; they’re also accurate. You mean this as a snarky asshole, but in fact are correct.

This isn’t easy for me to do but… I want to say sorry. no you don't. This makes you a liar.

First, I want to apologise for writing an article about the Manson case without seeking your permission. I thought it was about Joel Pugh- and you still keep being a smug limey asshole..Given how you, and you alone, possess the truth, I WISH I possessed the truth it was simply inexcusable. After much soul-searching, I’ve realised that somehow I have become part of the Great Media Conspiracy that has turned a basically nice guy like Charlie into the devil incarnate. The media didn't do this, BUGliosi did- with Charlie's complicity. LEARN TO READ.

May I also apologise for quoting Vincent Bugliosi who (you’re absolutely right) knows nothing about the case. Hey guys, CAN THIS GUY READ? I never said he knows nothing- he knows quite a lot. What he SAYS cannot be trusted though. You, Susan Atkins and the others are absolutely right -- he really is a bit of a ‘BUG’, isn’t he?He's a lying, woman attacking former DA.

I also want to – hand on heart – apologise if I suggested your website was in any way pro-Family or that you’re a Manson apologist.Anyone that could READ would realize this isn't true. That’s clearly not the case at all. Having looked over your site, it’s now clear to me that Manson is an unfortunate, misunderstood and largely harmless individual who should be freed immediately so he can spread his gospel of peace, love and death.See what I mean, loser- no where does it say that- too bad you cannot READ. Sure, he may have directed the residents of Spahn to commit mass murder,likely did not he may have tied up the terrified LaBiancas not "may"- didbefore they were horrifically killed, he may have orchestrated the murder of Shorty Shea depends on what you mean by orchestrated, he may have sliced off Gary Hinman’s ear,Hinman's corpse clearly has an ear in the autopsy record so he DID NOT do this he may have shot Lotsapoppa did, he may have raped teenage girls who found themselves at Spahn,we can agree to disagree about this he may have ordered the murder of poor Joel except he didn't and NOBODY but you, the poor reader, thinks that he did.but, as you rightly say, he was merely a short, ‘charasmatic’ con artist. Boy, did I get my facts wrong!And you continue to. Again, I’m sorry.

Sometimes it takes a man to stand up and admit his mistakesWell since you are a poorly educated limey fool who could only sell his 6 months of work to a British tabloid, let me know when you find a man. Well, I’m doing just that. Colonel, you’re truly a one-off. A fearless seeker of the truth and someone clearly unafraid to courageously ask the big questions that most shy away from.This is accurate May I also compliment you on your spelling and grammar – you’re also a commander of the English language. My prose is pretty solid, thanks. You CAN'T FUCKING READ so please don't try to teach.I salute you! I’m also glad you haven’t lost your sense of humour during our tête-à-tête. I can’t remember the last time I was called a ‘Spazz’ but I think it was in a playground.No. It was yesterday. By me. Because? Well, you are a spazz. Anyway reading your letter thinks to themselves "Wow, what a spazz!"

Peace, brother, and fingers crossed Charlie, Susan, Linda and all the other victims of disinformation in the media finally win their long overdue parole. God I hope Susan never gets out. Charlie never will no matter what I hope. And Linda IS NOT IN JAIL.... SPAZZZZZZZZ!



19 comments:

Ginger_Dave said...

Gosh, my own thread. I’m honoured.

Colonel, I’ve read your comments and, after due consideration, I want to apologise. The points you’ve raised are not only pertinent, beautifully put and well argued; they’re also accurate.

This isn’t easy for me to do but… I want to say sorry.

First, I want to apologise for writing an article about the Manson case without seeking your permission. Given how you, and you alone, possess the truth, it was simply inexcusable. After much soul-searching, I’ve realised that somehow I have become part of the Great Media Conspiracy that has turned a basically nice guy like Charlie into the devil incarnate.

May I also apologise for quoting Vincent Bugliosi who (you’re absolutely right) knows nothing about the case. You, Susan Atkins and the others are absolutely right -- he really is a bit of a ‘BUG’, isn’t he?

I also want to – hand on heart – apologise if I suggested your website was in any way pro-Family or that you’re a Manson apologist. That’s clearly not the case at all. Having looked over your site, it’s now clear to me that Manson is an unfortunate, misunderstood and largely harmless individual who should be freed immediately so he can spread his gospel of peace, love and death. Sure, he may have directed the residents of Spahn to commit mass murder, he may have tied up the terrified LaBiancas before they were horrifically killed, he may have orchestrated the murder of Shorty Shea, he may have sliced off Gary Hinman’s ear, he may have shot Lotsapoppa, he may have raped teenage girls who found themselves at Spahn, he may have ordered the murder of poor Joel but, as you rightly say, he was merely a short, ‘charasmatic’ con artist. Boy, did I get my facts wrong! Again, I’m sorry.

Sometimes it takes a man to stand up and admit his mistakes. Well, I’m doing just that. Colonel, you’re truly a one-off. A fearless seeker of the truth and someone clearly unafraid to courageously ask the big questions that most shy away from. May I also compliment you on your spelling and grammar – you’re also a commander of the English language. I salute you! I’m also glad you haven’t lost your sense of humour during our tête-à-tête. I can’t remember the last time I was called a ‘Spazz’ but I think it was in a playground.

Peace, brother, and fingers crossed Charlie, Susan, Linda and all the other victims of disinformation in the media finally win their long overdue parole.

Scramblehead said...

Dave,
"Why don't you and the DA just jump into bed together?"

You should learn something about the case before you write such an article. Like I said, it's a fine idea to do an article on Pugh...but kindly remove your head from Bugliosi's ass before you do so. You might actually come up with something new regarding the case, if you'd just dare to think for yourself.

Scramblehead said...

On second thought, Dave, you are eerily reminiscent of Bill Nelson. Yep, Nelson's goal in life was to pin the Zodiac murders on Manson, and I'm sure it would also be your goal if you had enough time on your hands.

You did not thoroughly analyze this blog...because if you had, you would clearly see that it is not pro-Manson or pro-Atkins or pro-anyone...it is pro-TRUTH. And if you would open your one-track mind, you would see that Bugliosi's version of the case is FULL of lies and distortions to the point of being cancerous. Are you a fan of revisionist history?

All you did was take the easy way out (i.e., use Helter Skelter as a your bible). With this M.O. you could easily find a comfortable seat in Washington D.C. - no quest for truth there!

And, Dave, if you were really comfortable with your arguement, you wouldn't feel the need to point out trivial mistakes in someone else's grammar.

One more thing, Dave, inquiring minds have wanted to know for a long time: Does Bugliosi play with or without LUBE???

LilMagil said...

Well, I'm convinced. Clearly Mr. Edwards hasn't read many (any?) past posts here. Very few here believe Manson is/was misunderstood in his culpability. The main theme here, has been questioning Bugloisi's version of the crime.... too many unanswered questions and a theory (with some merit)but full of holes. I thought it was a good article with some new insights but if you draw conclusions in your writings as you've done here, my only conclusion is that anything you write must be flawed. Research is the key.

FrankM said...

Dave

You write well and no doubt mean well, but I really do think you're a little out of your league here (and at Cats' and Bret's forums too).

There are guys here who have access to far more materials than you can be aware of, and have been immersed in Manson-related research for decades.

To them you're just a Johnny come lately, who doesn't even respect the first 'rule' of any Internet forum - don't post till you've read the entire blog thoroughly.

With respect, you may think you researched your 'article' on Pugh well - and yes, you have turned up a few interesting points and a cool pic - but there are far too many things that are just 'wrong'. One of these is the main thrust to your article - that in some way Manson ordered the death of Joel, for which you can have no evidence whatsoever.

As is your assumption that we are all Manson supporters. Except for Ace, sadly smitten by her affair with CM, he gets short shrift here and on the other two forums I mentioned (although there are pro-Charlie sites).

I was for many years a journalist - and still am in a small way - and I know how shoddy much of the so-called 'research' is that journalists do. It's because of the deadlines they work to, basically. But I was a teacher for many years and before that did postgraduate study, so I know what academic research is too. And journalism doesn't come close, can't come close. There are a number of academic researchers on these boards - not just crazy California longhairs (few of those too).

So I recommend a dose of humility (your irony will be lost on many Americans anyway - we don't really do irony) and a willingness to share, learn and tolerate, That way you'll be welcome here.

Oh yes, the Col is a miserable guy at the best of times but tends to be fair in his criticism. He uses bad words like salt and pepper, that's the way he is, and it's cool to disagree with him too, but cooller when you make sense and have done your homework.

Peace

Frank

ColScott said...

I have posted Dave's letter in the main article and responded to it. Methinks he is not only a spazz, but also retarded. You decide.

Ginger_Dave said...

Golly, aren't things heating up?

Col/Colonel/whatever, I stand by everything I've said but it's depressing to have my posts met with such foul-mouthed and childish abuse. Throughout this discourse, I've never resorted to personal attacks, and no doubt this message will invite more of the same. Sure, my last message was ironic, but I'm not insecure enough to refer to you or anyone else as a 'spazz'. Actually, that's a term that -- to me, at least -- is offensive to people with learning difficulties. And yes, while typing this, I realise you're going to insert a petulant comment right about here. Go on...

Of the messages posted, FrankM speaks a lot of sense and I'll email him personally to discuss his points rather than sharing my thoughts with you where they'll be misinterpreted. So much for seeking the TRUTH.

Yesterday I got an email from someone who follows the comings and goings of this site but hasn't posted on to it. It sums up my thoughts. I've taken out their name, purely for the sake of courtesy -- although no doubt this'll be taken as some sort of media conspiracy.

Here's the email...

I am a regular reader of ColScott's blog but am not registered there for a good reason... the hostile ego. That is a strange place and while there is a good deal of information to be found, it's very slanted toward ColScott's needs and theories. He's not willing to listen to anything that differs from what he believes to be the truth, which isn't all together clear. He frequently seems to express an interest in Manson being far less guilty and evil than portrayed in the media, but doesn't entirely excuse him of the crime. He's really harsh on all of the murderers except Bobby Beausoleil (a supposed friend of his) and supports the whole Straight Satan's drug fiasco that resulted in Hinman's murder instead of the version portrayed in Helter Skelter (I support the Straight Satan's drug fiasco, too, since Bobby and Charlie's versions match closely and Manson stated back around 1970 that Hinman's murder was drug related).

Bottom line is that ColScott doesn't want Manson looking evil for whatever reason even though he knows Manson was involved in the murders he was convicted of. I do like stripping away the evil mastermind image and looking at it more in the light of criminal in a crisis making poor decisions, which I think to a degree is the truth.

LilMagil said...

Well done analysis!.., but 1 correction. I thought Spaz(z)was spelled with 1 "Z"
love 'Lil

LilMagil said...

Sorry it was the only thing I found incorrect in your statements.

spaz  /spæz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spaz]
–noun Slang.

1. a grotesquely awkward person.
2. an eccentric person.

You know, We have to do our research and editing before publishing. Just wanted to clarify.
No sarcasm here,,right Dave?

Ginger_Dave said...

No sarcasm, Lil. I was just going along with the Col's unusual spelling.

Ginger_Dave said...

Helter Skealter, eh?

ColScott said...

1- The regular reader seems to be a pussy- oh well
2- I agree with everything the regular reader says except one thing
3- I DON'T MIND DISSENTING views- never have and never will. If I did I would turn OFF the comments. Dissent away- but be accurate.

No petulant comments Dave. I actually like you and loved the photo. I urge you to READ better or closer, but aside from that you're okay.

I'll repeat for the 80th time my position on Manson.

Manson is a piece of shit punk. A nothing. A nobody ex-con. He is not, as Rolling Stone called him, THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN ALIVE. He's nothing.

Bug already had the real killers cold- confessions, fingerprints, handwriting, Kasabian- he had them cold.

He didn't have Charlie. What he did was pure George and the Dragon- take the punk and make him the symbol of evil, which in turn makes Bugliosi greater for his accomplishment.

David- I've spoken to multiple key players in the saga in longass interviews. Manson is a nothing- a twerp- a loser and a criminal. But the TLB murders were not about a race war and I want to learn what they were about.

LilMagil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Force 17 said...

Dave-a Daily Mirror journalist in the UK-that paper is trash.
In the Wells book he finds the facts and there is clearly no murder, unfortunately thats not a story is it.
You cant have a headline "Manson not connected to murder in the UK" can you.
Lazy lazy journalism.

FrankM said...

Dave

You (or anyone) can email me at fmurchison@gmail.com if you like - no secret about my email - happy to discuss with you. My position should be clear from my recent post.

Frank

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Amazing... comments that I have made about Charles, the media, the crimes and the motive were attributed to EVERYone who writes commentary on this blog.

Golly, I sure feel powerful now.

agnostic monk said...

Hey there, AC, I hear ya. Anyone who thinks this blog is a bunch of people who all share the exact same perspective, or a place where the blog owner prohibits views that differ from his own, isn't reading very carefully. How's the early summer in Michigan?

agnostic monk said...

oh and I'm gonna go out on a limb and tell Dave that I actually appreciate his article, despite the problems addressed by others, because I'm a shameless whore for anything related to this case.

: )

Pristash said...

Me too, Monk, me too!