Shrugs

There seems to be, by quite a few posters who use non de plumes in the comments, a basic intrinsic misunderstanding. They seem to think I give a shit what they have to say.

The great SF author Harlan Ellison once pointed out that everyone was NOT entitled to their own opinion. This is something idiots say all the time. Harlan points out that everyone is entitled to their own INFORMED opinion. I mean, if you asked me about your gall bladder I might have an opinion but it would be fucking nuts for you to listen to it, and not right for me to voice it at all.

I have done first hand research. I have talked to main players. I have read, and vetted the main books on the case. I don't believe that I even know what I am talking about. Why in the world would I accept what somebody called Poirot would believe as truthful, or even worthy of interest?

I have studied the novel Helter Skelter. I know what can be proven and what BUG made up. I know what Sanders got right and what he got wrong and what he didn't give a shit about.

I have blogged for many years and I was there back when Ronson and Nelson breathed.

If you want to PROVE something new, or different, then PROVE it. Otherwise stfu when you get mocked and ignored.

USE COMMON SENSE PEOPLE.

People don't sell clock radios door to door late at night.
Nine month pregnant women don't hang out in their bedrooms with former lovers late at night.
People don't start race wars with random killings that the cops never linked to a black person.
People don't slaughter strangers because some short punkass commanded them.
Gary didn't inherit any money.

If you don't want to accept BASIC HUMAN TRUTHS then you don't have to post here. If you have a defensible argument that helps us understand the true motives, I love you.

But I blog NOT for any of you. I blog because I have to. I have to understand how a woman and milkman abusing fantasist got away with this. So it never happens again.

Verbatim

I posted about Brainwashing a few days ago and it brings up another point for all of you serious researchers.

It really hit home when I did that tour with the Chicago Sun-Times lady. We would stop and I would point out stuff and it was fascinating her reaction.

THIS ISN'T A FUCKING MOVIE.

THIS SHIT HAPPENED.

If this isn't a fucking movie, how come on here and Liz and Cats I always see quotes thrown around as if they fucking are accurate to the letter? They aren't. Do you remember what you said to someone word for word even yesterday?

Some of you throw quotes up as if to say "Haha, this happened." Like there was a fucking video camera taping the events. Like what the OJ jury needed.

Did Parent say "Hey I want to sell you a clock?" or "As long as I give you a good blowjob maybe you'll want to buy my clock." You think Garretson told the actual verbatim truth even if he rememebered?

Did Charlie says "Do something witchy" or "Leave something witchy" or "Go be witchy?"

If you have to hang onto a 42 year old quote to prove your point please go away.

Brain Washed or Dry Cleaned

The Col often takes inspiration from the comments and there was a big debate in there recently about brainwashing... how if you look at the photos and the docs and you can see that the girls were in fact slavishly eating up Charlie's bullshit.

I could not agree less. Have any of you people done any drugs at all?

If you look at both Hendrickson documentaries what you see are people out of their heads on drugs. Weed, sure, speed likely, who the hell knows what else.

You don't see people accurately brainwashed. In fact the most drugged out people in those are the "heroes" Watkins and Posten. These were young people partying and fucking in the desert. When you get faded, or do LSD which was in heavy rotation then, the most stupid shit sounds profound. "Because the world is round it turns me on". Heavy man. "Coming down fast twenty miles above you." Oh, wow. "There is an upside down river in he desert." Shit man, let's go.

Did Charlie "lead"? No doubt, he had 15 years on most of these people. Did he brainwash? Well not like the fucking Manchurian Candidate.

There's one theory I have which I have never sewn together that involves the kids need to please Daddy. It makes a lot of sense. Leaving aside Kasabian who never makes any sense in any fucking occasion, why send the other three to Tate? Because they owe him. Tex for drug burn, Sadie for bikers trashing Saloon, Katie because she fits in no where. So Daddy is pissed at Melcher and then shouts somebody should fucking do something.

And stoned out of their boxes, they do.

I really don't see evidence of brainwashing at all in this case. I do see a shitload of drugs though.

Later on during the trial I see brainwashing. But it could all be explained by the fact that the girls are scared out of their minds and only trust Charlie, and he is having fun putting on a show.

Bobby Finds Hope

Dear Relations and Friends,

I promised in my last open message to let you know if there were any developments on the parole hearing front. There have been some developments of note, and they appear to be significant, at least potentially. While I'm loath to predict what bearing they may ultimately have on my personal circumstances (we've been tricked before!), it does appear at present that the outlook is improving.

Before going into these developments, however, I want to apologize again to Joan for sending her email out in an open message, and to those of you as well who may have been confused upon receiving it. My appreciation for the kind responses that resulted notwithstanding, I regret the error and will be redoubling my efforts to insure that the privacy of persons on my mailing list will not be compromised in the future.

Now back to the parole hearing front. Please take a few minutes to review the attached article from the San Francisco Chronicle. Recapping briefly, several decades ago a misbegotten bit of tough-on-crime legislation put the California governor's office in the thankless position of having to approve each and every parole date granted to an inmate with any version of a life sentence. Needless to say, this made the parole hearing process extremely political, with the result that relatively very few prisoners with "life top" sentences have been paroled in the intervening 27 years, even in cases when the parole board had found the inmate suitable for parole.

As the article states, Gov. Jerry Brown has decided to use the governor's parole-veto option in a manner that is more in keeping with the original legislation - in only rare cases, in other words, when a genuine threat to public safety appears to be evident. Brown's track record to date bears this out. We can only surmise how much the $26 billion state budget shortfall and a federal court order to reduce the state's prison population by 40,000 inmates have influenced the stance he has taken on this issue. Not that this matters. Grace and blessings use what instruments are available.

To boot, the portion of the 2008 legislation that retroactively mandated triple the length of parole denial periods (from 1-to-5 years to 3-to-15 years) has been overturned by the California Court of Appeals. State prosecutors have appealed this decision, of course. Given the strong and persuasive language the court used in its decision to vacate the retroactive portion of the new law it seems unlikely that the state's appeal is anything but a strategy to buy some time.

Assuming that the court's ruling is affirmed by the California Supreme Court, the 5-year denial that resulted in my parole hearing last December will be modified. It seems I will soon need to begin preparing for a parole hearing likely to be scheduled to take place late next year.

The complexion of my situation appears to be changing. I attribute this to the collective power of your supportive intentions and actions on my behalf, for which I remain immensely grateful.

Peace to you all.

Bobby

MDA

There are a lot of crazies out there in the TLB world. I don't mean blinded dickheads like Mark Turner. I mean actual crazies like JimNY Savage.

One of them was this bitch named WHEAT who used to post on a long defunct, retarded TLB board that I can barely remember. Not the Ronson one but one supposedly involving Sadie's former lawyer. She is batty, delusional, talks to wallpaper and doesn't know shit from shinola.

About once a year she shows up to say something retarded to me then goes away. I ignore her.

Yesterday she surfaced. She wrote "Tex is talking. LaBianca was a drug burn. Rosemary had the MDA in her dressing gown."

Now to be clear to the idiots like Poirot who read this blog-
I do not believe she spoke to Tex.
I do not believe Tex is "talking"
I do not believe for sure it was a drug burn.
I do not believe it was MDA.
I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Okay?

But it got me thinking....

Hinman, MDA, alleged drug burn, person tortured and killed. Do you torture someone because he would give you some money you imagine exists? Or do you torture them because they stole from you, or you think they did at least?

Tate House- Frykowski, MDA, people killed and slaughtered, "Go to the Melcher House and Kill everyone", if not Frykowski, why not Melcher or one of the Golden Penetrators?

LaBianca House- don't know for sure about anything, but if the wife left a $2million dollar estate? Sources tell me this is wrong. But after tying them up the message was "you know what to do, don't be as messy." Which could mean "get the fucking drugs back bitches."

The police initially thought it was drugs. Drugs are EVERYWHERE in the story.

And yet people insist it isn't drugs?

Time Passages

On another very good blog people seemed to be having orgasms that Snake Lake deigned to write them a letter that basically said nothing.
This is the same Snake Lake who basically said anything that the BUG told her to.

It made me think and wonder- I have watched as each year TLB recedes more and more into the darkness of time and distant memory.

Will there soon be a day, post BUG, when only a few historians care?

Are we chasing ourselves in our pursuit of the truth?

Weary Dreary Leary7

There's a heated debate in the comments which serves to illustrate that people can be SO close to having good reading comprehension and yet SO far. I'll be your little helper in red.

----

leary7 said...

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.

It is strong testimony ONLY that the youngest child at the ranch felt left out that she wasn't doing what the "cool" kids were doing. It says NOTHING about Charlie except in your head.
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, There is NO maybe about it. You lose all credibility when you state maybe. ALL the other attorneys say he made this shit up.but there is NO DOUBT Charlie was preaching an impending race war as well as the thrill and need to kill.There is plenty of doubt. Charlie talked smack. Bullshit. BUG and Watkins created the "theory" of the case.
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.Again, no, MUCH of it has stuck. And for sure, no one educated in the case believes HS as a motive.
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.But wait? You just told me it was HS. That the BUG was right. Now you want to offer a new theory? Without evidence? Can you not reason logically?
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 AdolphHis idol? This was again Bug and Paul creating a boogey man for the ages. 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.Charlie was many things. But irrational? Not even close. Man was wicked smart.
Manson did not need a motive to order the killings.But you just said it was a race war? It was just what got him off.

7:50 PM, August 05, 2011

leary7 said...

my attempt to clarify....
For 48 years several dozen people have dedicated their lives to proving Oswald was not the lone assassin.what do you mean, prove? IT has been established through science that he could not have fired all the shots.
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 arguing 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.except of course he had motive...and Ruby was there to shut him up
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. He was convicted of ordering the murders by a Prosecutor with a made up motiveBut 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

leary7 said...

really, do people still want to wave the "Charlie is no killer" banner?Yeah, isn't that weird. He never killed anyone so I say he isn't a killer. A loser, yes. A punkass bitch? Yes. But to be called a killer usually you need to, you know, KILL someone.
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.Agreed. Never said he was innocent as charged. Never said he should be released. Just said he was falsely prosecuted and didn't kill anyone. I remain accurate.
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.Hey, I'll scream out that when I next see JimNy I would like to kick his ass so he never walks again. That don't make me an ass kicker.

7:11 AM, August 06, 2011

leary7 said...

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 murderEven if I grant you this point (which I do not) the fact is by manufacturing motive and making shit up, the REAL reason why 9 people are dead is still obscured this many years later. I don't care about Charlie. I want to understand what happened. And the pathology of the Bug makes that almost impossible. 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?That wasn't the norm back then. There are a couple of interviews I think but nothing comprehensive.
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.This is true. He wanted to be famous anyway he could. 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.I buy this
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.They both did everything possible to make themselves famous.

Photo is so people stop fucking asking. Sheesh.

Motive Matters

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.

That Old Gang Of Mine

One thing I always wonder, when I reflect on the nitty gritty of the case is how much the contemporary Family members look back on their old gang and whether it means much to them anymore.

If you conclude as I do that the whole mess was over and done with by the end of 1972 (some LVH and Squeaky shit to come but still) and it can only possibly start in 1967, we are talking five years of their lives, from a long time ago. Aside from Little Paul who barely got 40 years, and recently Sadie, surprisingly almost all the players are out there in the wind growing old. Which is incredible, really, if you examined say a group of 50 random people from back then you would think that many more were gone than just one or two.

But seriously, does Nancy call up Clem and reminisce about the orgies? Does Donkey Dick Dan drunk dial Ouisch and remind her she was the best lay he ever had? In between vaginal studies does Snake Lake track down Bruce Davis on Facebook?

Of the people I hung with back between my 18th and 24th year, I stay in touch with 4 or 5 of them still. The Col is 88 in Panda Years and this doesn't seem like too many or too few people. I went to a reunion once and as Charlie would have said, "they all got old on me."

You never hear about any of them still communicating. I wonder if they do.

Restless Souls

It is finally coming.
I got to read an early draft of this amazing book a while ago.
It is finally coming.

YOU MUST HAVE THIS BOOK.

The Col has spoken.

Some People Like Poirot will Never Get it!

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.

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.

Don't Feed The Under Bridge Dwellers

It never ceases to amaze. The trolls show up and people feel a need to respond. Or in one case pack up and leave.

I have a better solution- DON'T READ their bullshit.

AC Fisher Aldag, just for one example, is fucking wrong about everything she posts. Everything. If she told me the time I would assume she was off by 3 hours. There is nothing credible in anything she says.

Now do I read her stuff and say "Holy shit no, I've got to straighten her out?" Do I offer to interview her (hi Patty!)? Do I deal with a deep seated need to be right and therefore ban her?

I do none of these things. And here is why.

I can just see her name and skip her post, secure in the knowledge that nothing she says makes sense.

I don't have to prove she is or is not a racist, like Liz's site is doing. I KNOW she is wrong about everything. That allows me to skip anything she says.

But I still allow her to say it, because it doesn't disturb our task.

But Sadie was of course at the LaBianca house. I mean for FUCK'S SAKE, every single person there said so, including Sadie.

Ignore the trolls. You'll be happy you did.

A Simple TimeLine

1- Bobby Kills Gary, over money or a drug deal gone wrong. He and the girls get the "bright" idea to leave bloody writing on the wall.

2- Bobby is arrested sleeping in the car he took from his victim. (Genius!)

3- The Ranch People get unhappy. "Didn't Charlie send him there? What is Charlie going to do about it."

4- Charlie knows he was there- what will Bobby say about him?

5- Charlie, the five foot two punk, realizes that not only with these people fuck like he directs, they might even kill if the situation is correct.

6- The Girls, Leslie and Kitty and others, start floating the idea- other similar killings with writing on the wall, Copycat Murders, they will realize they have the wrong guy with Bobby. This makes ZERO sense, they have Bobby dead to rights, but let us assume the girls believe this. This also means they start to get all up in Charlie's face- WHAT are we gonna do about this Charlie?

7- Tex burns Crowe. Crowe kidnaps Rosina. Charlie shoots Crowe.

8- Charlie now concerned about what HE has done. HE might go back to jail. Maybe the Black Panther fear, maybe not. Either way, Crowe HAS TO retaliate, right? (Still confounds me that he did not.)

9- Charlie takes off for Big Sur.

10- Charlie returns, Bobby in jail getting impatient, Mary and Sandy arrested for Sears fraud, girls leaving, and worst of all that motherfucker Melcher is NOT coming through on the goddamn record deal. HE Is the cause of all our problems. You know, somebody should go up to his fucking house where we all have been many times, where he had his Golden Penetrators Club Meetings, and just kill him and every fucker up there. (rantings, musings).

11- Tex who owes Charlie big time (Crowe) and Sadie who owes Charlie (leading Bikers to Ranch who shut down Night Club) along with Katie who craves love and Linda who by all accounts was super down with everybody, go to Cielo and do what Charlie was screaming about.
[[Alternate 10 and 11- Charlie is fucking pissed off because of drug burn by Frykowski and has the same rant with the same result. OR, TEX has been burned, decides to go to Cielo and gets Charlie's permission who suggests " Something Witchy."]] Sadie, remembering Hinman, thinks you are supposed to write in blood on walls and writes "Pig".

12- Killers return to Spahn with naked Charlie and Nancy dancing. Tell Charlie. He and others (Clem? Nancy? Bruce?) return to Cielo. Holy Fuck.

13- Convinced that the only thing that might save his ass from jail IS the asinine idea of Copycats, Charlie assembles the same team of killers, adding only LVH who cannot wait to join the team, and drives around for hours looking for the best place to stage a copycat. Changes his mind repeatedly, finally going next door to a place he already knows. Sets the stage, assuming his team will do the job, which they do in spades.

14- We need an answer as to why it stops and the best I have is- MONDAY- the press is going fucking nuts about Cielo. CRAZY about Cielo. Los Feliz is mentioned. BUT NOBODY IS CONNECTING THE TWO, OR HINMAN. I mean if you had 3 killings in LA TODAY with blood writing on the wall you would see screams of a crazed killer on the loose. But there is NO LINK. This Copycat shit isn't working. On the other hand, no one seems to be coming our way either. Let's take a beat. Charlie knows from ex-cons that you keep going, you get busted. Cops come ten days later, but for car theft and they walk! Charlie is thinking that was a close call, and they leave town, like out of an old Western.

15- Shorty obviously buys it because he called the Raid and maybe knows some shit- I mean the actual living area of the Ranch was not that big. He could have easily heard shit. Anyway, unfinished business, he goes.

I do not say that the above is true.
I do not say that I agree with the above.
I do say that there are no logical problems with the above timeline. It makes HUMAN sense.

My worries with the case are always "Why the LaBiancas?" and "Why stop after them?" Having learned that master researcher Tom O'Neill has not been able to establish that Rosemary actually did leave a $2m estate, then LaBianca seems completely random. And if we reject the insane motive put forward by an unhinged District Attorney, then logic is all we have.

Any thoughts, observations or abuse welcome.