I saw a posting on evilliz talking about how close Suzan Struthers LaBerge and BF Joe Dorgan lived to the Waverly Place address.
I have been to both. In fact could walk to both from where I am typing at this moment.
I never believed that Suzan had her parents killed. "Forgiving" Tex is a sure sign of deep mental instablity, yes. But she didn't order the hit, so to speak.
But let's speculate, shall we, on what might be possible.
These clowns, according to one story, tortured and killed Gary Hinman because someone said he had inherited a pile of dough.
IF Dorgan was a Straight Satan...IF he knew Tex...If IF IF...
Did Dorgan hang at the ranch and make mention that "I'm fucking this young chick, she lives next door to your boy Harold True, and her father is a piggy asshole but BOY is he loaded."?
Remember, Tex was the kill crazy one. EVERY version of the story has Charlie tying Leno and Rosemary up and then saying " DON'T DO WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY."
What if Tate was about a drug burn and getting money back?
What if LaBianca was about money?
Hinman easily could be about money.
Crowe was about money.
Motive wise, money makes relatable sense.
I can't establish any of this, but it starts to add up, doesn't it?
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
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
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
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.