TLB2 covers the murders and exploits of The Manson Family and the 60s Hippie culture which spawned them. We try very hard NOT to take sides in our crime scene analysis approach to these historic events. Our viewpoints may not be palatable to everyone but we do hope to offer you as much fact and information on the crimes, the criminals and the victims as is humanly possible. TLB2 hopes to give birth once more to this era for those of us who lived through that Summer of '69 or to introduce this moment in time to those of you who were not yet born. If you like what you see here, click the pink diamond "FOLLOW TLB2!!!" button located just below this marquee and join via one of our social media gadgets, and while we're cleaning your Buntline, check out our SiteMap for a full listing of our posts as well! Thanks for visiting TLB2 and may your Buck Knife always be razor sharp! ;)

Monday, December 6, 2010

Evidence…As A Point Of Fact…

Evidence-MansonResearchers-TLB2 1

I’m just sayin’…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, I know…

Where the HECK have you been, MsBurb?!!!

Evidence-MansonResearchers-TLB2 2

I’ve been “here”, “there”, well, mostly “there” ‘cause “here” is SOOOO crowded this time of year…oh, and I’ve spent some time bein’ “around” too, I like to walk on the wild side of “around” once in a while!

Not that anyone cares, but I’ve also been “nowhere” at least twice in my life…long stories I won’t bore you with…

Yes…and while at all these locales, I have spent quite the time reading, you see, absorbing and digesting the books and transcripts and witness statements that were piling high and looming large on my bookshelves and in my Inbox, not that I made a huge dent, as this case seems to spawn information like bunnies make bunnies in Springtime…sigh…but I did give it the old college try…

And you know what?

One wonders why one reads on this case at all sometimes, especially given the many books printed over the years, publicized in the name of “enlightening” the reader on The Manson Family and murders…sigh…enlightening being one heck of an operative word in the world of the Manson “research” community!

Don’t get me wrong, I like sensational “news” just like the rest of the media-enslaved North American public, but I tend NOT to like it when it centres around murder mixed with third party hearsay, innuendo, supposition and irrational conclusion-jumping..but that’s just the old cop’s daughter in me I suppose.

I was asked by a viewer recently why Bugliosi, in his Manson tome “Helter Skelter”, didn’t extend the book, didn’t add in all the other parts to this story, of which, beyond the known killings, are legendary and legion, and I said I thought basically because he was a lawyer at the time and a lawyer by thought, a man who’s main responsibility was to bring criminals to justice  by way of corroborative evidence that could be served up palatable to a Jury and legally admissible in a court of law.

There can be jawing on all sides, about all issues, in chambers, but when it comes to the court record, all admissions must adhere to the precedent laws of the land, for the benefit of the State and the protection of the Defendant(s)…anything less is well, just window-dressing for the “What If” Department Store of Life.

I believe that if you live that mindset long enough, to do anything less, to say anything more, to offer to the people unsubstantiated rumour and half-baked ideas is doing no one any good, and The Bug knew this and kept HS to a “just the facts, ma’am” kind of literary record.

Yes, by doing so, if you were as deeply involved in this case as I’ve always been, there were more questions than answers after reading The Bug’s take, but you knew, when you did read it, and referred to it at a later date, that what information he had given you COULD be corroborated and WOULD stand the test of time, ultimately stand head and shoulders above all the other so-called Charliemite “researchers” book attempts of that time.

Of late, when the snow was flying and I couldn’t write for various reasons, I began to read these Manson books by other authors, expecting, naively so, the same quality of delivery as The Bug had offered me so long ago, and boy, was I disappointed.

I could give you a list of the books I read, but, in the very near future, will do a critical assessment of all of them on TLB2 instead, no use mouthing off if I can’t defend my opinion, right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I often get chided for being too much the Law & Order chick in the Manson research community, I think, because of the inherent nature of the players in this case and the times from which they spawn. Life was free and easy back then, supposedly, “hip” people thumbed their noses at The Establishment and to be arrested for anything back then or seen to be publicly sensational was a badge of honour to the Hippie Generation.

Whoopdeedoo!

How’d that work out for all of ya?!

You lost grey cells, yet, in your middle age, ended up investing in 401ks and buying Cadillac's and spacious houses with mortgages you couldn’t afford…hmmm…oh yeah, what a bunch of Establishment rebels you guys turned out to be! (snicker)

But in amongst all that un-hippie-like eventual conformity, you had ONE last vestige of riotous fight left in you and that was in discussing these criminals and assessing these crimes, that if to place the blame on outside forces, you were not only excusing the players but making your era seem better than it actually was.

I get that…after all, that was MY era too…but an offbeat approach to a simple act of murder does not an enlightened readership make.

If you don’t believe me, allow me to cite just one case of murder as the quintessential example - the JFK assassination.

Forty-seven years of book addled supposition, rumours and unsubstantiated bad science, and because most of the population balk at the idea of reading dry Warren Report or House Select Committee on Assassination exhibits over a pretty, colourful glossy new book expounding the newest tell-all aspect of this crime, most of the American population (2003 Gallup Poll put that figure at 75%) still believe that there was a conspiracy and that Oswald was indeed a patsy…

What the Manson case needs is what all murder cases need, clear heads, no political or monetary agenda and a rigid self-discipline and adherence to the established facts…to try and go elsewhere will lead you down roads with no answers at all. And some authors, who shall remain un-named for now by yours truly, gleaned a huge audience of whackos willing to believe anything left of centre while gleaning for themselves a less than stellar reputation of a tell-all Town Crier; hence, why The Bug’s book became the Bible to this case and all others fell by the wayside. It may not have been glitzy or glamorous but hell if it wasn’t factual…and in the end, factual is usually more sensational than sensation ever is.

Yes, I took a hiatus but now MsBurb is back. You may not receive a reporter’s delivery with me but I will endeavour to deliver what should be the last word, according to the available evidence, on all issues concerned with this case. TLB2 will never be sensational nor glitzy, nor, I doubt, will get tongues wagging from the posts, but if our entries stand the test of time for reliable information to the new reader on this subject, I believe our job has been done.

Don’t worry though, drunk-induced blather and frontal lobotomy humour will still invade from time to time…they’ll have to, I and my Guest Authors can’t possibly be stable if we’re spending our time on Buck knives and bayonets, Barker Ranch and ex-con bravado, now can we?

 Evidence-MansonResearchers-TLB2 3

Evidence, Manson Researchers, TLB2



16 comments:

Anonymous said...

We all love physical evidence like DNA and fingerprints but TLB has many mysteries that will never be known so we are forced to gather all we can and put forth a best guess. Examples of mysteries surrounding TLB are the death of Joel Pugh, did Bruce murder him or was it suicide? Was Pugh EVER Sandra's husband. Was Ronald Hughes Murdered? Was Hinman murdered for bad mescaline sold to bikers or for inheritance money? Did Manson return to Cielo the night of the murders? Did Linda Kasabian enter the Tate house? These are mysteries and that's where supposition comes involved.
My sups are: Pugh was a suicide, not ever married to Sandra. Hughes was murdered. Hinman murdered for....dunno. Manson did return. Yes Linda went in the Tate house.

MsBurb said...

I have nothing against circumstantial evidence, Anon, but there is a chasm of difference between circumstantial evidence and conclusion-jumping.

Often, the preponderance of circumstantial evidence CAN be as good or better than hard physical evidence if the circumstantial is sourced first-hand, not third party and sworn to in affidavits or on the stand if admissible...

But one person saying they heard someone say they heard someone say someone got killed and no one else can even corroborate this third party, then you have what is layman referred to as a very damaging red herring...and when those red herrings are repeated ad nauseum in books and then even quoted as fact for reference in second hand books, then you have a mis-justice of the truth when the reader innocently assumes that if he's read it/heard it enough, it must be true...and this case wreaks of that kind of bad "evidence" I'm afraid...

So you wanna play Clue, huh, Anon? :D Okee dokee, I'll bite:

- Pugh was a suicide;
- Sandra was not officially married to him;
- Hughes was an accidental drowning;
- Hinman murdered for $, not drug burn;
- Manson returned to the Tate house;
- Linda was inside the Tate house

...and Colonel Mustard did it with the Lead Pipe in the Conservatory! :D

MrPoirot said...

MsBurb how long after Hughe's disappearance was his body recovered?

MrPoirot said...

MsBurb how many months after Hughes disappeared during Leslie's trial was his body found in the creek bed.

MsBurb said...

5 months...

Suspected day of death, November 20, 1970...date of body discovery March 21, 1971...

MrPoirot said...

The Hinman murder was such a stupid murder I can agree with you on that and still ask myself, "why?". Then there is the Truman Capote/Beauseleil interview where Bobby says it was over bad mescaline. I don't know really and Bobby can't own up to anything. Bobby didn't like Capote so maybe he arrogantly lied to him rather than admit he robbed a guy with no money. Oops.
I have such sympathy for Hughs as he lived in a garage and slept in a sleeping bag and gets his 1st big career break but turns up dead before the verdict is read. He was hardly a "pig" but due to the long length of time his body had decomposed I have no faith in the autopsy results which show no bruising, no foul play yet I'm afraid he was murdered for saying Leslie did what Manson ordered her to do. If he was murdered it was as senseless a killing as Hinman's. Both Hughs and Hinman tried to help members of the Family and lost their lives. Perhaps I have no faith in coincidence.

MsBurb said...

Who said Bobby didn't like Truman?...I think the ONLY thing Bobby didn't like was that Truman saw no value in Bobby's story after Truman interviewed him, and Bobby probably thought getting published in any way shape or form by Capote could have helped his cause...although, one would wonder at that, considering that the boys from Kansas were hung even before "In Cold Blood" was published...

The Hughes autopsy does NOT say no damage was done to the body...on the contrary, HUGE damage was done but none of it was not what one would expect from being dragged by a flash flood...

Hinman was murdered by the Family, Hughes was not. Hughes would have died regardless, as he often went to Sespe and it was a well known flash flood site...narrow trails that if you were caught in them when a flash flood came down, you were toast.

And being "murdered" AFTER the Defence rests, when the lawyers no longer had any pull with the Judge or the Jury makes no practical sense. No, if Charlie wanted an advantage, he would have murdered lawyers well before that, but did he have to? Nope. He would just fire them ad nauseum...there was NO motive to Hughes being murdered. Period.

MrPoirot said...

There is a very famous quote by Beausoleil about Capote. "Capote just wanted to get #$%^&* in the @#$". That's why I say Beausoleil didn't like Capote.
Hughe's disappearance resulted in a mistrial for Leslie. All of Leslie's attys in that trial were either dismissed or turned up dead. It is well known that Charlie and Leslie were opposed to Hughe's defense strategy for her that she just did what Charlie ordered her to do. People kept turning up dead around The Family in 69-70. After most of them were imprisoned the mysterious murders and drownings came to an end.

MsBurb said...

1) That statement meant NOTHING...everyone knew Capote was gay, hell, even Capote knew that...all Bobby is saying there is that he was afraid he was becoming another Perry Smith for Capote and honestly, he may well have been just that, for Bobby and Perry looked very much alike...it could have been a rekindling of Capote's feelings for Perry that he went to interview Bobby...I read the entire interview, there are NO antagonist words from Bobby to Truman whatsoever and Bobby never berates Truman at any point after. No, Bobby was hoping Truman could help him and when they met and there weren't fireworks for Truman, Truman just turned off the writing spigot for Bobby and Bobby then had to help, so that fleeting partnership was over before it began.

2)So? You think Manson cared one iota about what happened to Leslie? You're reaching at straws here. You make it sound like only Leslie's attnys were fired...ALL the Girls' attnys were fired at some point and saying "or dead" assumes there were more lawyer deaths and there were NOT.You use the word "drownings" with an "s", again attempting to allude to more than one, which there was NOT. And all the deaths connected to The Family did NOT stop after the trials, hence the Willett murders which WERE murders!

It's THIS kind of conclusion jumping that inflames and exaggerates the facts in murder cases which does no one any good in an attempt to get to the truth. Period.

Anonymous said...

You guys are arguing about a dead lawyer.

Nobody else has a problem with a dead lawyer.

I know I don't.

Dan

MsBurb said...

Yes.

"dead lawyer"

That has a kind of a peaceful, inexpensive ring to it, doesn't it?

Sigh...

The things that occupy one's mind when there are only living lawyers around...

Fantasy complex, no doubt...sigh...(snicker, snort!)

CarolMR said...

MsBurb, why do you think Linda entered the Tate house? Has anyone claimed that she did?

MsBurb said...

Hi Carol...:)

Simple deduction...some things occurred where certain movement had to have occurred...

1- Sadie's Buck knife had NO blood on it at all...yet we KNOW She stabbed Voytek in the shins;

2- Sadie had that scuffle with Voytek inside the living room, yet she had lost her knife and Katie was busy with hers, slashing away at Gibby near that Queen Anne chair, situated near the bedroom hallway;

3- Tex's bayonet couldnt have been the knife Sadie used because the shin slashes were consistent with a Buck;

4- There is only ONE other Buck on that property and it's Linda's...IF Sadie couldn't use hers AND she had to have committed those shin attacks on Voytek inside the living room, deduction has Linda inside the living room handing her Buck over to Sadie to use.

5- Linda is well known for lying on the stand and fudging the truth, went along on both those nights so was no where near the angelic hippie girl The Bug made her out to be...she would have gone inside, most probably when the shot to Jay was heard...I do NOT think she was at the gate at that point, I think she went to the gate AFTER she saw what was going on in there and AFTER she handed over her Buck to Sadie...

6- Linda, only after a few weeks, was brazen enough to agree to go on that Tate night AND continue to agree to go out on night two after she KNEW what would occur...believe me, she was brazen enough to enter that house. Period.

CarolMR said...

Thanks, MsBurb. Good points as usual. I'm just surprised that Sadie, Patricia, and Tex never mentioned that Linda was in the house and was more involved than she claimed; on the other hand, I guess it wasn't in their interests to mention it.

MsBurb said...

To be honest, Carol, if it happened as I feel it did, the others just may not have remembered it or registered it as having happened...the Speed Sadie and Tex were on, they had been on for days, Katie had just had another umpteenth LSD trip hours before Tate...it's very likely that movements took place that night that were never fully remembered...and I highly doubt Linda wants to be any psychologically closer to these murders than she already is...

She has lied or had her memory warped over the years on several key points from that night...having to see herself in that living room, if it did occur, is probably over the top for her...and of course, would never have been outed by The Bug for fear the testimony from his angelic star witness would be tarnished...

MrPoirot said...

CarolMR said...
MsBurb, why do you think Linda entered the Tate house? Has anyone claimed that she did?

December 23, 2010 12:07 PM

MrPoirot replies:

Noel Emmons book on Manson quotes Manson as saying Linda was in the house.

 
Celebrity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Blogs2c Blogs Monitor
Amfibi AutomaticSiteMap Feedburner Blogarama BuzzerHut INeedHits TopBlogArea How To Promote A Blog
Blogalaxia Blogdigger Blogged Bloggernity BlogHints BlogLog BlogTopList BlogTopSites Feedage FeedPing
FeedShark FuelMyBlog GlobeOfBlogs GoogleAnalytics OnTopList PMetrics Pingates SubmitExpress
TopBlogging urlfan WebLog Directory WhoLinksToMe