Monday, May 16, 2011

Five Years Ago to the Day


Five years ago today we asked about Carl/Karl Stubbs right HERE.

In the book FIVE TO DIE they imply that Katie was somehow involved in this murder. November 12, 1968 it SEEMS that the attack happened. Well before Tate LaBianca.

Now over on the Evil Liz blog, the freaky lawyer who is pretending to help Charlie implies that it is TEX who killed Stubbs.

It is necessary for us however, to touch on one issue that may be important for your considerations. The Prosecutor at the trial produced to the jury the so called theory of ‘helter skelter’ namely that the Applicant may not have told his co-defendants to murder anyone but in a kind of extra-terrestrial manner influenced their minds to murder. It is a fact that the co-defendant Tex Watson was the perpetrator of a number of the murders committed. There is however, now evidence from a California Police Officer that Tex Watson may well have committed murder some nine months prior to any of the killings which if correct would destroy the theory of the Prosecutor that the co-defendants murdered by the mind control of the Applicant!
Tex Watson was seen following a man named Karl Stubbs to his house and that man was later found dead on 9/15/1968 in Olancha, California. This the verbatim statement from the California Police Officer as below:
“I have another murder that I want to tell you about. The victim is an 80 year old man named Karl Stubbs who was killed November 15, 1968 in Olancha, Ca., almost a year before Tate/LaBianca/Hinman/Shea. A witness identified Tex Watson in 1970. There were also two unknown girls there when Karl was beaten. The murder was not followed up on. Why? Because Charlie was nowhere near Olancha then and it would show that Tex is the serial killer. There is no way the Bug could have convinced the jury that he had total mind control on everyone back in 1968!
I spoke to the witness that lived behind Karl. She told me that Karl crawled to her trailer and told her husband that there was a boy and two girls that came in his house demanding money. Every time the boy would kick him in the head the girls would laugh. The witness said that Karl was totally lucid but he could not see. He died hours later. A year later, Tex Watson confessed the Tate/LaBianca murders to Diane Lake while there were in Olancha. Olancha is the gateway to the Barker Ranch via Hwy 190.
The case was investigated by the California Department of Justice. Tom interviewed the investigator who said that the investigation "fell through the cracks". It was not until Tex was finally extradited from Texas, after everyone else was tried, that the clerk at the store recognized Tex on TV as one of the kids that followed Karl home from the store. It is unknown if this was ever reported to Law Enforcement.
To this day, DOJ will not do anything with this case. (I have talked with them). Why not?????
It would show that Tex was killing people almost a year before, independently on his own, as well as two of the girls. That would not support the Bug's Helter Mind Control/Helter Skelter theory.
Olancha is a very small town. Gas Station, Store and one restaurant. About 500 people scattered over many square miles on ranches. It was not local kids. The Hannum Ranch is in Olancha. David Hannum worked at the Spahn Ranch in 1969 and the family used his mother's ranch in Olancha to park a semi trailer full of supplies and use it as a base.”
Fascinating to me this guy. They are right of course in their assertions though they won't get anywhere. And he does leave it open that it could be Tex AND Katie.

129 comments:

jill said...

this seems like such a viable lead (compared to some...)!
too bad the trial was so narrowly focused, this could definitely have changed the perspective.

MrPoirot said...

I don't think the Family had reached the point of violence at the time of Stubbs death. They were peaceful until Charlie began preaching violence in Winter 68.

As Gypsy said, "when it got mean it got mean real fast".

jill said...

that is a good point, and i definitely don't tend to think a lot of the crimes people try to link to them fit, especially if they were pre-1969. i agree that they weren't at that unique confluence of factors that led the point of violence. but this seems to be a beating that went too far, and if it was tex it might show a path he had been on that combined with the speed and other circumstances might help show how he became a killer, although there is no real answer there...

i wish here was more than one witness who could verify this.

St. Circumstance said...

Funny Col- I knew it was Tex and Katie all along...

This may help explain- again- why it WASN'T H/S... or brainwashing

But it still doesn't help explain why it did happen

unless it is as simple as Tex and Katie like to kill people???

knowing what they were capable of those two nights in Aug 69- it doesn't, or wouldn't surprise me if either of them had done it before...

Panamint Patty said...

Hi Col, why is it you don't think it will go anywhere? Patty has her own ideas on the subject of course.

blipcrotch said...

Lets accept the premise, that say, Mother Mary, Spock and Cousin It did this. No problem believing that Spock and It in particular had engaged in acts of violence prior to August 8, 1969.

I don't think this proves anything regarding Manson's involvement in the Tate-Labianca murders.

In the 5 months between the time Spock first started getting involved with CM and the family and the Stubbs murder, he was a family member. He spoke of LEAVING the group in December 1968 when Charlie was listening to the White Album for the first time.

You don't struggle with LEAVING something unless you're IN it.

We all know that cousin It was one of the earliest family members and became a devoted follower shortly after Mother Mary and Ms. Howdy Doody.

I am amused by the notion that the Stubbs murder is the blockbuster piece of information that exonerates CM.

Spock could have been Ted Bundy, that doesn't mean CM didn't drive the zoo crew over to the Labiancas and tie them up, pop a cap on Lottsapoppa, cut Gary Hinman's ear off, and run around the desert acting like Erwin Rommel.

Some people are so anxious to exonerate Manson, they will believe anything. Including that Obama and Holder would expend political capital to free him.

Oh wait, they need charlie to help them run things... prophecies fullfilled OMG!

Enjoy the rapture everyone!

Panamint Patty said...

Olancha would not exonerate Manson, but it would bring the Bug's whole brainwashing assertion into doubt. Patty does not believe that anyone was brainwashed into murder, she believes that everyone participated of their own free will.

TomG said...

They were thugs of the 60's. They hated their parents, what they were taught, what their country was doing. The old rules were no longer applicable. Add drugs, amphetamines....anything is possible. This bitch came undone.

When they got caught and it comes to trial, you can't convict middle class white kids, especially girls.

You need a bad guy. You need to put the crime to rest and maintain the status quo.

eviliz said...

thanks for the plug eviliz

www.eviliz.com

blipcrotch said...

Ummm... they had no problem convicting so called middle class white kids.... they sentenced them to death, which they would have done with or without Manson.

BTW stories of Charlies deprived background are much exaggerated. He was a middle class white kid too.

My wife is a former probation officer... she could tell you stories about things parents and society have done to kids that make Charlies supposedly deprived background look like Ozzie and Harriet. Yet in many cases, despite all odds many of these kids turned their back on hate and became forces for good. Charlie is a selfish evil SOB and he does not deserve all of the mental gyrations that people perform to try to make him look like he is a victim.

blipcrotch said...

Liz,

Nice blog but if you think you are the first person to connect the that picture of Watson to Spock, you haven't been following this case for too long.

There are about six pictures of Watson that have been published ad infinitum, and that one is and will always be the Spock picture.

Live long and Prosper!

katie8753 said...

This “lawyer” needs to get some facts straight.

Who is this “mystery California police officer” anyway? Does he have a name???

Mr. Stubbs was attacked 11/12/68. Not on 9/15/68 and not on 11/15/68, as this thread says.

Karl didn’t crawl to the neighbor’s house. She found him on his porch.

Karl told deputies that TWO men and 2 girls came to his house. Not ONE man as the “lawyer” states.

Now if one of the two men is Tex, as everyone seems to think, who’s to say the other isn’t Charlie? I think the chances of either being involved are nil.

And why do they think Katie is involved? No witnesses claiming to have seen her. Any proof of that?

So, if some "hippies" are involved in something nefarious in Olancha, it has to be the Manson Family?

This will all come to nothing. It’s based on inaccurate information that’s 42 years old.

MrPoirot said...

But both Tex and Sadie cut their hair like tv characters. Sadie as That Girl and Tex as Spock. Why?

katie8753 said...

In 1968 in Olancha, CA some nice old guy got killed. Nobody thought anything about it, except the locals who hung their heads for a while and said "WTF"!

Suddenly, when the news breaks, that "a hippy cult killed Sharon Tate" everyone comes out of the woodwork claiming that they saw Tex, et al, at every crime scene in 1968/1969.

It reminds me of everyone claiming to be invited to a party at Cielo Drive on August 8, 1969.

Need my 15 minutes of fame.

Panamint Patty said...

It was Patty that screwed up the transcription from Studio Internazionale to eviliz. They have the September date there, Patty typed "11" instead of "9". Lession learned - Patty does not want to introduce any further inaccuracies into a heavily tweaked with history and compromise Liz' *pristine* reputation. Patty will fix it right now, thank you Katie. Good night all.

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

Blipcrotch said......

Liz,
Nice blog but if you think you are the first person to connect the that picture of Watson to Spock, you haven't been following this case for too long.

no shit sherlock. did i put a banner over the picture saying
~I THINK I AM THE FIRST PERSON IN THE WORLD TO NOTICE TEX RESEMBLES SPOCK!!!!!!!!?~ find someone else to play internet police with.
and yes i have only been following the case since this morning. you caught me. is it that obvious?
i woke up today and caught Helter Skelter for the first time on t.v and decided as soon as the show was over, hmmm tex looks like spock, i should start a Manson blog to let everyone know. wtf?

Pristash said...

Witness doesn't come around until 1970 after he sees Tex on TV, then says, oh yeah, that's the guy.

Shady at best.

Pristash said...

Interesting...

http://www.paulmorantz.com/cult/escape-from-cielo-dr-a-tale-of-three-charlies/

He makes mistakes of course, but interesting nonetheless. Found it by accident.

Streetwalkin said...

Great blog Col thank you for all the time and effort put in over the years very much appreciated.
May I ask great wise people of this forum "death to pigs" by Robert Hendrickson is it worth the $90 bucks?
I live in Australia and i will need to add another $40 for postage so it makes for an expensive book.
It sounds impressive but has yet to read any reviews.

St. Circumstance said...

Hey Streetwalking-

A trusted guy on here Reviewed parts of it on another blog and was very positive about it...

He said it was a great read...

I have it ordered-

Vera Dreiser said...

AC, You didn't really post this comment on the Youtube video of Benard Crowe's old TV interview, did you???

"Shining example of the black race, with an IQ of almost 45.
Shoot him again, Charles."
ACFisherAldag 1 year ago 3

angeLos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Davis said...

Just catching up...GREAT POSTS as always COL !

Vera Dreiser said...

A.C.? Anyone?

St. Circumstance said...

I spar with AC affectionately all the time...

I hope that isn't true

St. Circumstance said...

because aside from the obvious racial implications of a statement like that...

I believe that AC comes from a good place and is wrong about Charlie..

but if it is the case that she really is a believer in violence like that.... and supports him for those reasons...

I was fooled- in more ways than one....

So I hope that is not true..

Vera Dreiser said...

St. C, I guess all we can do is wait and see what -- if anything, ever -- she says.
But I, of course, share your sentiment. Hence the question.

candy and nuts said...

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or More Info. close
1,709 Like Add toShare Loading... Sign In or Sign Up now! This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Uploaded by BackporchTapes on Jan 26, 2010

Charles Manson's Target Lotsa Poppa Black Panther? Rare Interview

Category:News & Politics
Tags:LOTSAPOPACharlesManson'sTargetLotsaPoppaBlackPanther?RareInterviewBackporchTapes26 likes, 0 dislikes Show more
Show less Link to this comment: Share to:
see all
All Comments (34)
Respond to this video...

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment! Shining example of the black race, with an IQ of almost 45.

Shoot him again, Charles.
ACFisherAldag 1 year ago 2

candy and nuts said...

wow Im shocked at this comment also by AC Id like to hear her explanation also on this one

Streetwalkin said...

Thank you for the heads up on the book St. Circumstance.
I have followed AC comments on this forum and I dare say that ATWA doesn't include any black panthers.

St. Circumstance said...

Well...

I am the first one to use sarcasm in my attempts at humor, so Maybe this is was an attempt at something along those lines... it is easy enough to say the wrong thing sometimes without realizing what you really mean- is not what you just typed -in the effort to write something witty...

Ac has always seemed like a very good person with honest intentions...

I want to give her the benefit of the doubt...

candy and nuts said...

St circumstance I understand sarcasm et al and perhaps if it was comming from some uneducated junior high school student this comment would have some validity to its stupidity of encouraging violence and basically using racial slurs

starship said...

I have no idea whether AC posted that comment or not, but she has definitely expressed some racist views on this blog before.

ACFisherAldag said...

Yup.

Had someone like Crowe been a Welshman, MY race, I would be ashamed of him. Drug dealing, pimpin', kidnapping, threatening to burn down a farm where there are children, lowlife addicted welfare-collecting piece of trash.

Honest, hardworking people of African descent are mortified by chucks of flotsam like that.

Had he kidnapped a young woman in my town, people of all races would be hunting him down. And shooting him. TWICE.

And all of you liberals, had you encountered Crowe on a dark city street, would've crossed that street to avoid him. If he knocked on your door in the middle of the night, you would not open it. Don't lie to me, don't pretend, you KNOW you would.

ACFisherAldag said...

Also, had he kidnapped and raped one of your daughters, most of you would've tried to shoot his sorry behind, as well.

Vera Dreiser said...

Holy muther-friggin shit! She IS a card-carrying racist! That, uh, rationalization confirmed my worst fears/suspicions. Everything she's said/felt/believed/posted prior to NOW is de-legitimized as far as I'm concerned. As if the one bad deeds of a person of any color does deserves this:
"Shining example of the black race, with an IQ of almost 45. Shoot him again, Charles."
That's straight-up KKK/Nazi talk.
While I do believe in free speech, it's just gonna be impossible to read her anymore without imagining a lynched black man swinging in her back yard.
I'm thru with you, AC. Your true colors have been revealed and they sure don't include the beautiful black race.
Bye-bye.

adam said...

I never read the original post, but from the part you just quoted I saw no rasicim apparent. AC was attacking Crowe as an individual, not as a representative of the whole black race. White or black he was a piece of shit. Skin colour has nothing to do with it.

Matt said...

I agree, adam. It was edgy and I wouldn't have put it that way, but I saw that as an attack on Crowe with a regretable reference to his race.

We could say the same in reverse about Jared Loughner.

I think we can be too easily offended sometimes.

Vera Dreiser said...

"Shining example of the black race, with an IQ of almost 45."

Uh, read it again.
She said he was a "SHINING EXAMPLE OF THE BLACK RACE, WITH AN IQ OF ALMOST 45."

She didn't write "exception" she wrote "example." IE, suggesting he was representative of the norm for the "black race."
Oh, yeah, and then the lovely AC added, "Shoot him again, Charles."
Or, maybe she meant, hang him high, Charles, he's a nigger, he should know better than to kidnap a white woman (who just set him up to be robbed by Tex Watson).

Vera Dreiser said...

I dunno Adam, somehow I don't think you'll ever hear anyone call Jared Lougner "a shining example of the white race."

"Edgey"? No, downright racist and hate-mongering.

katie8753 said...

AC, how is Charlie any different from/better than Crowe, to be urged to "shoot him again"???

Panamint Patty said...

Sounds to Patty like y'all are talking more about political correctness than racism...Crowe was indeed a piece of shit. PS: Hi, Ace.

Vera Dreiser said...

Wow, am I the only one shocked by Patty and Adam's minimization of AC's CLEARLY racist comments?

"Easily offended"? "Politcal correctness"?

No, that's straight-up bigotry and the defense of it paints the defenders as equal offenders. No two ways about it.

Read AC's comment again:
"Shining example of the black race, with an IQ of almost 45.
Shoot him again, Charles."

Had she said "shinng example of a dummy" or a "gangster," whatever, it would've been one thing, but she said "of the black race" and added "with an IQ of almost 45."
If you thinks that's not racist, you're ripe for Charlie's picking for his next gang of killers.

ACFisherAldag said...

Crowe was in the middle of a criminal action and was justly shot while kidnapping a young woman and holding her against her will. This is totally why we have a second amendment.

And if he'd been Caucasian, like Tex, I would've called him a crusty chunk of white trash, like Tex, and none of the liberals would've complained.

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

Vera, since Crowe is of African descent, does that make his crimes acceptable, somehow?

I heard this kinda crap when Tookie Williams was executed. Because he was of African descent, it seems to have negated everything. Killing a cop with a family.

You will not hear me advocating the shooting of an innocent, tax-paying, decent husband and father who works at a job, keeps his grass mowed, and minds his own business.

ACFisherAldag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St. Circumstance said...

Vera...

It says exactly what you are saying it says..

I, for one, was hoping for a better answer than what we saw...

I am not going to pile on someone when they are in a place like this, but People will see this and make there own determinations about what the true motivation is behind a person who supports a career criminal and makes comments of that nature...

Supporting Charlie is being politically incorrect- and I never had a problem debating that...

but those comments WERE racist...

and like Mexican weed :)

I have no time for that

( I am prejudiced against Mexican Weed)

ACFisherAldag said...

"Easily offended"? "Politcal correctness"?

NO, Vera, I call it being a liberal. Fortunately, that is curable.

Soft on crime, when a real criminal has actually perpetrated a real crime.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

>>>AC said: Crowe was in the middle of a criminal action and was justly shot while kidnapping a young woman and holding her against her will. This is totally why we have a second amendment.>>>

Wow that sounds familiar. Kinda of like when Bobby & Charlie held Gary against his will? Only they killed Gary...Crowe didn't kill Rosina.

So I don't care if he's purple. With your reasoning, if Crowe deserved to be shot, then Charlie & Bobby should have been shot. Right AC???

ACFisherAldag said...

Fine. Crowe is still alive. You guys are so liberal and politically correct, why don't you offer him a place to live? Invite him into your home.

I feel perfectly comfortable asking Charles to stay with me. I would not want Crowe within 200 yards of me.

ACFisherAldag said...

Bobby, Mary and Sadie were holding Gary Hinman against his will... Gary had perpetrated a crime.

The young lady whom Crowe had kidnapped and was holding against her will had committed no crime.
Wrong place, wrong time.

If Crowe and Tex had been real men, they would've fought it out amongst themselves, without involving women.

Notice how no one gets upset when I say "white trash"?

Panamint Patty said...

Hendrickson has an interesting take on what people have interpreted to be racism on the part of The Family in his book which I will be reviewing very soon.

katie8753 said...

>>>AC said: Bobby, Mary and Sadie were holding Gary Hinman against his will...>>>

Charlie knew they were doing it. That makes him an accomplice. To both his "kidnapping" and his murder.

>>>Gary had perpetrated a crime.>>>

If you're referring to his selling drugs, Charlie & Bobby did too, so what's the difference between Gary and them??

>>>The young lady whom Crowe had kidnapped and was holding against her will had committed no crime.
Wrong place, wrong time.>>>

Maybe so, but I'm sure she knew that Tex was buying drugs from Crowe, so I can't imagine that she was that much of a Pollyanna.

>>>If Crowe and Tex had been real men, they would've fought it out amongst themselves, without involving women.>>>

Agreed.

>>>Notice how no one gets upset when I say "white trash"?>>>

Like I said, I don't really care as much what color Crowe is, but more how you can justify telling Charlie to shoot him twice, when in fact, Charlie is much worse than Crowe ever thought about being in many, many ways.

I guess the question is this:

Did you say that only because Crowe is black????

That's what it sounds like.

ACFisherAldag said...

Nope, I said that Crowe is a shining example of his race sarcastically, meaning just the opposite.

If I'd said he was a shining example of the Irish people, or the Scandinavian people, would people have gotten offended?

How many times has Bobby been referred to as being of French / Gallic descent? Yeah. But THAT seems to be okay.

katie8753 said...

Okay but why do you think Charlie is better than Crowe???

If it's not a race thing, then what could it be?

Because he's not.

ACFisherAldag said...

Charles never held any woman captive. Nor did he threaten to burn down people's homes, with their children inside, for owing him money. I do not believe that Charles killed anyone, or ordered them killed. Crowe was later implicated in other crimes, as well.

katie8753 said...

>>>AC said: Charles never held any woman captive.>>>

AC you've got to be kidding!! All the women were captive.

Not one of them were mobile.

>>Nor did he threaten to burn down people's homes, with their children inside, for owing him money.>>>

Neither did Crowe. :)

>>> I do not believe that Charles killed anyone, or ordered them killed. Crowe was later implicated in other crimes, as well>>>

Well this is funny. Charles didn't kill anyone. I love that.. Charles didn't kill anyone.

Well who do you think killed Shorty Shea? Charlie killed Shorty. He physically killed Shorty Shea. Don't say he didn't kill anyone again.!!

I love it that you all say that Charlie didn't kill anyone.

Because that's makes you look stupid. Charlie killed Shorty. You and I both know it.

And the whole world knows it!!!

adam said...

The missing piece of the Manson puzzle is always going to be his involement in the deaths of the LaBiancas (if any). He's had over 40 years to put the record straight on that night. He didn't order the death of Gary and I don't think he had anything to do planning or carrying out the Tate house massacre (however his going to the property in the aftermath to try clean up the evidence makes him an acomplice).
But unless several people are outright lying, he did enter the LaBianca's. What were his reasons for doing so? Did he have murder in mind? And to give him the benefit of doubt, if it was simply for the intentions of robbing the joint or to collect something owed, you must ask yourself "what kind of idiot would leave a couple at the mercy of a group of people who had butchered a household less than 24 hours previously?"

katie8753 said...

>>Adam said: The missing piece of the Manson puzzle is always going to be his involement in the deaths of the LaBiancas (if any)>>>

Just another underling trying to cover for you AC.

Answer?

Oh's that right. You already gave at the office. :)

FrankM said...

I don't really post any more, but wanted to reply to AC's post.

I don't think AC was being intentionally racist, but am upset when she says:

Crowe was in the middle of a criminal action and was justly shot while kidnapping a young woman and holding her against her will. This is totally why we have a second amendment.

No, AC, this is totally why we have courts and a legal system.

'Justly shot'? I don't think so. You can't set yourself as judge and jury regarding an event about which you can have no certain knowledge. This is kangaroo court justice, and the track record of CM Inc. is not admirable in this respect.

And you're a bit too gun happy for my taste. You'd probably call me a liberal, but I fought for my country (Marine Corps in Vietnam) and have had to kill people. Believe me, it gave me no pleasure then, and the occasional sleepless night now.

But what bugs me most is your blindness to the double standards your position implies. You also write:

Had someone like Crowe been a Welshman, MY race, I would be ashamed of him. Drug dealing, pimpin', kidnapping, threatening to burn down a farm where there are children, lowlife addicted welfare-collecting piece of trash.

This could be a description of Manson. His rap sheet includes ADW with Intent to do Bodily Harm, Force/Stat. Rape, Forgery, Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto, Burglary, Grand Theft, Firearm, RSP, Grand Theft Auto, Mail Theft, Indecent exposure, Plant/Cultivate/Possess/Marijuana, Unlawful Transport of Females in Interstate Community, etc.

Pimping? Remember 'strip and suck'? He himself said he "was a lousy pimp, got caught every time I stole".

Kidnapping? He was arrested for trying to persuade a minor (Ruth Ann) to join the Family, and is recorded on many occasions as having physically and psychologically prevented people from leaving Spahn or Barker.

'Threatening to burn down a farm where there are children"? Manson burned down road-laying equipment and imposed dreadful child-rearing regulations. He loved children so much that he had sex with underage females, and physically assaulted them,

"Lowlife addicted welfare-collecting piece of trash". He dealt in stolen vehicles and credit cards, send his minions on dumpster runs and creepy-crawly missions and robbed his own family of their money and possession.. And he was involved with murder.

Why are you not ashamed of him?

I think, AC, you just lost much of the respect you had earned over the years since you started posting.

FrankM
Greenpoint

Streetwalkin said...

Shining example of the black race as sarcasm I understand and is a great example where sarcasm has been taken out of context.
I am happy with AC’s reply that she believes Crowe was a poor example of the black race.

ACFisherAldag said...

Sure. Right. If Charles had called the police, the system that was a total FAIL for him for his entire life, they would've listened to him ramble for two minutes while he tried to explain what was happening, laughed, then gone back to eating donuts and listening to the ball game, while the young lady got multiply gang raped by gynormous drug-dealing black gangsters, probably having her cervix and soft tissues torn and rended so she could never enjoy sexual pleasure for the rest of her days. NO, thank you.

I totally believe in vigilante justice. Our second amendment to our constitution is sacred. Here in MI, a young punk kidnapped two teenage girls. The police couldn't find him. However, their fathers did, and beat the living crap out of the little maggot. The girls were released, relatively unharmed. The fathers were never prosecuted -- which is grand, because it was a just action. I've several times had to drive people off my land with a gun... the police wouldn't get here until ten minutes after I was dead, so it is necessary to defend ourselves. You folks are whack if you think that our system is actually gonna defend you from real, genuine criminals.

Katie, anyone could leave the Ranch at any time, and often did. Several ladies have spoken about leaving for long time periods. Some returned, some did not. IF everyone was so afraid of Charles, why didn't they run off during his frequent absences?

And YES, Crowe DID threaten to "burn up that ranch, with everyone inside". Ladies, children, the old man, the horses and dogs. No regard for the lives of over 50 people. THAT is the type of criminal we are talking about.

Frank, Charles never raped anyone. He was convicted of having sex with a minor... the lady in question was sixteen, which is old enough to marry in several states. Candy Stevens convinced him to drive her across a state line, so he was busted for the Mann act. All those ladies were with him willingly. Ruth Ann's own father gave her away, which is tragic... yet better she end up at the Ranch, where she was loved, than selling her body at some nasty LA bus station. Where do you think most teenage runaways end up? In the "Little Orphan Annie" musical?

Yes, Charles was a petty criminal. Stole cars, and a check for $35 bucks, which he paid for with ten years of his life. Big difference between stealing cars and forcible kidnapping and rape.

But I guess that Crowe is a victim, because of his skin color, right? OH, the hypocritical thinking!

How did Charles "physically" restrain anyone from leaving? Those folks were not held at gunpoint. Ladies testify to leaving the Ranch at several occasions, store runs, garbage runs, going off to have sex with other guys... they couldn't simply walk away? WHY? Don't give me "psychological". That is crap. They were psychologically capable of going to the store, going out to eat meat although Charles disapproved, taking amphetamines although Charles disapproved, so why weren't they psychologically capable of leaving?

Answer: Cuz they didn't want to. Cuz they were HAPPY there.

WHAT dreadful child-rearing? I watch the movies, I see clean, happy children laughing and playing. Listen to the tapes, I hear children laughing in the background. All of the children seem to be pretty well-off today... even the ones that were taken from their mothers by the police because of Shea's false police report. The only bad parent was Susan Atkins, who is also a murderess... and yeah, she and Tex deserved the death penalty.

I maintain that drawing down on a criminal kidnapper and rapist, who has captured a white lady, and threatened to kill women, children and old people, is an HEROIC action. Shooting Crowe was BRAVE.

candy and nuts said...

Why are you not ashamed of him?

I think, AC, you just lost much of the respect you had earned over the years since you started posting.

FrankM
Greenpoint

well said and in a controlled environment in prison it is easy to tell people what they want to hear and AC comment was purely racist and encouraging more violence no matter how she tries to weasel her way out of it truth is truth deal with your own words now dont write eight paragraphs that do not even pertain to your initial comment to digress from what your really said and truly meant

ACFisherAldag said...

I'm not weaseling, I was truthful in owning my statement and explaining why I'd written it. As happens so frequently, people have difficulty in dealing with unpleasant truths.

If you're incapable of reading eight paragraphs in plain English, you may return to public school, or go back to perusing those Big Little books.

FrankM said...

AC

Ad hominem attacks ("If you're incapable of reading eight paragraphs in plain English") are the last refuge of someone who no longer has a leg to stand on.

You say:

I totally believe in vigilante justice. Our second amendment to our constitution is sacred.

[snip]

I've several times had to drive people off my land with a gun... the police wouldn't get here until ten minutes after I was dead, so it is necessary to defend ourselves. You folks are whack if you think that our system is actually gonna defend you from real, genuine criminals".


I always thought the Second Amendment protects our right to possess a handgun in our own homes for the purpose of self-defense.

I don't think it covers you or Charlie popping off at Crowe or anyone else outside your home.

And I think to shoot in self defence implies that you are under attack - not that you can kill anyone who steps on land that is legally yours.

I'm glad I live on the East Coast. But do tell me, why and how are you so special that you can decide who is a real, genuine criminal. Surely you are giving yourself god like powers. To me driving people off your land with a gun seems a real, genuine criminal act, but then I'm no lawyer.

Your defence of Manson is as inadequate as it is pathetic. I'm not going to address your points because it'll just lead to more blind rebuttals, but I note you reply selectively and incorrectly.

Charles was violent - ask Snake lake, ask Gypsy. If he didn't kidnap anyone, why did people run away (Kitty, Steph Schram). By most definitions of rape he did commit rape - which includes sex with minors (and there was that guy in the remand home, sodomised with a knife to his neck).

One other point. You write:

I maintain that drawing down on a criminal kidnapper and rapist, who has captured a white lady, and threatened to kill women, children and old people, is an HEROIC action. Shooting Crowe was BRAVE.

Do you realise you talk here of a 'white lady'? What does it matter what colour the lady is? I think you maybe do have a race problem after all.

But what's the point. I'm out of here, only popped in for a quick visit, and glad to be safe in Brooklyn where your bullets and bullshit can't reach me.

FrankM

starship said...

I have my doubts that the AC who is posting here is indeed the real AC. Her picture is not included per usual...there was a post claiming that she couldn't access her other account, but I don't know.

That said, as I mentioned, AC has expressed to me fairly similar sentiments about black people. I used to kind of have a crush on her...you know, the kind you can have when you don't actually know someone other than by reading their posts on a Manson related blog? (I'm sure we all have them) but these days I don't know.

She has done a very good job of challenging some of my views and opinions about wiccans and how our society treats them, etc. She is a very interesting woman indeed.

And correct me if I'm wrong, AC, but I believe she comes to Manson somewhat backwards then the rest of us...most of us, again I am assuming, came to this because we remember the crimes occurring, the stories in the newspaper, the books, movies, etc. AC discovered him only through ATWA, as a result of her own environmental concerns...so she doesn't see him, and never has seen him, like most of the rest of us do.

And Frank, I thank you and honor you for your service to us and our country.

candy and nuts said...

I feel sorry for AC really it seems the only attention she has ever received in her life is via her connection to Charles Manson and convicted felons who will attach to any one willing to pay for their collect calls or visit them ( what else do they have ?). I wonder the day MAnson exits this world who she will latch onto for her claim to fame? I would go on but what is this point she has already embarressed herself enough why rub salt in an open wound

ACFisherAldag said...

Actually, Frank, "Candy and Nuts" got on my messenger, yesterday, in another social forum, and said things like, "I don't know why you think I am against you" and told me how much she supported me, asked all kinds of questions about my religion, pretended to be my friend, only to attack me publicly. Which you'ums did not see and prolly don't care about, but I feel that the b-slap was entirely warranted. However, I apologize for taking a private quarrel public.

ACFisherAldag said...

Further, in the private forum,
"Candy and Nuts" said I oughta own my remarks, which IS in fact what I am doing here.

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

Perhaps I should've clarified:

Not okay: Shooting at the mailman, the ice cream truck, the Schwan's guy, Jehovah's witnesses, and kids who come over to play.

Okay: Using a shotgun blast to drive away vagrant men three times my size who are beginning to cart away my chainsaw and lawnmower, and threatening myself and my young son when confronted.

Thank the Gods and the Constitution that our local sheriff is NOT a liberal from the East Coast, who believes in a homeowner's right to protect his or her property, and a father's right to recover his teenaged daughter before she is irriversably damaged.

ACFisherAldag said...

So now we are taking the word of a young lady that was so drugged that she was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and a woman who lied under oath, that Charles was violent with them.

Ladies who are friendly with him now and were friendly with him then assure me that he's not violent, and never has been, EXCEPT when protecting his loved ones and his property.

ACFisherAldag said...

Why is it when a white person attacks a black person, it is a racial hate crime?

Yet when a criminal who is black attacks a white citizen, the liberals all seem to think it's somehow justified, due to "Oppression" or whatever.

Crowe, a black man, attacked a white woman. That is relevant. It makes it a racial hate crime on the part of Crowe.

Our liberal society is reluctant to label a crime as "racial violence" when a person of another race perpetrates an attack on a white person.

This happened in Benton Harbor (the city which made national headlines when our governor instilled a city manager to straighten out the horrible mismanagement of that place). During the riots, black man threw a brick thru a car window, permanently injuring a young white girl, causing severe brain trauma. But was the black man charged with a racial hate crime? NOooo!

Here in Bangor, three black youths attacked a white lad over his empty wallet, beating him so bad that he was in a coma for two years before he died. They were charged with murder, but was it labeled the racial hate crime that it so obviously was? NOOOO.

People are tired of this type of thing happening, which is why so many tea party candidates were just voted into office.

candy and nuts said...

firstly AC I think I asked you one or two questions on yur religion not all kinds of questions " asked all kinds of questions about my religion" and your belief in nature conservation is commendable like millions of other people who are taking care of this Earth its air its water and wildlife and who have done much much more then write a few letters, protest and threaten and kill -all of this I have no issue at you or anyone who does-my issue was that you made racist remarks about black people and encouraged violence and I said I have a good friend who is black and I showed her your remark and she said that is definitely a racial slur no matter how yu slice it- that of which you said Im sure your friend isnt this that and the other thing like crowe (if you need verbatim I suppose I can copy paste the entire conversation we did have yesterday .And if you have forgotton last year JIm R. give you abuse which I was the first one to tell him off in defense of you~ however what you said about blacks then say he held a white lady obviously you have issues on races and Im glad you are standing by your remarks at least your an "honest" violent racist:).Insofar as telling me about going back to public school or big little books whatever I have attended University so do not try to belittle me or anyone else here and assume you are more intelligent anyone else here (old ego is a too much thing-maybe you should listen to that tune more often).

LisaRoweSocio said...

Don't know who this Ace is personally, but I think she pegged Bernard Crowe for what he really was/is. If she lives in or near Detroit, Michigan, I can't say as I blame her if, in fact, she is a racist. BFD! That place is a SLUM fulla lazy, thieving, drug dealing, murdering welfare recipiants, and gangland "African-Americans" [cough cough]

Katie8753 and others posting here have flat out used the term "n*gg*rs" on other blogs. I've lurked around for years on different blogs, and saved some real treasures posted
by Lynyrd/Katie and others.

I also think Mr. Skynyrd poses as several different people. I think he is Katie and is a fowl-mouthed psycho. I have proof. Now, all of a sudden I notice that her writing style is just like Skynyrd. Skynyrd the two-faced, who said Katie was a psycho. How about Matt. Why don't you ask Mr. Matt how he really feels about St. CirCUMstanse, Liz, and others.

starship said...

As we have discussed before...the Justice System is flawed.

I admit to being ambivalent or at the least uncertain about certain crimes being labelled "hate crimes." Aren't all violent crimes hate crimes? Aren't the Manson murders hate crimes? I know the Family would probably label them love crimes.

I also object to certain crimes being valued, so to speak based on the victim...like in some cases the murder of a police officer is automatically a capital crime, where as if you murdered me it would not. Why is the police officer's life considered more valuable than mine?

And I absolutely hate laws being passed that are named after someone. This is just designed to make an emotional connection to a piece of legislation, practically forcing the politicians to vote for it. Think, for instance, if the state of California tried to make it a capital offense for anyone who writes words in blood inside a home. Very few politicians would vote for that, but just label that "Sharon and Paul Richard's law" and then we'll see.

LisaRoweSocio said...

Starship-
Not sure what you mean. I see nothing wrong with laws passed using a victim's name. Like Megan's Law, or Amber Alerts. An AMBER Alert or a Child Abduction Emergency (SAME code: CAE) is a child abduction alert bulletin in several countries throughout the world, issued upon the suspected abduction of a child, since 1996. AMBER is officially a backronym for "America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response" but was originally named for Amber Hagerman, a 9-year-old child who was abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas in 1996.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Hello Frank.

To Frank:
Your two posts, are the best I've read in years.
You use words like a surgeon.
You have integrity, and plenty of courage to speak the truth.
These qualities are rarely seen together.
There are many bloggers who have brains... but, no balls to speak the truth.
There are even more bloggers with Balls... but no brains, to back their assertions.
You Sir... have both brains and balls in large quantity.
My hat is off to you.

To AC:
The fact that you continue to use the term "white lady"... even after being accused of being racist, doesn't speak well.

To answer your question AC:
No... I wouldn't allow Crowe to stay at my place (if he was alive).
But... my decision has nothing to do with the fact that he's black.
My decision has everything to do with the fact that he was a dangerous criminal.
Crowe and Manson were BOTH criminals... that's a fact.
How you can defend one criminal so vehemently, and say the other criminal deserves to be shot again... makes no sense to me.
You've always treated me respectfully AC, and we've had a lot of fun times together.
But, I must say... sometimes your completely blind devotion to Manson, is baffling.

Vera Dreiser said...

AC,

Thanks for responding to my orignal post/question, dear.
By doing so, you accomplished exactly what it had set out to do: expose your true colors as a frightened, ill-informed, fear-mongering racist.
You and Charlie truly belong together.
xoxoxoox,
Vera
PS: Regarding the "happy" "laughing" "healthy" children at the ranch, have you ever seen the pictures taken of them the day of the raid? If I could, I'd post them here: the open sours on their bodies are truly horrifying, makes you not even notice the grime they're covered in.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Now for you LisaRowePsychopath:

Katie is a friend of mine... but, to say our writing styles are similar, is an insult. LOL

I have been blogging for many years, and say many things tongue-n-cheek... in fact, most things.
The folks who know me... they know who I am, and what I represent.

One crazy (likely fake) account like you, is not going to put a dent in my reputation.

In 8-10 years... I've lost my cool 3-4 times... it happens.
Is your life really so devoid, that you have nothing better to do, than copy and save my words... awaiting to reproduce them later?
To which I say... who cares?

At the end of the day... the folks who like me... will still like me, regardless of what you have to say... and the folks who don't... will gloat for 24 hours, and then disappear.

By the way Lisa... thanks for lurking behind me for years.
As creepy and deranged as that sounds... I suppose it's a real compliment.
They say imitation is the highest form of flattery.

ACFisherAldag said...

BTW, did any of you happen to notice that although Crowe kidnapped and raped a woman, he walked?

The only justice he ever received was when Charles shot him.

bobby said...

He walked to the ER ? Seems like he could have at least been able to get a ambulance ride.

bobby said...

Is it really kidknapping when one drug dealer leaves his girlfriend at another drug dealers house as assurance he will return ?

Vera Dreiser said...

Oh, and AC, a final note: Crowe's accomplices weren't "gynormous drug-dealing black gangsters" they were white. Rosina wasn't "kidnapped" she invited the men into her home to sell drugs to Tex, who ripped them off. As such, she was an accomplice to the theft of the drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that you, as a libertarian, believe in the legalization of drugs. Consequently, if you believe drugs should be legal, at least theoretically, that would make Crowe the victim of Rosina, Charles and Tex. And Crowe never laid a hand on Rosina, nor prevented her from leaving. He simply said he wasn't going to leave until he'd been compensated for what she'd participated in STEALING from him.
I believe that using your "logic," Crowe would've had the right to enact vigilante justice against them -- Rosina, Tex, and, yes, Charles, who came back in representation of Tex -- and shot 'em all dead.
Had he done that, well, guess who'd be alive today? Too bad, really.

katie8753 said...

>>>AC said: BTW, did any of you happen to notice that although Crowe kidnapped and raped a woman, he walked?>>>

Who is it that you claim Crowe raped? He didn't rape anyone that I know of.

>>>Bobby said: He walked to the ER ? Seems like he could have at least been able to get a ambulance ride.>>>

LMAO. That's a good one Bobby!

Vera Dreiser said...

"Who is it that you claim Crowe raped? He didn't rape anyone that I know of."

That's her embellishing for effect, dear.
It's what racists do to spike up the hysteria.

starship said...

Yeah, and Crowe, who CM feared was some sort of panther, apparently had as one of his bodyguards a skinny white kid who later turns up under arrest at the Spahn Ranch?

An unlikely tale today, much less in 1969. Something funny is afoot.

Panamint Patty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ACFisherAldag said...

I've seen some comments that can be construed as racist on other blogs, by the very people who are denouncing me here.

ACFisherAldag said...

Vera, first of all, I am not a libertarian, I am a Green with very conservative leanings. And if you've ever read anything I've ever written, you will know that I believe that using illegal drugs is the downfall of society.

I AM correcting you, as you ARE wrong.

The lady's name was not Rosina. She was grabbed off the street by Crowe and his men. Two were white, four other than Crowe were black, which is why Charles mistakenly assumed they were part of the Black Panther party. One of them had ties to the Beach Boys band. Tex had apparently done a drug burn... which was not the young lady's fault, any more than Frykowski's drug burns put Sharon Tate at fault. Both women had the misfortune to be involved with drug dealing scum.

Crowe called the Ranch and told Charles that he was holding the young woman until his debt was paid, and if it was not, he would burn down the Ranch, and everyone inside, including the children. Charles took Tex and TJ to Crowe's apartment to free the young woman. He brought along a .22 handgun. Apparently Tex did not have the money to make right the payment for the drugs. (Moral of this story, do not buy, use, sell, or traffic in drugs. It is dangerous.)

When Charles arrived, the people stated above were present, all heavily armed. Charles attempted a negotiation, saying he'd cover the debt later. Crowe wasn't having it, and threatened to kill the young woman. She had apparently been raped, judging from blood, being disheveled, torn clothing, etc.

The men advanced on Charles and his crew. TJ was so frightened that he peed in his pants. Tex was also frightened and tried to waffle. The large, heavily armed men moved on them. Charles fired his .22 handgun. He hit Crowe in the stomach, as we know.

Tex and TJ fled the scene, as did several of Crowe's men. Charles believed he'd killed Crowe, and threw up out of fear. The young woman said that she would stay with one of the white men, the one who had ties to the Beach Boys, as he stated he would take her to the hospital for treatment of her wounds.

This is the whole story as it was told to me.

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
katie8753 said...

AC...do you really believe all that????

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

Pristash/Starship said:
"Something funny is afoot".

LMAO!

I'll tell ya what's funny from my perspective Pristash...

I wanted NO part of this discussion... zero!
When I saw this debacle developing... I admonished Katie at least four times, to stay away from here.
My exact words were:
"Katie, stay outta there... I want no part of this crap".
I told her:
"Folks view you, as synonymous with my blog.
If you go over there... I'm gonna get sucked-into this shit"
!

'Course... Katie HAD to come over here, and voice her opinion.

So now... I'm eyeballs deep, in a situtaion that doesn't concern me in the least.
In fact... here's the real kicker Pristash: I'm even being accused of BEING Katie herself now!
If THAT doesn't beat all. LOLOL

Yeah... they got me.
I post 12 times a day under my own name... post 5 new threads a week... and I have time to be Katie too. LOLOL

There is something humorous here afoot, for sure Pristash.
I'll let you know, when I find it. : )

I'll be exiting now.
Katie... if you decide to stay... you're on your own.
I never wanted to be part of this discussion in the first place... and I told you that point-blank in private.
Now, I'm telling you publicly.

Katie: If you didn't stick your nose in here... my name never would have been mentioned... and that's a fact.
Thanks Katie... much appreciated.

Peace to All... Lynyrd

adam said...

I don't feel the terms "brave" or heroic" best describe Charlie's actions that day, but it took some balls to go over to a violent drug dealers and attempt to sort out someone else's mess. Tex wasn't man enough to sort out his own shit himself. TJ always said that Charlie did his best to resolve the dispute peacefully. None of what happended was right, but it was the way of the streets.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

BTW... for the rest of the blog world:

DO NOT hold me personally responsible for everything Katie says (and does) on any blogs, other than my own.
I've gone through this too many times, and quite frankly... I'm fed-up.

Katie has a right to blog where she pleases... and say what she will. It's none of my business.
She doesn't answer to me.
BUT... DO NOT assume I agree with every word she says... OR, the way she presents herself, under all circumstances.

Katie is a friend, but this has gone way too far (many times)... and it isn't fair to me.
I can't be held responisible for other bloggers... Katie, or anyone else.

Peace Again... Lynyrd

Vera Dreiser said...

"AC: "This is the whole story as it was told to me."

And I suppose, AC, that your source for this fantastical version that stands in absolute contradiction of the historical record of these events (which are corroborated in the police reports which I have) is...
Himself?
Pray, do tell!

St. Circumstance said...

Lisa- you got me for one...

I am really Katie

and I also act as L/S at times when I want to go undercover...

But mostly I am really frustrated that you day people online dont really like me...

I was hoping to be " blogger of the year" and the fact that Matt doesn't like me- really makes me wanna give it all up and go back to the country and live off the grid with AC....

we can farm, and hunt ,and chase black people with our guns so they stay away from our children so that we can turn them into garbage ourselves...

but just like on plantations in the old South- them white chics get horny when they see the outline of those big large black penis' in them thar jeans...

so occasionally in the heat of passion- a white chic in MI can get pregnant from one of these small lapses in judgment ( hell redneck bikers on speed can hardly get those small shrimp penis' up- so the sight of strong hard wang must be quite a sight)

so I would have to be friends with a few of them to fit in...

although I am not sure who it would be harder for me to fit in with???

But if Matt would just love me- maybe I can stay where I am where the sun always shines and my hot tub always has cold beer next to it- in my new house where I park my new Car- and in which I am planning my next vacation on which...

I wont be thinking about what they say of me in Evil Liz Manson Blog...

:) but thanks again for the attention

ACFisherAldag said...

St. Circumstance, my children are not "garbage", and that is an incredibly horrible thing to say about people who've never done you or anyone else any harm.

My children are making good grades, have jobs, my eldest has a lovely home and is a good parent, and my youngest helps with chores and many civic organizations and charities.

Go back to using your illegal drugs, and leave my children out of this discussion. That is rather a punk way to behave.

St. Circumstance said...

AC your arguments and your thoughts are garbage...

Sorry- but it is what it is- I dont blame you- I think you were raised the way you are- and I think you will raise others to be the same- and it is garbage...

I am no Saint ( huh ? ) but I dont hurt or wish harm on others, and you do... I am killing my brain and my liver- but I am only hurting myself...

Worshiping a person who is blatantly racist- is one thing, and people will understand your opinions and ideas to an extent in support- but when you start to put out your own ideas which are equally offensive- you are going to loose whatever sympathy and good will you have built up...

if you never listen to another word I type- you should give that some thought...

AC- I have used this quote before and am sorry to repeat myself but I can't think of a more appropriate thing to say regarding your offspring and what they will grow up to believe...

When you plant corn- you get corn

ACFisherAldag said...

If you are purchasing illegal drugs, yes, that does hurt others. It is damaging to the economy. It is destructive of our society. It causes mental and physical defects that working people must pay for. And if YOU have any children, it alters their chromosomes and causes all kinds of physical trauma and cognitive dysfunction.

I do not go out an deliberately perpetrate violence on anyone... yet if my home and land is invaded, I have the constitutional right to defend myself and my family. And if you are buying illegal drugs, the people who buy and sell those substances are dangerous, violent people, so you are directly contributing to America's crime.

You have absolutely no idea about my children. If you disagree with my opinions, fine, but to call them names while hiding behind a pseudonym is the worst kind of miserable cowardice.

Vera Dreiser said...

AC, You didn't answer my question: Your source for your version of the Crowe shooting, please?

LisaRoweSocio said...

Cumstance >>:) but thanks again for the attention<<

Ah shucks, no thanks needed St. Cirrhosistance. However, I thank you for the your long borefest and attention your gave to me. Oh, and Lynyrd? Didn't know you had a blog. Anyway back to liver-boy.
SMOOOCH!
this tubes for you.
http://youtu.be/63lYBalGx7M

St. Circumstance said...

What a fun place this has become filled with winners ...

St. Circumstance said...

Lisa - do you live on the farm with AC???

I can see that 5'th grade level writing skill in your post..

was daddy banging you too??

Do you know Charlie as well??

I guess when the Nazi gorillas are banging you in your ass- it isn't as boring as listening to me post????

St. Circumstance said...

Congratulations Col- your blog just became Liz part two...

Good luck with all your new members :)

St. Circumstance said...

These sites have stopped being about the case a long time ago if you ask me...

Im officially retiring...

this is really a waste of time..

St. Circumstance said...

But it was fun for awhile lol...

so thanks Col...

If you are who they say you are- maybe you could do us all a favor and make the movie about all of this that will define the story forever..

but if you are not- then its fitting you should run the ultimate blog for people who spend all of there time trying to figure out who is really who- and who knows who- and who met who...

I kind of hope we never find out for sure...

it seems more fitting that way...

just like the case itself

Bye Bye

St C

katie8753 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
adam said...

Erm, what was this blog about again?

Vera Dreiser said...

AC?

ACFisherAldag said...

My, Vera, aren't we demanding, DEAR? Are you really that used to instant gratification? Some of us have jobs, farms, families and lives, and thus cannot monitor blogs 24-7 in anticipation of answering your questions, no matter how vitally important it might seem to you.

Of course, I got the story from Charles. TJ is dead. I'm not in communication w/ Tex Watson, nor do I wish to be. Who else could it be? I further believe that Charles hasn't the mental capacity to create a story of that magnitude, nor embellish it as he did. He has the same inability to lie as a three-year old. It's one of the qualities that I truly appreciate in him.

Speaking of lies: Who wrote the police report, anyhow? Who was the primary source? Hmmm, might it be Bernard Crowe, a man whom, in the video that began this discussion, could not string two one-syllable words together without consulting his attorney? Who mumbling is so incomprehensible that he needs subtitles? Crowe is so inarticulate in this video that he seems mentally challenged, thus my (rather mean) remark about his IQ. After taking a couple of shots to the gut, he likely wasn't very cohesive back in 1969, either, and then he hadn't an attorney holding his hand.

And I'm so utterly sure that he was completely truthful with the police, after kidnapping a young woman in exchange for drug money. Yup, there is a credible source. NOT. You don't believe the prosecutor, so why are you putting all your faith in a drug dealer and kidnapper, giving his testimony to the LAPD?

I'll also thank you to cease lying and slandering me. I made a smart-aleck comment. I advocate using weapons for protecting the home and dispensing immediate, necessary justice when LEN cannot (or will not). I own that.

However, I have not here, or anywhere in any print media, or verbally, online or otherwise, used the "N" word. Nor do I advocate lynching, or any other unfounded, wanton violence against innocent people of any race or nation. To say so is an outright lie. Which makes you a liar. Which to me, is the most horrible, degrading, pathetic thing that anyone can be.

If you believe that I am a racist, fine, that is your opinion. If you believe that I advocate violence by defending the helpless with a gun, okay. But do NOT make unfounded accusations of lynching, being a "card carrying" anything, or seeking out individuals to harm for no particular reason. Those are all heinous lies, and you darn well know it.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Vera Dreiser said...

Well, AC, you have a wonderful facility with words.
If you think my writing the following passages equals my saying you use the N word and advocate lynching I'd love you to take me to court and sue me for libel or slander. Here is exactly what I wrote:
1)
"While I do believe in free speech, it's just gonna be impossible to read her [AC] anymore without imagining a lynched black man swinging in her back yard."

And

2)
"She [AC] said he [Crowe] was a "SHINING EXAMPLE OF THE BLACK RACE, WITH AN IQ OF ALMOST 45."
She didn't write "exception" she wrote "example." IE, suggesting he was representative of the norm for the "black race."
Oh, yeah, and then the lovely AC added, "Shoot him again, Charles."
Or, maybe she meant, hang him high, Charles, he's a nigger, he should know better than to kidnap a white woman (who just set him up to be robbed by Tex Watson)."

If that, dear AC, in your eyes is the same thing as saying you actually did -- or would do -- those horrific things, then take me to court on libel and slander charges and lets see who wins.
It's called "commentary," ie, "opinionating." I never said you actually did any such thing, I simply opined that judging by what you'd written it wouldn't surprise me if you would. That's a lot different than saying you HAD.
And I stand by everything I wrote with great white pride!

And, no, Charlie would never embellish, or make anything up.
Hah!
And the information in the police reports came from the woman you call the "kidnap victim" of Crowe, Rosina, as well as the dear-departed TJ and, later, all of this was corroborated by Tex, who I'm sure would've rather had YOUR and Charlie's fictions of the four armed "gynormous drug-dealing black gangsters" with weapons than the factual one of just Bernard Crowe and two surfer-dudes with no weapons.
Yeh, trust Charlie's version because he's so much LESS a criminal than Bernard Crowe.

ACFisherAldag said...

Actually, that would be grounds for slander, but why bother. Calling you a liar is enough.

I've developed a sense of humor about this whole incident, after my family members chanted "I'm garbage!" while walking around the house covered in nasty drainpipe water while fixing the plumbing. Bless you, kids.

Also, in response to the statement "she is a card-carrying racist" which indeed is slander -- where can I get one of those cards, anyway? Does it actually say "Racist"? Is it written in gold leaf? Is it laminated? Because I don't want the cheesy race card.

I was also reminded, by family members, about a friend of African descent who joined the Klan, just to see if he could... filled out a form, sent them money, and got an official embossed card, which he liked to use at bars for a laugh and a free beer.

Last comment on this subject (cuz I no longer care what a liar has to say):

If one is attempting to shoot a drug-dealing lowlife kidnapping criminal, of any ethnicity, race, cultural background or national origin, one should definitely use a larger caliber firearm than a .22 handgun. Use a .45 or a 9 mm. These are certain to do more damage at close range, and save the public the expense of incarcerating said criminal. Just think if Mr. Sebring had one on a certain night in 1969. Copper jackets or hollow points work best. Support your local gun dealer and the Second Amendment!

ACFisherAldag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LisaRoweSocio said...

Yes, Vera, lets bring in the ACLU while you are in a litigious mode, or some moronic pro bono lawyer, AS IF any lawyer would take on a case like this. Vera give up. Stop playing the race card. Everyone would just love to have the last word, but you, SIR/MADAM (with a dowagers hump most likely) really need to find another avenue to take out your aggression. I saw what ACE wrote over a year ago. Have you seen some of the stuff on
youtube? Her comment is complementary compared to some of the seriously disgusting/racist/anti-Semitic stuff on youtube. You should look around. You might even find somebody to sue on the pro Hitler/AB tubes. Why don't you shut up, or meditate, or get some exercise. BTW, your Nancy Grace impression is right on. "Lets unleash the lawyers!"

The difference between slander and libel is that slander is the spoken word, whereas libel is a written word i.e. newspaper, anything in the public domain.

This blog isn't a public domain, but youtube is.

The difference between slander and libel is that libel is the written or otherwise published, public defamation of a person or entity such as an organization or company, while slander is the spoken false defamation of a person or entity. Slander can also include bodily gestures while libel can include published photographs. Defamation is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity.

While the right to fairly criticize people or entities and publicly share information is one of the hallmarks of personal freedom, it is illegal to malign the reputation of another through slander or libel.

Vera Dreiser said...

AC: "If one is attempting to shoot a drug-dealing lowlife kidnapping criminal, of any ethnicity, race, cultural background or national origin, one should definitely use a larger caliber firearm than a .22 handgun. Use a .45 or a 9 mm. These are certain to do more damage at close range, and save the public the expense of incarcerating said criminal. Just think if Mr. Sebring had one on a certain night in 1969."

And if Leno, Gary, Shorty or who knows how many others had one, we wouldn't be having this conversation because your Charles would've been blown to Hell wgere he belongs.

Janson2112 said...

Wow what a thread, I for one found it interesting, good break from the normal discussion, I am new to these blogs (not the Manson case) and am trying to catch up. I already missed the big blowup on Evilz with weirdo Mr Poirot, this AC one seems interesting hah!
1. theres just 1 race people its called the HUMAN RACE, everything else is just ethicitny.
2. AC - those .22 caliber bullets seem to work just fine on Steven Parent so like everyone Im not sure WTF you are talking about.
3. Lisa, being new to these blogs, I was already struck by the same thought, I think some people are posting under more than 1 screename. But I find this to add to the intrigue of the postings.

grimtraveller said...

TomG said...

"When they got caught and it comes to trial, you can't convict middle class white kids, especially girls.

You need a bad guy"


Like Susan Atkins ? She actually came off looking worse than anyone in this sorry affair, even Charlie. If blog pages over the last 10 years are anything to go by, time barely, if at all, improved her rep & standing outside of jail.

Streetwalkin said...

"May I ask great wise people of this forum 'death to pigs' by Robert Hendrickson is it worth the $90 bucks?"


Though 4 years on and ten more $$$s, if you can find a copy, even at $100, buy it. It's a fantastic book.


ACFisherAldag said...

"If Crowe and Tex had been real men, they would've fought it out amongst themselves, without involving women"


Except that the point is that Tex had no intention of ever meeting Crowe again. He duped him out of $2700 ! Crowe wanted very much to meet with Tex again so he could fight it out ! And probably more besides....
So by Ac's definition here, Crowe was the real man.


Panamint Patty said...

"Hendrickson has an interesting take on what people have interpreted to be racism on the part of The Family in his book"


That take, to a large extent is still racism. But in fairness to Hendrickson, there is a significant number of people of every race that I know of that actually subscribes to the same view, it's not the preserve of White people. I can't say most but certainly many members of each racial grouping do not want their race to mix with others and sees racial mixing as 'diluting' their race and not mixing as keeping some kind of racial 'purity.'
So in that regard, the Family were consistent with much of the world about them.

grimtraveller said...

ACFisherAldag said...

"Charles never held any woman captive"


Sooooo....when Stephanie Schram said to Charlie out at Barker that she was homesick and thinking of going back home and he whacked her with a rifle butt and told her to get such thoughts out of her head, that was what ?
Stephanie Schram, Kitty Lutesinger, Barbara Hoyt and Sherry Anne Cooper, having to escape from Barker tells us what, particularly given that they had to plan it and wait for the right moment ?
When Pat Krenwinkel who loved Charlie and sought his love and says she killed to be loved by him told a psychiatrist in '69/'70 that she was afraid of Charles finding her and killing her, that told us what ? She was his fervent supporter at the time ! She was only away from him at that point because he was in jail and she'd been released.
Someone can be held captive by lock, key and rope or in the mind.

ACFisherAldag said...

"Nor did he threaten to burn down people's homes, with their children inside"


Susan Atkins did not want to die in the gas chamber. She didn't want to give up the immunity she had been granted. She did so, she says, because Charlie threatened the life and well being of her son. And because of this, she concurred, put on a 9 month piece of "performance art" as AC once put it, during the trial, and as a result, even when she was a one legged vegetable dying in a hospital bed some 38 years later, that counted against her in the minds of many.


ACFisherAldag said...

"I do not believe that Charles killed anyone, or ordered them killed"


That's the key here, not that he didn't kill or that he wasn't the main wheel in the death of a number of people {or to put it another way, would those 9 people have died were it not for Charles ?}, but that AC doesn't believe it. That's a different matter.


ACFisherAldag said...

"Crowe was later implicated in other crimes, as well"


So was Charles !

adam said...

"The missing piece of the Manson puzzle is always going to be his involement in the deaths of the LaBiancas (if any). He's had over 40 years to put the record straight on that night"


I don't think it's the key or missing piece at all.
But I'm more interested in the latter point and the "{if any}." If you take on board Charlie's own words to Vanity Fair in 2011 and his words to George Stimson in "Goodbye Helter Skelter" regarding the LaBianca night, he's implicated himself and sunk himself and no one seems to have picked this up.

ACFisherAldag said...

"But I guess that Crowe is a victim, because of his skin color, right? OH, the hypocritical thinking!"


Crowe was a victim not because he was Black, but because he got shot. End of story.

ACFisherAldag said...

"Don't give me 'psychological'. That is crap. They were psychologically capable of..."


You know, in parts of Africa, tribesmen tame a baby elephant by tying it to a small tree. It is free to roam the circumference of the rope and it tries and tries to get away from the tree but the rope won't let it. Eventually, it stops trying to get away and becomes resigned to the small area it can roam in. The tribesmen know that as that elephant grows, it has more than enough strength to uproot the tree if it were to try. But by then, it has been psychologically conditioned and it won't try any longer because what has happened in it's mind has been subtly effective. It will do lots of rebellious and independent things....but it will not run from it's tiny circumference, even though it is capable.
Interesting. A hold on the mind is rarely acknowledged because we have free will but it is possible and damned effective.
You don't even need acid but if acid is involved.......




grimtraveller said...

starship said...


"And correct me if I'm wrong, AC, but I believe she comes to Manson somewhat backwards then the rest of us...most of us, again I am assuming, came to this because we remember the crimes occurring, the stories in the newspaper, the books, movies, etc. AC discovered him only through ATWA, as a result of her own environmental concerns...so she doesn't see him, and never has seen him, like most of the rest of us do"

Except that she claimed to speak with him for many years and they obviously discussed the crimes. She's answered so many questions pertaining to the crimes and Family members and things that purportedly happened.

ACFisherAldag said...

"So now we are taking the word of a young lady that was so drugged that she was diagnosed with schizophrenia"


Charles was diagnosed with ambulatory schizophrenia. That form of it meant he didn't have to be hospitalized but it indicated something not quite right mentally. Yet AC always takes his word.
But you know, I take Charlie's word on a great many things. The fact that someone is frequently drugged does not by implication equate them with being a liar.


ACFisherAldag said...

"and a woman who lied under oath, that Charles was violent with them"


Gypsy lied under oath....to protect Charlie and try to usher in the copycat motive !
And she never stated under oath that Charlie was violent. That came some 20~30 years later when she was straightened out, somewhat.
Thing is, this is a good example of sinking one's own ship. If you have a go at Gypsy for lying under oath, you have to therefore look at what she actually testified to that was a lie. And what she testified to was that Charlie wasn't in any way responsible for TLB and that Linda Kasabian was ! Things that AC herself spent years on this blog saying. So in order to protect Charlie from the accusation of violence towards women in order to make Lotsapoppa look worse, she inadvertently pulls the rug from one of the supports that acts as a foundation for the points she has made over the last couple of years because one of those supports later in life says Charlie used to beat her.
Hmmm....

LisaRoweSocio said...

"Katie8753 and others posting here have flat out used the term "n*gg*rs" on other blogs"


How true this was in 2011, I cannot say, but certainly in 2015, I have seen evidence of this myself. I can't say it thrills me.

LynyrdSkynyrdBand said...

"But, I must say... sometimes your completely blind devotion to Manson, is baffling"


I don't find it baffling. Though I might have done so in 1970.....
Love and the willingness to listen to someone, even if you sometimes hit them, is actually truly powerful. Fuelling someone's well being is not an easy thing to do and Charles Manson, love him or hate him, obviously loves, obviously fuels well being and obviously listens well.

grimtraveller said...

ACFisherAldag said...

"BTW, did any of you happen to notice that although Crowe kidnapped and raped a woman, he walked?"


By the way, has it been noticed that Charles shot a man and left him for dead and was never even charged for it, even though the zealous prosecutors and LAPD were well aware of it's occurrence ?

"The lady's name was not Rosina"


Interestingly, Charles Watson refers to her in his first book as Luella.

"She was grabbed off the street by Crowe and his men"


Just like that ?
Is this plausible ? Actually, yes. Now, whether it actually happened is anyone's guess and everyone's opinion but it's certainly possible. The question that needs to be asked however, is whether or not, having just lost $2700 {$17,497 in 2015 money} and being angry and wanting his money back, would Lotsapoppa be grabbing white women off the streets and for what reason ? Did he honestly expect a man that had just ripped him off and gotten away to throw everything down and come a' running because he had grabbed a woman that he didn't even know ?
Let's just say at this point, that while possible/plausible, it's highly doubtful.
Manson to Stimson says categorically that Tex planned this scam and wanted to get his money back from this woman whom he says cheated him out of money when he first came to LA. That's Charlie saying this.

"Two were white, four other than Crowe were black"


So, to get this straight, there were seven men in this tale that Charlie had to face.

"Crowe called the Ranch and told Charles that he was holding the young woman until his debt was paid, and if it was not, he would burn down the Ranch, and everyone inside, including the children"


There has long been something very curious about this story. If Crowe said he would hold the woman until the debt was paid, why didn't he give any time for the debt to be paid ?
And according to this 'source' only threatened to burn the ranch down....at what point ? When he was told Tex wasn't there ? Why hold the woman as a bargaining tool if you're going to threaten to burn down the ranch as your leverage tool ?
And how, from one phone call in the dead of night would Crowe know there were kids and other women at Spahn ? I would imagine from Rosina/Luella which tends to kill the tale of her being grabbed off the street.

grimtraveller said...


"Charles took Tex and TJ to Crowe's apartment to free the young woman. He brought along a .22 handgun. Apparently Tex did not have the money to make right the payment for the drugs"


Ok, this is where this starts {I'm being generous} becoming something from Jackanory.....
This is the first that I have ever heard that Tex went along to the woman's apartment. It is not a matter of dispute that TJ and Charlie went, but Tex ? Tex has never said a thing about being there. TJ never mentioned Tex was there. Most importantly, Charlie never mentioned Tex was there. In fact, Charlie told George Stimson that he told Tex to take the money back and Tex was scared and said they'd kill him and then Tex and Sadie ran away because they spent the money on a dune buggy.

"When Charles arrived, the people stated above were present, all heavily armed"



So these 7 guys, among them 4 ginormous Black drug dealers were not just armed, but heavily armed.


"She had apparently been raped, judging from blood, being disheveled, torn clothing, etc"


Even in the accounts of this incident that Charlie gives to Emmons {whatever you want to make of his book} and then Stimson, even where he claims she was tied up, not once does he say she had been raped or was bleeding. He says he told Lotsapoppa to leave the woman alone, which is rather shutting the door after the horse has bolted if she had already been raped. Remember, Charlie claims Crowe was threatening to rape, not already had.

"The men advanced on Charles and his crew"


Again, Manson says nothing of the sort. He says he gave Crowe the gun and told him to take his life. Crowe slid the gun back and said no. According to Charlie.


"Tex was also frightened and tried to waffle"


We are honestly to believe that Tex was stupid enough to go back and face Crowe after swiping $2700 of his earlier that night that he supposedly blew on a dune buggy ? Charlie says Tex was going nowhere near that place as he was scared he'd be killed.

"the large, heavily armed men moved on them. Charles fired his .22 handgun. He hit Crowe in the stomach, as we know"


Although Manson earlier stated to TJ that there were 7 of them, once inside the place, he only mentions one, "his [Crowe] partner" from whom he stole the shirt.
AC often emphasizes how small Charles is and how he didn't have the kind of strength that people go on about. Yet we are to believe that with his little .22 handgun, that he held off and scared 7 not armed, but heavily armed people ?
Helter skelter is a lot more believable than that.

grimtraveller said...


"Tex and TJ fled the scene, as did several of Crowe's men"


So Tex and TJ ran off ? How did Charlie get back to Spahn ? And why would Crowe's men run ? If, as AC states, Tex & TJ were scared, then these guys outnumbered Charlie six to one. That's six of their guns to his one that mis~fires.

"Charles believed he'd killed Crowe, and threw up out of fear"


Threw up out of fear ? He says he stole a shirt from Crowe's "partner." That sounds pretty cocky to me.
Besides, wasn't Charlie the guy who had conquered fear ?

"The young woman said that she would stay with one of the white men, the one who had ties to the Beach Boys, as he stated he would take her to the hospital for treatment of her wounds"


Soooo....Charles went with two men to rescue this woman who had been supposedly grabbed off the street by 7 men and his men and some of Crowe's men had run off but he left the woman with one of the men whom AC assures us had been part of the 7 that had grabbed her off the street and been, at least legally {co~conspirators and all}, guilty of her rape and was armed. Then this co~kidnapper/rapist turns chivalrous knight and says he'll take the woman to hospital for treatment of her wounds.....but says nothing about Crowe !
Phew !

"This is the whole story as it was told to me"


And who do we believe, AC or George ? Both are fervent supporters of Charlie. Both claimed to have his ear. Both can't be right here. Their stories flatly contradict each other. This seems to be a trait where Charlie is concerned, people who love and support him coming up with versions of particular happenings that contradict one another. It seems he tells different people different things on different occasions !

On the Beatles' "Yellow Submarine" movie soundtrack album, there's a piece by George Martin that very much reminds me of this version of the Lotsapoppa saga.
It's called "Sea of holes."