The Family That Slays Together...

There's an interesting anecdote in the first part of the new Hendrickson book DEATH TO PIGS that caught my eye. In it he describes watching as Nancy Pitman's mom came storming to Spahn Ranch (during the trials mind you) getting mental on her because she had borrowed a 35mm Camera and not returned it.

Fascinating story, with Nancy hiding in embarrassment and what not. Hendrickson tells the story in order to show that there were still family ties, and of course with what we know about some of them, he was right. Obviously Nancy remains close to her family today.

But wtf man, wtf? Mom wants a camera back, some piece of property, not her daughter who would later go into hiding in the sewers?

Different times indeed!

Did The Cops Give a Shit?

In DEATH TO PIGS Hendrickson makes a side remark at one point that a shitload of hippy bodies would show up every week in places like Topanga Canyon, to the point where people began to get annoyed.

This triggered a major thing that always bothered me about TLB. Is it possible, that right UP TO TLB, the cops didn't give a shit?

1- Zero clearly is murdered and the cops, by all reports, accept the bullshit Russian Roulette with a loaded gun excuse.

2- Crowe is shot and obviously had to go to the hospital, but you don't hear anything about an extensive investigation.

3- The other murders that Buglisoi tries to pin on the Family, like the Scientology students and Joel Pugh- does it feel to any of you like these were priorities for law enforcement?

4- Even Gary Hinman, which today would be first page news, doesn't feel like that big a deal. I mean, if they had properly investigated it they would have by DAY TWO tracked down Mary Brunner who used to live there for god's sake and had some idea. They only got a suspect because stupid Bobby slept in a stolen car.

It just feels like a few deaths were no big deal to the cops. Until the movie star got it in the stomach.

Some if this stuff happen today and there is NO WAY nothing happens.

Snake Lake Talks about Arousal, Her Vagina

Check out 6:09 and 9:06. Irony. Like Rain on your fucking wedding day.

"She got old on me."- Charles Manson.

( I was going to give proper credit to another blog but I don't think they want me to.)

Stupid? Ignorant? Lazy? Or Hiding Something?

No the headline doesn't refer to AC, Poirot or JimNy.

I was reading some of the new Hendrickson book last night, DEATH TO PIGS. It's a fun read for all 3 of us who care about the truth. Otherwise it simply summarizes interviews he has on film I would rather see as interviews.

So in one chapter the BUG shows up (like always) and Merrick and Hendrickson try to talk to him. He mostly talks over them.

In an interesting bit of mumbo jumbo BUG kind of admits that he isn't sure why Charlie sent Linda. That she didn't kill anyone but she must have known that killing was happening on the second night. That had Sadie kept her deal he still would have only gone after Linda for 2nd degree murder. He doesn't seem to really believe the "she had a license" explanation and speculates that maybe Manson loved her and wanted to lock her in to the group.

He also talks about the "why" go to 3301 Waverly and Merrick tries to point out that someone at the house had called the cops during a party at the True house next door, but BUG says he researched that and dismisses it out of hand.

Also much babbling as BUG says he'll appear on film for free he doesn't want no stinking $500 and then hey offer him $1000. He also hates on Sanders book quite extensively for not understanding the "significance" of these murders.

ANYWAY

This all got me wondering- WHY did BUG decide to make up the Helter Skelter motive?

1- To hide something because he did not like the real motive
2-He was too lazy to find the real motive
3- He was too stupid to figure out the real motive
4- Because anyone who would stalk his mailman for fathering his child is nuts and would therefore come up with a nuts motivation like Helter Skelter.

Personally I have always believed it was #4. That was what Aaron Stovitz personally told me at dinner- it was nuts and all the attorneys tried to stop BUG from being nuts. In the new book, they actually point out a quote where BUG admits that Jakobsen, Watkins and Brooks, when first interviewed, never mentioned the Helter Skelter bullshit AT ALL and that it took multiple interviews until they did. Plant much?

So anyway that was that - and then I started wondering about #1.

BUG barely made Melcher testify.
He did everything possible to control all witnesses. He still tried to control Kasabian on Larry King.
He allowed Charlie et al to go forward with weak lawyers.
He did regular interviews with the TV people.
He was determined to not only win, he was determined to get Charlie and bring the whole thing under his control.

It was almost as if he wanted to make sure NO OTHER MOTIVE was even offered.

Why?

What would he want to put a sock in?

Drugs? Maybe. LAPD had already speculated about this but maybe sure.
Copycat? Maybe, but I don't think he ever took it seriously, so why cover it up.
Black Book? Maybe but I don't even know what the fuck that means and it only surfaced as a real theory years later.

I don't know.

But it did get me thinking. I mean, IF he did cover up the true motive, what was it and why?

Some People Cannot Read

In the comments one reader, Mr. Poirot (probably not a Belgian detective) writes the following rant.

MrPoirot said...

Col you have spent years trying to create your unique version of TLB. You think Tate was a drug burn retaliation and Labianca was a mob hit by Charlie. Sorry but I've never heard any of the killers back up your versions. Ive spent a lot of time reading your versions over the past 5 years. I really can't see why you make claims that are never once backed up by any of the killers or Family members. I really don't give a rats ass if Bug ever existed or not. You know darn well that Charlir flipped his lid after Bobby, Mary and Sandy ended up in jail only s few days after he thought he had murdered Crowe. Within minutes of this triple jailing dilema on the day Charlie got back from Easelen Inst Charlie and the girls concocted the copycat murder spree of TLB in order to get Bobby off. I believe you know this to be the case yet you continually try to write your own script that has nothing to do with the events that are backed up by every person involved. Not a single Family member has ever substantiated your claims even after over 40 years. Not one person ever testified about a mob hit or drug burn in any of the many murder trials that lasted nearly 9 years. Most of these trials Bug was not involved with.

There are so many problems in this statement that after a while I get so frustrated I cannot take it sometimes. The fucking guy says he has read the blog but he obviously cannot read then very well. Because he is just factually incorrect about so much shit. Sorry Poirot, but you do in fact deserve this public lashing.

MrPoirot said...

Col you have spent years trying to create your unique version of TLB.Sir I am not trying to create anything. I don't have any version. I am trying to make sense out of things that are lies upon lies upon lies. I do not think I have succeeded, despite a 34 year obsession with the case. The Col NEVER says he is right because he knows he is not. I do not have a unique version of the events I examine EVERY version of events. You think Tate was a drug burn retaliation No I do not. In recent posts we are exploring that. This is one possible scenario. There are many others.and Labianca was a mob hit by Charlie. Fuck you dickhead for putting words in my mouth. I have never said this. I find this highly unlikely. It is a theory and so we explore it. But if you can't read then don't write.Sorry but I've never heard any of the killers back up your versions. Because the killers all tell the truth? Retard. Many of them testified that it was all about Helter Skelter. That is one thing that I am certain it was NOT about.Ive spent a lot of time reading your versions over the past 5 years.Only not very well I really can't see why you make claims that are never once backed up by any of the killersThe Killers all say Charlie made them do it. This is ludicrous. or Family members.Maybe I should believe Little Paul's testimony. After all, he only wanted to take the whole Family over, why would he lie about Charlie, right? I really don't give a rats ass if Bug ever existed or not. What does this mean? More retardation. He always existed. WHY did he make up a motive and suppress evidence and perjure himself? Insanity? (much evidence for this) Arrogance? (more evidence for this!) Cover Up (I don't know but would like to. You know darn well that Charlir flipped his lid after Bobby, Mary and Sandy ended up in jail only s few days after he thought he had murdered Crowe. Within minutes of this triple jailing dilema on the day Charlie got back from Easelen Inst Charlie and the girls concocted the copycat murder spree of TLB in order to get Bobby off.First off, I don't darn well know anything. Second off, this is a good solid theory. Like all theories there are major holes. Firstly, no one in authority EVER thought they were copycats- were they just super lame? And secondly, why stop? Why 2 and not 4 nights? Or 8? I believe you know this to be the caseI know nothing, which is one hundred times more than you do. yet you continually try to write your own script that has nothing to do with the events that are backed up by every person involved.The majority of testimony is about Helter Skelter, idiot, not copycats- so your own paragraph is contradictory bullshit. Not a single Family member has ever substantiated your claims even after over 40 years.And again, I guess Tex and Bruce are telling us the truth, right? Not one person ever testified about a mob hitagain, NEVER said this nor do I believe it or drug burn in any of the many murder trials that lasted nearly 9 years. Most of these trials Bug was not involved with.Most of them he was involved in actually.

So there we have it. One of the reasons this is too hard. People refuse to actually read properly.

So There Goes That Theory

The Col always liked to believe that Charlie at least thought Terry still lived at Cielo. I mean the BUG Is easy to ignore and fucking Terry managed to say almost nothing while he was alive.

But assuming the validity of those notes, which admittedly were all jumbled (like notes usually are, right?) Charlie ASKED FOR TERRY'S ADDRESS. That is way different from "Hey, he no longer lives here" and Charlie is all in the middle of trying to impress big rep Rudy and doesn't hear. It is an actual response and acknowledgement that the guy has moved.

So if we accept that, then major possibilities are just gone. The house was chosen either due to seclusion or due to targeting one of the people there.

Leaving aside seclusion and realizing that we at the Blog deal with reality not fantasy- What is the chance that Charlie had a beef worthy of slaughter with somebody who just happened to be at Terry's old house?

Let's go further--- No one thinks Sharon is there. She isn't the target. If she isn't there then Sebring isn't either. So that leaves Abigail or Voytek as the target. I'm throwing down with the Pole. But if he is the target, what are the chances that Manson or a Rancher even knew the fucking guy?

I wonder if maybe while up there with Rudy he bumped into Voytek. One thing led to another, drug burn, revenge?

This thing is so hard to sort out....

Rudy's Notes

So I met with this cool young filmmaker who made this great Manson doc a couple years back. He brought with him a book of Rudy Altobelli testimony that Rudy had given him. He let me copy it so we will be blogging it soon enough.

Inserted in the book was a 3 page very yellowed, old document that seems to be Rudy's notes for his testimony at trial. Some of it is very interesting to say the least.

-------
2/26/70

Conversation with Manson
Left for Rome 2/24/69

On 2/23/69 he was getting packed and taking a shower and dog started to bark and Manson was in outside the house alone on the patio (between screen door and the front door) (Sharon was in front house getting packed)

He introduced himself and Rudy knew who he was and Rudy opened the front door and spoke to him but he did not enter the living room he had met the summer before and Greg Jackson wanted a ride to the beach (Dennis Wilson) and Charles Manson was there with people and a little boy –

Sat for a few moments, listened to tape of Manson playing music – stayed for a few minutes and left.

Manson asked where Terry was – He said he was in the front of the house and she said to come to the back since he was looking for Terry.

Sharon told Rudy on the plane that she saw Manson that day.

He told Manson he had to leave for a 1 year – clients to make movies

Manson said he was going also to make a movie and Rudy said yes, understand you are very talented

He also asked for Terry’s address

He then asked when Rudy would be back, he would like to talk to him again – Rudy said – over a year.

Rudy never saw Manson except at the house that once and at the beach. Maybe another time – don’t remember.

Roman moved in February 15, 1969.

Terry moved out in January 1969.

Roman left for Rio de Janero a day before or after Rudy called to obtain consent for Garretson’s to stay and told Roman he would take care of the dogs and keep guest house clean.

Garretson moved in on March 24.

Roman said Sharon was going to Rome also and that he would go with Sharon (Sharon was going to make a movie)

Other people were there when Sharon saw Manson at the door

Jay Sebring

Photographer – Hatami (friend of Roman)
(he was at the funeral)
Abigail
Voytek

Rudy thinks these people were there when they talked on the phone and she said a few people were here

Manson has semi long hair – no beard, pants and shirt and on the top a space seemed to be between his teeth and bad teeth all around.