From a kind soul, who shall remain nameless. What Bruce Davis had to say on Gary Hinman. From a personal letter. I met Gary in the spring of 1968. He extended hospitality to me a few times in his home on Old Topango Road. He was a kind and gentle man I knew as a music teacher and a member of a buddhist prayer group. I remember Gary was looking forward to an appointment in a capacity of social service. He would of made a significant, beneficial impact on society had I not ended his future potential by betraying him to my criminal, and self centered desires.
Yes it does. It was not written to me, but the connections to whom it was written shall remain deep in a catsoul until it is allowed to be free.
At least BD acknowledges but for him, GH would have lived and gone on to add more value to society that a rag tag group of Wooly Hophead followers. I give him credit for that.
It reads as a sincere response. However, if he is true in his sincerity, a clear reply to the genuine circumstances to how Gary came to die would allow for considerable healing. Bruce's selective and/or tacit responses over the years do little to convince me he was as peripheral as he makes out. Thanks for posting Si
It is a statement of fact acknowledging only the publicly known facts about Hinman that honor his memory and about Bruce that show responsibility is acknowledged. It feels impersonal - it doesn't indicate a liking of Hinman adding to any feeling of shame or grief for the outcome. Or does it? Would he love to turn back time and now be attending Hinmans 70th? Does he pray for him or his family. It's a brief note that leaves a lot unsaid.
At least he sounds more remorseful than Bobby in this letter. He acknowledged that he robbed the world of a soul that had something benefical to offer.
He may very well be sincere but if he was a "peripheral" in the group he wouldn't have been involved in at least 3 murders (GH, Shorty and Zero) would he? Mr Davis, along with the others have not and apparently will not disclose everything they know or were involved in. I can understand not opening that can of worms while still incarcerated but what about the rest of the group that were never arrested and charged with anything? What keeps them from talking? I find it odd that Watkins was the only one to really say anything. What about Squeeky, they can't throw her back in the can or any of the others that have done their time. Why do you suppose they won't talk? Surely they aren't still afraid of CM's reach, the family is no more. Or is it?
I'm only speculating but maybe the ones who were in the know won't talk because they are afraid of accessory for murder charges ? As I'm pretty sure there is no statute of limitations on murder. And the others just simply thought it really was for "Healter Skelter". Cats, thanks for posting that. Interesting reading BD's thoughts there. As JHarper said, at least he sounds more remorseful than Bobby B.
There is no statute of limitation on murder. I imagine that anyone who was privy to other murders would be seen as accessories and could be arrested. I hope people don't mind me re-posting parts of this parole hearing for Bruce Davis. But it offers some interesting views regarding his self-confessed "minimal" involvement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4_k6ItvoPY
Just as a PS... Has Bruce ever been quizzed over any of the other murders he is linked to? Somewhere I recall that BBC interviewer Bill Scanlon Murphy asked him during a 1994 interview to which BD replied, "I haven't been charged with these murders". It's a hazy thought, but I'm wondering if somewhere along the line someone has taken him to task over this allegations. I presume during parole hearings one can only debate offences which have been proven?
On one hand I agree with you. On the other, look at the deal Kasabian cut for her own freedom, almost before the blood had dried. I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to cut an immunity deal to tell all, after 4 decades have gone by. Which says a lot to me about how desperate Bugliosi was to "sell" Helter Skelter to everyone. Imagine where that case would have ended up had Kasabian and Watkins not parroted Buglisoi's theory from the witness stand. Bugliosi was only too willing to deal with the devil, no matter if she was named Atkins or Kasabian. How nauseating is it to think that Atkins might have been the one to be described as "a poor, hippie girl, cut from different cloth from the murderers"? Atkins could have been on Larry King's show, whilst Kasabian rotted in prison. How many nights do you suppose Atkins laid awake, thinking about opportunities lost?
There is a lot more to it, but I gave my word that I would only put certain things out there. So the shortness of it is in that. It actually is from a 4 page letter roughly that says a lot more. So the problem in the feel of it may be that.
From her books, parole hearing transcripts, website, interviews for TV, and marriages....... I'd say quite a few.
Susan's deal was to avoid the gas chamber, not the total immunity that was offered to Linda. Linda's story, that she did not go inside the house and that she had cried out for it to stop was what set her apart. Susan Atkins had told people (truly or not) that she tasted Sharon's blood, and people believed her. Different kettle of fish there. Linda's a piece of work, but I do believe that she IS fundamentally different from the others in the sense that she lacks the sociopathic tendencies displayed by Susan and those currently in prison. Susan was never going to get "innocent hippie girl" treatment. VB is too good a lawyer for that. He would seek to undercut the obvious defense tactic "this witness is a murdering whore" by telling the jury that his witness was a murdering whore, but an honest one with a good memory Regarding Bruce versus Bobby on parole, BB has two crappy stories. These stories have rightly been challenged, but I haven't heard anyone make the argument that BB was slipping around murdering this one, handing out murder weapons to that one, helping another one play russian roulette (hey Bruce, how many rounds go in the MAGAZINE?), dating this girl who ends up Simpsonized, caching gasoline over here, hiding out for a year in these tunnels over there and so on. In other words, BB's act seemed something out of character, whereas BD is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have been in it up to his eyeballs. BD does a better job of acting remorseful, and he may very well be remorseful. I just don't have a feeling we know the real BD. I don't see how you could consider letting BD out but not BB. Many people have wondered why the real truth of all of this has not been revealed, when there are people who could clear up a lot of mysteries. Nancy Pittman comes to mind, and it's not too hard to figure out why she'll never speak: to dish dirt on Bruce might mean Bruce in turn dishing back in return.
What is the gay comment in reference to? Do people think Bobby/Gary had something going on together? Also it's kind of funny that he says Gary hung out with all sorts of bad people... as if Charlie and the gang don't fit in on that list.
I think that Reality was just writing that as a flip to what Bobby would have said etc. and that really it wasnt penned by Bobby.
Yeah but, we wouldn't have Hinman to be facinated with if he had lived a contributive wonderful life.
