People come up to me in the supermarket and they say "Col, seriously, who cares about motive. Isn't it enough that these savage killers are in jail for the rest of their lives? They don't even deny their guilt anymore, we got the right people, what do you want Col? WHAT???"
Usually I ask them to move so I can get some Bomb Pops and be on my way.
Look..... I will say it again for the 900th time.
Bug wanted to get Charlie.
Before the case fucking started he already has Tex, and all the girls. Physical evidence. Clear guilt. ZERO reasonable doubt. This wasn't Casey Anthony. Bitches did it.
But there is no glory for the Italian Milkman Stalker if he just convicts some killer hippies. If he can convict their leader who MADE them kill for him- that's every parent's nightmare. That's the six o'clock news every night for a year.
So even though he was not obligated to show motive, he pulled one out of his ass and made it stick. He still shows up on TV 40 plus years later to make sure nobody blows the story.
And because of this, the meme got out that Charlie was a dangerous devil. This suited Charlie so he took it. And ANY rational attempt to look into the case is colored by people who think you are sick for looking into it.
BUG put guilty people away under false pretenses and now his lies keeps the truth away from us.
He makes me puke.
34 comments:
I'm with you, Col. But what are Bomb Pops?
Let me elaborate. Col suggests that CM was framed with no evidence, or he foggily writes that there existed no reasonable doubt as to CM's orchestrating of the murders i.e. Bug just wanted to convict their leader for the publicity. I disagree. I think that CM did order the killings, but for a different motive than Helter Skelter. CM was the motivating factor, to me without a doubt, and it was he who sent the killers to those houses. Prosecutions do not have to prove a motive, and if a jury disbelieves a motive presented by the prosecution, they can still find the defendants guilty.
This blog calls me "raskolsprite" for some reason but I come clean to say I am Jonathan Menges, host of Rippercast, a podcast on Jack the Ripper, and a published author on the Ripper and HH Crippen. I've been studying the Manson murders for 30+ years.
I want no anonymity on pubic forums. Anyway, continue.
Jonathan, I don't disagree that CM stirred the pot at the Ranch, but Tex, of his own free will, spearheaded those murders. The Bug had NOTHING on Charlie...and never did. But given the times, he knew he could play on conservative fears and likely sell that nutty Helter Skelter story, which he did, and the jury ultimately bought.
I guess I'm going to have to Google "Bomb Pops."
one of the things that always sticks with me is Danny DeCarlo's early statement that while out at Barker before they were arrested, Ruth Ann Morehouse said to him, "I can't wait to kill my first pig."
The cute Ouisch couldn't wait to emulate Katie and Sadie and Leslie. It is strong testimony that the "death trip" that Charlie preached seriously took hold with many in his family.
Ruth Ann was one of Danny's favorites so it is doubtful he was making that up.
Point?
Maybe the Bug colored up the facts to sell it to the jury, but there is NO DOUBT Charlie was preaching an impending race war as well as the thrill and need to kill.
For 42 YEARS folk have been trying to rewrite the TLB murders as a drug burn or mafia hit or Tex thing. They have been throwing shit against the wall for nearly a half century and none of it has stuck.
How's about this, Col? What if the motive is simply Charles Manson's assholeness - his anger and resentment and ego and schizoid and megalomania etc etc.
Maybe all those people died because Charlie was one angry evil asshole, and he convinced several drug adled idiots that it was cool to kill. Maybe Charlie is exactly like his idol Adolph and just a pure evil asshole who was adept at getting idiots to do his dirty work.
Sorry, no disrespect, but it just seems like the Col and others spend a whole lot of time trying to apply logic and rationale to a completely irrational act. And a completely irrational person.
Manson did not need a motive to order the killings. It was just what got him off.
my attempt to clarify....
For 48 years several dozen people have dedicated their lives to proving Oswald was not the lone assassin.
Even though I knew the case well because of my relationship with his daughter, I could never argue Lee's guilt/innocence on better than a 60/40 proposition. Why?
Because without a confession or eyewitness all you had was circumstantial evidence. And there was strong circumstantial evidence BOTH WAYS.
But one problem argueing for Lee's guilt was the lack of motive. Several who knew him testified he liked JFK. So why do it?
Because he was a miserable asshole with an enormous ego. He was seriously pissed off that the world did not recognize his greatness. He was convinced Cronkite should interview him, that the NY Times should publish his life story and so on. He had no friends, a love/hate realtionship with his wife, and hated his mother. But he was convinced of his destiny to be famous while living seperated from his family in a $7 a week boarding house and working a $2.65 an hour job packing books into cartons.
So when he read the leader of the free world was going to be driving right under his work window, maybe he thought...the world will know me now.
No motive, just an egotistical asshole determined the world should know his name.
Maybe, likewise, Charlie was convinced the Beatles should know his name and that he should be on the cover of Rolling Stone. Certainly his behavior at the trial was fantastically self-destructive, and self-promotional. He basically convicted himself with his antics. But maybe that is what he wanted all along - to show the world how little regard he had for it and how everyone should not just know him but fear him.
No motive, just an egotistical asshole determined the world should know his name.
It was the 60's. Everyone wanted to be famous. Oswald and Manson are certainly two of the top ten famous names from that decade.
really, do people still want to wave the "Charlie is no killer" banner?
He shot and believed he had killed Crowe. Several eyewitnesses put him in the car when Shorty got shafted. And by his own admission he went in and tied up the LaBiancas who were subsequently killed and by the letter of law Manson was guilty of their murder as much as if he had weilded the knife.
Charlie no killer? Come on, order yourself a reality sandwhich. And maybe watch the taped interview of Charlie shouting out "that he wished he had killed 500 or so people, then maybe everyone would take him seriously.
one last thing, I promise.
Col Scott...though I have the upmost respect for you, here is why I have always thought your obsession/hatred of the Bug and Helter Skelter was somewhat misplaced.
I simply do not believe that Vincent and HS were responsible for Manson being convicted of murder. I think Charlie Manson convicted Charlie Manson of murder.
The Bug put forth HS because a number of people, from Sadie to Danny to Al Springer to Watkins and others - told him that Charlie controlled everything and everyone in the Family and had ordered the killings. The Bug packaged the story in the Helter Skelter fairy tale.
But do you know, Col, if anyone ever did a comprehensive follow up with the jury as to why they convicted Charlie?
My belief is that it wasn't the Bug and Helter Skelter that convinced the jury, it was Charlie's own antics and outbursts during the trial that convinced them he was a certified sociopath.
And it was his leaping over the defense table and lunging for the judge that convinced the jury that Charlie was capable of violence.
And it was the girl's idiot robot behavior - their singing and head shaving and proclaiming that Charlie was Christ - that convinced the jury that Manson had a Svengali control over them and probably had it on August 8th and
9th as well.
One of the Great Questions that hovers over the TLB story is this...if Charlie had had a quality lawyer and had sat quietly at the defense table clean shaven and wearing a tie, and the girls had likewise behaved, would Manson have been convicted of murder? Or would he, like the obviously guilty OJ and Casey Anthony after him, have gotten off? Imagine Charlie walking around a free man these past 42 years. It could easily have happened.
But I am convinced Charlie wanted something more than his freedom. He wanted the world to know how little he thought of it. And he wanted everyone to know that he was the real deal, and everyone else was just a two-bit supporting actor. Charlie was the Oscar winner in his mind, everyone else was just an extra.
In short, I believe with all due respect Col, that the Bug and HS are really just a backstory to the TLB case. Charlie wanted the fame, or the infamy, more than he wanted his freedom. His behavior during the trial, and even in the countless interviews he has done since then, testify to that.
If you frame it in the old chicken and egg question....the Bug didn't make Charlie famous, Charlie made the Bug famous. And far more important and reknowned then the Bug should be.
leary7- I don't believe HS was a fairy tale, I think it certainly was (as you mentioned the various people who brought it up to the Bug) a working theory of Manson's. He convinced his followers that Helter Skelter was coming down fast and used that as a motive for directing revenge killings. I think both Tate and LaBianca were murders meant to scare Melcher and True. Charlie was a fixture in the Laurel Canyon/recording industry scene and TLB was done to extort-blackmail, via murder, his quest for music fame
Manson was working through Tex. To continue the Oswald analogy, Tex was a "patsy".
Col said "ANY rational attempt to look into the case is colored by people who think you are sick for looking into it."
Patty could not agree more. Why do people get so damned upset over it, worry about you, tell you that your soul is in jeopardy?
Of course, this drama makes it all the more irresistible: What are the motives of those who would discourage those with the motivation to discover the motives of a group that acted over 40 years ago?
One thing that always confounds me Patty, is why do those obsessed with the unknown always seem to have such disdain for the known.
One thing that is known, or at least should be known by anyone looking at the TLB murders, is that they were RAGE KILLINGS.
Nobody stabs someone 57 times during a drug burn.
Nobody carves WAR on a dead guy's stomach during a mafia hit.
Nobody stabs a dead woman 16 times in the back during a robbery.
If you acknowledge the irrefutable rage involved in these murders then that gives you a starting point of understanding by raising the question where did the collective rage come from and was it installed by specific teachings and a specific person.
I consider it a rhetorical question because we all know the answer, though a few seem determined to look for more complex and colorful explanantions. I wish them good hunting.
Patty still thinks methamphetamine had a lot to do with the frenzied way in which the victims were attacked. She has seen what too much tweaking does to people and it ain't pretty.
PS: Summa Cum Laude Leary? Damn, boy. Rock on with yo bad self. ;)
I shouldn't have said that, Patty, sounds like braggin....but the Col got under my skin with his assertion that I knew nothing. He can be one condescending and insulting old goat.
With you 100% on tweekers. They are the worse. I know Tex was tweeking those nights, but were the girls? And wasn't Charlie against the stuff?
Said Leary: "If you acknowledge the irrefutable rage involved in these murders then that gives you a starting point of understanding by raising the question where did the collective rage come from and was it installed by specific teachings and a specific person."
Then Patty said "Methamphetamine".
I concur. Think about it. Which is more likely to alter the psyche of middle class youth to the point of violent rage... a lecture or pharmaceuticals?
Asks Leary "Wasn't Charlie against the stuff?"
Yes, so you see, if Tex was tweaking on the nights that he repeatedly stabbed people, in rage, and he was doing some drugs Charles disapproved of... doesn't it follow that Tex wasn't listening to Charles?
I never thought Tex was really subservient to Charlie, AC. He was clearly a scumbag/whack job on his own.
But I thought the girls were. And the girls weren't tweeking on those nights and they did their share of rage stabbing.
Quite possibly I am giving way to much weight to Ouisch's comment on how she couldn't "wait to off her first pig". But I just think it is indicitive of how much a 'hatred of pigs' and a 'willingness to kill pigs' had taken hold with a dozen or so of the Family. Can you blame that permeation on speed? Sorry, I don't think so. There is a mountain of testimony from people who were there that the rage and willingness to kill came primarily from Charlie's teachings and exhortations. I know as someone who supports Charlie 100% you can't agree with that statement, but I just think the evidence is overwhelming as to what was the central factor in creating the collective rage.
Not likely that all the members were of the exact same mind on the subject because they were all individuals with different backgrounds and circumstances. Sure, they all knew the party line, could and would rap the rap, do the groupspeak thing. But it's likely that their private levels of buy-in on the core values of Charlie's cult varied from person to person.
In Ouisch's case, she was what, 14? When you are that age you parrot what you are hearing around you, what you think might be cool to say and get you accepted by the older kids. While Ruth's body was certainly that of a full grown woman in 1969, her mind was most certainly not. Her subjective understanding of what "killing a pig" meant in reality was limited because she was still, irrefutably, a child.
Tis an interesting take on things, Patty. But I am reluctant to give Ouisch a pass because of her age. Slipping someone, a supposed friend at that, ten hits of acid, tells me Ouisch was doing more than just play acting.
And in terms of 'groupthink', let's remember things like if not for a flat tire Cappy's grandmother might have been toast and there were several other near misses. Subsequent events to TLB showed a bunch of folk ready to kill pigs, from Mary and Gypsy at Hawthorne to others.
How "individual" these idiots were is open to debate, but it seems undeniable that 12-15 of them totally bought into the "death to pigs" mindset.
Others like TJ and Kitty and Barbara and Watkins and Ella Jo and such did not buy into the death trip and fled, though it fascinates me that people like Paul, TJ and Kitty returned to the Family. But that is what makes the whole thing so interesting - the group dynamics.
Susan Atkins was using amphetamines as well. As for Patricia, we haven't any testimony that she was, but, we do not know that she wasn't.
Asks Leary, "But I just think it is indicitive of how much a 'hatred of pigs' and a 'willingness to kill pigs' had taken hold with a dozen or so of the Family. Can you blame that permeation on speed?"
Charles wasn't the only person making any sort of anti-societal remarks, in that time and place. It pretty much permeated the counter culture.
I understand and respect your impulse to defend your friend Charles, AC.
But there is just to much testimony for a wide variety of folk who were at Spahn and Barker that Charles was the ringmaster.
If you can dismiss or ignore all that testimony then kudos for you.
Charles is fortunate to have you as a friend.
let's remember things like if not for a flat tire Cappy's grandmother might have been toast
You know, people parrot this around so much that you have to wonder what they have in their heads instead of brains.
If it were really true that Cappy wanted to off her granny ...
... she would fix the flat and carry on
... she would get there by alternative transport
... she would wait until tomorrow or the next day
I mean, it's not as if the window of opportunity for granny killing was limited to this one moment in the space-time continuum.
It's just peer posturing ('can't wait for my first pig', 'off to kill my granny', 'Charlie's dick got bitten off and he sewed it back on', 'Charlie brought a dead bird back to life', 'Brucie killed Joel in the Talgarth Hotel', etc.) ...
People say a whole bunch of stuff, and the more they drink, smoke, suck, fix or otherwise stuff inside them the wilder things they say. But it doesn't mean they really mean them or are capable of carrying them out.
And bloggers just go on repeating them without a moment's thought ...
FrankM
I don't think anyone here denies that Charlie was ranting much anti social remarks at the ranch. But saying "I wish someone would off all those motherfucking pigs" or "Those pigs are going to get what they deserve" is not the same as saying "Go kill these people". Unless someone can produce a recording of Manson saying those exact words, specifying names of those he wanted targeted than this case will forever be based on nothing more than hearsay.
And despite what others have implied I am NOT a Manson supporter. The Manson AC knows seems a mellowed out 70 year old with much wisdom, but the Charlie of 40 years ago was clearly a nasty piece of work.
I understand that you like things to be literally true and provable, Frank. But there is testimony from Family members that Charlie put forth the idea of killing Cappy's grandmother as a way of acquiring the needed desert home for the Family. And that Cappy agreed to the plan. The fact that it did not happen isn't proof that the whole thing was a myth. Sinatra and McQueen and Liz Taylor weren't killed either but from several accounts the "hit list" was real.
I understand your objection to the many "urban myths" surrounding TLB, but some of this stuff comes right from depositions and testimony from folk that seemed at least somewhat reliable.
Argueing that the impulse/plan to kill Cappy's grandmother never existed because it never actually happened is a bit to existential for me. Especially when people who were there swear by it.
Do you really want to "point fingers" as Matt would say and assert that I must have something else inside my head besides brains. Pretty damn childish.
In 1170 the young King Henry of England was so pissed off with his archbishop Thomas Becket that he muttered to anyone in the vicinity who might be listening “what miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?". Or words to that effect – opinions vary, and he probably spoke Norman-French anyway.
This was seen as a royal command, and four of his knights set off for Canterbury, where they killed the archbishop in the cathedral. He later became a saint. King Henry did humble public penance in recognition of the enormity of his deed, and presumably God forgave him, although history is unclear on this point.
The moral of all this history lesson is that despite his position of absolute power, Henry recognised his responsibility in the matter. CM doesn't seem to see things this way.
FrankM
Dunno what's inside your head, Leary, and don't care that much. I'm not disputing for one minute that Cappy said she would kill her grandmother, or that others thought it was a good idea. I never said that, and it's not a bad idea to respond to what people say than what you think they said.
I was just pointing out that she can't have wanted to do it very badly, and that a puncture was a pretty crappy excuse.
Don't understand about 'pointing fingers', but expressing one's opinions seems reasonable behaviour to me. And in my opinion, you do write a lot of crap around the Manson blogs.
But that's just my opinion, to which, like you, I have a right.
FrankM
Here's the difference Frank.
You and I have a different opinion as to the purported attempt on Cappy's grandmother.
See, I love the fact we have a different take on it. I would be bored shitless on a board where everyone had the same opinion as me.
But when I come across someone who believes different from me, I DO NOT, AS CLEARLY YOU DO, feel the need to tell them..."that I wonder what them have in their heads instead of brains" or that "you write allot of crap".
Why you feel the need to insult and degrade those who don't think exactly like you is your problem. But it is precisely the type of behavior that causes discussions on these boards to devolve into playground insults and mudslinging.
Of course you are entitled to your opinions on Manson matters, but voicing your 'opinion' that another blogger has shit in his head and writes allot of crap is just you being an asshole.
How's that for an opinion?
You know, Leary, when i posted that "people parrot this around so much that you have to wonder what they have in their heads instead of brains" i really wasn't thinking of you at all. It's just that this story of cathy Gillies and her gran is something you see everywhere, and everyone just accepts it blindly without actually thinking what a dumb idea it is.
And I didn't suggest people (or you) have shit for brains either - you pencilled that one in yourself. In fact I would have made that post whoever had said what you said - it wasn't aimed at you. Understand?
On a completely separate matter, you have written some pretty dumb things here, as Col Scott has pointed out. I'll withdraw the word 'crap' in a gesture of friendship, but some of your observations and speculations have not been specially bright. Opinions, mine and the Col's.
Calling me an asshole may be what you think I deserve but does you more harm than me. You're a newbie here, but you'll find I'm one of the mildest mannered people you'll come across on these Manson blogs.
So here's an olive branch, if you're wise enough to accept it.
FrankM
by theway, you concluding 'what Cappy wanted' seems incredibly presumptuous to me. Are you the Dr. Phil of the Manson boards.
And a flat tire in the desert is not a "crappy excuse".
But the point is that neither Cappy's mindset or wether a flat tire is a valid reason for turning back was behind my reason for bringing it up. I did so just to indicate that the "death to pigs" mindset and willingness to kill clearly extended to members of the Family besides the TLB killers.
You seem to want to say, Frank, that can't be the case because none of the others actually went through with killings, that they were just all talk.
I know you are an abstract thinker, but asserting that would be total nonsense.
I'm tired, Leary, and I really don't care. Have it your own way, you'll be happy that way. You'll win us all over with exhaustion.
Me, I'm off to my favourite Greenpoint watering hole.
Peace
FrankM
come on, man, don't be silly.
when you put "I wonder what people have in their heads instead of brains" right after you post a quote of mine it is pretty clear what your intentions were and who you were referring to.
and if you are going to conclude that I am not 'specially bright' and that i have written some 'pretty dumb things' that the Col has refuted, then have the class to cite them.
I don't see anything that I have written that the Col has refuted, while on the other hand I pointed out his assertions about the JFK case have been largely refuted.
[Sigh] Leary,I don't want to argue this with you any more. Life is short, it's Friday night, the eagle flies and none of this matters as much as a cold beer and a plate of vittles.
If I didn't want to sound rude, I'd say 'get a life'.
FrankM
So sorry if I am "exhausting" you Frank. And I do have a life, a wonderful one. But I am Boston Irish and if someone insults me then I stand up for myself. Sorry if that is inconvienent to your swimming schedule.
Mildest mannered? really?
You post a quote from me and then write "you have to wonder what people have in their heads instead of brains" and that is mild mannered? No, you didn't use the term 'shit for brains' but it was clearly implied. And who do you think readers would conclude you were referring to besides the guy you just quoted?
then you say "you do write allot of crap." How does that qualify as mild?
and then concluding that I am not "specially bright" and say allot of "dumb things" that the Col has clearly refuted. Are those really the actions of a mild mannered man?
And lastly, please allow me to point this out. Writing in red ink does not make for a 'refutation'. You refute things with facts, not with bluster and insults as the Col does.
I reread his "weary and dreary" blog. He does no REFUTATION whatsoever other then scream that anyone who doesn't completely denounce HS is a total moron. IN fact he states that anyone who is educated on TLB completely rejects Helter Skelter and that just clearly is NOT THE CASE. Check the boards, lots of intelligent folk think HS contained significant relevancy.
You and the Col need to learn that insulting someone, even in red ink, is NOT a refutation.
I'm done. Go back to your beer and swimming. I am going for a dusk sail on a beautiful Wisconsin lake, which is, by the way. quite mild tonight.
Post a Comment