On the contrary, here is a famous murder case where the victim was beaten to death because the culprits believed there was money- CASH- in the house.
BELIEVED it- there wasn't any.
That's one instance. Happens all the time.
--------------
At Cielo, if we eliminate Bugliosi's madness, we are left with a drug deal gone wrong. Or a robbery.
With Hinman if we ignore Bobby's later spin, we are left with a robbery.
Crowe a drug deal gone wrong and money.
Shorty- an afterthought, trying to not get caught.
Waverly has always been the problem when trying to make sense of it.
Did Rosemary have a sizable estate or not? Was Suzan after her money? Leno had embezzled money.
Money Money Money. Sorry folks, it's the most base motivation and also the most common.
Hell someone TOOK Leno's coin collection right?
The killers show up at the house at a prearranged time. Someone has tipped them that it is a good time. They tie up the victims and try to get answers. They beat and slaughter them.
I don't know if Suzan knew Tex or she sent them or what.
I now believe somebody THOUGHT there was money to be gotten from the LaBiancas. Embezzled money? Drug proceeds? Just lots of cash? Doesn't matter. They THOUGHT there was money.
I really can't see how there is any flaw in this line of thinking anymore.
62 comments:
There is not a flaw in it. Also someone brought up a good point in a previous post, Why did RL have a dress on over her nightgown, Manson allowing her to put it on in some vain modesty philosphy never set well with me. It is more likely I think that she was dressed and taken somewhere before she was murdered.
But if you think outside the box with the Waverly murders, the nutcakes have a tendacy to slam you, even though this thought process is more reasonable than the official version.
Not exactly dissenting, but the idea that Leno La Bianca's) coin collection was stolen is not supported by police reports, which state no valuable coins had been stolen from Waverley Drive.
Bugliosi also refers to this in his summation: "He [Officer Rodriguez] testified he found several items of value, such as several diamond rings, one of which was marked "14 karat," wristwatches, expensive camera equipment, many rifles and guns, a jar of coins, a coin collection, and other matters of value, personal property, all of which he said were inside the residence and easily accessible to anyone if their intent had been to steal".
So if they were bent on theft, maybe they were aftersomething else.
Jem
They were fucked up kids in fucked up times and they got fucked up that night and drove around and fucked up some other people.
The next night, they did it again.
But having a little time to think about what they did, they're sorry.
I always root for human beings.
For reasons best left to your own self-inspection, some of you think this is a mega-conspiracy that needs brilliant minds to figure out.
But it is just more violent crime by a violent people in a violent culture. Happens everyday, every state.
But when pretty white girls are involved, we got a story!
Tom G
These people went to at least three houses with some goal in mind.
We were told a race war. It wasn't.
Some claim copycats to free a brother.
Except well they weren't.
This blog is about the motivations, the truth.
"Oh gee they just did it"- well that's bullshit too.
Jempud
Many sources claim the coins were stolen. I suspect they weren't and you were right.
I am suggesting that they were after cash- Hinman, Tate, Labianca- Cash- that they either GOT or thought was there.
I've heard the idea before that RL was taken somewhere before she was killed, but I just don't buy it. What vehicle would they have used? Rosemary's?? The boat was still attached to Leno's T-bird.
And IF she was taken somewhere, then who took her? And when?
No way would Tex have left PK and LVH alone to guard Leno white he and RL left to run an errand.
Did the 5 of them pile into RL's car and go for a ride??? DOUBTFUL!
I have an interview the LaBianca detectives did with Snake Lake in Inyo County on 12/30/69. Its been awhile since I've listened to it, but I'm pretty sure she mentions Leslie getting rid of a bunch of stuff, including a bag of coins.
But the majority of the coin collection was left untouched. I have several photographs that LAPD took of Leno's coin collection.
The question of whether (a part of) the coin collection was stolen is actually of some importance, given that it is frequently claimed that Tex was sent to the UK to sell it.
I have seen nothing to support this claim, and to be frank (and I have an open mind on this) nothing to confirm that Tex was actually in the UK at the time of Joel Pugh's death. His name does not figure in UK border crossings of the time, but there are of course ways of entering a country.
But I can't see any reason to deny the police evidence in this case, although I suppose that one or more of the killers could have taken some 'pretty coins' as souvenirs. And I don't know that there was a full inventory made of either the entire collection or what was found by the police.
Jem
jempud, aren't you thinking of Bruce?
Hello everyone, I hate to hijack the thread, but I thought this would be a good moment for me to let you all know that I have been researching the case, the conspiracy's and inherent threads for over a year, and have produced ten paintings for an exhibition on October 6th which I am calling Man/son and the haunting of the American Madonna. You can see a preview of the show on my blog or from the gallery website here: http://hyaenagallery.com/davidvangough.html
Whatever happened to Mr. LaBianca's stolen coin collection? Was it ever recovered?
Matt: you are so right ... too much vino tinto today, I guess. Thanks for correcting me.
AC: perhaps it's still in police custody? Or given to his legal heir(s)?
Jem
The District Attorney's office has around 60 boxes of stuff tied to the Manson cases. They don't have the coin collection though. LAPD did take it during the investigation though. As far as the bag of coins that Leslie Van Houten had, I don't believe that was ever recovered by LAPD.
For the last year I have been moving in this direction for most of the reasons mentioned. When something this bizarre happens with no clear reason it is understandable why people look to every single unexplainable detail and try to make sense. But coincidence and randomness will happen just like life happens. Maybe- There is just not going to be a way to cross every t and dot every I. What we do know is the history and bios of most of the animals involved. Petty crooks and thief's = exactly what they were. The history of the family is covered with small crimes, short jail bits, and an assortment of different scams to get money or drugs or whatever else it was they needed. I hold fast to my ideas that the houses were not random, but that doesn't mean there has to be any major connection either. we know Charlie knew some people who had a link to the people who lived in Cielo( I still think he most likely made these connections through the laurel canyon music/party scene) and, It sounds like some of you are on to how they may have known some people familiar with those at Waverly.In both cases- that could have been enough. Through whomever- the family heard there was money/drugs or whatever that they could get there hands on, and the rest happened in an unusually messy way- which ,combined with bugs story which a lot of us read first and when we were too naive to question much, led us to believe there had to me more.
Charlie was a small time punk.
There was no race war being started- they stopped after two nights. Col just printed something that nobody seems to want to accept because it is so simple.
Cielo and Waverly are almost exactly the same thing as what happened to Gary. we mocked the cops for not tying them together- but we refuse to do it ourselves.
They went to a home- they tried to steal, and then they tortured and eventually killed him. then they wrote message in his blood. One guy was sent with multiple women.
whats the difference?
They knew Gary. lol
maybe that wasn't a difference at all...
If they did know people or people connected somehow to the locations and heard there was something to be had at Ceilo and Waverly worth having- these three crimes are no different at all....
Is that so hard to believe?
I have only one problem left with this idea, and when I get the answer to this- I am moving on to zodiac and Scientology for good.
If they went to steal or get drugs- too much was left behind. Why would they take the time at Waverly to eat shower and clean up fingerprints, but not loo for more value to take? As well- they were left to hitchhike home? how much were they expecting to take if they had nothing to stash it in, or get away quickly if they needed to??
They seemed so relaxed an unprepared to take much or anything important. If Charlie thought there was something important in the house. He wouldn't have taken it with him? He wouldn't have, at least made sure, they had a reliable way to get it back to him at the ranch???
Shouldn't drawers have been all over the floor, closets ransacked, garages torn apart?
I guess my question is- shouldn't they have spent more time looking for things to steal and less time doing all the others things which are confusing us so??
Drugs were all over Cielo and the cops found some left out??
The thing that makes it tough is they did a-lot more stabbing than they did stealing...
?
The stabbing was the meth.
I didn't say they were there to rob the house. The Monahan killers left behind many valuables too.
I am saying maybe they were there for cash. CASH that was there, was supposed to be there or they thought was there.
ST. C, I think in your line of reasoning you are putting way to much emphancies of the Killers version of the story. How do you know they took a shower at Waverly? besides the testimony of the killers? PK also says she is the one that put the fork into LL, but later on Tex says he is actually the one that did it and let PK take the fall for it. Same goes with who actually stabbed Sharon, the versions have changed alot. And as you go down the list you realise how untruthful the killers were then and are today.
So if you eliminate anything the killers say, it brings up a whole lot of questions, I do not think it was just a revenge thing for Charlie, and Helter Skelter is bullshit, so what does that leave, numerous motives that make alot more sense. For one Tex was up to alot of no good before August.
Im wondering if the real truth will ever come out, I used to think it would, but I am no longer sure.
Bug isn't dead yet. Truth comes out after.
Col - I think that makes good sense
Couyon- I am putting emphasis on the few things that everyone involved with this who has made statements- has all agreed on. They did take food and clean up at Waverly- that's never been argued-
Otherwise I agree- they all have changed there stories and they lie all the time...
But we have heard all the various other motives- so tell me which ones make more sense to you?
Im not sure myself what the real motive is- just agree with everything Col said- and it sounds like the most reasonable one to me. over a long period of time and much reading I started getting to where he just laid out..
But if I am and he is wrong- whatever the motive ends up being-
Tex and Katie will still have been liars. No??
Dear Col Scott - After the Bug passes, does this mean that you will make the documentary film that refutes his assertions once and for all? Why not now?
Pref
prefeteria
How well did you do on Reading Comp when in school? Quite poorly I expect.
When the Bug passes one hopes that people who have been quiet will finally speak up. People like Kasabian for example.
I don't make documentaries and I have no interest in them.
Why does one need to refute Bug's assertions? It's like refuting Creationism. Crazies can always find some lie to believe.
Dear Col Scott - this is not school. It is a somewhat obscure blog with one man's opinion. It has not changed at all the general consensus that Helter Skelter was the motive either historically or consciously in the media. You have the means to take it to another level. You could make the Inconvenient Truth of Manson. Will you?
Pref
Preferteria
It is the only OFFICIAL Blog on the case. It is hardly obscure.
I just want to know the motive. I don't care about "media"
If Linda wanted to talk, why does she have to wait until Bugliosi dies? He can't hurt her, she got a deal and that's that.
St C.
I beleive this, no exact facts, just what I beleive;
Hinman - money
Tate- Tex and drugs, and little Charlie ego
Labianca - money, (whose or details, I dont know)
Shorty - revenge
other unproven family deaths - Charlies ego
Charlie puts way to much empancies on money and then denys it means anything to him, there is a key there.
All Im saying St C, is if the real motives and truths ever did come out, I think alot of the 'facts' everyone has beleived so long in will be dispelled, everyone saying they ate and took showers doesnt mean it happened or didnt to me. I beleive the Killers have been playing hide and seek with the truth for 40+ years and the question is why? Its to keep us away from the real details and events as they really occured. In some bizarre idealogy they beleive it to still be in there best interest to play this game. For all we know what did Clem do to get out, was it just pointing out Shorty's grave or was there some spilling of the beans on all family events. I do not beleive in the official version of the sicko killers or the lying goverment. When I hear a family member or Kay or Bugliosi speak, my bullshit meter goes off the scale. I do not have any more facts to go by than the next person, but my gut feelings have never steered me wrong yet, knock on wood, if you cant find wood just find a bama fans head, its the same, roll tide, what he hell does that mean anyway
Couyon- I dont think we are having a disagreement here. I am right there with you on all counts for the most part. I can agree with your assessment on almost all - not sure about other deaths automatically liked to Charlie...
I also think if Clem had said more- we would know more- why would the government hide anything they discovered?
but as far as the eat and clean up part- if it proves to be true- it just says something about a state of mind to me that they were in no hurry. I agree these weren't normal people- but in almost every single crime they committed- they made some effort to clean up or hide involvement- so they apparently weren't that interested in getting caught. They were also very young, and LULU especially was not experienced in this type of gruesome and gory scene. Isn't it human nature to get the hell out of thre when you do something like that? The fact that they acted so unworried about lingering around just makes me a little suspicious that there wasn't more to it, or that they knew more and it wasn't just some random house.
but I dont know either...
when and if the provable truth comes out certainly there will be things we missed, and things we knew that we didn't give any credence to. For sure- the family was a bunch of lying stealing scum for the most part.
But people died and there must be a reason of some kind why...
we cant keep eliminating ideas because we cant trust the criminals. All three said they took food and cleaned up- the investigation says they did so, and years later when they are all at parole hearings and are trying there very best to come across as honest as possible- these things haven't changed...
If it is true- it makes me wonder
But regardless of anything they say or dont say- I still believe the three- Hinman, Cielo, waverly- have enough in common that it is at least worth considering they were all done for similar reasons and we know why they went to Gary's so why cant the others be the same??
They went to all three places looking to gain something, and all three ended up the same way...
some people actually believe in helter skelter- but this is too hard to consider?
people who bragged about creepy crawling and stealing credit cards and cars led by a lifetime petty crook....
More of the same sounds alot more likley to me than starting a race war or anything else I have heard so far...
The Goverment hides things from us St C, because they view the public as children and unable to accept certain things. In some ways they may be right, in others not at all. As a former goverment employee I have seen WAY to many cover-ups, some I understood, some I was just left to wonder what part of the story was I not told.
A good example is there is a book written by the guy (can't remember his name off hand) who was the developer of the FBIs profiling unit back in the early 80s, at the end of his book he states "We in the FBI knows exactly what happens to all the missing children, but the public is not ready to hear it"
Ive always wondered what he meant by that, but it just goes to show the extent of what the goverment is willing to not tell us.
You made me think of something though, what if the real Manson truth comes out someday and its nothing we ever thought of or discussed? that would blow some minds
It would certainly blow mine :)
I hear ya on the rest!
The problem with your theft and/or drugs theory is as related, they left much of value, to include drugs.
Lastly, re the, why only these two nights and then no more, well, the Japanese did a mock bombing of Pearl Harbor there at home, before they decided to bomb the real place. This could have easily been a practice run through, which notion is supported in part by the report we have re the second time round, when the word from Charles was, let's do it better this time.
There's also the matter of their troubles at this same time, since as we all know, there is the singular instance of the story being run on the murders in the paper and in the very next column is the story on the one ranch raid. We usually take that to mean, gee, here they are looking for these folks and in the very next column there's a story about the killers. We might try instead to think that they had a run through and then another, and then had some serious distraction that ultimately prevented the mock Pearl Harbor raid from becoming the real Pearl Harbor raid.
Hey Colonel
What's the Official Tate-LaBianca Murders Blog position on "The Manson File - Myth And Reality
Of An Outlaw Shaman" by Nikolas Schreck ?
Any curiosity on that front or have you read/dismissed it?
Res,
I don't like to take anything that the killers said as the truth, but in this area, Tex did explain that there were to be more killings, and is why he came up with the fake FBI going to his parents house story to stop anymore killings. If its true it worked, because the next thing that happens is the family is split up and is hiding in the desert.
As far as the your drug concerns. How do we know there was nothing else taken. The ammount of drugs that were left at Cielo were of personal use size and would have been easily missed. If there was a large cache of drugs that was delivered by Rostau or whatever his name is, and the killers took it they would have thought they got it all right?
As far as the mock exercise you spoke of, if it was just practice, they wouldn't have killed anyone dont you think? If they were just practicing, they would surely understand killing a pregnant woman and stabbing people 41 times would blow their cover if it wasn't the real deal.
Couyon Nunyaz:
The reason why I ultimately discount the drugs angle is simply and only because we ought not have 5 dead bodies in the landscape. To get more into the specifics, the reason why drug dealers are armed to the teeth is because it's not like they can go to the cops and say, Someone robbed me of my stash. So if they are just there to steal drugs, why do the one thing that would bring in the cops? And since some posit some mob connections here, well, then what does killing them do? Sure, if you just take their drugs, they might be out for some payback, so too their mob friends, but doesn't the perceived need for any payback become all the more with the murders? And if even if the mob doesn't consider them to be their associates, well, they are a link in the chain of distribution are they not, and so Charles & Co just broke the chain, so there's reason to be upset.
Now re the mock raid meme, the analogy isn't perfect, admitedly so, as this would instead be the run through on a small scale in preparation for the large scale. One of the distressing items in this whole sad and sordid affair is the psychological need of the rest of us to make some sense of all this. But there doesn't have to be any "sense". There just doesn't. It became clear to me when I watched the one upload on Youtube of Blue aka Sandra Good speaking to the assembled reporters and the television viewing audience about how LA is going to burn to the ground and our children are going to rise up and kill us. She wasn't joking. She was deluded, but she wasn't joking. And that was the mindset of some of them.
If you take that mindset as a given, it really isn't hard to believe that some were anticipating the end of the world and doing their part to hasten that event. For another not perfect analogy, how many Christians here in the US are all for Israel owing to their belief that the re-establishment of Israel as a nation-state has something to do with the second coming of Jesus, so he'll have an Israel to return to? So the end times are near. How do we know? Israel re-established as a nation-state. Or so some believe.
It's not that far from that to notion of Helter Skelter, especially consider the matter of race during that time period. Toss in the Vietnam War, etc.
And by the way, for more of the irrational, utterly so, well, what the conduct of the girls at trial? Quite simply insane? That's how not right in the head they were. And so it's no great stretch for me believe that they believed in some looming race war, etc., and were looking to hasten the thing. And you can add in here Jim Jones and his fans, David Koresh and his friends, etc. In other words, some are looking for the rational, they were out for drugs and/or money, while some of the rest of us are thinking, these people were a lot like Jim Jones and his devotees and David Koresh and his devotees. And Manson gives himself away in the Geraldo interview, when he speaks to "rebirth movement". Jim Jones went to Guinea and Charles Manson went out to the desert.
And I can understand why, as time goes on, Tex et al, start veering over to the drugs and/or money and/or copycat killing meme. Since by then they were smart enough to realize that if they maintained their former beliefs (at least outwardly so), we'd all think them mad and they'd never get out of jail. Either that or a case of prophetic disconfirmation, i.e., Manson prophesied, didn't come to pass, and so his followers now abandon him in droves. And given that unlike the Jehovah's Witness leadership over the years, Manson didn't exactly assign a date for the coming end, you might see why it took a while for the disconfirmation to take hold.
And here is some of the disconfirmation, from the late Mrs. Atkins' 1978 parole hearing:
"I began, after years of sitting there alone seeing Helter-Skelter not come down, seeing that I was hostile, was rebellious, I was manipulative, I was angry, I was bitter against the staff."
So, prophetic disconfirmation, seeing as how "Helter-Skelter did not come down".
And the way in spun out, well, if you were alive at the time, then you should know that the idea of a looming race war was not an entirely alien concept to some. Now in case you weren't there, think the black nationalist movement, Eldridge Cleaver describing his rape of a white woman in his Soul On Ice, etc. And while it pains me to rely on Wikipedia:
Eldridge Cleaver was released from prison in 1966, after which he joined the Oakland-based Black Panther Party, serving as Minister of Information, or spokesperson. What initially attracted Cleaver to the Panthers as opposed to other prominent groups was their commitment to armed struggle.
***
Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton eventually fell out with each other over the necessity of armed struggle as a response to COINTELPRO and other actions by the government against the Black Panthers and other radical groups. Cleaver advocated the escalation of armed resistance into urban guerilla warfare, while Newton suggested the best way to respond to was to put down the gun, which he felt alienated the Panthers from the rest of the Black community, and focus on more pragmatic reformist activity.
And Eldridge didn't exactly make his views a secret. And since I mentioned rape:
In the most controversial part of the book, Cleaver acknowledges committing acts of rape, stating that he initially raped black women in the ghetto "for practice," and then embarked on the serial rape of white women. He described these crimes as politically inspired, motivated by a genuine conviction that the rape of white women was "an insurrectionary act."
And by the way, perhaps I should have used Eldridge Cleaver and rape as the mock and then real thing, since that appears to be his mode of operation. That said, if you were there in '69, a year after Soul On Ice, and you were a white woman raped by a black man, perhaps wasn't just race, in your mind, but an insurrectionary act. That's what Eldridge Cleaver would have said.
I don't know what they put in the water during that era, but all was not well in the minds of more than a few of that generation. I was younger myself, seven years old when Tate/LaBianca occurred, but even I could see that something was horribly wrong with the thought processes of more than a few.
And now back to the larger point:
In retrospect, he [Cleaver] found it horrifying. As he said in a 1998 television interview, "If people had listened to . . . me in the 1960s, there would have been a holocaust in this country."
So even Eldridge realized, after the fact, that he was preaching holocaust in America. So how far out is it to believe that Manson & Co. envisaged a looming race war?
Toss in Chuckie's "rebirth movement", poor him having a hatred for all things showing success, and you've pretty much got the foundation for Helter Skelter and you can understand why the "beautiful people" were made to pay the price (as it were).
A briefcase filled with cocaine or LSD is the equivalent of cash. Whatever was taken would by definition not be found by the police. Or, Like the Colonel says, just the belief that such a thing was hidden in the house would be enough for people to die. HInman - drugs. Cielo - drugs. Labianca -drugs.
Bugliosi claimed "No sense makes sense" was a Charlism.
It sounds like something Manson might say....who knows?
One thing for sure though.
When the book Helter Skelter/motive plunges into absurdity Bugliosi reminds the incredulous reader to remember........"No sense makes sense".....Charlie said so.
Obviously Vince knew his version of events made no sense.
ColScott said...
Preferteria
It is the only OFFICIAL Blog on the case. It is hardly obscure.
I'm not trying to be facetious here, but what makes this blog any more "OFFICIAL" than any of the others out there?
Good evening,
Has anyone, ever, made the connection between the La Biancas and the folks at Cielo?
And this means... not necessarily the victims.
Did they know each other? I'm pretty sure they did. In fact, I'm pretty sure someone knew them all.
As for theories... in the land of vicious serial killers and warmongering politicians, why is it so hard to believe this could have taken place for such simple motive as bloodlust or some weird motive like a "race war"? Haven't other individuals killed other individuals for cheaper reasons?
Maybe Helter Skelter is an overt exaggeration, yet there may be some truth to it - just a fucked-up reasoning to kill people.
Add a volatile mix of frustration, neglect and despair by a bunch of youths with no future in sight, completely lost and out of place in society... and the decision to kill is a few steps away. Some had it in their blood, some didn't - yet they all participated.
I think most of those connected to the case know why it went down, yet no one dares speak out.
Perhaps they should have fried their brains back then and we wouldn't be discussing their deranged endeavours right now.
Perhaps they should be set free on condition of specifying in detail the reasons for the killings. How about that?
Colonel, I have an off topic question for you if you can e-mail me
1967mansonfamily@gmail.com
ty hugs and kisses
I beliewe Suzan knew Tex and was in on the crime.
Has there been any movement on the proposed lawsuit to challenge Orca's claim to Sharon's likeness rights.
I'd be really glad to see such a lawsuit--a positive outcome would have some far-reaching effects.
Thanks Col.
Hi Bobby, just my thought...not speaking for Magpie obviously...
I would guess a lawsuit would establish whether Debra owns the rights to Sharon's likeness etc in the first place, no? If she doesn't, then she's exploiting, i mean marketing, her likeness without possessing the right to do so...no? Being Sharon's sister doesn't necessarily make her the legal owner of her likeness.
The Sharon Tate website, the one with the 30 year old photo of Debra with her fingers in her mouth on the title, is selling mouse pads with Sharon's face, license plate frames, Christmas tree ornaments with Sharon's face in a Santa hat...!
And remember the tabloid tv show with a model wearing Sharon's clothes?
Why do such a thing? For the money maybe?
Her pregnant sister was viciously murdered and now her face is on a mouse pad? And a Christmas ornament?
Wtf...who does that?
It's just sick, in my humble opinion.
Anyway...great to see you Bob, how have you been? Be safe in the storm.
Marliese, isn't Sharon the one with her fingers in her mouth on the Sharon Tate official website?
If you think so, Carol...
I don't recognize Sharon in that photo, but that doesn't mean it isn't Sharon.
I think Sharon's face was perfection...fairer and far more beautiful than that silly photo, and think the photo looks a lot like the picture of Debra on the left...maybe it's the darker coloring.
Or, maybe it's actually one of those rare views when there's a tiny bit of resemblance between Sharon and Debra, unlike the exquisitely beautiful features unmistakably shared between Sharon and Patti....
Marliese, I agree that photo is not the best. The one at the left is definitely Debra and, yeah, it's about 30 years old. For some reason I think the top photo is Sharon. I know I'm in the minority, but I think Debra, in her youth, bore more of a resemblance to Sharon than Patti did.
Carol, aside from the site photo, do you have any thoughts on the legal issues mentioned earlier? Or Debra dressing up a model in her brutally murdered sister's clothes for tabloid tv, and marketing coffee mugs, mouse pads, ornaments, license plate frames etc etc with Sharon's likeness?
bobby: Because the company that Debra is in cahoots with engages in activities that are questionable, and I think it's important that we (as a whole) get some legal clarification as to the legality of some of them (such as using publicity rights to obstruct legitimate research).
If Debbie is claiming rights that do not belong to her, then it's in everyone's best interests to get a court to tell us what exactly those rights are.
Marliese, I honestly didn't know about Debra wanting to put Sharon's likeness on coffee mugs, etc. It would be in questionable taste since Sharon was murdered, she didn't merely die. And who would buy such merchandise? I don't think most people know who Sharon is. When Farrah Fawcett died, my 21-year-old nephew asked me, "Who's Farrah Fawcett?" But I think Debra deserves the rights to Sharon's clothes, etc. She is Sharon's closest surviving blood relative and she and Sharon were very close, from all that I have read. I guess I have a soft spot for Debra because of all she's been through.
Included in the Terms of Service on the Sharon Tate Fansite...the site with the photo we were talking about, and where the mouse pads and other items are for sale (so apparently she knows and approves) is a statement that the image, likeness, voice etc etc of Sharon Tate is 'controlled by Debra Tate.'
That doesn't mean, i don't think, that she owns the rights, but that she has control (or has assumed control) of their use. Interesting she claims control, not owns.
It's been stated here by Col Scott in that past that the rights to Sharon's image originally belonged to Polanski...who gave them to Sharon's parents, with her father finally passing them to his four grandchildren...Patti's three children, and Debra's daughter... apparently bypassing Debra.
Very interesting.
I agree with you...after more than 40 years, there are generations that don't know anything about Sharon Tate, and haven't given the other victims much of a caring thought either...
Exactly, Marliese. Only people of a certain generation remember Sharon and the rest of the TLB victims. My nephew, for instance, has heard of Manson, I'm sure, but I doubt he knows who Sharon Tate is. Or Gibby, Voytek, Jay, Steven, Rosemary, Leno, Hinman, etc.
Hey Col
How much in agreement are you with the information posited in the new Nickolas Shreck book?
could not the reason they took their time at waverly, showered, ate and didnt seem to be in a rush was because they were waiting for someone. Someone to pay them and to drive them?
No new post from the Col in a long time, I sure miss his points of view
It's Friday again: Perhaps a new post coming from the Col?
word
The Col is waiting.
That is really a common story behind the crime of famous murderers. But I must say; your way used here to discuss your story of ‘money-cash’ seems some mysterious but amazing. Thanks for sharing.
I just wanted to put this out there. I'm not a TLB researcher but just from the little amount of reading I have done, esp on this site, I wanted to say/ask
*It looks like everyone was to participate in the murders. Those who didn't go one night went another night, including shorty etc. Someone mentioned the teams of three, one guy and a few girls.
*If they wanted money (which I think is a great theory) I am curious about how at the Tate house when the woman who had the cash and handed it over asked if they wanted the credit cards they said no, even though they had no problem using stolen credit cards often. (unless they knew it would trace the murders back to them which is probable.)
* At the Labianca's house (?) they took a wallet but that was to plant in a service station. If the motive was cash what was the point of that? Covering their tracks so it looked like someone else had done it?
The last thing was that I agree with whoever it was above that mentioned a lot of differing motives rolled into one. I know fro other historical research (jfk) that he was murdered because of a whole range of things. It was not any one motive, bay of pigs, being to left,, stopping vietnam, being 'soft' on communism, shutting down the cuban exile training camps, firing dulles and threatening the cia, being hard to control, backing down from war 6 times, making peace reach outs to Castro, secret talks with Khrushchev and the thought of him being in for another term and his brother after him for two terms...any and all of these came together to be a giant multi-pronged motive, each participant prescribing to the one that annoyed him the most.
With the TLB case I assume every participant would have had their own motive, fear, money, hatred, shame at being slighted, wanting to fit in, drug fucked, for kicks, drugs, cos they are sickos etc etc and then there would have been an umberella motive that was the catalyst for the murders. The one motive that bought them all together to carry out their own personal motives.
Anyway, sorry for rambling and I hope I haven't offended with my lack of knowledge in this case...
Thank you.
Oh, one more thought. Rosemary LaBianca having a dress thrown on over her nightgown... could they have taken an extra car that night? Seemed an awful lot of them to squeeze into one car. Maybe they took her to an atm to draw out cash in the extra car? Or if the others hadn't of driven off yet, some stayed inside with Leno while some went with Rose to the cash machine (saying they wouldn't hurt them after they got the cash but then doing so anyway)?
If they drove her to an ATM it must have been in a DeLorean.
Post a Comment