Lots of time I read ignorant comments from half-assers like Poirot where they clearly don't know what happened and don't care. More importantly they are so anxious to believe BUGliosi, despite the fact that even the lawyers who worked with him didn't believe him, on the motive bullshit angle that they close their eyes as to why it matters.
It matters because if the BUG can make up a motive to put Charlie Manson away, they can do the same thing to you.
It matters because we deserve to know what happened those nights, for real.
It matters because the 7 victims deserve the truth about why they died to be known.
It matters for a fuck of a lot of reasons, but here's one that is STILL important-
The motive matters when rendering a decision about parole. If Katie killed over a drug deal gone wrong I'd have let her out in 1978... if she killed on command to start a race war I don't really want her around even now.
The motive matters. It definitely was not Helter Skelter. I want to find out what it was. I probably won't, but fuck off I am trying.
45 comments:
As I pointed out earlier, Sharon's mother Doris Tate never believed Helter Skelter. She said it was a "concoction" of the D.A..
Mrs.Tate didn't believe it, nor do many others.......including me.
The truth may not be buried in the "official" account of the crime, or in the multitude of books and movies.
But I believe it's out there somewhere, someone knows.
It's not too late that someday it comes to light.
Who knows what secrets might still surface from this incredible story.
For me that's what keeps it interesting for all these years
If there were no mystery, no "secrets", I would have lost interest long ago.
Thanks Col. for questioning the "official" explanation and your continued search into the unknown.
To be honest Col I doubt if the motive would make ANY difference in this case when it comes to parole. Pat & Les are political prisoners now. The case is so notorious no Governor or parole board want to be known as the person who set the Manson killers free. Whatever else you may think of her, Pat is a 63 year old woman, full of remorse, who has a perfect prison record and has been of no danger to anyone for decades. Yet she has just had another 7 years dumped on her 'till her next hearing.
Anyhow, keep up the good work Col! When something doesn't fit only a moron would not question it.
Well even if it was a drug deal gone wrong- all those stab wounds???
You would have let her out after ten years after what she did- no matter what the reason was??
not me :)
Maybe the others - but Tex, and Katie have to stay put no matter what the reason was for what they did...
in my humble opinion lol
Alas- the motive Does matter for all the other reasons you pointed out....
I am still hoping that we get the real one some day!!
Sbuch113,
You keep citing Doris Tate's belief that HS was a "concoction" and that she "said" she thought the killers believed Sharon wasn't going to be there that night.
Others have spoken about this too, but, except for some fleeting references to Bill Nelson as the source (by others), I've never seen Doris' exact words and when she said them and in what context and to whom. That would be pretty important to know, don't ya think, for an allegation of such significance and far-reaching implications. And we all know Nelly could twist words and maybe even fabricate information better 'n Rupert Murdoch to serve his purposes. So whatcha got on that? Point us to your source (s) please, dear.
xxoxoxo,
Vera
Hi, Vera,
I believe, but am not certain, That Ed Sanders towards the end of THE FAMILY says that Doris Tate told him that she believed the killers were specifically not interested in Sharon and that they thought she was not there. I believe too she said that she suspected that Garretson was a look out and that he was confused by the absence of Sharon's car that day as, unbeknownst to him, it was in the shop.
I believe I am recalling this correctly...if not, then tear me apart, everyone! I promise it will not hurt my feelings.
I can't check because I let somebosy borrow my copy and can't remember who....
Patty lost her beloved copy of This Is Spinal Tap the very same way.
Give Starship his copy of The Family back, wherever you are!
PS was it the original with the Process stuff still intact?
Hi Vera.....
Old Nelly sure could concoct a story......no dought.
The main source for Mrs. Tates comments come from Ed Sanders, and is documented in his book The Family.
From Ed Sanders' "The Family"
"Investigator Judy Hanson, who was a close friend of Mrs. Tate, set up a meeting between myself and Doris.
I drove to Doris Tates hillside home in Palos Veres to spend the afternoon.
It was the same house she and her husband, Colonel Paul Tate had purchased in 1965 and where in 1969where she had been helping her daughter prepare for the baby."
Sanders goes on to say.....
"I had come for the sole purpose of learning about the victims rights movement. I was not prepared to think or talk about the murders.
As we began our interview, it was obvious that Mrs. Tate was not satisfied with the official explanation of her daughter death.
For example, Helter Skelter did not seem to fulfill in her mind the category of motive."
The conversation continued with Mrs. Tate discussing several possibilities.
Her feeling was that Sharon got caught in the middle of something aimed at one of the other victims.....wrong place, wrong time.
If you don't have a copy of The Family, you can find the remarks in a book review at Amazon.....there are pages of the book available.
Thanks Vera
That's it Starship.......Thanks
Thanks both star and sbuch.
Unfortunately, I don't put a whole lot of stock in Sanders' mutterings either.
For instance, you hear something like that from Sharon Tate's mother (!) and, especially him being a famed "historian" on the case, he's saying he left there without asking, "Well, what the hell is that based on, Mrs. Tate?"
It simply doesn't ring true in Vera's estimation. I mean, if Doris was simply going on one thing, her intuition, then she would've said that to him and he should've included it. But to suggest she had some inside info without asking what the hell it was, just isn't credible -- or even in Sando's character. I think he makes shit up, simple as that. Or like Nellie, twists things way, way outta proportion.
As Charlie Brown used to say, ("Sigh").
Flaws in the HS theory.
1/ If Charlie was SO obsessed with the Beatles, why in 67-68 when nearly every band on the planet was tring to ape the Beatles sound was he making his very own unique style of music and not doing John and Paul knockoffs?
2/ If a race war was intended, why were no racial slurs written on the walls. "Death to Pigs" has no racial meaning whatsoever. "Fuck Whitey" "Death to the Whites" "The Blacks shall uprise". Nothing like this was written.
3/ If a man was so utterly convinced a race war was emminent, why on earth would he feel the need to kick start it in the first place? Dumb logic.
4/ If the order was given to invade random people's houses and kill them, why would you first tie them up? Once in the Tate's house Tex only killed the people as they tried to escape. He could have killed the Pole as he slept but didn't. It was drug related.
5/ Why send people into the LaBianca's to kill them then drive away in the getaway car?
6/ Why stop after two nights? Did it seem like a job well done to anyone? Why not kill some blacks and write "Death to niggers" in their blood on the walls if you really wanted to fan the race flames?
7/ How would jumping out of your car at a red light to stab some dude in the lane next to you fit into HS? So you take your time to find nice quiet secluded houses to kill people but on impulse decide to kill someone at a traffic light where ANYONE PASSING COULD SEE YOU.
8/ Why would you send Clem and Sadie out to do anything? (These two could fuck up a cup of coffee between them).
9/ Garretson knew a lot more then he let on, of this I am convinced.
10/ The HS story was first mentioned by Sadie in prison. In the same conversation she claimed to have ate Sharon's blood, tried to cut the baby out of the womb, claimed that she thought Manson was Jesus Christ,said that a guy shot himself while screwing her despite her being banged up at the time of his death..... not exactly a crediable source.
11/ Anyone feel free to add more.
Good, Adam, until your very last point:
"10/ The HS story was first mentioned by Sadie in prison. In the same conversation she claimed to have ate Sharon's blood, tried to cut the baby out of the womb, claimed that she thought Manson was Jesus Christ, said that a guy shot himself while screwing her despite her being banged up at the time of his death..... not exactly a credible source."
She said she tasted Sharon's blood -- what's not to believe about that? And she didn't say she tried to cut the baby out, only that she thought about it and wanted to, but didn't have time. So?
And by "banged up," you mean "in jail," as in when Zero died? Well you're right, she was in jail when Zero died, but she told Graham and Howard about Bartell telling her that Patti [?] had watched Zero climax while he died -- and she also told Howard and/or Graham that she had climaxed while getting screwed by another guy who shot himself in the head. (Maybe Tenerelli in Bishop?).
And yeh, she and lotsa of 'em thought of Charlie as Jesus (as did Charlie, his-self), so I don't think your discrediting Atkins' original, and, as I wrote before, PRE-Bugliosi use of HS as the motive works.
The stuff before it, though, yeah, I'll give you that.
Didn't Sadie later say that she told the two inmates many lies to try impress them and make them fear her?
I believe the Sharon was not suppose to be home that night all started with Sandy Good. She said it on I and I am pretty sure it was the Bernice Barry show.
I also think Sandy mentioned it some where else PRE Bernice and Mrs. Tate heard it and always believed it.
Helter Skelter was The Bug and Little Paul's theories.
Sanders tended to embellish quite a bit.
On the face of it Ed Sanders is the most unlikely person to undertake a piece of investigative journalism, and the fanciful full title of his book (The Family: The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion) should perhaps alert us to an equally fanciful approach to his self-appointed task.
He was born a couple of years before me, in 1939, and has often been referred to as ‘a bridge between the Beat and Hippie generations’, being known as a poet, singer, social activist, environmentalist and publisher as well as an author. He wa best known to me in the 60s as a founder Fug and the guy who exorcised the Pentagon.
The brief period into which he dipped into Manson territory was something of an anomaly really, and my take is that he was attracted by the messianic qualities then attributed to Manson. You have to remember that for a period Manson was a cult hero, with his face not only on the cover of Time magazine but more importantly for the time on the cover of the Rolling Stone, which ran a surprisingly uncritical, upbeat article on him.
If Sanders thought this was a man who was continuing in the vein of Kerouac, Burroughs, Ginsberg, Corso and Ferlinghetti then one can see why he went after him with a view to documenting his lifestyle and that of his apparent acolytes. That would justify a far looser approach to his ‘journalism’, and his total lack of footnotes or other attributions.
It also raises the question of how a reader should approach his book. Writers set out with unclear intentions sometimes, and some books do not easily fit into categories. Bruce Chatwin suffered because his books did not slot into a neat, previously known niche, and perhaps this might be applied to Sanders’ The Family. Like Chatwin, Sanders combines events we know to have happened with conjecture and urban myth. Which is which is not clear, and perhaps – for his purpose – it does not matter. If his intention was not to produce documentary evidence but to recreate fancifully the spirit of a milieu, then who are we to criticize his artistic endeavors for not meeting criteria they were not designed for. It would be like buying a short-sleeve shirt and complaining it had no cuffs.
Read up on Sanders (if you are interested) and you’ll quickly see where he’s coming from. It’s not investigative journalism, and it’s not about dealing with the facts. It is about the arts, the magic, mystic arts, and about imagination and counter culture (so derided recently by M. Poirot).
Just a few cents worth over this morning’s bagel and coffee.
FrankM
:)
What Frank said...
more people should drink his coffee
For over 35 yrs I've read everything I can find on this case.
Hunter S. Thompson once said, "history is hard to know because of all the hired bullshit".
That statement is taylor made to decribe the documentation of these historic crimes.
Thanks FrankM and Vera for pointing this out. It's important to me that I not develope tunnel vision based on the over-embellishments of histories hired bullshit.
Understanding this only convinces me further that the truth has not been told.
sbuch says that For over 35 yrs I've read everything I can find on this case.
Yes, and so have many others, and admirable as this might be, it can be a good thing and a bad thing. Good, because only by studying and researching are we likely to reach any useful conclusions, but bad because so much of the stuff out there that we can read is so unreliable.
One of the disadvantages of the web is that people just copy and paste indiscriminately, without pausing to think about the validity of the content. Because of this, stuff just goes round and round until we no longer know where it came from and how ‘true’ it is. If we want to find out any ‘truth’ it might be better to read less but more selectively.
It’s because so many people put their credence in what one author reports another person to have said – something that we have no way of checking – that so much of the content of Manson sites is worthless. How – by way of example - can we possibly ‘know’ what Sadie said to Gibby? To know that we would have to have a reason for believing her and those who report her – but her story changes, as do accounts of it. We’ve been talking on this blog about how unreliable ‘facts’ quoted in Sanders’ book The Family are, but the same can be said about most of the books on the case that we have access to. We simply do not know how reliable they are.
One way around this is to stick to primary sources, and hats off to Cats for her heroic effort to document and archive these. On the whole, these fall into two main types: official (police, court, medical, etc.) documents and journalistic ones. The latter are about as reliable as press items are today, possibly less so, because communications were so much poorer back then. The former are more interesting, although if a court transcript is recording someone’s perjured statement it is of doubtful value – just because something was said under oath does not make it ‘true’.
We can also talk to people who were around, but human recall is not always good, even when the desire to be truthful is there – which is not always the case. The fact that so many years have passed, or that many of the participants in our story have undergone extensive drug usage, is a further hindrance.
All in all, researching this case is tough, as many of us realize. But we might at least take a more philosophical attitude to it, and realize that idle, unfounded speculation is of no use whatsoever. That any hypothesis we formulate needs to be supported by evidence of some kind. And that a collaborative approach in which we work together rather than attacking each other is more likely to lead to results.
What I liked about Brett’s site was that he didn’t get involved in all the in-fighting, avoided speculation and tried to build up archives. Good archives (although Cats now has more and more detailed info). On sites like these you can read advisedly: police transcripts, court transcripts, coroners’ reports, contemporary newspaper articles, etc. and you can study these at your leisure – and the time you invest is more likely to bear fruit than any tired recycling of the same old baseless rubbish that masquerades as facts about the TLB cases.
Not a rant, just another few cents worth, product of an late afternoon beer and burger in Greenpoint.
FrankM
Patricia Krenwinkel or was it Vern Plumlee also said that Sharon was not supposed to be there - I don't remember where I read that but I will find it.
Also the plan was that Sharon originally was supposed to go to her friend Sheila Wells for a dinner party and ended up cancelling at the last minute because it was too hot and she was tired.
With any Manson book I read or interview I watch I always find that I'm constantly weighing up the facts presented. I never take anything as gospel.
Quote"If the order was given to invade random people's houses and kill them, why would you first tie them up? Once in the Tate's house Tex only killed the people as they tried to escape. He could have killed the Pole as he slept but didn't. It was drug related."Quote
That is an excellent point regarding the Pole. However, he did kill Jay Sebring when he was complaining about Sharon being uncomfortable when they were being tied up. Jay wasn't trying to escape.
Also, I thought about another thing: If it was about Voytek and a drug burn or something between him and Tex, why didn't they just kidnap him? They could have gotten away with him, and the others may not have heard. Why bring the other three out if it is just about Voytek?
vern plumlee told sanders tate was not supposed to be home that night.
patricia krenwinkel told a private investigator tate was not to be home that night.
you are right about both.
beauders said...
vern plumlee told sanders tate was not supposed to be home that night.
patricia krenwinkel told a private investigator tate was not to be home that night.
Yeh, but Sanders was the source on both. And Doris. So don't take it to the bank.
Someone should ask the Col -- or maybe I'm doing that now -- what the Tate family (via Statman and Brie Tate) say about Doris' (alleged) belief that Sharon wasn't suppossed to be at the house on the night of the murders in their book.
Col?
I am going to throw myself under the bus and play idiot here. I have always loved conspiracy theories and I respect the hell out of the Col and others who are so passionate in their assertions that the Bug is an evil fiction writer and HS is horse manure.
However, I still can't get past the fact that is has been 42 years and nothing substantial in the form of alternative theory has been validated.
And my other problem is that to the best of my recollection nobody in the Family - and more importantly none of the actual TLB participants - have ever gone on record with regards to an alternative motive, have they?
I mean if Pat thought for one minute that she had been sent out to kill because of a drug burn or on some sort of mafia orders, why would she not talk about it. Probably I am being incredibly naive, but at this stage of their lives...knowing they will never get out of prison...and having ostensibly fully committed to Christ...what motive would there be for Tex and Pat and Leslie not to scream "It's all bullshit, we were just pissed at getting ripped off" or something to that effect.
It's all well and good to play Sherlock Holmes and look for hidden truths...but in the absence of any of the actual TLB killers supporting an alternative theory, I just have a hard time getting on the bus.
When they were all arrested at Barker, on the ride down Charlie kept telling two of the deputies guarding them that the shit was about to hit the fan, a race war was coming and especially as cops they should get their heads out of their asses and head for the hills. The two deputies gave depositions on this and it was before Sadie blabbed and before the Bug was even assigned the case, wasn't it? Point being that there is a preponderance of evidence that Manson did believe in a race war. The Bug may have fancied up the facts, but dismissing Charlie's belief in a violent social uprising is not something I can do given all the testimony about it.
Didn't I read somewhere recently that Manson had given Hendrickson some info that he couldn't release till after Charlie had died? Does anyone know anything more about that?
Charlie believed a race war was coming no doubt. The rise of groups like the Black Panthers had parts of the white establishment scared shitless. Charlie was just commenting on what was in the air.
hendrickson said in an interview that manson told him things that he, manson did not want released until after his death. hendrickson also implied in the same interview that it was possible that bruce davis played the role of manson and ordered the tate murders--remember davis looked like manson and was able to mimmick manson's speach.
I wanted to write more earlier but had to go out. Leary7, I think any follower of the case with half a brain has asked themselves the questions you posed. If the case was only 20 years old it would still be concievable that the killers were sticking to the "Charlie brainwashed me HS" story in an attempt to make parole, but as you say it's been 42 years. They're not getting out ever. There was no mad scramble to spill their guts when Clem got out.
Maybe a verificaion of an alternaive motive would be even more damming than HS?
Pre-meditated drug war killings vs Drug addled zombies doing the biddings of a madman. Which one has a higher personal accountabilty? Other reasons from killer to killer could be;
1; Sadie. Dead.
2; Tex. Has claimed to be a born again Christian since mid 70's. Would look bad if he were to suddenly admit that he has still been lying his ass off for over 30 years.
3; Bruce. Sick fuck who knows that if he admitted to what really happened and his part in it all, he'd be getting tried for new murders.
4; Leslie. Maybe still clinging to the hope that her fading beauty and Hollywood chums and fanclub petitoning on her behalf, combined with the fact that she did comparatively little compared to the others will one day get her out and doesn't wish to rock the boat.
5; Pat. By FAR the most remorceful of them all, I wonder if Pat didn't convince herself it was all for HS a long time ago as the only way she could live with what she had done?
6; Charlie. Doesn't snitch.
During Susan Atkins 12/5/69 grand jury testimomy Bugliosi asked her,
"Did Tex tell you why you four were going to Terry Melcher's former residence?"
Her answer, "To get all of their money and to kill whoever was there."
If the motive was Helter Skelter why didn't Tex tell the group they were going to start Helter Skelter?
Why wouldn't Charlie have told them before they left, you're the chosen ones, go with Tex and start Helter Skelter.
If they all worshipped Charlie, like Jesus Christ, believed his words were devine and looked forward to Helter Skelter.
Wouldn't they have been thrilled to be the "chosen" ones to fire it off?
It just makes sense to me that Charlie would have told them, to go with Tex to start HS.
Instead off some vague, "Go with Tex and do what he says."
Then enroute Tex tells them they are going to rob and kill. Helter Skelter was never on their minds.
Sounds like Tex had a vendetta.
The two deputies gave depositions on this and it was before Sadie blabbed and before the Bug was even assigned the case, wasn't it? Point being that there is a preponderance of evidence that Manson did believe in a race war. The Bug may have fancied up the facts, but dismissing Charlie's belief in a violent social uprising is not something I can do given all the testimony about it.
I like this a lot Leary- Im going to borrow it for another blog- but I will make sure I give you credit for saying it- and make it known that you wouldn't want me to use it
:)
use away Saint. I have no problem with you. All's fair in blogland.
I get where you are coming from, sbuch, but supporting an alternative theory (in this case robbery) by citing negatives - 'why didn't he...why not this" - is a challenge.
In rereading HS for the first time recently one of the things that stuck with me was Danny's testimony of how Ruth Ann, the lovely Ouisch, had said to him in the desert, "I can't wait to kill my first pig."
Clearly this was a mindset that Charlie had been successful in installing in a fair per centage of the Family. They were ready for war, ready to step up and wreck some havoc.
So for me semantics on 8/9/69 don't really matter. Everyone knew what they were doing. Sadie yelled out the car window to one of the ranch hands "we're going to kill some pigs" as they were driving off.
They were lashing out at society, channeling Charlie's anger and paranoia. Argueing they were after money or drugs is hard to do since both were left at the murder scene. And argueing revenge is also hard to do given the events of the next night.
As for why none of the TLB killers have championed an alternative theory - that's a tough one. Sadie may be dead as you say but she had forty years to shout out "no no no, Helter Skelter is all nonsense". Why didn't she?
Hard to figure.
Leary- I did give you credit for your idea- it was very similar to a point I was making - and wanted to prove the point that even people who cant see eye to eye on most things- and dont get along personally- can agree on certain things about this case....
I was obviously wrong about who you are and what your intentions were- so I say this only to make a point- not be argumentative with you...
I thought you were someone else- who had personal history with Sadie, so I assumed you had already read her website as updated after her death by her husband Jim...
on it - Sadie had started to write a new version of the events- and it is called " The Myth of Helter Skelter"...
in this account she very much deputes Helter Skelter as a motive, and more or less puts the motive on a chain of events that starts with Bernard Crowe- as you have also stated as the spark that started the fire
If you haven't read it- it might be interesting to you...
Although- I have been told it was more the work of her husband than her... it is still interesting in that it was written as she was dying- so any truths she may have been capable of sharing would have surfaced here if nowhere else...
one would think...
Read that on Sadie's website about a year ago and didn't put much stock in it. Just Susan doing what Susan does best - rewriting history and trying to minamilse her own involvement.
Agreed Adam- there is always that to consider...
But Leary has said before that he feels the Crowe incident was the catalyst for TLB- and Sadie sort of goes down that path as well- which I thought might be interesting to him in particular...
But agreed take anything Sadie says with a grain of salt....
.... or a snort of meth!
I will say this for Sadie, once she came off the dope and gave her upper lip a good wax she scrubbed up very nice.
lol touche
yowza, I was not aware of that. Thanks for the heads up Saint. I am obviously not as well read on the subject as you and others are. I appreciate the info.
You're right, I don't trust Susan's recollections. Pat is the only one I have a good feeling about in terms of speaking the truth.
sbuch113 said "If the motive was Helter Skelter why didn't Tex tell the group they were going to start Helter Skelter?
Why wouldn't Charlie have told them before they left, you're the chosen ones, go with Tex and start Helter Skelter?
Doesn't it say in Bugliosi's book that Charlie DID in fact say "Now is the time for Helter Skelter"?
Hey sbsugar, It does say that.
Apparently he made the remark to the Family upon his return from Big Sur/Esalen.
It does seem to bolster the HS theory.
Then again none of the crew, who went to the Tate home, except Tex, knew where they were going, or why.
Like most, I don't dought Manson talked about Helter Skelter.
I just don't see where it fits as motive.
adam said...
Flaws in the HS theory
Bear in mind that there can be flaws in every reported event of history, even those that are totally true and accurate. Even those caught on film.
1/ If Charlie was SO obsessed with the Beatles, why in 67-68 when nearly every band on the planet was tring to ape the Beatles sound was he making his very own unique style of music and not doing John and Paul knockoffs?
I love rock biographies and autobiographies, I have over 200 on my bookshelves plus many reference books about production, history, managers etc in many different genres. There is not a single one that does not mention the Beatles. Their influence on thousands of bands is unparalleled and yet, I do not have any albums or singles from any of these artists that sound like the Beatles. Even if you took just from the bands whose stuff I have that were around from '67 to '70, none of them sound like the Beatles. Not the Stones, the Who, Family, Status Quo, Nazz, King Crimson, Yes, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Andwella's Dream, Pink Floyd, It's a beautiful day, MC5, Genesis, Jethro Tull, Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, Grand Funk Railroad, Free, Fleetwood Mac, the Monkees, the Pretty Things {although when Dick Taylor sings lead on "Baron Saturday", he does sound Lennonesque}, Kaleidoscope {both the UK & US ones}, Cream, Procul Harum, Bob Dylan, Tyrannosaurus Rex and quite a few more......and I could point out another 100 artists of the 70s & 80s and beyond that all say it was the Beatles that inspired them and yet sound nothing like them. So why should Charles Manson have sounded like them just because he liked them ? I think it's wrong to say he was obsessed by them.
Besides which, both on the black bus and at Spahn, they had no access to organs, mellotrons, drum kits, brass sections, orchestras, bass guitars etc, whereas a single guitar enables music to happen in any circumstance, with or without electricity.
2/ If a race war was intended, why were no racial slurs written on the walls. "Death to Pigs" has no racial meaning whatsoever. "Fuck Whitey" "Death to the Whites" "The Blacks shall uprise". Nothing like this was written
An interesting point.
But totally negated by Bobby Beausoleil writing "Political piggy" at Gary Hinman's. That was supposed to point to radicals and Black radicals, at that. Bobby went further than the TLB killers because shortly after that murder he tried to implicate Black people by spinning all kinds of yarns to the police to implicate them.
But the fact remains, that none of the Family were Black and didn't really know how Black people thought or what they would have written had they perpetrated such crimes.
So, far from being a flaw in helter skelter, it was actually a flaw in the Family.
3/ If a man was so utterly convinced a race war was emminent, why on earth would he feel the need to kick start it in the first place? Dumb logic
Dumb logic indeed. But whose logic are we deducing matters by ?
The only person that could answer no.3 would be Charles Manson. But it's not a flaw in HS. Manson told George Stimson that on August 8th, he may well have said "Now is the time for Helter Skelter."
Bear in mind too, that Nelson Mandela "I will stay in jail for 27 years if that's what it takes to realize my goal" type patience was not a hallmark of either the Family or the counterculture in general.
adam said...
4/ If the order was given to invade random people's houses and kill them, why would you first tie them up? Once in the Tate's house Tex only killed the people as they tried to escape. He could have killed the Pole as he slept but didn't
No, he didn't. He killed him while he was awake. Remember, he was told to kill people as gruesome as possible; remember, Black people were supposed to be savages underneath and getting out thousands of years of anger on Whitey. Almost anything goes, ropes, knives, guns, towels, witchy writing....
5/ Why send people into the LaBianca's to kill them then drive away in the getaway car?
So it would not be the getaway car. If he wasn't there, he felt he could have no complicity in whatever happened. If he was in the car, it was therefore not the getaway car.
6a/ Why stop after two nights? Did it seem like a job well done to anyone?
Two reasons.
Firstly, after the LaBiancas were killed, hysteria hit town in a way it hadn't after Cielo. It was reported that a suspect was in custody after Cielo...but then when the LaBiancas died and that suspect was still in custody, LA went mad with fear. So there was extra police vigilance and more chance of random stoppings.
Tex Watson claims that he told Charlie that the FBI were looking for him in connection with some murders which was a lie but he reckons this stopped the killings. Make what you will of this.
I think the other reason was that Linda had fled the ranch. She was part of what had happened and when Joe Sage rang the ranch and asked Charlie if Linda's tales of murders committed was true, it would have occurred to the Family big time that it was no longer their little secret because at least one other person had been told about it. They never did hear from Linda again until her arrest. They didn't know who else she might have been blabbing off to so that was good reason to slow down events.
Furthermore, why should the murders have continued for ten nights in a row or 5 or 3 or 7 even if they were for copycat purposes ? There's as much reason for the murders to have stopped as there are for them to have continued.
6b/Why not kill some blacks and write "Death to niggers" in their blood on the walls if you really wanted to fan the race flames?
White people had been killing Black people for 300 years and more in the USA and getting away with it and that hadn't caused any race war. A few riots, yes. The police probably wouldn't have cared and to be honest, nor would much of the white population. For both Blacks and Whites, Blacks dying at the hands of Whites and being called niggers would have been business as usual.
adam said...
7/ How would jumping out of your car at a red light to stab some dude in the lane next to you fit into HS? So you take your time to find nice quiet secluded houses to kill people but on impulse decide to kill someone at a traffic light where ANYONE PASSING COULD SEE YOU
This is loosely connected with 5. By committing a murder like this out in the open, it would have show that CM had no fear and was committed, which was going to be an essential element in kicking off HS.
That said, it seems that almost everyone assumes that there were lots of cars and people around when the white sports car pulled up at the lights. But it ain't necessarily so. I've lost count of the times me in my car and one other car have been the only vehicles around. There's lots of times I could have shot someone, got back into the car and driven away. But don't take my word for it. Just look at some of the camera phone footage taken of some of these hard line Islamic terror atrocities in Paris and Tunisia this year. Look at the casual way some of these gunmen walked up in full view, did their stuff and then walked or drove away. No one could identify them and this was broad daylight. The Tunisian guy was not covered up.
So blamming away some guy in a car at night where people couldn't identify you ? Not hard.
8/ Why would you send Clem and Sadie out to do anything? (These two could fuck up a cup of coffee between them)
Daft point. The same Clem derided here has been free for over 30 years. Obviously not so dumb.
This isn't a flaw in HS.
9/ Garretson knew a lot more then he let on, of this I am convinced
That one is convinced of it doesn't make it a flaw.
10/ The HS story was first mentioned by Sadie in prison
Actually on 3rd October 1969, a week before there had even been any arrests at Barker Ranch, while Sadie, Charlie and everyone else except Bobby was free, Brooks Poston gave an interview with Sheriff Don Ward in which he speaks of Helter Skelter and mentions the going off to the desrt, the underground city and he refers to HS as "the negro revolt."
Miles W. Mathis has all the answers to the Sharon Tate Murders. Google Miles W.Mathis The Tate Murders Were A False Flag Parts 1-4
sbuch113 said...
Sharon's mother Doris Tate never believed Helter Skelter. She said it was a "concoction" of the D.A..Mrs.Tate didn't believe it, nor do many others
So what ? Who was Doris when it came to the mechanics of why her daughter died ? Her standing as victim's mum doesn't mean that her opinion carries any weight as truth. One of her other daughters felt the opposite. So what ?
Post a Comment