Saturday, May 28, 2011

A Simple TimeLine


1- Bobby Kills Gary, over money or a drug deal gone wrong. He and the girls get the "bright" idea to leave bloody writing on the wall.

2- Bobby is arrested sleeping in the car he took from his victim. (Genius!)

3- The Ranch People get unhappy. "Didn't Charlie send him there? What is Charlie going to do about it."

4- Charlie knows he was there- what will Bobby say about him?

5- Charlie, the five foot two punk, realizes that not only with these people fuck like he directs, they might even kill if the situation is correct.

6- The Girls, Leslie and Kitty and others, start floating the idea- other similar killings with writing on the wall, Copycat Murders, they will realize they have the wrong guy with Bobby. This makes ZERO sense, they have Bobby dead to rights, but let us assume the girls believe this. This also means they start to get all up in Charlie's face- WHAT are we gonna do about this Charlie?

7- Tex burns Crowe. Crowe kidnaps Rosina. Charlie shoots Crowe.

8- Charlie now concerned about what HE has done. HE might go back to jail. Maybe the Black Panther fear, maybe not. Either way, Crowe HAS TO retaliate, right? (Still confounds me that he did not.)

9- Charlie takes off for Big Sur.

10- Charlie returns, Bobby in jail getting impatient, Mary and Sandy arrested for Sears fraud, girls leaving, and worst of all that motherfucker Melcher is NOT coming through on the goddamn record deal. HE Is the cause of all our problems. You know, somebody should go up to his fucking house where we all have been many times, where he had his Golden Penetrators Club Meetings, and just kill him and every fucker up there. (rantings, musings).

11- Tex who owes Charlie big time (Crowe) and Sadie who owes Charlie (leading Bikers to Ranch who shut down Night Club) along with Katie who craves love and Linda who by all accounts was super down with everybody, go to Cielo and do what Charlie was screaming about.
[[Alternate 10 and 11- Charlie is fucking pissed off because of drug burn by Frykowski and has the same rant with the same result. OR, TEX has been burned, decides to go to Cielo and gets Charlie's permission who suggests " Something Witchy."]] Sadie, remembering Hinman, thinks you are supposed to write in blood on walls and writes "Pig".

12- Killers return to Spahn with naked Charlie and Nancy dancing. Tell Charlie. He and others (Clem? Nancy? Bruce?) return to Cielo. Holy Fuck.

13- Convinced that the only thing that might save his ass from jail IS the asinine idea of Copycats, Charlie assembles the same team of killers, adding only LVH who cannot wait to join the team, and drives around for hours looking for the best place to stage a copycat. Changes his mind repeatedly, finally going next door to a place he already knows. Sets the stage, assuming his team will do the job, which they do in spades.

14- We need an answer as to why it stops and the best I have is- MONDAY- the press is going fucking nuts about Cielo. CRAZY about Cielo. Los Feliz is mentioned. BUT NOBODY IS CONNECTING THE TWO, OR HINMAN. I mean if you had 3 killings in LA TODAY with blood writing on the wall you would see screams of a crazed killer on the loose. But there is NO LINK. This Copycat shit isn't working. On the other hand, no one seems to be coming our way either. Let's take a beat. Charlie knows from ex-cons that you keep going, you get busted. Cops come ten days later, but for car theft and they walk! Charlie is thinking that was a close call, and they leave town, like out of an old Western.

15- Shorty obviously buys it because he called the Raid and maybe knows some shit- I mean the actual living area of the Ranch was not that big. He could have easily heard shit. Anyway, unfinished business, he goes.

I do not say that the above is true.
I do not say that I agree with the above.
I do say that there are no logical problems with the above timeline. It makes HUMAN sense.

My worries with the case are always "Why the LaBiancas?" and "Why stop after them?" Having learned that master researcher Tom O'Neill has not been able to establish that Rosemary actually did leave a $2m estate, then LaBianca seems completely random. And if we reject the insane motive put forward by an unhinged District Attorney, then logic is all we have.

Any thoughts, observations or abuse welcome.

47 comments:

adam said...

Col, something I've always wondered about point 2 - If Bobbie took Hinman's two cars as payment to get the angry bikers off his back before they carved him a new one, why was he still driving around in one of them days later?

The only plausable reason I can think of is the bikers had heard that Gary had been killed and realised that having a murder victim's car in your possession would not been the smartest thing one could do.

Seasoncycle said...

Compliments to you & your fried chicken, Colonel. Thoughts. Charlie tells em to get money from Hinman as all these middle-class kids have money (if not, they will get it off their folks, given enough FEAR) thinks Manson, with his Scient0logy knowledge & experience of the milking the family gals' cash-cow dry. Crowe don't show, why would he? Would lone Whitey go into the black projects if the roles were reversed. A phone threat's usually enough. And the Melcher + LaBianca houses get hit only cos Charlie has limited experience of locations with a roof that doesn't need fixin' a hole where the rain comes in. That's my Tuppence worth FWIW. No cents makes no cents.

jmm1970 said...

I re-read the last 1/3 of "Manson In His Own Words" the other night, trying to understand this progression of steps. Charlie (Or Emmons, or both) spent a considerable amount of time discrediting the Bugliosi motive, and he also went too far, in my view, of making him the complete innocent "wrong place at wrong time" figure.

Absent the Bugliosi motive, which is total ridiculousness by just about everyone's own admission, that leaves "copycat" or "Frykowski drug burn"

We can sit in 2011 and theorize that the irrational behavior of August 9th, 1969, doesn't make sense. But, add some belladonna, other psycedelics, and amphetamies, and anything can happen!

In addition, we are talking about a bunch of really dumb people.

The old saying that "three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead" still rings true to me here. It's been 42 years. If there's anything to the drug burn theory (or the Kennedy muliple shooter theory, etc. etc. etc)... something has got to surface. Wouldn't it, eventually?

THELMA AND LOUISE said...

Bobby was also mad at Gary because his g/f Kitty had taken some bad *mda* and had a miscarriage while living in the basement at Hinman's.
This was before Hinman sold him (Bobby)another batch of bad shit , Bobby was trying to finish up a drug deal with a MC group that were having a party, the drugs were bad and the bikers got ill.

Yes, the above mentioned girls did in fact think of the copy cat motive. mary Brunner has told many times.
T

ACFisherAldag said...

That young lady was not really named Rosina and her dad was someone famous, perhaps show business, perhaps business-business. It's relevant if you realize that her parents might've been somehow in this mix, too... perhaps blaming Ranch people for her getting caught up.

THELMA AND LOUISE said...

jmm1970 said...
We can sit in 2011 and theorize that the irrational behavior of August 9th, 1969, doesn't make sense. But, add some belladonna, other psycedelics, and amphetamies, and anything can happen!

and it did...and it DID because there was a drug burn at Romans house. Vf and Abby both knew ( also I would bet Roman knew also but didnt give a shit,)before hand and were fore warn that a group would be back to pick up the drugs that night.
But the drugs had been moved to Jays house by VF earlier that day.The only drugs that were taken from Tates were from VF personal stash by Susan Atkins)
Another odd thing here, since Jays home wasnt seached until 3 days later. Go figure ????MONEY TALKS!!!!
T

THELMA AND LOUISE said...

ACFisherAldag said...
That young lady was not really named Rosina and her dad was someone famous, perhaps show business, perhaps business-business. It's relevant if you realize that her parents might've been somehow in this mix, too... perhaps blaming Ranch people for her getting caught up.

Like in the name Deanna.
T

Panamint Patty said...

As in, Deanna Martin, Thelma?

THELMA AND LOUISE said...

Panamint Patty said...
Patty is beginning to wonder if the Colonel is really writing the Colonel's blog any more. The writing style has definitely changed. Could it be that The Colonel put someone else in charge of posting and he is now posting as Vera Dreiser? Or is Patty just getting paranoid from hanging out with all you freaks?

btw
I totally agree with ya Patty! Youre not paranoid your right on with what youre thinking.
T

THELMA AND LOUISE said...

Panamint Patty said...
As in, Deanna Martin, Thelma?

yep Patty.
sure miss ya Thelma and Louise..now that the nutjobs have moved here come back over. :)

RIGHT NOW IM KINDA BUSY WITH A MOVIE AND AND A BOOK BUT LOUISE AND I ARE STILL THERE.
BTW
WE HAVE TRASSH PICK UP SO THAT THE TRASHERS CAN BE TERMANATED.
T

THELMA AND LOUISE said...

Vera said...
I've been just a lurker for a while now. I just don't understand all the infighting that started over nothing. You got people accusing people of being other people. You got one person never coming back. Everybody is calling everybody names. There are people who have their own blogs coming over here raising hell.

WELCOME TO THE BLOG WORLD DONNIE. SO YOUR WIFE WEARS VERA WANGER LOL I THOUGHT SHE WAS A PRADA WOMAN.
YANNNNO THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA ;)
T

FrankM said...

Vera

You probably haven't been a lurker here long enough. Before the Col made his blog private a few years back it was the scene of some of the very worst blog behavior I have ever seen. Col was obliged to make it private for a little peace (and I'm guessing also for fear of litigation).

Time went buy and this blog was on its last legs, so to rejuvenate it Col recently opened it up again. What happened was predictable. Some of the worst of the earlier offenders (Savage, Wheat/Salem, etc) are now creeping out of the woodwork with new monikers but the same miserable contributions. If you are a long-time lurker you'll identify these names and have fun identifying them. They have been joined by assorted socks and shit stirrers from other blogs who either like to troll or want to peddle their own wares. You'll never really know who is who and who has stolen or shared user names. That's just the way it is.

I should of course say that there is also a residue of decent, well-intentioned people who make useful contributions in a civilised manner. In fact these are fortunately the majority of the blog membership.

It will be interesting to see how - if at all - Col deals with this if it develops into something nasty like before (off-line stalking, revealing people's real life identities and addresses, publishing defamatory and salacious personal information, often totally untrue - well you get the idea).

In the meantime I sympathise with you, but to a point only. No one obliges you to come here and you pay nothing for the privilege. Guess you'll just have to take it as it is, or take your toys and play somewhere else.

In friendship

FrankM
Greenpoint

Vera Dreiser said...

I'm not a "member' of Evil Liz's site, but since it's bascally the same conversation with the same people, I'm posting this here (from their discussion of Krassner's Guillory HuffPo article):

Mr Poirot:
"Again I ask.....
If Labianca had any mob hit aspect why did Charlie drive around LA for two hours hunting a good target that night? If Labianca was a hit he would have driven straight to their house."

Vera says: Because if he had, he woulda found an empty house. Maybe he was waiting for Leno and Rosemary to arrive home.

Adam:
"AC, if Charlie has told you that that part of the story is not true, why has he not told you or anyone else a satifactory reason as to just WHAT he was doing in a car with a bunch of killers on their way to the LaBianca residence that night? If he could then all the charges against him would have fallen like a house of cards."

Vera: Brilliant point, Adam.
And to AC, enlighten us as you did with Crowe: what really happened that night? And who did Charlie call before going to LaBianca's?
Something tells me she's going to reply that he never went at all...
But I hope not.

ACFisherAldag said...

What Charles has said is that he was not there at all, that he received a traffic ticket that night nearly 100 miles away, that he was with Miss Schram.

Charles has identified the exact location of where he received the ticket, on a map. We found what jurisdiction that would be in.

Now, before you go scoffing, consider this: The traffic ticket does not exist. Meaning, that ticket from that date with that number sequence is missing. Not sure if I'm making myself clear... Charles was issued a traffic citation, his copy of it went missing, and the police's copy is gone. Let's say it was ticket #00006. Ticket #00005 and #00007 from that date are there, but the ticket that Charles was issued is missing.

Mr. Bugliosi states that the ticket was issued earlier. Well, there's a photo of it in his book, but guess what, that ticket doesn't exist either. I'd sure like to find it and see if the date was altered.

Further, I am told that Charles wished to have the officer testify that Charles received a citation, but that officer was reassigned to another department before he could even give a deposition.

Not only could I not find the ticket, a reporter from an American news magazine could not find it, a reporter based in Germany could not find it, nor could a news reporter from Israel.

We wanted to see if the date had been altered, and who the officer was who'd issued the citation.

Further, I am told that Susan Atkins was not at the LaBianca's house, as she was dope-sick from pigging out on Frykowski's stash the previous night.

Leslie VanHouten acted as the "Avon Lady" because she knew Mr. LaBianca. In criminal slang, the "Avon Lady" is a person known to the victim, who gets the victim to open the door. That is why she was asked along. Her father and the LaBiancas apparently had some connection. I can say this now, as I realize it's not gonna affect her parole, which is pretty much not gonna happen anyway.

Think about it... if Charles knew that people were gonna pull a job, WHY would he drop them off and have them make their own way home? That is asking to get caught. Someone else was driving the car, while Charles was diving the bread truck.

WHY would only four people go along to Tate's, to do a job on four victims, when six people would go along to LaBianca's to murder only TWO victims? Well, there weren't. There was Tex, Linda, Patricia and Leslie.

Now, to make Vera feel better, Charles is guilty of having knowledge of the crime after the fact, which technically means that he was a conspirator.

In interviews, Charles has repeatedly stated that he has never killed anyone.

Marliese said...

There are retention and disposition schedules for these documents, AC. A fix it ticket or another low level vehicle ticket isn't recorded in the same manner that a felony conviction is recorded. It is not unusual, not illegal, and not suspicious for conspiracy that the ticket paperwork was likely routinely purged within a specified period of time. For a low level vehicle infraction, the retention period would be brief.

Charlie returned to Spahn Ranch on the afternoon of August 8, 1969 with Stephanie Schram. If he is saying that isn't so, he is lying.

Vera Dreiser said...

Marliese is absolutely correct.
The truck was back at the ranch on August 8 and impounded the same day during the apprehension of Mary and Sandy that afternoon.
The ticket Manson rec'd in Oceanside on August 7, was found in the van.
From the police report concerning the Aug. 8, Brunner & Good arrest:

"...the [Sears] cashier notes that the [credit] card was on a warning sheet…observed two suspects Brunner and Pugh/Good get in an older model white Ford bakery truck and leave…Mr. Jean and Mr. Haws followed suspects…made them stop…asked about purchase…said they had, offered merchandise back…said they’d thrown card out the window…LAPD took them into custody…Haws went back and found the cards…Officers found credit card under seat...numerous Richfield receipts were found in the vehicle with the above mentioned credit card, showing that the credit card had been used and signed by a subject Charles Manson.
The truck’s license number appeared on the credit card.
Also a CHP traffic citation was located in the truck, issued in Oceanside California on 8/7/69, giving the truck’s description and signed by Charles Manson. The truck’s license is K 70683."

Sorry, AC, but you been strung along, dear.

adam said...

If anyone could shed a light on the most murkiest aspects of TLB it would be Steph Schram. She was sharing Charlie's bed almost exclusivly around this time. Is it suspect that she has never spoken out publiciy about the case?

I am an open book on Charlie's guilt. He more than likley had his hands dirtied at some point, but.....

It's not enough that someone is probably guilty. You should't be concvited on that alone.

Marliese said...

Thank you Vera. Btw, your name is beautiful. It recently dawned on me why I recognized it...

I don't believe the Avon lady nonsense for one second. Leslie Van Houten wanted to go along because she wanted to be recognized by Charlie...she was eager to do whatever needed doing to help Bobby's situation.

Leno did not answer any Avon calling door bells. Charlie looked in the living room window, saw Leno dosed off on the sofa, went and got Tex and the two of them invaded the house uninvited through the unlocked side door and confronted Leno on the sofa in the living room.

Leslie Van Houten had never met Leno Labianca, Leslie's father did not have any vague, mystery connections to Leno Labianca, and Rosemary Labianca was not a million dollar drug dealer. Some of these fantastic tales would be funny if they weren't so disrespectful of the victims and the horrifying suffering they endured at the hands of these lying murderers.

ACFisherAldag said...

The other tickets from that time period are there, in microfilm form, Marliese. Just that one in the sequence is missing.

The police have saved all kinds of other things, right down to the car and the record album, all kinds of paperwork...

ACFisherAldag said...

If I'd have been strung along, then I'd have found a ticket with that date on it with Manson's name on it... along with reputable journalists from three countries. There's a photo of it in one of the books. It's no longer in existence, but other tickets are.

Mrs. LaBianca was not a drug dealer. Her husband owed large gambling debts to the wrong people. This was not random.

Charles maintains that Leslie's father and Mr. LaBianca knew one another through church or a civic group, and that Leslie was vaguely known to Mr. LaBianca.

I'd like to know how high up these windows are, and if there is a clear view to the livingroom sofa. Charles is only 5'6" -- could he clearly see inside? Doesn't mention that -- bad police work.

ACFisherAldag said...

I am also wondering how six or seven fully-grown people, one of them a football player, could've possibly fit in that car for a long drive.

Why nobody put any of them at the scene of the burger joint.

Why no one came forward saying that they'd picked them up hitch hiking back home.

Vera Dreiser said...

Ac,
So, no comment on the bread truck Charles said he was driving in Oceanside when the Tate-Lab murders took place actually being impounded in LA the afternoon of the Tate murders (along with the ticket issued in Oceanside the day before?).
Also, AC, FYI, even if CM was in Oceanside on the afternoon of the 9th -- which he wasn't it -- he could've easily made it back to Spahn n time to shower, eat, beat up and terrorize a few underage teenagers and still leave on his nighttime adventure that resulted in the demise of the LaBiancas.
Also, CM had told quite a few others that he DID go into the LaB home that evening to rob them, and didn't know they were gong to be killed, Unlikely, of course, but there you at least have him contradicting his in-Oceanside alibi to you.
If you don't believe me, ask some of his even longer-time supporters. You know who I'm talkin' 'bout.

Marliese said...

Well AC, maybe a fix it ticket doesn't meet the criteria for retention. It came up in the system Friday evening when police in San Fernando ran the plate on the truck with the girls using it for their failed shopping trip to Sears. Good enough.

As for the car, have you seen the inside of a '59 Ford lately? Those old cars are big square boxes...bench seat across the front, and three or four people could easily fit in the empty space for the missing seat in the back. Maybe they piled on top of each other. Doesn't matter. They got there, they killed.

I have no idea why the police didn't work up whether Charlie could have seen Leno on a sofa adjacent to the enormous picture window across the front of the living room. Maybe it didn't matter once he was placed inside the premises by someone other than a co-defendant. Regardless whether he saw Leno through the window, he invaded that house and set those people up to be butchered by Tex, Katie and Leslie.
I get the impression you know that too, but you want to defend his actions...like a defense attorney planting obscure shadows of doubt.

MrPoirot said...

Crowe never retaliated against Charlie because Charlie's gun messed him up real bad. He had a long recouperation. Charlie was imprisoned before Crowe got well. I suspect that Crowe was in a wheelchair for a while.

Marliese said...

Adam, maybe there weren't any angry bikers on his back for bad drugs. Maybe it was about a lot money they thought Gary had or had recently come into that they wanted.

starship said...

Vera, no one actually saw CM make a phone call the night of the LaBianca murders. Only that he was out of sight at times and perhaps had the opportunity to make a phone call.

ACFisherAldag said...

Was said truck still in impound that day, or had it been sprung?

People who still remain friends with Charles from that time period state that he did not beat or terrorize anyone. I'm thinking that perhaps some folks who willfully engaged in unlawful activities had to have an excuse for their behavior, so they put it on Charles... especially those who were engaging in lawless behavior three, four, even five years after Charles was incarcerated.

How long does that supposed brainwashing stuff last, anyhow? Five years? Unlikely.

ACFisherAldag said...

It was not a fix-it ticket, it was for speeding, going 10 miles over the limit.

ACFisherAldag said...

The same people that place Charles at the scene also place Susan Atkins at the LaBianca house. Others state that she was back at the Ranch, too sick to move, after ingesting wads of narcotic substances. Susan was convicted of killing the LaBiancas, too.

adam said...

True that is the other theory as to why Bobbie held Gary hostage, but Bobbie has said many times that it was over bad drugs. As the frenchman is the only one of the killer's to have stopped with all the "Charlie brainwashed me to do it" BS years ago, his words carry more weight with me than the others.

Vera Dreiser said...

Bakery truck was released to Danny DeCarlo Oct. 15, 1969...but, I'm gonna heed the Good Col's advice and stop wasting my time rebutting AC's inane beliefs and fictions.

Marliese said...

Believe whatever you want to believe, AC. You can throw these red herrings around forever. That's what you do.

I choose to believe Charlie was pulled over for some broken thing on the truck and ended up being cited for not having a driver's license in his possession. Good for you the ticket didn't meet save forever status because it wouldn't prove Charlie wasn't available Fri and Sat.

As for the impound timeline, I'd guess getting the truck out of impound probably wasn't high on the to do list Saturday.

adam said...

There is an interview on youtube where Charlie admits that he went to the LaBianca's that night. He states that a bunch of them went to True's house and then decided to sneak in next door to have a private party, which they had apparently done before. They believed it was empty but Leno and Rose came in. Charlie then claims he excused himself and toddled off, leaving the rest behind. They say Charlie is a most convincing liar but this just reeked of bullshit!

The interview was during Charlie's 'long hair with the front shaved bald' phase. He was also talking much lower and raspy then he usually speaks. Was he on strong anti-pshycotic drugs at the time?

MrPoirot said...

ACFisherAldag said...
It was not a fix-it ticket, it was for speeding, going 10 miles over the limit.

7:52 AM, June 06, 2011

Mr Poirot replies;

If Charlie paid the cop cash the ticket would never show up on record. I had this happen in 1976 in SC for speeding. I paid the officir a whopping $20 cash in his patrol car. That violation NEVER showed up on my record. I never complained either.

MrPoirot said...

6- The Girls, Leslie and Kitty and others, start floating the idea- other similar killings with writing on the wall, Copycat Murders[end quote]

Mr Poirot replies:

Bobby was into writing on walls long before his murder career started. Remember the famous pic in SF in front of his apartment wearing the mad hatters hat? He had written on the front door with dark red lipstick.

ACFisherAldag said...

MrPeroit, finally, a legitimate, well-thought out response, not intended merely to score points. How delightfully refreshing.

Vera, you win. You get to be Official Queen of the Official Tate LaBianca Murders Blog. Likely, there are coupons and keys to the city involved.

angeLos said...

My worries with the case are always "Why the LaBiancas?" and "Why stop after them?"

Did'nt CM met with LLB a year before at a party next door ?
same as STP in march 1969...
there was an argument about the noise made ?...
you do not need to look further ...probably...
CM althought he might be a "very nice dude" for certain person now, the 8/9/10 august 1969 he behaved probably like a jealous, egoistical, selfish, etc...man
He stopped after, because for him,....it was enough spitting on the World's face.

starship said...

angelos,

No, unlike STP, it is not certain at all whether or not LLB and CM ever met. And the timeline of who lived where when makes it unlikely that they ever did.

Not saying it didn't happen, but it is far from a slam dunk that it did, therefore the proverbial grain of salt approach should be used.

angeLos said...

Ok, then someone has to investigate if they met and were the info come's from....someone knows something ?

MrPoirot said...

AM, June 08, 2011

angeLos said...
My worries with the case are always "Why the LaBiancas?" and "Why stop after them?"

Did'nt CM met with LLB a year before at a party next door

Mr Poirot replies:

The Labiancas moved in AFTER Harold True moved away. However Diana Lake said Tex once lived in an apartment behind Susan Leberge's house. Could Leno had seen Tex before? I doubt it. Leno didn'y recognize Tex in his livingroom.

angeLos said...

ok, now please Col, since you researched a lot on this matter you perhaps read somewere that LLB had an argument with CM, i'm sure I read it somewere

starship said...

angelos...it's only a rumor...I've read it too, but it can't be proven one way or the other...and Mr. Poirot, I'm surprised at you because I have tremendous amount of respect for you and your knowledge of the details of the case, and although what you wrote about True moving out before the LaBianca's moving in...while true...don't forget that Leno purchased that house from his own mother...so if she resided in the house before that, then it is possible that Leno may have encountered Charlie while visiting his mother, which I'm sure he did as a nice Italian son would.

sbuch113 said...

I thought the ticket Manson got in Oceanside was for not having a drivers license.

ACFisherAldag said...

He had a driver's license, I have a copy of it.

grimtraveller said...

ACFisherAldag said...

"What Charles has said is that he was not there at all, that he received a traffic ticket that night nearly 100 miles away, that he was with Miss Schram"


"Miss Schram" testified that she was at Spahn on 8th, 9th and 10th August and so was Charlie.
Charlie told Vanity Fair in 2011 that he went to see Harold true on the night the LaBiancas were killed. Even though we know from True {he told Aaron Stovitz} he knew Harold had left. Charlie also told Vanity Fair that he knew the LaBianca house because it used to be empty and he'd gone in there to have sex.
Charlie told George Stimson that he spoke with Leno LaBianca just before he was killed and that he left Tex and the two women there.

Further, I am told that Susan Atkins was not at the LaBianca's house, as she was dope-sick from pigging out on Frykowski's stash the previous night


Every person who knows anything about the Tate/LaBianca case knows Susan never went into the LaBianca house. She never said she did other thaan when she told Ronnie Howard or Virginia Graham that the night after Tate she went out into the hills and killed two people, which, once she'd agreed to testify, she told the truth of who was in which house.

Charles Manson keeps on contradicting AC. Sooner or later, one concludes that the words of neither are reliable.

grimtraveller said...

ACFisherAldag said...

"The same people that place Charles at the scene also place Susan Atkins at the LaBianca house. Others state that she was back at the Ranch, too sick to move, after ingesting wads of narcotic substances. Susan was convicted of killing the LaBiancas, too"


Susan was convicted as a co~conspirator in LaBianca because
a] she'd been at and was involved in Cielo the night before
b] she knew murder was on the agenda that night. She knew, having been on the death squad at Tate that there was a good possibility that death would occur which is all there needs to be for conspiracy to come into play.
I have never heard in 38 years of following this case, a single person say that Susan was at the ranch while the LaBiancas were being killed. Not one. Not even Squeaky and Sandy, let alone that she was strung out on Frykowski drugs.
If I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd work up a theory that AC was actually a government plant of some sort, actually seeming to defend Charles Manson in such a way that eventually, few could take her ideas seriously, thereby guaranteeing that more people would actually be utterly sceptical whenever they hear his name !

grimtraveller said...

Col Scott said...

My worries with the case are always "Why the LaBiancas?" and "Why stop after them?"


Often, people ask the question "why did the murders stop after two days ?", certainly Irving Kanarek did during the trial. Usually, this question is posed by "helter skeptics" and utilized as evidence that 'the reason for the murders was igniting helter skelter' is a crock.
Of course, the argument could be equally leveled at the copycat motive; you could ask why did there need to even be two nights of murder ? But that's another argument for another time.
Tex Watson says he helped stop the murders by lying to Charlie and saying the FBI had been asking questions about him back in Texas, concerning a murder.
Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't. It seems a bit of a stretch to me. How could anyone have known after a couple of days of Tex's involvement ?
But I'm beginning to wonder whether or not in Linda Kasabian's testimony we see the real reason there were no more TLB style murders after the 10th August.
Firstly, murders wouldn't need to be consecutive, whatever the motive. There's no reason they'd need to be 7 days in a row or 5 days in a row. Few killers have ever actually killed that way, even those with high body counts. They tend to be spread out. So if Linda Kasabian left Spahn without telling anyone two days after the LaBiancas were killed, then within a few days of that had told a couple of hitch hikers about the killings then told Joe Sage and Jeffrey Jacobs about them and Joe Sage phoned the ranch and talked to Charlie about it {!} and Linda talked to Pat who had a go at her for telling someone unknown to the family about the murders, then wouldn't that kind of dissuade you from carrying out any more ? Because now, someone, independent of the group is aware of what has gone on.
Perhaps I'm just being fanciful or logical about a scenario where logic has little place.
But I wonder....
It also occurs to me that Pat's statement to Claude Browne, I think it was, that she was always afraid that they'd be caught {but Charlie said no one could touch them} was sparked primarily by the conversation she had with Linda. And it lends weight to why one of the family females tried to claim Tanya back after she'd been taken into care in the aftermath of the Spahn raid.