Sunday, February 21, 2010

Bruce Davis : Follow the Bouncing Ball


Now I don't believe that Bruce committed dozens of other murders like the BUG would like us to.
And I don't believe he was the Zodiac like Nellie wanted to believe.
But I spent the weekend caring for my sick supermodel wife and getting stoned and the more I thought about Bruce, the more I think he has to be the key towards solving the motives.
No? Hey maybe not. Let's follow the bouncing ball.


I believe Bruce DOES kill Doreen Gault. Motive- dunno. --->

Bruce is part of the torture of Hinman. Convicted --->

Bruce is part of the torture and killing of Shea. Convicted --->

Bruce is NOT sent to Tate. But I believe he returns in the wee hours with Charlie to see if Tex did what he was asked. Almost as if they didn't believe he would. --->

Bruce is not sent to LaBianca. And I have a very hard time figuring out what he does do that evening. --->

Bruce marries Nancy Pitman and goes undercover in the sewers--->

I don't believe he kills Hughes because I think that is an accident. --->

But he is undercover for MONTHS- so what IS he doing? --->

Then he turns himself in. For good. Supposedly on Charlie orders. But for whatever reason he does- and that's it for him.

Now that he is up for a parole, a parole he doesn't deserve and probably won't get, I hope Sequiera and others get answers to these questions.

I think Bruce is filled with secrets.

20 comments:

St. Circumstance said...

Ahhh Bruce- the mysterious one. I always thought that if he had anything to give up- after Grogan getting out- he would have give it. Unless, of course everything he knew- involved himself....

Pristash said...

Wouldn't Tex have given him up years ago if that was the case?

I have a hard time believing that there is anything credible out there about this guy, as they are seriously considering paroling him. That new book by Simon Wells, which I am reading now, has the whole Joel Pugh thing in it,so you'd think he might be high on the radar for not paroling if they had any suspicions...

ColScott said...

You think Parole boards are smart?

St. Circumstance said...

I think the parole board is a joke based on Grogan getting out. I am not sure that any of them should ever get out, but if he was "redeemed" just because he gave up information, then it is a farce. Grogan in the mid 80's was a less dangerous threat to society twenty years ago- than Atkins was three months ago when she could barely move?

Pristash said...

Parole boards are political...you can see that just by looking at how Debra Tate gets all fired up on her website and others use their website to solicit letters opposing parole...from those of us who have nothing to do with this case, victims, perps...etc.

So yes, there is a complete disconnect out there..Grogan gets paroled because he gives up Shorty's body? Probably that and the fact that he is a borderline retard is what put him over the top. Should Davis get paroled if he admits to killing Gaul, Pugh, and others? Help give those families closure? Probably not.

And keeping Susan Atkins in jail until her death was completely insane. Like there is some sort of principle out there we believe in and just can't give up on...when some people weren't even prosecuted for some of the crimes...ridiculous.

I'll say it again: if your sentence includes the possibility of parole, and you do everything you can to win that parole, and you still don't get paroled? Then you're a political prisoner. Our society is much more interested in vengeance than in rehabilitation.

Marliese said...

Hi Pristash,

I understand everything you're saying...especially re Grogan's parole. It's pretty screwed up that his parole process included giving up Shorty's location. How about all the years he let him rot? And I also don't understand the inconsistencies...why Grogan wasn't prosecuted for the Labiancas. But I disagree about Susan and parole.

No where does it say if these killers do x, x, and x they'll be released on parole. The life with the possibility of parole sentence Susan ended up with did not give her the right to parole, it gave her the right to apply for parole.

In spite of Susan's rehabilitation and eventual illness, the parole board acted within the boundaries of the law by considering the circumstances of her crimes when considering her for parole...she was not able to overcome her vicious, vicious crimes.

~Marliese

Pristash said...

Mariese,

I get you too, good points made and I agree with you regarding what exactly Susan's rights were regarding parole.

BUT, to keep a terminal cancer stricken one legged woman incarcerated at the public's expense, when her family had the means to take care of her, did not do one bit to further anyone's rehabilitation, or punishment even. Susan certainly wasn't going to overcome the circumstances of her disease to cause anyone else any harm. Keeping her incarcerated was just a show, a political one at that.

Terribly sad really.

Scramblehead said...

Let's ditch the assumption that Tex was ASKED or ORDERED to do anything.

He did what he did and he WAS in charge that night. How can he possibly use the excuse that he wasn't in control of his faculties that night - to the degree that he, under hypnosis (so to speak), not only murdered...but mass-murdered?

It makes sense though that Charlie and Bruce (or whomever) went there later that night to do SOMETHING. I don't think it was to actually confirm that Tex did the deed. It was probably as simple as making sure there was no overlooked evidence.

Some neigbor heard people arguing in the house at 4:00 in the morning.

Why were they arguing...and what about?

St. Circumstance said...

Speaking of Susan- anyone notice her hubbys' remodeling of her website? He has been busy!

FrankM said...

A few posts back Marliese was berating AC for always defending CM.

Cats recently published some crime reports that show what a nice guy CM really was. I invite all of you (AC too) to read here and then continue to believe that CM was basically a nice misunderstood guy.

This is of course just one report - there are many more.

Over to you, AC

Frank

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Police officers will tell you that domestic violence is dicey, often a "he said / she said" thing.

First of all, we have 25 witnesses "sitting around", and nobody saw anything. Second of all, we have only one person's side of the story. Third of all, she couldn't run away? Danny DeCarlo is not very big. She couldn't defend herself?

I'm assuming she had custody of her child, or she wouldn't be confronting DeCarlo in the first place -- she couldn't have gotten the police or CPS (or the equivalent) to get her child back for her? If she knew DeCarlo is violent, and was sooo very frightened of him, why did she confront him in this manner?

I've personally seen women claim battery, when they weren't actually hit, to try and get their menfolk put into jail.

LilMagil said...

EGAD! So much wrong with the above post I need to catch my breath.

FrankM said...

EGAD, indeed, Nancy.

As Douglas H. Everett has said, “There are some people who live in a dream world, and there are some who face reality; and then there are those who turn one into the other.”

Guess AC is one of the last category.

Frank

Andromeda74 said...

I dont see what is wrong with AC's post. Ive seen for myself women lie about getting hit. This does happen. DeCarlo had problems with the police before and was probably known as a bad ass, so she probably wouldnt even have to go that far anyway. There are so many stories out there about Charlie being violent and then there are people(who continue to blame Manson for their crimes so have no reason to defend him) who say they NEVER saw Charlie hit the women at all , ever. Off hand I know Tex Watson is one of them and its highly likely he was one of the 25 people in the room that day. But who knows ? But there are women who lie about being hit and it doesnt make sense that if she knew DeCarlo was violent that she would get in his face like that. She could have just gone to Social Sevices or whatever it was back then and said "hey look at the guys record". Also, I seriously doubt that Danny was ever given custody of the child, a man given custody over the woman, in those days ?

Look ,we are talking about CHARLES MANSON here. Alot of thngs have been said about him that cannot all be true. You can say anything you want about him and probably find some kind of "evidence" to "prove" it true if you wanted to. Just because it states in a police report somewhere that some chick said Manson did something doesnt make it true. If it was that credible, the BUG would have used it, and I dont remember reading about this report in HS. Correct me if Im wrong.

And as far as that Everett quote goes, I believe Everett meant that as a GOOD thing, as in people who turn their dreams into reality, so if you want to (negatively)say that someone is living in a dream world and believes their own delusions, you might want to use another quote next time. If you want to stick it to someone, do it right.

FrankM said...

i don't really want to stick it to anyone, Andromeda. This comes after several years of postings on this and other blogs in which AC (who knows I respect and occasionally admire her) has seemingly never ever conceded one negative aspect of CM's life or personality. Some of her interpretations are simply outrageous. I recently came across the report and thought I'd bring it to the blog.

As for my use of the Everett quote, many writers, AC and myself included, will adopt the technique of using a known quote in a new way - this is part of creative writing.

i invite you to consider that this might be a valid thing to do, rather than sticking it to me (I rather like this phrase, but perhaps I am using it badly).

Frank

Andromeda74 said...

Well Frank, I see a difference between saying that someone's interpretations are outrageous, and your earlier post. In this particular case I dont see how they are. But anyway, every bit of info could hold a clue, so its always good to bring stuff like that in, because there could also be some useful clue. Like, if Bug didnt use this useful piece of info in the report, why not ? Because he didnt want to make his darling witness DeCarlo(who Bobby Beausoleil now calls a liar)look bad ? I know this is off the subject but it shows how everything is helpful.

Anyways - no hard feelings, I wasnt trying to "stick it you" either. (-:

A.C. Fisher Aldag said...

Wait a minute. Read the report, then use your logic. This woman is claiming to have been punched to the ground, then kicked and stomped by men wearing engineer boots. In a normal person, this would cause huge bruising, scrapes, contusions, perhaps even broken bones. At the very least, her clothing would be dirty and torn. It does not mention any of that in the police report.

Notice that she did not want a doctor to examine her. Perhaps because the doctor would not find contusions, scrapes, and broken bones, which would be consistant with being beaten and kicked by a man or men wearing engineer boots. Maybe she didn't want to get caught in a lie?

It says she had blood on her face. I believe that it's possible DeCarlo smacked her, but I don't believe the rest of her statement.

The report mentions that 25 people were present. Did the police officers not interview any of them? Take their statements? It's Spahn Ranch, there were cowboys present. Didn't any of them leap to the defense of this helpless woman?

And what happened to the child? She supposedly went there in the first place to reclaim her 10-month old baby. The police say nothing about getting the child back from this very violent biker with a prison record. Why not? Wasn't CPS (or whatever) involved AFTER an assault and battery, if not before?

There is a lot about this report that is fishy.

Recall that I have in my possession a sworn police statement that claims that I was performing animal sacrifice. Police sometimes lie. (I wiped the floor with them, getting a televised public apology.)

Would like to know if there was any follow-up to this incident. Did the woman get her child? Did they ever catch and question DeCarlo?

You also must realize that Charles is a small-statured man. Kenneth Como once beat him into paste. I'm wondering why, if Charles was always so all-fired violent, that nobody ever got into a fist fight with him and won. Or, um, simply walked away from him. And don't give me "battered woman syndrome" psychobabble. Plenty of abusive husbands / boyfriends get shot.

Scramblehead said...

Frank,

Why do you so desperately NEED a villain in your world?

Who said Manson was just a nice, misunderstood guy?

Do you actually read, or do you just read key words and phrases and then decide that the author(s) are declaring Manson a saint?

He wasn't a saint. But he also wasn't the monster that Bugliosi made him out to be.

You should reevaluate your loyalty to your fellow citizens.

It's us against the machine.

The machine delivered us the Manson myth. And you bought it.

Stop defending the machine, step out of the box, and think for yourself or YOU too might some day be railroaded by the machine in the same way Manson was.

It has happened to many people in this "blessed" country of ours.

The truth will set you free. The courts won't.

FrankM said...

Don't understand where you're going with that, Scramblehead, but I'm sure you're right. Guess I been reading the wrong books.

Apologies if I upset you, we wouldn't want that.

Frank

Matt said...

Col, you mentioned:

I believe Bruce DOES kill Doreen Gault. Motive- dunno. --->

Very plausible motive in the Sharp/Gaul killings:
http://alienbodies.wikidot.com/doreen-gaul