Monday, September 07, 2009

Linda Kasabian now Linda Chiochios on Larry King


I cannot embed this because the Youtube guy who illegally posted it doesn't allow it. Not sure why. Probably retarded. You can start watching it

HERE

Now we can play the same game of obviousness- I'll start and you can finish in the comments....

1- BUG jumps in to make sure Linda sticks to the script
2- Linda stays in disguise for no reason
3- Linda's new story makes her a worse accessory than ever
4- Even addled Larry thinks she should have done something and been charged.
5- Debra now has a full on fantasy about her involvement, with no mention of being disowned by her family and refusing a proper burial for her father.
6- Another hour wasted

42 comments:

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Someone needs to tell Linda that modern-day Manson supporters have no interest in her, and thus, she can lose the tacky disguise. Or perhaps she's hiding from the IRS.

agnostic monk said...

No interest, AC? That's funny, because any time I do any digging around on the interwebs it seems many "modern-day Manson supporters" (none of whom ever actually lived at Spahn Ranch and ever knew Manson or Linda at the time) seem to work themselves into a frenzy trying to discredit, condemn, and demonize the woman. But it's not the sane "supporters" (such as yourself) she is likely concerned about. Considering the cult of fascination that has grown around this case, it's naive and unfair to dismiss any concerns she may have for her personal safety and anonymity. That goes for you too, Col. And if she *didn't* wear a disguise you'd probably be accusing her of seeking out fame and attention. I am sure of this.

Now, as for Bugliosi, I wish he could reign in his control freak nature and just let her speak for herself. She actually is capable of doing so (as in the History Channel doc) if he would just STFU for 5 seconds and stop rushing her. She is obviously a quiet and reserved person and not a trained media monkey.

Marliese said...

If personal safety and the safety and anonymity of her family are her primary concerns, why come forward...especially now when the cult fascination is peaking for the 40th anniversary, wearing a disguise that didn't really disguise anything? Not saying her concerns aren't valid, but if she doesn't want to go there, why does she?

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Debating on the Internet is quite different than going and knocking on someone's door and pestering them. A disguise says to me that someone is afraid that they will be harrassed and harmed. If I saw Linda in the supermarket, I'm not going to throw tomatoes at her. Doubt anyone else would, either. Gotta wonder if the disguise wasn't Bugliosi's way of saying that Linda might be facing some sort of danger.

angeLos said...

Gotta wonder if the disguise wasn't Bugliosi's way of saying that Linda might be facing some sort of danger.

... no way ...
Thank you to VB and LK, they had the courage to stand up !

ColScott said...

wtf are you talking about? did you watch it? BUG is her new Charlie, controlling everything.

angeLos said...

Yes I watched it and I was very surprised VB said something like it was totaly randomly chosen the places.... and btw , VB did not sent TW on CD...
CM unfortunately knew exactly what he was doing and he perfectly knew STP was living there and LLB was living near Gri...Park and he wanted them dead.
Again , pure jealousy over beauty and wealth ...
Just to scare the s... out of the LA bassin area and to be feared forever in jail... no drugs no nothing...
now if you say the truth lies somewere else.... tell me ...

agnostic monk said...

except, AC, you don't speak for "anyone else". You speak for you. Who are you to say that there are no modern-day Manson supporters (as you called them) who might harass her? Did they elect you their spokesperson? and it isn't just Manson supporters. She gets it from all sides, i.e. people who do not support Manson but do condemn her for her involvement in the crimes, the same people who would gladly harass or even harm Atkins, Van Houten, Lynette, etc. On top of that, add in the general all-around crazies and stalkers dotting the country who could pop out of the woodwork for reasons that make sense only in their deranged minds, and a very reasonable threat does exist. Hence the wig, dark glasses, and dimmed lighting. She's not wealthy and does not have the resources to hire private security. It is unfair to dismiss the potential danger.

And Col, it's not Linda's fault that Bugliosi is a control freak. She does have a mind of her own and while she doesn't speak with the eloquence of an educated and savvy politician, she WAS able to articulate her memories and thoughts reasonably well in the history channel documentary without Bugliosi pulling the strings behind her head.

But, I understand the drill. We must keep vigilantly discrediting the memories and statements of Linda Kasabian (and almost anyone other than Manson who speaks out about these events) so poor little misunderstood really-just-a-country-bumpkin-nature-loving-sweetheart-underneath-it-all Charlie can be consistently cast in the role of victimized scapegoat. Poor Charlie.

ColScott said...

AngelLos
You haven't been reading closely and I can't read for you. Suffice to say, jealousy is no more the motive than was Helter Skelter

ColScott said...

MOnk are you having a bad day? Charlie Manson is a lowlife scumbag. Linda Kasabian should have gotten the death penalty. These are not mutually exclusive....

And she recites the same story, right out of the Bug's novel. WHY DIDN'T SHE CALL SOMEONE on the morning of the Tenth? Because bitch was into it man.

deadwoodhbo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
deadwoodhbo said...

Sorry for the can.
Col Scott said Linda Kasabian should have gotten the death penalty.
Absolutely.

Pristash said...

Big sigh... Looks to me like we're all modern day manson something or others who would be interested in Linda Kasabian. I, for one, would sure want to ask her a question or two if I saw her walking down the street.

and angeLos and Monk, I think Manson is as responsible as anyone for these crimes, but I think it's fairly clear that there was much more going on than jealousy or that the Beatles were singing a song about a slide in an amusement park.

Pristash said...

Oh, and my two cents about Manson on the History Channel: I fell asleep. Seriously, right after they pull up to the LaBianca's...then I woke to see the Salindar scene. So, how good could it be if someone as obsessed by this case as I am can doze off?

And I wish they had rented my house as it looks more like Tate's than wherever that place was...

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

The only thing that I watched, Col., were the clips you had posted here... I have no T.V. And slooooow dial-up. By the time I was ready to view the rest of the "fakeumentary", it was taken down on You Tube... gonna watch the rest someday soon.

The point I'm trying to make is that Linda, by wearing a disguise, is trying to convey the message that she is in peril from the scary dangerous Manson Family (TM). That's why the wig, the half-light, the funny camera angles. Or Mr. Bugliosi is trying to make that statement for her, as the good Colonel suggests.

Bug keeps stressing, in every interview, that Charles has a thousand million followers, and they're all very horrid, frightening people. Although they're misguided teenagers. Horrid, frightening murderous fourteen-year-olds.

Seriously doubt that Linda is wearing a disguise because she's afraid of losing her, um, job...!

If, as Agnostic suggests, Linda can't afford private security, if she is so petrified, can't she afford security by Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson? As much as Gypsy and Barbara annoy me, they aren't wearing disguises on T.V. That interview likely paid well, so can't she afford to move?

Naaaaw. It was a crafted, visual statement. "My life is in danger because I told the truth". Lousy premise, but good television.

Charles states that he spoke to Linda all of thirty-some words during the whole two weeks that he knew her. If he had that much influence after two weeks, then that is someone who is easily influenced.

He says Linda testified as she did because CPS (or the equivalent of that time / place) had her TWO children and were threatening to take away the new baby. (What? The mockumentary says she had only one kid???) Linda was told to testify, or never see her children again. "They the fear over in her" so he doesn't fault her for lying.

It was strange to me, that Charles had seen neither the King interview or the documentary, cuz they don't have those channels, but he stll knew that Bugliosi was coaching her. "He kept telling her da-da-da, and saying in court da-da-da, and so she'd say da-da-da right behind him."

"Feared forever in jail"? Ha. Ha ha. Hahaha! Oh yeah, guys from the AB and MM are shivering in their boots. Maybe they fear they're gonna lose a game of chess?

jm30 said...

Two things....

Col.: Regarding Shapiro in the documentary....I have read a couple of Brian Wilson biographies, and a Stanley Shapiro appears in one of them as a good friend of Dennis who hangs around the old Will Rogers house from time to time. So, maybe they were accurate on that very one thing.

The rest of the "documentary" was total garbage. Did you notice the multiple umbrella tables on the Cielo patio? What the fuck was it...a public swimming pool or resort?

How about the metal garbage bin chained to a tree on the Cielo grounds when Tex and the girls are making their way up from the car. Are they actually taping this in a park?

Did they have sliding glass doors in 1969? I'm just sayin.

Did Linda get into Parent's car and steal his wallet? That was the first I had heard of that, even though I have not combed all of the police reports.

And, given enough time, I will have many more questions.

Pristash said...

Hey, AC,

Is Grass Lake, Michigan anywhere near you?

deadwoodhbo said...

If one fears for ones life why go on national tv in the first place.

jadedjamie said...

Well, as for the "disguise" maybe LK just did not want us to see her eyes, the window to the soul? Also, she said she did nothing to stop the second night of slaughter because she feared for her baby. Fine, but 10 minutes later when she describes fleeing the Ranch she said she "just Knew" her baby would be alright? WTF?
As for the tiresome BS of the Bug, I must admit it was fun watching him nearly have a stroke when LK spoke of taking Steven Parents money from his wallet. You wait and see, if he has anything to say about it, she will NOT be doing any more interviews live. That bitch should have done time, IMHO. I am not buying her act, I never will.

Marliese said...

Jm, i was thinking the same thing about Cielo. The old house was so well known, the 40's style barn red french colonial. The house, the lot, the gate, the front walkway, the guest house, the front door!...all part of the crime scene. How hard would it have been to be a little more authentic, instead of making it an ultra modern 60's house out of Sunset Magazine. Poor research. Same thing with Spahn's Movie Ranch being in Benedict Canyon. Dumb. They can't look at a map?
And all the furnishings at Spahn Ranch. I don't know, but I don't think they had that much stuff...
and they couldn't find a Ford?

~Marliese

Marliese said...

I feel the same, Becca. If you're scared, why go on TV? And then complain. Could it be for the money? I don't think Larry King pays for interviews, but I wonder what she was paid by the History Channel.

~Marliese

Marliese said...

Hi Jamie, i agree. She was an accessory to murder and i think guilty of child neglect and abandonment. And I don't see how she was able to get her daughter back so easily with no job, no money, pregnant again, and the history of drugs, jail, hanging with murderers...she wasn't given immunity from prosecution for nothing.

agnostic monk said...

marliese, complain? I don't hear any complaining. I see someone who is willing to talk about something that happened 40 years ago but is taking some precautions with her identity given the charged nature of the subject matter. I don't see why it's such a sticking point. Some of the others - i.e. Gypsy - have talked on camera, as AC pointed out, without disguises... but they are clearly attention whores.

and hi there AC, thanks for sharing what Charlie had to say about Linda and her testimony, but really, I wouldn't have expected him to say anything else, because after all, EVERYONE is lying EXCEPT Charlie.

Marliese said...

Hi Agnostic, okay...concern instead of complain. Point being if someone is 'concerned' about personal safety, why go on television?

~Marliese

agnostic monk said...

Marliese, I guess it's a "damned if you do, damned if ya don't" dynamic. she's getting shit for talking, and shit for NOT talking. For 40 years there have been people who've been saying "that bitch needs to come out and tell the TRUE story of her involvement." What they really mean is "that bitch needs to come out and tell me what I want to hear, that she lied, that she knew people at the Tate's before the murders, that she enjoyed watching the killings, blah blah blah." No one will be satisfied until their pet conspiracy rumor is confirmed, or that she kills herself out of shame (which she said in the CNN interview she's was doing, slowly, for years). Meanwhile... Manson, Susan, Bobby, Van Houten: admired by fan clubs, marriage proposals, parole supporters, buddies with Hollywood stars who want to give them friendship and jobs when they get out. And all the fans of the above despise LK for ratting on these killers they adore, highlighting all of HER sins so that, what? so that their favorite Mansonite doesn't look as bad?

Manson is charismatic and says society has problems and pollution is bad (OMG! how profound!), Leslie was pretty and charming, Bobby was goodlooking and talented, so it's ok if we toss THIS girl into the gutter like roadkill as long as it suits our personal agendas, infatuations, and preferences. I don't know, I guess the double-standard and hypocrisy sort of irritate me.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

I know that you like her, Agnostic, but I do wish she'd tell the truth. Linda claims that she stole Mr. Parent's wallet, but his wallet was actually in his pocket, undisturbed, with $50 bucks in it, according to a source that is quoting a police report. I'd like to know why Linda didn't say she was using amphetamines during her testimony in court. Why she didn't admit how short a while she was actually at the Ranch. When there's one mistruth, there are likely to be others.

deadwoodhbo said...

Agnostic Monk said
Manson is charismatic and says society has problems and pollution is bad (OMG! how profound!)Since the begining of time society has had problems and people have been polluting the earth for hundreds of years.
Profound no common sense yes.

agnostic monk said...

AC, never read anything of the kind in the homicide reports. the only thing about Steven Parent I could find were descriptions of his car, his wounds, his wristwatch, and some comments about him having been arrested for five burglaries and having been described by his parole officer as having "sadistic and homosexual tendencies". Nothing about his wallet.

angeLos said...

And please were does the pic on the top of the post come from ? sick...!
On this blog, sometimes, it seems like it was the victims fault and they "deserved" what happened to them...strange
And what kind of information could LK hide ? she said it all, probably...

Pristash said...

Oh, so I asked a few months ago who Squeaky would be living next door to once she was released. Goddam if the answer didn't turn out to be me for crissakes!

MARCY — .Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, the woman convicted in 1975 of pointing a gun at then-President Gerald Ford, is moving to this Oneida County town, officials said Monday.

Oneida County District Attorney Scott McNamara said he received information from state police earlier this summer that Fromme, who is now 60, is moving to Marcy in the wake of her release from federal prison.

“I said, 'You're kidding me, right?'” McNamara said. “The 'Squeaky' Fromme from the Charles Manson clan? The one who shot at President Ford? I thought it was a joke.”

Fromme was a 26-year-old disciple of the cult murderer Manson when she aimed a semiautomatic .45-caliber pistol at Ford in September 1975 in Sacramento.

Secret Service agents grabbed her, and Ford was unhurt. Seventeen days later, a second woman with ties to radical groups, Sara Jane Moore, took a shot at Ford in San Francisco and missed. She spent 32 years in prison.

Fromme was released from federal custody in mid-August after serving 34 years, according to the state Federal Bureau of Prisons Web site.

McNamara would not say where in Marcy she might live, and he said he didn't know whether she had moved there yet.

The news came as a surprise to local residents and officials.

“I'm surprised, but not alarmed,” said Raymond Maciewicz, 58, of Benton Road. “It's an awful long time ago. Maybe she's repented her ways.”

Marcy Councilman James Goodman said he was not aware of Fromme relocating to the area.
“It's news to me, so I guess I couldn't give you any information,” he said.

Town Supervisor Brian Scala also hadn't heard, and did not want to comment on the news.
“People that pay their time, pay their time,” he said.

Fromme, who got a life term, became the first person sentenced under a special federal law covering assaults on U.S. presidents, a statute enacted after the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Manson is serving a life term in the Corcoran prison in California for the 1969 murders of actress Sharon Tate and eight others. Fromme, one of his “family” of followers, was not implicated in those attacks.

While police and prosecutors can't hold a person's criminal past against them, McNamara said they do “have a heightened alertness toward people for the crimes they committed.”

“We can't stop them from moving here, but obviously it creates a concern on our part because of the nature of the crimes she previously committed, and the people she was previously involved with,” McNamara said.

Contributing: Courtney Potts, O-D; The Associated Press.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Well, the five burglaries of Mr. Parent are a new one on me, Agnostic. Hmmm, makes ya wonder if he wasn't a target of some "crime ring" type activity, as well as Mr. Frykowski. Now I gotta go find the source for the wallet in the pocket comment.

Pristash: In what state is Marcy?

Pristash said...

Marcy, NY...upstate in central ny state

My neck of the woods

Marliese said...

Agnostic, thanks for your reply. I appreciate what you're saying, and admire your generous attitude towards Linda, it's just I can't get past the victims, and her involvement in their suffering.

Even if she was a sweet little flower child that couldn't plunge a knife into someone's heart, she was also someone that neglected her child while she had lots of trippy acid sex, went on to completely abandon her child, stole money to give to her new friends, got a knife, got a change of clothes, got in the car, watched Tex cut the lines, followed him onto the property, saw him execute Steven Parent...she watched him shoot that kid in the face while he was begging Tex not to hurt him, and like a good little girl went on to do what Tex told her to do for the rest of the night.

Did she leave when she got back to the ranch? She says she was afraid of what they'd do to her baby, why would she leave her baby with them in the first place? And when she finally did leave, she left her baby there anyway because she "just knew" the baby would be alright. I don't believe she couldn't get her daughter and sneak off. Spahn Ranch was not Death Valley. She was close to help. If she wanted to go, she'd have gone.

She was not so disturbed by the Cielo murders that she couldn't go out again for another round of killing the next night. She was in the car when Charlie and Tex came back to get the girls after going inside the LaBianca house and tying up Leno and Rosemary. What did she think they were going to do? When she went off with the others, she knew those people were being killed. She knew after Steven was shot that the people inside the house on Cielo Drive were going to be killed. She saw it happen.

My opinion about Linda Kasabian is not that she was some mastermind, but that she was guilty of serious crimes and not prosecuted. The total immunity agreement (that's some attorney she had) ensured she was going to talk, it's either talk or go to prison. That's not an angel or a hero.

Aside from her crimes, she hasn't exactly lived a stellar life for the last 40 years. But maybe the opinion that she's been punishing herself is true. It just seems logical to me that if you want anonymity and have concerns for personal safety, do not go on television in a halfassed disguise ...and then appear on television elsewhere without a disguise. Maybe she wanted the disguise because she's embarrassed for herself, maybe the up close view on Larry King would be too revealing of the ravages to her face from decades of drugs, alcohol, neglect and abuse.

Linda accomplished nothing by coming foward after 40 years except make herself look even worse than she did before. She didn't the last time either, when she appeared on one of the tabloid shows back in the 80's...smirking about Sadie being quite the talker.

Steven Parent...i've read similiar, but not burglary...his sister said he was charged as juvenile several times with the petty theft of electronics parts and sent to juvenile detention for counseling. Whatever. He didn't deserve to be shot in the face by Tex Watson. And who cares if he was gay.

Pristash said...

Once again, the best info comes from the NY Times:

Manson Follower 'Squeaky' Moving to Upstate NY

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 15, 2009
Filed at 3:51 p.m. ET

MARCY, N.Y. (AP) -- Lynette ''Squeaky'' Fromme, the Charles Manson follower convicted in 1975 of pointing a gun at then-President Gerald Ford, is moving to upstate New York, local officials said Tuesday.

Oneida County Undersheriff Peter Paravati and state police spokesman Lt. Glenn Miner said federal authorities notified their offices about Fromme moving into the area.

District Attorney Scott McNamara said he was notified by state police that the 60-year-old Fromme was moving to Marcy following her release last month after serving 34 years in federal prison.

''If she has arrived, nobody's heard from her. Nobody has seen her. Nobody's made a fuss,'' McNamara said.

Paravati and McNamara said they were given no other information about Fromme's move.

''I thought it was a joke at first,'' said the prosecutor, who added that federal authorities routinely notify local law enforcement agencies when federal parolees convicted of drug, sex or violent crimes relocate to a community.

''Obviously, it creates a concern because of the crimes she was convicted of committing,'' McNamara said. ''But as far as us treating her any differently than anyone else, she's paid her debt to society.''

Fromme eluded the media last month as she left the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas. She declined a recent interview request from The Associated Press. Officials did not know of her whereabouts Tuesday.

Prison officials would not say where she planned to live or what she planned to do after more than 30 years behind bars. Some of Fromme's relatives still live in her home state of California.

U.S. Parole Commission spokesman Tom Hutchison noted again Tuesday that he could not discuss Fromme's plans. Fromme will be on supervised release for two years and must report regularly to a parole officer, he said.

In September 1975, Fromme pushed through a crowd, drew a semiautomatic .45-caliber pistol from a thigh holster and pointed it at Ford, who was shaking hands with well-wishers at the California State Capitol in Sacramento. Secret Service agents grabbed her and the gun. Ford wasn't hurt.

Fromme was a college student before joining Manson's ''family,'' where she reportedly got her nickname because of her voice. She was never implicated in the 1969 murders of actress Sharon Tate and eight others, for which Manson is serving a life term in Corcoran State Prison in California.

The news that Fromme already is, or soon could be, a neighbor came as a surprise to local residents and officials.

Town Supervisor Brian Scala said he had not been given any information and had no comment.

''I'm surprised, but not alarmed,'' said Raymond Maciewicz, 58, of Marcy. ''It's an awful long time ago. Maybe she's repented her ways.''

The town of Marcy is 55 miles east of Syracuse and includes four hamlets spread over 33 square miles with about 9,000 people. Although mostly rural, the town is home to two medium-security state prisons, the county jail and the State University of New York Institute of Technology.

agnostic monk said...

Marliese, angel? hero? did you get the impression I was calling her those things? because I never have and I never would. I don't think that having a little bit of compassion for her and respect for her testimony is the equivalent of calling her a hero. Even I will agree that Bugliosi went way overboard in his praising of her on Larry King. Maybe he feels sorry for her or something, for using her to win the case and then make millions. I don't know. It's not like his Helter Skelter book is low on sales and he felt he needed to praise her to keep the dough rolling. maybe he really *does* believe she was different.

anyway, I have a lot more to say to address your many valid points but I need to make time. oh, and the homicide report refers to Steve's crimes as burglary, which might be interchangeable with petty theft? I only added in the mention of his possibly being gay because that and the theft arrests were the only things that were new to me in the homicide report, not because I was suggesting he deserved to be murdered (my greatest sympathies in this case are reserved for the victims). Nothing about his wallet or $50.

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Nobody "deserved to be murdered" but when folks get themselves involved in The Life, it happens.

Petty theft would be stealing things from a store. Burglary would involve breaking into a building. Unless the criminal code has radically changed in 40 years.

And yeah, 40 years ago, gay was = scandalous, even though the lifestyle was as common in H'wood then as now.

Marliese said...

Agnostic, I should've been clear there...when i said hero, i was actually referring to Bugliosi's comments, and his defensive praise for Linda towards the end of the Larry King interview.
He sounded weird and desperate. I didn't mean to imply that you regard her as angelic or heroic.

When VB was praising her, I thought of Leno...gutted on his living room floor and Rosemary with a pillowcase over her head.

Immunity ensured she'd talk and helped the prosecution, but wouldn't she have talked without it? And anyway, don't judges usually instruct juries to proceed with caution when considering the testimony of someone given immunity? I just think she should've been prosecuted.

About Steven, i know you weren't saying he deserved to be murdered and understand that his theft history is factual and mentioned in the police report. I was venting.

agnostic monk said...

Marliese, no worries, thank you for clarifying. I just misunderstood. Anyway, you're not alone in thinking she should have been prosecuted, obviously. I'm just someone who is comfortable with her being free if it means the others were to be locked up. I'm in the minority but that's ok. One thing I was thinking about regarding the Bugliosi interview was that perhaps he was well aware that Debra Tate was going to make her statement about LK being prosecuted and the DA "trying harder" (which to me sounded rather glib and ungrateful but that's another story). So it could be that his showy defense of LK was in anticipation of Debra's statement.

agnostic monk said...

about the testimony of someone receiving a plea bargain or immunity deal... here is how I understand it - please, anyone, correct me if I have it wrong. The law at the time (could still be the case) actually forbids a jury from finding a defendant guilty based only on the testimony of an accomplice. So in other words, the jury would not have been allowed to, say, sit and listen to Linda's testimony for 18 days and then turn around and find the defendants guilty. The only time they are permitted, by law, to factor in the testimony of an accomplice is when the prosecution provides sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice. Hence the months long parade of additional witnesses (including Family members, detectives, coroners, etc.) and exhibits like crime scene photos. Even then, with corroboration, the jury is instructed to treat the testimony of the accomplice with some degree of skepticism.

That was/is the law as I understand it and how it applied to this case.

Pristash said...

Just for the fun of it, check the link out and even participate in the survey. Don't forget to read the comments too...

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x786216340/Poll-Living-next-to-Lynette-Squeaky-Fromme

Pristash said...

Susan Atkins has died. You heard it here first.

Paulina said...

Lindas daughter https://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=1099449225