Showing posts with label Motive. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Motive. Show all posts

Monday, October 19, 2015

Lynyrd responds to Grim Traveller, talks "motive", and cuts through the bullshit.

Grim said:

“Obviously we're talking TLB as opposed to Hinman/Shea/{Crowe} but it seems that a consensus seems to lean towards HS being the thing that ties Charlie to TLB and if HS is discredited, the link is severed and thusly, the guilt. 

The Emmons book has been discredited by Manson as bullshit which has left him free to state that he didn't know about the copycat {even though Bugliosi says in HS that he admits he knew the murders were going to happen}. 

I find few people genuinely push the anger towards society or lack of a record contract angle, I've not heard anyone other than Bugliosi push the bloodlust angle and the drug hits or Frykowski raping Linda K scene tend to emphasize Tex rather than Charlie as does the Suzan LaBerge wanting her Mum dead scenario. The Mafia hit for the black book seems more a supposition than a bona fide theory that many are prepared to hang their hats on.

If you take George Stimson's line to it's logical conclusion, Charles Manson had nothing to do with anything regarding TLB. I can understand why so many seem to take that line.”

Lynyrd Responds:

There may be plenty of people who believe that successfully refuting Helter Skelter (i.e., "proving" another motive) equates to clearing Charlie of all culpability and guilt.

I don't believe it's quite that easy.

By the time the Cielo/Waverly murders rolled around, the kids were puppets and Manson was pulling the strings.

Regardless of the reason these numbskulls were at Cielo and Waverly, Manson was "directing traffic".

Even without the "HS" story, there are plenty of signposts which strongly suggest that Manson was in-charge of this murderous group.

When Manson shaved his head, the kids followed suit.
When Manson carved an "X", the kids followed suit.
The girls literally crawled across town, on their hands and knees.
The kids were willing to die in the gas chamber for Manson.
Lawyers and psychologists alike, have described the kids feverish devotion to Manson as extreme.
Lynn and Sandy devoted decades of their lives to Manson.

Manson told the girls to get a change of clothes.
Manson told them to do whatever Tex instructed.
Manson told them to leave something witchy.
Manson tied-up Leno Labianca.
Several people from the "Family" described Manson as the ringleader.
One of them stated (I believe it was Paul Watkins), that "nothing happened without Charlie's approval".

The list goes on and on...

It's obvious, that "Helter Skelter" was a great tool for Bugliosi.
There's no denying that fact.
Bugliosi's job of implicating Manson, would have been MUCH more difficult without "Helter Skelter" at his disposal.
In the end, without "HS", Bugliosi may have failed at proving Manson's guilt. (and yes, he was guilty)
I agree with all that.

To believe that Manson is "by default" innocent (without HS as the "proven motive") is a stretch.

And might I add:
No one has EVER "proven" an alternate motive (to everyone's satisfaction) anyway.
And believe me,  no one ever will.

The "consensus" means little to me.
And polls regarding “motive“ are worthless (beyond entertainment) , because “the majority” is often dead wrong.
And truth be told, I don't put a whole lot of stock into most of the "experts" and "authors" on this topic either.

A LONG time ago, TomG said:
"Think long, think wrong."

He was spot-on with that statement.

People have over-analyzed this shit to death.
The books just keep getting thicker... and they simply contain more loopholes to overcome.

Let me break it down in simple terms:

By the time the TLB murders took place, Charlie was a bitter motherfucker.
He was angry with society and life itself.

He manipulated these kids with several methods (one of them being HS), and when he had them thoroughly wrapped around his finger, he set them loose to do his bidding.

Not being a lawyer, Charlie believed he could never be charged with murder (without physically killing someone). He figured he could exact his revenge on society, and then, walk-away scot-free.

That's the whole fucking story in a nutshell.

There's nothing else to know. 

And yes, for those who don't think so, Manson was bitter.

Manson tells everyone out of the right side of his mouth, that he's happy and content.
But out of the left side of his mouth, he never lets anyone forget that he "never had a so-called life", as he always says.
He "never had a so-called childhood".
He tells society: "watch tv and drink your beer”. (as his song lyrics go)

Folks like to research (and entertain) elaborate motive theories for four reasons:

#1) It sells books and movies.

#2) It makes the researcher(s) feel important. 
      (I know, I was there myself for years)

#3) It makes the case, the study, and the discussion (of TLB) more interesting. If you take things at face value, there's really not much to talk about. 
      (And, we're back to #2).

#4) And finally, the folks who support Charles Manson invest their lives searching for a theory to exonerate him. (And, that's never going to happen). This is pretty much Katie's original point, and the discussion has come full circle.
This entire post is not directed at Grim Traveller personally or specifically. Grim’s comment was the catalyst that got me thinking (and writing) on this subject, and that’s why I chose to include his commentary as my jump-off point.

Tuesday, June 2, 2015

I've given this motive thing quite a bit of thought, and here's where I'm at:

1) Helter Skelter
2) Copycat... i.e., spring a "brother" out of jail
3) Manson's mental state and bitterness towards society
4) Drugs
5) Leno's gambling debts (at the LaBianca site)

I really believe, all of the "family members" were "mentally compromised" by the time of the murders, and each had a slightly different mindset.

I'm sure there were several "stories" circulating at the ranch. Some of the kids believed the "HS" story (motive #1). Some of the kids believed the real goal, was to spring Bobby out of jail (motive #2). And Manson himself, was mentally disturbed and bitter towards society (contributing factor or motive #3).

That covers motives #1, 2,and 3.

I believe those three motives, may have been coupled with a drug motive (i.e., motive #4)... which only Manson and some of the men were privy to. 
(This would be the elusive "real motive", which everyone has been seeking for 4 decades).

There's also an outside possibility, that Leno had his ass in a sling over gambling debts (motive #5). And again, this is something that only Manson and the guys, would have been privy to.

So, we have a minimum of 3 "motives" (contributing factors)... and possibly 5.

The girls believed whatever they were told... and I really believe, they were told conflicting stories. (i.e., "Helter Skelter" and "Free Bobby").

As for Charlie, he was crackers. That was a contributing factor. 
No matter how you slice the pie, he was (as John Lennon said) "cracked".

I'm starting to agree with Leary. Beyond sheer curiosity, seeking a motive at this point is probably an exercise in futility.

In the words of Harold True: "You can't ascribe reason to crazy people."

Monday, February 16, 2015

Okay, let's have a fireside chat.  Let's discuss this case logically.

 Sometime in late June of 1969, Tex decided to do a drug burn on Bernard Crowe, a/k/a Lottsapoppa.  According to Tex, he needed to raise some money for Charlie, and this was his great idea to do it.  He ripped Crowe off and left his girlfriend, Luella holding the bag.  According to Tex, it was for $2500 or  $2750.  No matter.

Crowe held Luella captive and called Spahn's Ranch, asking for Charles.  He got Charlie.  Charlie decided to go and face Crowe.  He took TJ with him.  His plan was for TJ to pull a gun on Crowe, but when TJ chickened out, Manson pulled the gun on him.  According to Tex, the gun clicked 3 times.  Then fired.

Charlie thought he had killed Crowe.  He didn't care so much that he had killed a man, but he did care about repercussions.

This happened in June of 1969.  That's when everything started to unravel.  Charlie's minions started complaining that the "Helter Skelter" he had been preaching hadn't even started yet.  Also, Charlie decided that he was unsafe at Spahn's and they needed to get to the desert to be safe.  Not that he cared about his minions, but he needed them, much like the con man that he was, to have an audience.  Without them, he was proverbially nothing.

Charlie heard from Ella Jo that Gary Hinman had inherited money.  And Charlie needed money to get outta town.  Charlie sent Bobby to Gary's to get the money.  Well, Gary didn't have any money.  There was no inheritance.  

So Bobby decided to kill Gary.  Why?  Who knows?  But he did.  Then Bobby stupidly got caught driving his victim's car with the knife in the tire wheel.

Now Manson is panicking.  Not only does he not have enough money to get away, he now has a guy in jail that can implicate him.  Now he's really in a quandry.

Here's where it gets sticky.  

According to Tex, Manson ordered him to go to Cielo Drive, kill everyone there as grusomely as  you can, and get $600.  And if you don't get $600, go to the next house and the next house until you get it.  And make sure the girls write "something witchy"!

Keep in mind that Mary was languishing in jail, and could blab about Gary Hinman at any time.  He needed her out.

Now remember, the Crowe incident was all Tex's fault.  He is the one who instigated it.  But in Charlie's mind, I think he wanted Tex, Pat, Susan & Linda to get their hands dirty.  And the next night, he added Leslie & Steve.

The more people you implicate, the less likely they will "squeal".

Okay enough for now.  More later....


Since we're talking about Bobby B., let's include this:

Parole Hearing for Charles Manson Follower Postponed

A parole hearing set for Thursday for a Charles Manson follower has been postponed because of an allegation that he broke prison rules, a California corrections spokesman said.

Parole officials want to wait until the allegation against Robert Beausoleil is resolved before they consider his possible release.

However, a hearing will be held no later than March 3, said Luis Patino of the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Patino said Beausoleil is accused of violating prison rules on Jan. 27, but he didn't know which ones.
Beausoleil has spent 45 years in prison and been denied supervised release 17 times. At his request, he was transferred to the Oregon State Penitentiary in Salem in 1994, after he married a woman from Oregon while in prison and fathered four children.

The Oregon Department of Corrections also could not provide details about the allegation against Beausoleil.

California parole officials planned to conduct his hearing by telephone.

Beausoleil, 67, originally was sentenced to death for the 1969 slaying of musician Gary Hinman. That sentence was commuted to life in prison when the California Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972.

If parole officials were to recommend his release, the decision would be reviewed by the entire parole board. Gov. Jerry Brown also could block his parole.

In August, Brown blocked the release of Bruce Davis, 72, who was convicted in the slayings of Hinman and stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea. The parole board had found Davis was suitable for parole based on his age and good conduct in prison.

Beausoleil was an aspiring musician and actor before he joined the Manson family.

He was in jail when other followers of the cult leader killed actress Sharon Tate and four others, then murdered grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.

His release faces opposition from Hinman's cousin, Kay Martley, who lives in the Denver area, and Sharon Tate's sister, Debra Tate, who lives in the Los Angeles area and is the last surviving member of her immediate family.

Both planned to testify by telephone. Tate said in a telephone interview that Beausoleil should serve out the rest of his life sentence in California instead of Oregon.

Beausoleil has worked since 2009 in a furniture factory operated by Oregon Corrections Enterprises, according to California corrections officials. He develops and produces orientation, safety training and promotional videos and materials for the prison industry program.

Beausoleil previously had no disciplinary violations since 2008, and he has participated in conflict resolution seminars, corrections officials said. He also has attended Narcotics Anonymous meetings and completed a literature class and a sociology class through the University of Oregon.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Charles Manson - A Chronicle of Death

"The Grump from Pahrump" Writes:
I recently came across this pre-Helter Skelter book from 1971. 
I had never heard of it before.
Charles Manson
A Chronicle of Death
By J.D. Russell
Copyright 1971, Apollo Books 

It is not worth getting excited about or trying to find it.  I'm just one of those that buys all the books on the subject.

It refers to Manson as "Charley Miller Manson".  The only thing that caught my eye was the following info on Voytek Frykowski:

"Not only was he known to be a heavy user of drugs, but there was strong evidence that he trafficked in them, also.  He has sinister dark connections with the underground drug world.

In the investigation that followed his murder, police found in his possessions a pilot's map with route markings between Southern California and Mexico.  When they tracked the pilot down they discovered that he had been flying in large  quantities of narcotics from Mexico, and had made a sizable delivery to Frykowski earlier in the week.  As  lusty a drug user as he was, it is inconceivable that this quantity of drugs could have been consumed by him and his mistress and friends alone."

I have always agreed with the words of Maury Terry:
"The name of the game was narcotics, not Helter Skelter".

Some Brief Thoughts About Motive, Helter Skelter, Bugliosi and RFK

While doing some liesurely pleasure reading by one of my favorite authors, Nelson DeMille, I came across a couple of tidbits that struck me as significant.

 "Money is motive. In fact, statistically it is the main motive in most crimes."

 And, "Motive is tricky and you can't ascribe a motive and then try to make it fit the crime."


So what does Mr. DeMille's prose mean to us TLB motive seekers? The first is fairly straight forward, and even Tex Watson has said that part of what they were to do at Tate was to get as much money as they could, even moving on to the other houses down the street.

So where does that leave LaBianca? I wonder.

To me in this case drugs and money are probably the same. Sure, they wanted some drugs to have to take for fun, but drugs can be proffered to buy favors or influence, and also can be sold for good cold cash.

"Helter Skelter" as Charlie's concept - no matter what anyone tells you - played a role in these nights of murder, even if it was used solely to motivate Tex and the girls to perform. Manson himself admits it was the name of the nightclub at Spahn's and was painted on the door there at the ranch. Hell, it was written in one of the victim's blood on their own refrigerator at the crime scene. And if the LAPD had only released that little bit of information, Charlie himself would have been in custody by August 12th. That's how closely Charlie had tied himself to Helter Skelter.

There are some who believe that Bugliosi is evil in part because he used the Helter Skelter theory to convict Charlie and the others when it is ludicrous to believe that could be the real motive. Oh, and then he wrote a book about it and has remained rich and famous ever since.

Whatever. I've said it before, and I will say it again now:
If Bugliosi could have proven any other motive, then he would have. As a juror, which is easier to believe: race war armageddon bottomless pit 144,000, or drug burn give me money or I will waste you bitch?

Bugliosi got the job done and served the citizens of Los Angeles well.

As for Bobby Kennedy, there has been some discussion of late, and so I am ready to call Urban Legend on the notion that Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate had dinner with RFK the evening of his assassination. Anytime this is mentioned I think most people get the idea in their head of a nice intimate dinner on the sofas in Bobby's hotel suite, when in fact it, would have been with many many other people, probably just a handshake and photo and that's about it. Anyway, while researching I came across Ed Sanders, that fug and of all people, and his research:

The Dinner

Apparently John Frankenheimer had planned an early dinner and invited some guests over. According to Robert Blair Kaiser’s book RFK Must Die the guest list included director Roman Polanski whose movie Rosemary’s Baby was selling a lot of tickets and his wife Sharon Tate. Other guests were future head of Disney Pictures Frank Wells and his wife Luanne, plus actress Anjanette Comer, nightclub owner Brian Morris, set designer Richard Sylbert, and a woman named Sarah Hudson maybe a pseudonym for someone who later married Sylbert.
(I e-mailed Mr. Kaiser a few years ago, and he replied that Frankenheimer himself told him about the guest list and the early meal at his Malibu house)

Perhaps Tate, Polanski and the others were invited for dinner but RFK had been too eager to get to the hotel so Frankenheimer quickly took him before, or just as, the guests arrived? Or, maybe they arrived, but Robert Kennedy had already departed for the Ambassador? Robert Kennedy, His Life, by Evan Thomas does not mention an early dinner in Malibu... Nor does RFK, a Candid Biography, by C. David Heymann.
(I recently wrote Roman Polanski in Paris seeking clarification but so far no reply)‎

So there's that.

And so back to motive: 
I think I will stick to keeping the statistics on my side and agree with Mr. DeMille.
Can't go wrong as Woodward and Bernstein found out from Deep Throat: "Follow the money."

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Highly illogical...

Mr. Poirot said:
"Without National Socialism you have no WWII. Without Helter Skelter you have no TLB murders".

I wouldn't take it that far, Poirot...

The Manson men took care of Shorty Shea quite handily... and that had nothing to do with a race war (HS).

Manson and TJ also left Bernard Crowe for dead, and that had nothing to do with a race war (HS), either.

The Manson men clearly demonstrated, that they were capable of committing crimes (up to, and including murder) for practical reasons (i.e., reasons they perceived as practical).
They didn't need "HS" as a motive.

Without HS, we may have had different perpetrators at Cielo and Waverly.
We probably would have had more men, and less misguided young girls.
Things may have "gone down" differently without "HS".
I'll give ya that much.

But to state beyond doubt, that these crimes WOULD NOT have occurred AT ALL without HS, is a stretch.
You can't know that for sure.

I'm sorry Poirot.
But, your statement is too broad.

HS was a piece of this puzzle... but, it wasn't the entire enchilada.
Tex Watson, Charles Manson (and the "upper management" LOL) had their sites set on Cielo Drive and Waverly, for reasons beyond HS.

HS was a manipulation tool Manson used (among many manipulation tools) to execute TLB, but it wasn't the underlying motive.


Part 2...

Poirot Responded:
LS you are boiling down HS as nothing but race war preachings which is an oversimplification of what HS was about. HS was more vast.

HS was mainly an ideological turbocharger that turns economy class hippies into drag strip commandos.

Helter Skelter was the rage and anger that spewed fron Charlie's skidzoid mind after he lost control of his mental faculties in late 68.

For example: if the Man jailed a few of Charlie's girls in 67 he didn't give a shit. If the Man did the same thing in 69 he would lash out at ALL society

Race is just one little aspect of HS.

Keep in mind I don't care if some folks don't agree with HS. Frankly I think it nicely encompasses the entire catastrophe.

Wow Poirot...

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, on that one. LOL

My feeling:
Manson had several "raps" which he used to entertain the kids... and HS was simply one of them.
HS caught-on with the kids, and Manson went with it.
Somewhere along the line, Manson realized that he could use that angle to manipulate.
I've never viewed HS, as any more than that.
It was simply a manipulation tool.
(One of many, manipulation tools)

In fact, "HS" wasn't even very original.
There were lots of folks talking "revolution" in California at that time.

And, I certainly never believed that HS was a motive.

Do you really believe that Cielo and Waverly were chosen randomly?
I certainly don't.

They went to Crowe's place intentionally.
They went to Hinman's place intentionally.
They killed Shorty Shea intentionally.
(Heck... you can add the Willetts if you want).
None of those victims were complete random strangers.
They knew Crowe... they knew Hinman... and they knew Shorty... and they knew where to find them.

These perpetrators went to locations intentionally... and killed people they knew... for a reason.
Albeit really shitty reasons... but, reasons nonetheless.
They weren't random serial killers.

I've never believed for a moment, that Manson REALLY believed in HS.

Bugliosi himself, stated the same thing (on one of those reunion shows).
Bugliosi explained that Manson probably didn't believe in HS himself, but simply used it as a manipulation tool.

Several folks around the internet, try their darndest to dispel HS (as a motive) with weak logic.
I'll lend them a hand... 'cuz I'm that kinda guy. : )

Here's the biggest loophole to HS... and this is the question, that I would have posed to the prosecution, if I were Manson's defense attorney:

Why did Manson stop killing after 48 hours?

I mean...
If Manson really believed that the end of the world (as we know it) was at hand... and he was going to emerge victorious... why would he throw-in the towel so easily???

Ya gotta admit:
For an idea that Manson was supposedly consumed with... he certainly gave-up almost overnight.

If you look at this question in full context...  it doesn't make sense.

Full context:
After a year of preparation... stockpiling arms... hiding gasoline... looking for a hole... stationing look-outs... target practicing... building dune buggies for Armageddon.... Manson had a change of heart after just two nights???  That really doesn't make sense.
Fact is... Manson never really believed that stuff.
It was simply a ruse to keep the kids occupied and obedient.

I can see it now...

Charles Manson:
"Well... it's been a long two days... and I guess blackie doesn't want to cooperate.
Pass the bong... and drop your panties Sadie". LOL

I don't buy it.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Not the Cleavers...

Katie said (paraphrasing):
“There are a variety of people who want you to believe that the murders at Cielo Drive were due to the fact that Voytek was a drug dealer, and that Folger was funding it.  This is not true".  

"The reason for the Cielo Drive killings, is that Charlie was mad at Melcher“.

You have a right to your opinion.

As for me...
I haven't ruled-out the Frykowski/Drug angle.
There's enough "smoke" in that area, to make the theory worthy of consideration.

I agree, that Manson was probably pissed with Melcher… very pissed.
Manson has expressed anger towards Melcher on film (during interviews).

Problem #1:  Melcher no longer resided at Cielo, and Manson knew it.
Problem #2:  The “Melcher bitterness" theory doesn't explain LaBianca.

Problem #3:
The "Melcher bitterness" motive, doesn't jive (very well) with the Crowe, Hinman, and Shea events.
The Crowe, Hinman and Shea crimes were committed for fairly pragmatic reasons, such as money issues, drug problems, and/or self-preservation (or, a combination of all three).
Those crimes were motivated by practical purposes beyond anger and bitterness.

Are we to conclude, that Cielo Drive was the ONLY location where "bitterness" was the sole motivator?
OK... it's possible... but, it doesn't fit "The Family's" MO (modus operandi) very well.

Modus operandi is a Latin phrase, meaning "method of operation". 
The expression is often used by police, to describe a criminal's habits and manner of working.
At the end of the day... killing for the sake of bitterness, doesn't fit "The Family's" track record. 

I'm playing "Devil's Advocate" here, to make a point.

My point:
If you dismiss the Frykowski/Drug Motive due to loopholes… you must also dismiss the “Melcher/Bitterness” angle, because neither theory is a complete puzzle.
In my opinion, dismissing either theory… especially the Drug Motive… is a grave (and somewhat naive) mistake.

None of the folks at Cielo Drive, deserved to be killed.
I repeat... none of the folks at Cielo, deserved to be killed.

BUT... having said that (twice)...

The idea that EVERYONE connected to Cielo Drive, was living a lifestyle, that was completely beyond reproach, is a bit of a fantasy.
This was Hollywood in the 60's.
It was a liberal place, at a liberal time.

To accurately examine this case... we must view the folks who frequented Cielo Drive (and "the times"), through a lense of reality.

Frykowski and Polanski were living questionable lifestyles... and consequently, they were probably interfacing with unsavory characters (at least, at times).
I also believe Sebring's behavior is somewhat questionable (in some respects), as well.
My assertions are underscored, by Polanski's lie detector test (see below).

During Polanksi's lie detector test, he points the finger at Frykowski and Sebring:

**He states (paraphrasing):
"Frykowski had been sniffing cocaine for at least two years".

**He also states (paraphrasing):
"If I had gotten rid of Frykowski, Sharon would still be alive".

**He also states (paraphrasing):
"Sebring had taken some kind of a (pause)... 'drug delivery job‘, or something".

**He also states (paraphrasing):
"Sebring was affluent by outward appearances, but he owed a large sum of money to his dentist.  He may have been struggling financially“.

**During the lie detector test, Polanksi also admits to "f#cking" two airline stewardesses within 48 hours of Sharon's death.  (Bear in mind... Sharon was carrying his unborn child, when she was brutally murdered).

**You can add the sodomy of Samantha Geimer to Polanski's character resume', as well.
She was thirteen years old.

**Also worth considering:
Folger's "association" with Frykowski, doesn't speak well of her judgement.
By most accounts, Voytek was a moocher, deadbeat, and drug user.

One has to wonder:
Just how "deeply" did Folger allow herself to get involved with Voytek (and his "activities")?
Up to her eyeballs maybe?

According to you (Katie)... Abigail told her therapist several times, that she regretted her involvement, with Voytek.
She communicated her regret several times.
That speaks volumes.
It seems to me, she was "in over her head".... and she wanted "OUT".

That Aside...
Is it completely far-fetched to assume, that Folger MAY HAVE lent Voytek money to finance his drug habit?
C'mon Katie... it's not only possible... it's probable.

How could Folger remain completely unaware of Voytek's drug use?
Was she living under a rock?
And furthermore... where else would Frykowski get money for drugs???

Bottom line:
This was Hollywood in the 60's.
At that place and time… things were wild.
To believe that every person associated with Cielo Drive was living completely beyond reproach, and could never be associated with any unsavory characters at any time, is tremendously naive.
People don't buy drugs from Nuns.
('Course… you could probably buy drugs from nuns too... in 1969 Hollywood)

For the record:
Let's not forget, Sharon and Jay traipsing around in their underwear… while Jay drank beer.
We have Sebring in a pair of “grape-smugglers‘ with his sausage clearly visible… and a very pregnant Sharon, sporting cotton panties.
Tell me that situation wasn't a bit "left of center". LOL

Alright... I know it's hot in California... but, c'mon... is it necessary to display your Johnson to a friend's pregnant wife? Ever heard of swim trunks dude? LOL

They give new meaning to the word "Godfather" in California.
Keep an open mind Katie... these folks weren't "The Cleavers".
Well... maybe if you throw-in a few Eddie Haskell's. LOL

I'm not saying anyone deserved to be brutally murdered... not even close
I'm simply saying, that SOME of these folks MAY HAVE "associated with", and consequently "pissed off", some unsavory characters (such as drug dealers).

If you party with drugs, you associate with drug dealers.
It's a direct correlation.

Never rule-out anything, until the fat lady sings.
This case isn't closed, until it's solved.
And until such time... everyone has clues to offer... even the victims.

Peace... LS

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Manson utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Bugliosi ALSO utilized "Helter Skelter" as a means to an end.  Both men knew full-well that "Helter Skelter" was nothing more than a tall tale.

The question becomes:
Which man accomplished a better outcome by cultivating and manipulating "Helter Skelter" for his audience?  The answer to that question, should be self evident.

Having said all that:
The fact of the matter, is that WAY too much emphasis is placed on "Helter Skelter" in-general.

I don’t believe the jury bought into "Helter Skelter".  Fact is... they didn't have to.
(It should be noted here, that the prosecution doesn't even have to present a motive).

The jury convicted Manson, because they were convinced that Manson was NUTS... and the leader of this group.  That’s all they needed.  More specifically… the jury was convinced that Manson conspired to these murders... and beyond that… they most likely didn‘t care "why".

Bugliosi could have told the jury that Manson was completely crackers and communicating with space ships... and the jury STILL would have convicted Manson.
In fact… ANY motive theory that depicted Manson as “crazy, dangerous, and in-charge“, would have worked... because the jury was already convinced of those three elements, based on the defendant’s own actions.

Let's face it... Manson convicted himself.  The trial was a circus.  “The family” was acting like fools inside the courtroom, and out.  “The family” demonstrated to the world, that Manson was their leader.  The shaving of heads... the carving of "X"'s... the year-long sidewalk vigils... the crawling across town on hands and knees... (need I continue?)...  collectively convinced the world that these people were NUTS… and Manson was the "head nut"!  Manson even lunged at the judge.  As I said... "crazy, dangerous, and in-charge".

Bottom line:
The jury was convinced that Manson "saw to it" (if you will) that people were killed, and that's all they cared about.  They didn't give two shits about WHY a crazy man wanted people dead… they just wanted to see him behind bars.

Bugliosi convinced the jury that Manson was in-charge (with a lot of help from Manson)... and THAT'S why Manson is in jail.  The "Helter Skelter" motive wasn’t a big factor.  “Helter Skelter” was much more useful in the sale of books, than it ever was in the courtroom.
If anything, the jury convicted Manson in spite of "Helter Skelter".

I’m personally convinced that Manson was the “ringleader”… and my opinion has ZERO to do with “Helter Skelter” or Bugliosi’s book.  I could care less about Bugliosi’s book.

I’m personally convinced of Charlie’s “leadership role” as a result of viewing countless hours of film footage, photos, and transcripts.  I’ve inspected these types of media with my own eyes and ears.  I've drawn my own conclusions, with my own common sense.

I've been everywhere the grass grows green... and I don't need Vincent T. Bugliosi, to tell me what time it is.  Manson was a 34 year-old hardened criminal, dealing with suburban kids... primarily females.  It doesn't take a genius to figure-out who was at the top of that totem pole.

C'mon folks...
How often do you see women crawling across town… and holding a (one year) "sidewalk vigil" for a “follower”???

I give the TLB jury the same credit.  I believe the jury saw through to “the truth” with their own five senses.  “Helter Skelter” was a small factor in their verdict.

Here’s where it gets a bit hazy.  The next logical question becomes:
If you jail the right person, for the right crime(s)… does it matter if the premise (or motive) presented by the prosecution may have been inaccurate?
I mean (as a juror)… if you know someone is guilty… does the prosecution have to present the correct motive to you, for you to vote guilty?

Dilligaf could certainly answer that question, better than I… but my personal guess, is No… it shouldn’t matter.  As a juror, you’re voting on the defendant‘s “guilt” related directly to the crime at hand… not on the prosecutor‘s ability to guess accurately at “motive“ or “motivation“.

Legalities aside… from an ethical standpoint… I suppose the answer to that question, relates strongly to how much of a “purist” one is.
Personally… I’d rather see a guilty man convicted despite an inaccurate motive presentation by the prosecution, than see him walk free on a technicality.
The prosecution doesn’t have a crystal ball… and remember, at the end of the day, they don’t have to present a “motive” at all.
Again… (as a juror) you’re voting on the guilt/innocence of the defendant in regards to the crime(s) specifically… not the legal skill of the prosecutor in determining motive.

I’m sure the TLB jurors are sleeping very well at night these days… and, I really don’t think they care what Manson’s “motive” was.  (The jurors who are still alive, that is).

How anyone can possibly watch the “sidewalk vigil footage”… see the girls’ famous “crawl”… listen to the testimony of various “family members”… watch Hendrickson’s films… read the transcripts… witness Lynn and Sandy’s fanatical life-long devotion… and STILL remain unconvinced that Manson was the “ringleader”, is beyond my personal comprehension.

The “Slippie” conspired… he played his cards poorly during the trial (because he couldn‘t swallow his pride)… and now he’s in jail.  End of story.

Saturday, July 7, 2012

ColScott Said:
You know I was reading one of the recent articles, maybe one of the ones I posted (not going to go back and look, doesn't matter) and they referred to Cielo Drive as a HOME INVASION. Now true this was 1969 and I am not sure when I first heard the term but it was more likely than not the 90s so this is retrofitting of course.

But what word do we normally hear after "Home Invasion"? ROBBERY, right? I never heard of a Home Invasion Race War Startup, have you?

It was a robbery or drug deal burn or both. There IS a meaning to it I know there is.
Lynyrd Responds:
Marlin Marynick, psychiatric nurse, and author of the book "Charles Manson Now", described the events at Cielo as a "botched home invasion", during his interview with "Good Day LA".
He makes his statement at 2mins/40 seconds into the interview. (video below)
Marlin's description of the event (and carefully chosen language) made an impact on me as well, as having some significance.
I agree with the Colonel on two things:
#1) "Home Invasion" implies that there was a goal to this event, which had nothing to do with a race war.
Marlin could have just as easily said "race war"... but he intentionally did not.
"Home invasion" suggests to me, that "the family" was there with a purpose.
The most likely purpose of a "home invasion" is robbery, or retribution (i.e., payback of some kind).
This is straight forward logic... and as I said... I agree with Colonel on this subject.
Marlin quickly follows-up with these statements:
"Drugs were definitely involved" and "all these people knew each other".
This suggests to me, a "payback" purpose for something drug-related.
But, either way you slice it... Marlin clearly implies a purpose for Cielo... and that purpose does not include a race war.
As I said... Marlin could have easily stated "race war", as his response to the interviewer... but, he intentionally did not.
#2) The word "botched" is also significant, as it implies that things went beyond the intended goal.
Bottom line:
The execution of the "home invasion" went awry... and the subsequent bloodbath was beyond the intended purpose of the "home invasion", which was robbery or payback (for something drug-related).
Marlin's chosen descriptor of "botched" makes sense... as the type of bloodbath which resulted, was not what one would expect from a routine robbery, or "tune up".
I agree with Colonel on all counts here.
The question becomes:
How much significance does Marlin's testimony carry?
That depends (I suppose) on how much weight, we give to Marlin's opinion.
Marlin strikes me as a grounded person... not prone to sensationalize or hypothesize without forethought and research.
He's obviously an educated man.
As always, there are no definites here... but I submit, Marlin's view is a piece of the puzzle, worthy of some thought.
Peace... Lynyrd
Marlin's Interview 
Video from the Backporch Tapes Collection

Friday, September 9, 2011

I was reading Colonel’s blog (as I usually do), and found the Bugliosi/HS conversation on his second thread “Shrugs” particularly interesting.  It’s very, very good stuff!  Heck… those topics are essentially the “cruxt” of blogging this subject.

Anywho… I was going to post a couple boring documents today… and then decided… it would be more fun… to participate in the Bugliosi/HS topic. 
But… here’s the twist:  Rather than write-up an entire thread… I’m uploading my “notes” only… in “outline form”.  You folks fill-in the blanks!  Fill-in the blanks, or tear it apart… your choice.  As always, I could be completely full of shit… you decide!

My thoughts on the importance of Bugliosi today… in regards to solving the case/motive question:

1) Essentially, Manson convicted himself.

2) Bugliosi’s only, REAL, “claim to fame“ was successfully predicting how Manson would “play his cards”.  Bugliosi knew… if he gave Manson enough rope… Manson would hang himself.

 3) Bugliosi had little (if any) concrete evidence against Manson… so he designed a plan, which would allow Manson to convict himself… with his own personality… and demons.

Think of the movie “A few Good Men”.  Tom Cruise had little concrete evidence on Nicholson.  BUT… Cruise knew Nicholson was a big lion, who wanted to “roar”… and he painted him into that corner… and got a confession.  OK… a really cheesy analogy,…and not 100% “analogous” (LOL)… but, it’s a similar concept.
The actions of Manson and his “family”... were essentially a confession in action form… a confession that Manson was the leader.  Bugliosi predicted these idiots were going to “act-out” this dramatic real-life play.  Through his research, Bugliosi had already observed all the necessary elements in action, to make that prediction!
Bottom Line:
Bugliosi KNEW… Manson and company… were…. (at that time) in-capable of practicing ‘self-control”… as a means of winning the case for Manson.  These folks were FAR beyond switching gears.  “The family” was NOT going to portray Manson as a mere follower!  That wasn’t going to happen… and Bugliosi knew it.  That’s how Bugliosi won the case.

4) The jury did NOT convict Manson because they were sold on the Helter Skelter story.  The jury convicted Manson, because they were convinced Manson was in-charge, and thusly a conspirator to the murders.  Manson himself (and ‘the family“ collectively)… convinced the jury of those two facts… NOT Bugliosi.  The HS story (beyond Bugliosi‘s book) was secondary.

5) Bobby (blogger Bobby) made a great point.  OJ Simpson was a wife-beater, and a murderer… but there’s absolutely no denying… he was a great football player.  You have to separate personal life, from professional assessment.  Bill Clinton was a great president.  The economy was fabulous… jobs and overtime were everywhere.  Internationally, we were on good terms with the world.  His blowjobs from Monica… were between him and his wife… he and God.  But professionally… the man did a great job.  The presidency, is a job. 
A blowjob? LOL
If you hire a carpenter to build you a house…. and he’s does a spectacular… highly-skilled job,…at a fair price… do you care who he’s banging or stalking on his own time?  Does it make him a bad carpenter?

6) Bashing Bugliosi, although great fun… adds nothing towards finding the true motive.

7) Bugliosi was the prosecutor… he prosecuted.  Folks need to get over that simple fact. 
If you really want to bash an incompetent man (who completely screwed Manson)… take a good look at Kanarek.  Kanarek was Manson’s defense attorney for cripes sakes… and he NEVER put on a defense!!!  Now THAT guy committed a crime.  Sure, Bugliosi threw Kanarek a few compliments out of “professional courtesy” in the past… i.e., “Kanarek scored some points”, etc.  But C’mon… Kanarek sucked!

8) Starship said… “I have bigger fish to fry”… and that says it all.  At the end of the day, bashing Bugliosi is a fruitless endeavor.  It will never produce a real motive, or solve the case.  As Leary said: Bugliosi is not a hero or a villain… he did a job.

9) Why did Manson screw himself??
I’ve always believed it was pride.  Manson wasn’t going to eat a big piece of humble pie, and play by “the man’s” rules.  He wasn’t going to sit there like a deaf/mute… a nobody… a follower.  If Manson couldn’t win on his terms, he didn’t want to play.
MattP has also suggested: Manson was convinced… he couldn’t be convicted of murder, without actually killing.  Truth be told… it was likely heavy elements of both.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

I think the Girls' Dedication to Manson is WAY Under-Estimated.

Video Donated by MattProkes!  Thanks Matt!

Manson was a grown man… a life-long criminal at that… dealing with young kids… primarily females.  In every arena of life, there’s a “pecking order”… school, sports teams, work, friendship circles, military life, even blogdom.  Manson was at the top of the pyramid, in regards to the “Manson Micro-cosm”.  My African friend always said... “even a bear, knows which tree to wipe it’s ass on”.  For years, I never fully understood his analogy. 
One day, he explained:
“A young, soft, weak, supple tree with smooth bark, will bend to the bear’s ass… it’s comfortable.  Whereas, an older mighty oak, with thick bark, will make for rough toilet paper”.
Bottom line: none of these kids were wiping their ass on Manson… he was in-charge. 
That fact was observable.  Bugliosi observed this phenomena, and fashioned a sword with it.  He later used that sword to slay Manson.  For that reason, I often have difficulty being overly sympathetic with Manson.  Ultimately, Manson “cooked his own goose”.

You can spin it any way you like... "dedication", "mind-fucking", "love of brother"... it all ends at the same destination.  Charlie had these kids by the short hairs. 
I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.  We all know what time it is.
Or, as I like to say:  "You can't make chicken salad, out of chicken shit, no matter how much mayonnaise you use".

Thursday, July 14, 2011

My Two Cents on Bugliosi and the Helter Skelter Motive
Hello Friends!  Below is my personal opinion/summation of a topic (Bugliosi and HS), which got pretty heavy (and interesting) in the previous thread.  This is my “two cents” (on the subject) for what it’s worth… and not intended to be taken as “provable fact”.  I asked Mary, if I could use one of her comments (from an older thread) as a “springboard” for this discussion, and she agreed.  Thanks Mary!

Mary said:
>>>>"You cannot present 5 - 6 motives to a jury and expect them to follow the motives and all the evidence. You need to simplify the case"<<<<

Mary... You're right.
That's one major reason why Bugliosi presented "Helter Skelter".  There are 3 reasons.

Reason #1)
It's a tidy package, which is easy to present.
You can't stand-up to prosecute 4 defendants simultaneously (single-handedly), and say to the jury:
"Truth be told, the motive could be this... this.... or this... and likely, two of those combined.  Heck, I'm not quite sure myself.  I probably will never know... thanks for you time".  That doesn't win a case.

Reason #2)
The "HS package" implicated Manson... the "big tuna".
Bugliosi wanted Manson, and wasn’t going to use a motive which excluded him.

Reason #3)
Bugliosi needed a motive which everyone involved, would corroborate.
So… while interviewing, researching, and observing everyone… he searched for a “common thread”.
The one common thread Bugliosi found, was this:
Everyone’s words AND actions, echoed “Charlie is in-charge”.
That was the only “constant”, or “common thread” he could rely on... consistently, and across the board.  So… he utilized that one common thread, for all it was worth.

The HS "motive" painted Manson as the leader… in fact, completely “hinged” around that concept.  The words and actions of “the family” inside (and outside) the courthouse (as Bugliosi predicted), painted “Charlie” as leader… and cemented an otherwise weak case against Manson.

Bugliosi was asked in an interview (right around the time Susan was petitioning for "compassionate release“):
"Do you still believe the motive was “Helter Skelter“?
His response:
"It seems the motives were several and disparate".
Several and disparate motives folks.  That’s lawyer-talk for “No”.

There’s no doubt, Bugliosi was presented with several possible motives, just as we are.
I honestly believe, Bugliosi had no idea which motive was correct… and still has no idea today.  Honestly, how could he?  Realistically… it’s impossible.  He’d have to be an all-knowing deity, with a crystal ball.

Bugliosi chose the one motive (he was presented with), that would implicate Manson, AND be successful through the corroboration of the defendants themselves, and the “Family” collectively.
I say “presented with”, because it’s my humble opinion, that the Helter Skelter motive, was indeed “presented” to him (along with many others), and not “concocted” by him.
That portion is just my humble opinion.  Either way… “presented” or “concocted”, everything above, is why (I believe) Bugliosi used the HS motive.

Bottom line:
Bugliosi got the right folks, for the right crime, but based on the wrong motive… or, if nothing else, a motive he couldn’t possibly have been sure of.
Probably Not.

Bugliosi is smug.  He has an inflated ego the size of Texas.  He’s a strange and irritating sorta man, who uses bizarre words like “megolomaniac”.  Heck, he’s downright irritating at times.  Most importantly… his tactic of using a motive he couldn’t possibly have been 100% sure of (to effectively prosecute folks), was, and is, arguably un-ethical.
But, is he stupid?  My opinion is no… not at all.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Back to Leno. 
Every theory has a loophole, and Leno's Gambling Debts/ Mob Hit theory is no different. 
Let's explore what we know, and see where it takes us...
What we know from the Homicide Report:

"Subsequent investigation into the business dealings of Mr. LaBianca revealed he had been misappropriating money from his own company's treasury. The bookkeeping records of the Gateway Markets showed a deficit of approximately $200,000 since 1964. This deficit was discovered in June, 1969, by other family board members. 

To the family's astonishment, it was learned after Mr. LaBianca's death--he owned nine thoroughbred race horses, including Kildare Lady, one of the more prominent horses. 

Mr. LaBianca was a chronic gambler, particularly a horse better. It would not be uncommon for him to wager $500 a day. Every racing day he frequented the various racetracks and it is not known at this time if he used the services of a bookmaker.

Even though the LaBianca's lived expensively, their properties were extensively mortgaged and had personal loans totaling $30,000. 

The only connection between the LaBianca's and the underworld is Mr. LaBianca's previous association as a member of the board of directors of the Hollywood National Bank, 6225 Hollywood Boulevard. According to LAPD and LASO Intelligence, the bank was backed by "hoodlum money. " Investigation at this time has not substantiated the connection between the underworld and the bank, although three board members were indicted and convicted of a kiting scheme".

The man was obviously a chronic gambler, averaging $500 a day at the track. 

He had been "misappropriating funds" for five years from his supermarket business, to the tune of $200,000.

His properties were "extensively mortgaged"... and he had another 30k in personal debt.  

He was on the board of directors at a bank... that was... according to the LAPD, "backed by hoodlum money".  Let's keep in mind folks, this is 1969 money.  A very nice home in my area, sold for 20K in those days.  Is anyone else thinking what I'm thinking?

Basically, the theory goes, that Leno (like most gamblers), had borrowed money from places other than the bank, when things got outta hand.   Most claim, it was the Italian Mob, and Frank Carbo specifically... and Carbo "contracted" the Leno "hit" to Manson... when Leno became a dead-beat for his debts.

Now for the big loophole.  Why would the professional Mafia contract a "hit" with a bunch of hippies?  
A complete bloodbath, with foolishness left behind... and the man's wife being killed to boot... just doesn't fit the mafia's methods.  That's always the stickler with this theory. 

Could it be, that Leno was borrowing money from lower forms of life towards the end?
Did he borrow money from folks less "organized"?  That's the only thing I can figure.

BTW... if anyone can confirm, or expound upon the following information, that would be cool:
I was chatting with a dude on another blog, and he said...
"The Shadow over Santa Susanna: Black Magic Mind Control and the 'Manson Family' Mythos by Adam Gorightly. Page 325: "At the time of his death--it has been alleged--Leno was in debt to the tune of $30,000 to Frankie Carbo's organization.
Now, his source for that datum was Bill Nelson's Manson Behind the Scenes, a book I no longer have in my possession".