Tuesday, February 05, 2013

Foxycuda!




The Col's Thoughts--

-- Orcette says she was poisoned.  I don't know that LSD poisons you, it fucks with your mind.  I do know that she wanted that tasty tasty burger Ouisch gave her real bad.  Still does.

-- I am beginning to wonder what to do with Tom O'Neill, a guy I knew who is a real shit stirrer.  A few years ago he was spreading some cockamammie story about Spahn Ranch Kung Fu classes.  He first told me about his book 12 years ago! That's some coitus interruptus.  That's his voice on the tapes.  He obviously phoned this guy up and got him to talk.  As to why the hell he released this now when the book doesn't appear imminent, that's anyone's guess.

-- Orca has no shame.  She really doesn't.

-- If the statute of limitations on murder is non-existent, where is the arrest for Adam Gabriel for the LaBianca murders?

-- This disbarred attorney will let you know a secret- this entire farce is a non starter.  Watson saying Manson killed other people on a tape decades ago is hearsay.  It is not evidence.  It COULD lead to the police opening up another investigation.  That costs money they don't have.  Will they do it to convict somebody in jail for life.  No.

--Notice Orcette ranting about the motive?  Methinks she doth protest too much.  She wants it to be true even when she knows it isn't.

-- Can you take anything here seriously?  I mean they gave it to a plain looking woman with the handle "Foxycuda" (Foxy cooter?).

Wake me when Orca goes back to sea and this sideshow is over.

45 comments:

adam said...

So Tex gave 20 hours of interviews for other murders, yet never implicated himself in any of them........convenient.

ColScott said...

Look JimNy is back!

Leigh said...

Is it not the case that Grogan was never in the dock over LaBianca because the only evidence against him was the testimony of a co-conspirator (Atkins)? And a person cannot be tried solely on the basis of a co-conspirator's testimony? This is a sincere question; I am not trying to be cute. I've seen people ask on these blogs countless times over the years why Grogan wasn't tried for that and that would appear to be why, unless I am missing something. Is there additional evidence against him that has been ignored?

starship said...

Kasabian could testify to everything Susan Atkins could regarding Clem and his involvement the night of LaBianca, correct? Or am I missing something.

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

As Leigh mentioned, you cannot be convicted of a crime based solely on the testimony of co-conspirators or accomplices. There has to be corroborating evidence. Absent that corroboration, there was no basis to charge him. It wouldn't have stood up.

Matt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SurelyYouJest11 said...

-I don't know that LSD poisons you, it fucks with your mind.

There are no confirmed deaths as a result of overdosing on LSD. Ever.

SurelyYouJest11 said...

-Watson saying Manson killed other people on a tape decades ago is hearsay.

I respectfully disagree. Had Watson said that Manson [u]said[/u] he had killed others, it would be hearsay. As it stands, it is simply an unsupported accusation.

starship said...

Ok, so let's review the corroborating evidence: at Tate we have Tex and PK fingerprints, correct? What do we have on SA? Her disavowed testimony to the Grand Jury? The longhorn revolver linked to Manson? The guy who remembered the license plate of the car when they used his hose? How does that prove who actually was present and/or ordered the murders?

At LaBianca what do we have? PK's handwriting on the wall and refrigerator? Rosemary's wallet corroborates both PK and SA testimony. Is that enough to convict SA for LaBianca but not Clem? And what of LVH?

Again, I apologize, but what am I missing?

ColScott said...

she confessed to cellmates for starters

louis365 said...

There are people who will admit to things they haven't done.

Matt said...

Witnesses at Spahn heard CM tell the girls to get in the car and do what Tex said.

Sadie blabbed in Jail.

Sadie's footprint

Sadies lost knife

The young man who drove them home after Labianca.

It goes on and on. If you get enough corroboration - even if it is circumstantial, a good prosecutor can build a case.

starship said...

Yes, Matt, indeed. But I still don't understand why Clem wouldn't have been prosecuted along with the rest of them for LaBianca.

Matt said...

The official reason is no corroborating evidence.

Like you, I believe they dropped the ball on that. Absent a brilliant attorney, I think he would have been convicted.

starship said...

It just seems a bit fishy to me. The system usually likes to throw everything they have with as wide of a net as they can find so hopefully something gets caught.

A bit out of character for this particular cast of characters.

Unless I guess even Bugliosi and Kay and the LAPD thought Clem was too retarded for the trouble as well.

bobby said...

Seems that if the authorities knew he was there they would at the very least threaten him with prosecution to get info. Or as Starship points out perhaps they felt he would be a poor witness too.

brownrice said...

Over on Cat's site there's an interview with Irving Kanarek where he says that Grogan was paroled 'cause of family connections in either the Sherriff's department or the LAPD (my memory's pretty bad). Whatever the case, maybe that's why he was never prosecuted for his involvement in the other murders..

Uncle Don's Cabin said...

Quentin Tarantino VS Spike Lee Celebrity Death Match .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9
cShS4W5vng

Guest appearance by Woody Allen.

Jean Harlow said...

Nobody was charged with Nadir's attempted murder. How was there a murder attempt when they (Susan, Grogan and Linda) never even saw him or went to his apartment door?

I think Susan was charged with the LaBianca murders because she was a participant in the Tate murders. She never went in the house, she was just in the car.

What evidence is there that Grogan was even outside the LaBianca home but for the evidence/tesimony given by Linda and Susan. It would have been impossible to prove in Court so he was never charged. Susan should have been acquitted of the LaBianca murders in my opinion. It wasn't like she wasn't going to the spend the rest of her life in jail for the Hinman/Tate murders.

Is the thinking that Susan, Linda or Grogan could have gone to the police and said a murder is taking/going to take place and that's why they were charged with first degree murder? Can someone explain that to me? Pretty please?

Matt said...

I pray for stronger meds for Jim. Oh yes!

maria said...

I don't understand how you can be filled with such venom towards two people you don't even know.

You don't know Debra and you certainly do not know Vince.

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to be so mean and hateful?

SurelyYouJest11 said...

-The Facebook picture thief speaks.

I'm curious how a person can steal pictures from facebook.

-In some cultures, you'd get your hands cut off for stealing.

Absolutely true. Thankfully, we don't live in one of those cultures so what is your point?

-It's guys like you that continuously take this case to even lower levels.

Your opinion is noted.


Leigh said...

Jean: "I think Susan was charged with the LaBianca murders because she was a participant in the Tate murders."

Yes. Tate-LaBianca was considered one ongoing conspiracy and that was the basis for Susan being charged in LaBianca. As we all know, they had her dead to rights on Tate.

Again, it seems pretty clear to me why Grogan was not charged with LaBianca. It's also pretty clear why he was let out. Leading police to a body and providing that closure to investigators and relatives is considered no small thing. It was not the first time someone had been let out for doing that. Nor was it the last. Though if anyone has any possible evidence that other considerations were also at play then I'm as keenly interested as the next person.

Marliese said...

I don't know the details of Grogan's parole, only that he led the way to Shorty's body in 1977 and was paroled eight years later, in 1985. Would love to read the transcript of his last parole hearing.

I don't know but i think he probably cared more about proving he hadn't cut up Shorty than doing the right thing for Shorty's family. Have always thought he should have had a little time added for allowing the desecration of Shorty's remains to go on for eight years, but it doesn't work that way. I think he's a creep.

Fifteen years for premeditated murder...clubbing Shorty from behind, plunging a knife in his heart, letting him rot beside the railroad tracks for eight years doesn't seem long enough.

And why wasn't Tex charged with Shorty's murder???

Leigh said...

I don't know what Grogan's motives were for leading investigators to the body and I definitely wouldn't vouch for his character. That he did it at all, however, probably played a big part in the decision to let him out. It would not and could not have been the only factor that led to the decision, but it was doubtless a major consideration. I'm sure if any of the others started leading investigators to bodies it would have been looked upon favorably as well. This is pure speculation on my part but I think there was a time, before the 24/7 media cycle existed and before victims' rights became such a prominent feature of our criminal justice system, that some of these people had some semblance of a shot at getting out. Perhaps counter-intuitively, I think their chances of getting out have actually decreased over time rather than increased as might be expected for other, less infamous inmates (see Exhibit A: Atkins being refused compassionate release on her death bed).

Personally, I don't think fifteen years is enough time for what Grogan did either, but I also don't consider it wildly unusual. The movement for victims' rights was largely a response to the prisoners' rights movement, and in the era before victims' rights the amount of time Grogan served for murder was not uncommon (people still do similar time for similar crimes today, though it's less common).

Marliese said...

I have no problem calling him exactly what he is...a murderer.

I don't think people do similar time today...not in California anyway. I believe it's a mandatory 25 to life for first degree murder and first degree murder with special circumstance is life without the possibility of parole, and can be death, in California. And wasn't he originally sentenced to die...until the judge said he was too stupid to be responsible, and lowered his sentence?

Does anyone know why Tex was not charged with Shorty's murder?

Leigh said...

"I have no problem calling him exactly what he is...a murderer."

I most certainly do not have that problem either. I don't think anyone here does. He is a murderer. That is not a matter of dispute.

I wasn't endorsing the decision to let him out. I think it was wrong, like you. I was just trying to explain my understanding of why it probably happened, or at least one of the key factors that probably led to it, as well as the historical context for murderers in the past being paroled much earlier than they usually are now. As we all know, the law is not static and it does change. Societal norms change. (For example, when Lesie, Susan and Pat were first put on death row at CIW, they were on death row with a small handful of other women, all of whom were ultimately paroled within a few years after the death penalty was briefly overturned and their sentences were converted to life with the possibility of parole - since life WITHOUT the possibility of parole did not exist at the time of their sentencing.)

It's been insinuated over the years that Grogan might've been let out due to connections he had or for other shady reasons which have been obscured from the public. I'm completely open to that possibility, if anyone can shed any light on it. However, as originally stated, and irrespective of a prisoner's personal motives for doing so, it was not the first instance in history when a prisoner leading investigators to a body led to a speedier release. Whether he cared or not about anyone else's sense of closure, having Shorty's body finally accounted for certainly must've provided some measure of it for Shorty's existing kin. I'm not saying he should have had a medal pinned on his chest or anything. I'm just saying, it probably helped him eventually obtain release. It helped at least as much, and probably more, than any other factor. I'm not making a value judgment, just stating what I perceive to be the reality of the situation. Admittedly, I can't know that for sure without seeing his final parole transcript.

"I believe it's a mandatory 25 to life for first degree murder and first degree murder with special circumstance is life without the possibility of parole, and can be death, in California."

I think you're correct about that, but prisoners are generally subject to the laws that existed at the time of their original sentencing and not subsequent changes. When I mentioned the victims' rights movement (which had a major impact in California, but was a nationwide movement) being a response to the prisoners' rights movement, I was referring to things like public disenchantment with perceived leniency, in addition to the primary concern about the lack of an active role/voice for victims in the process at that time. Grogan was paroled during a time of transition when the criminal justice system was evolving from one focused more on rehabilitation to one focused more on punishment. I do wonder how much his perceived stupidity factored into the decision to let him out...

Anyway, I kind of feel like I am slowly losing my original point or that we are talking at cross-purposes. My apologies if I have been unclear or inarticulate with anything I have said. Further apologies for nearly writing a small essay.

Doc Sierra said...

Sorry Col but I have to disagree with you. I think this Cuda chick is smokin' hot but, to each his own......

Uncle Don's Cabin said...

Interesting find:

This comes from another blog:

"On one of the other Manson blogs, they are corresponding with a fellow that claims to have hung out at Spahn in the summer of '69. He claims he went there with his brother who was a biker. So far, the guy seems credible to me. At least he doesn't seem White Rabbit crazy. Anyway, he say's that the bikers did most of their illegal business (drugs/guns) with Tex: "tex held the money. because we delivered stuff a number of times and looked for him. he paid,, and even when a guy offered him something spur of the moment,, it was tex who decided yes or no,, tex pulled out nearly $100 and bought it. i am positive that he did not take time to go ask anyone else. and that was alot of dough back then!i doubt he had that much personal cash that he carried around"."

Colonel - I've always told you that there's more to Tex than meets the eye.

Tex had ambition - Manson just rolled along with whatever came his way.

The Lottsapoppa incident speaks volumes about what would later transpire.

You claim you want the truth Colonel but yet you refuse to open your eyes and see it.

It all makes sense. Tex, Linda, Katie and Sadie.

What was Linda doing at Nader's place Colonel when the only the night before she's outside standing guard at the Tate residence (Rolls Eyes) while Tex is laying down a beating on Frykowski and Folger?

Linda was never meant to have anything to do with LaBianca. Her destination was pre-determined even before they set foot in that car. Sandy was in jail. Linda was the only one who knew how to get to Naders place.

You can delete this post if it makes you happy but know this - the focus is shifting from Manson over to Tex Watson - as it should.

Charles Manson is another Hurricane Carter who was railroaded by a DA who was out to make a name for himself.

Watson is pure evil.

bobby said...

Uncle Tom, For someone as well educated as you. You are very naive about the dynamics & hierchy of the family. What does it do for you to believe Tex was above Charlie ? and if he was why not worship Tex instead of Charlie ?

Uncle Don's Cabin said...

bobby said...
>>>Uncle Tom, For someone as well educated as you. You are very naive about the dynamics & hierchy of the family. What does it do for you to believe Tex was above Charlie ? and if he was why not worship Tex instead of Charlie ?<<<

I never said that Tex was above Manson. What i'm saying is that Tex was very much his own man and did what he wanted to do independantly of Manson's knowledge. The Lottsapoppa incident is a prime example of Manson getting sucked into a mess that was created by Tex Watson which Manson had no prior knowledge of.

The "Family" reference that you make was only something that came into being after the arrests at Barker were made.

Nobody in the group ever referred to themselves as a "Family". They lived a communal lifestyle and people were free to come and go as they pleased.

Both Tex Watson and Susan Atkins had their own little drug business going which came to involve the pigtailed one. This is where the story begins which lead to murder.

This was not something that was planned out by Charles Manson especially when referring to the Tate murders.

If you're under the impression that Charles Manson ordered Tex to kill at Cielo Drive, i will say that you are incorrect and I back this with commentary that Manson himself had told Geraldo in regards to when Susan told Manson what had happened. Tex took enough rope with him to Cielo to hang "2" pigs - not 5.

Did Manson know that Tex was going to Cielo to commit Murder? That's debatable, but it was not on Manson's orders. Tex went up to that house to settle a score and to recover something that he knew was there.

I've been down this road a number of times but i think that people are finally starting to see that Tex Watson had no problem acting independantly on his own without Manson's permission. Tex wanted to make a name for himself and he was ambitious.

Manson just wanted to get his music published so that he could get his message out and to secure some fame of his own.

Tex Watson, as even Bill Nelson had said many times, is a very evil man. This is the same guy who did the bulk of the killings. He has no conscience and no remorse.

Charles Manson would never give an order for a pregnant woman to be killed. Manson, even to this day, has his own code of honor. Watson is the type who would kill on impulse.

That's my take on it. For what it's worth.



Panamint Patty said...

Where U at, Colonel?

louis365 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Suze said...

ColScott said...
Look JimNy is back!

----------------------

The cyber equivalent of what herpes must be like. Just when you think you've seen the last of it, it's fucking back...

Panamint Patty said...

Are you asking for one, louis?

Panamint Patty said...

Patty has a checklist and medical exam that you must pass first. And, she ain't cheap.

starship said...

That study done in 1968 titled the Charles Manson communal marriage group mentions that thy called thems elves a family.

Uncle Don's Cabin said...

starship said...
>>That study done in 1968 titled the Charles Manson communal marriage group mentions that thy called thems elves a family.<<


I'm almost certain that I've seen footage somewhere where even Manson himdelf disputes the reference to the "Family" label. It could be something that he disputed with Geraldo.

The "Family" label was a term that had been losely floated around because of their communal lifestyle and it wasn't until the DA took it and ran with it that it actually became synonomous with those who lived at the ranch.

The only people that i know who refer to this group as a "Family" was Bugliosi, Sanders and that Crazy White Rabbitt.

The were a communal band of slippies that wanted to drop out of society and live life "Their Way". Leslie herself admits that she was a drifting hippie.

"Family" is another word for "Clan". It just doesn't fit.

Manson's whole scene was "communal". They were all sisters and brothers to eachother. They were "One" because they lived as "One".

"Family" is something that's structured - That's old society. That's Ed Sanders world.

They were "SLIPPIES" and they lived a "Communal" lifestyle where everything belonged to everyone.

"Family" - You're making square pegs fit into round holes again.

"Family" is Pig Talk. That's a term that comes from a programmed existance.

When you're living in a communal setting, you're living in the "NOW". You're living for the moment. There's no structure in that.

You guys are dragging me down with all of these weird vibrations.


bobby said...

I think they where happy to be a family " family jams " Not sure why you would be so set against it. Normal traditional fams maybe be pigs but they had the right idea of family so why the denial ?

Are you sure Manson didnt advise Tex to do a rip off on Lottsa ?

Marliese said...

>>>>>>>
Manson just wanted to get his music published so that he could get his message out and to secure some fame of his own.<<<<<<
>>>>>>
Charles Manson would never give an order for a pregnant woman to be killed. Manson, even to this day, has his own code of honor. Watson is the type who would kill on impulse.<<<<<<<


So I guess he was too stupid to realize that by invading a private home, tying up the owners and leaving them in the hands of maniacs he knew would kill them, he was conspiring to murder and would be considered as guilty of murder as the actual killers?

And was he a peaceful man only interested in his music when he slashed Gary Hinman's face and left him to die? And then there's Shorty...the one you always leave out.

As for not giving the order to kill a pregnant woman, how did he know there was a pregnant woman at the Cielo house that night?

And family, commune, sisters, brothers...who cares? WTF difference does it make?

Marliese said...

Hi bobby :)

bobby said...

And family, commune, sisters, brothers...who cares? WTF difference does it make?

Thats what i'm talking about !

Thanks Marliese, That really made me laugh and Hi to you too.

louis365 said...

lol Patty...I'm clean as a whistle...and I have CASH...

Kiffer dude said...

The evidence and facts in this case are ever shifting and can lead you to many different conclusions, including that Tex could have been the most evil one. So to call someone naive for thinking a different line of motive than you, shows YOUR complete lack of understanding for this case.
No one knows the true motives and reasons, and any idea should be explored.