[quote author=ssdau link=topic=4417.msg39684#msg39684 date=1253644418] Hello All- Had a chance to read the first couple of chapter of mom's book today! As you can imagine, this is a difficult process for her, but I think the book is going to be REALLY interesting. Obviously, as her daughter, I didn't pry information out of her growing up. So I am just now finding out all kinds of things. I can promise you this...mom knows a whole lot more than I think she even realized. Hopefully, she can shed some light on a few topics you all are questioning here. More to come...stay tuned- SS DAUGHTER ;D [/quote] that's interesting, ssdau. I think one of the most interesting facets of her story might be what exactly are her vivid memories of the key players in the whole circus: charlie, the girls, etc.
I find it interesting, and unbelievable that "only a select few" actually knew about the murder of Hinman. I've heard on video Gypsy, Susan, Linda, Leslie all say that they didn't know what was going on because they didn't talk amongst themselves, that they weren't close. How could they not be close? How could they not communicate with each other while being isolated at Spahn? Or the desert? Did they all walk around like Monks-in silence? No, they didn't. I will never believe that they didn't know. They are still holding the secrets to this day. Why? I hope with Atkins passing they will all realize that they aren't getting out, if the Parole Board won't grant parole to a one-legged, paralized woman with brain cancer their chances are pretty slim. Maybe the true tales will finally be told. What do they have to lose?
[quote author=freebird link=topic=4417.msg39951#msg39951 date=1254124251] I find it interesting, and unbelievable that "only a select few" actually knew about the murder of Hinman. I've heard on video Gypsy, Susan, Linda, Leslie all say that they didn't know what was going on because they didn't talk amongst themselves, that they weren't close. How could they not be close? How could they not communicate with each other while being isolated at Spahn? Or the desert? Did they all walk around like Monks-in silence? No, they didn't. I will never believe that they didn't know. They are still holding the secrets to this day. Why? I hope with Atkins passing they will all realize that they aren't getting out, if the Parole Board won't grant parole to a one-legged, paralized woman with brain cancer their chances are pretty slim. Maybe the true tales will finally be told. What do they have to lose? [/quote] hi freebird i would say thay will all hold the secrets until death, mind you I'm only basing this assumption on the fact that as you called her a 'one-legged,paralyzed woman with brain cancer' who had what i like to call form when it came to flapping of at the mouth kept hers shut tight until her dieing breath. in saying this i also will say i would love to be proven wrong in this. but for now i would say its back to the good old waiting game !!!
[quote author=freebird link=topic=4417.msg39951#msg39951 date=1254124251] I find it interesting, and unbelievable that "only a select few" actually knew about the murder of Hinman. I've heard on video Gypsy, Susan, Linda, Leslie all say that they didn't know what was going on because they didn't talk amongst themselves, that they weren't close. How could they not be close? How could they not communicate with each other while being isolated at Spahn? Or the desert? Did they all walk around like Monks-in silence? No, they didn't. I will never believe that they didn't know. They are still holding the secrets to this day. Why? I hope with Atkins passing they will all realize that they aren't getting out, if the Parole Board won't grant parole to a one-legged, paralized woman with brain cancer their chances are pretty slim. Maybe the true tales will finally be told. What do they have to lose? [/quote]
eeeeeek sorry for some reason that last post went on twice mmmm my bad . i wish they had been teaching computers when i was at school .
Perhaps what you had to say was so good it needed said twice Sometimes the forum sticks-and it happens so dont sweat it.
[quote author=robyn68 link=topic=4417.msg39957#msg39957 date=1254133728] [quote author=freebird link=topic=4417.msg39951#msg39951 date=1254124251] I find it interesting, and unbelievable that "only a select few" actually knew about the murder of Hinman. I've heard on video Gypsy, Susan, Linda, Leslie all say that they didn't know what was going on because they didn't talk amongst themselves, that they weren't close. How could they not be close? How could they not communicate with each other while being isolated at Spahn? Or the desert? Did they all walk around like Monks-in silence? No, they didn't. I will never believe that they didn't know. They are still holding the secrets to this day. Why? I hope with Atkins passing they will all realize that they aren't getting out, if the Parole Board won't grant parole to a one-legged, paralized woman with brain cancer their chances are pretty slim. Maybe the true tales will finally be told. What do they have to lose? [/quote] [/quote] I agree with you. Also, they do not have a reputation for keeping their mouths shut about anything. Jamie
[quote author=freebird link=topic=4417.msg39951#msg39951 date=1254124251] I find it interesting, and unbelievable that "only a select few" actually knew about the murder of Hinman. I've heard on video Gypsy, Susan, Linda, Leslie all say that they didn't know what was going on because they didn't talk amongst themselves, that they weren't close. How could they not be close? How could they not communicate with each other while being isolated at Spahn? Or the desert? Did they all walk around like Monks-in silence? No, they didn't. I will never believe that they didn't know. They are still holding the secrets to this day. Why? I hope with Atkins passing they will all realize that they aren't getting out, if the Parole Board won't grant parole to a one-legged, paralized woman with brain cancer their chances are pretty slim. Maybe the true tales will finally be told. What do they have to lose? [/quote] Hey, freebird, I agree totally with you. How could they not know? From what I remember reading HS and other website articles, everyone mentioned such things as a "warning" to the others, so to speak. It was all a little community, and it would be almost impossible for someone NOT to overhear something that they weren't supposed to hear and tell about it, and then Charlie bragging about things. So, I'm in agreement with you, that everyone in Spahn's Ranch knew something whether big or small. Reading HS, it seemed like the Family was damned proud of the murders and other crimes and misdemeanors.
Has anyone read "The Myth if Helter Skelter" on Adkins website? Nice fairy tale and worth the read. There is some information worth checking out but again, she makes herself even less culpable. This time she didn't kill Tate or Hinman and only stabbed Frykowski because he attacked her. She had lost her knife and wasn't able to kill Tate. I guess she "forgot" she took Kasabian's knife. If you look back over the years, her eyes never lost that crazed look in any of her pics or mugshots. Until the last one at her Parole Hearing.
[quote author=Dimitri link=topic=4417.msg39667#msg39667 date=1253568377] I am almost certain that the judge would not allow questioning about the Hinman case. As a general rule prosecutors are not allowed to introduce evidence of other crimes as evidence that a defendant committed the crime before the court, and as pointed out here no one had been found guilty of the Hinman murder at that point. Going back to an earlier point in the thread about the copycat motive, Susan Atkins (or more likely her lawyer husband) asserts on her website, in "The Myth of Helter Skelter," that the Tate/LaBianca murders were in fact done to get Beausoleil off the hook so he wouldn't roll over on Charlie about other crimes (the Lotspoppa shooting). But Beausoleil was arrested in Hinman's car with the murder weapon in the trunk, plus Beausoleil's fingerprints (palm print?) were found in the house. With that evidence, I find it hard to believe that the Tate/LaBianca crimes would somehow get Beausoleil off the hook on Hinman. But as pointed out elsewhere on this site, Manson was an incompetent criminal so maybe he really did think it would help. I know her testimony in the Hinman trial came much later in time, but I find it interesting that Mary Brunner testified against Beausoleil (although she later retracted the testimony). If Beausoleil had any chance of getting off before, he didn't have a chance after she testified. [/quote] Good comments, Dimitri. I guess I never paid that much attention to the Hinman murder, other than I thought it was a simple case with all the evidence, but for some reason, THIS early in the morning for me, and I'm NOT a morning person (7:17 am CST), and haven't even had my caffeine yet, but for some reason, the comment you made about Beausoleil's finger print being in the house, the fact that he was caught driving Hinman's car and the weapon in the trunk-for some reason just hit me in the face like a pie being thrown at me from a Three Stooges Movie Short. An you are right, why would Manson, et. al, think that killing TLB would get him off? That is a very good question unless Manson didn't know about the fingerprint evidence. That would bring us all back to Square One, however. The murders are then even more senseless than they were to start with.
[quote author=freebird link=topic=4417.msg40021#msg40021 date=1254208363] Has anyone read "The Myth if Helter Skelter" on Adkins website? Nice fairy tale and worth the read. There is some information worth checking out but again, she makes herself even less culpable. This time she didn't kill Tate or Hinman and only stabbed Frykowski because he attacked her. She had lost her knife and wasn't able to kill Tate. I guess she "forgot" she took Kasabian's knife. If you look back over the years, her eyes never lost that crazed look in any of her pics or mugshots. Until the last one at her Parole Hearing. [/quote] When they found the knife they suspected was hers, do you know if they found her fingerprints on it and was there any blood on it? Did they even care about blood being on weapons back then? I was just curious because when reading your post, it finally dawned on me about her ever changing stories. If she lost it before the killing, then there wouldn't be any blood on it, if she lost it "defending" herself, wouldn't there blood on it? Your comment made me curious about this, freebird. Since HS never mentioned any blood on the knife, I'm wondering if other books that I haven't read might of mentioned it. Good comment.
BB~ IIRC, there was no blood on her knife. Which leaves me even more puzzled. One thought is that PK did more stabbing than we have heard about. ??? Jamie
[quote author=Bottledbrunette09 link=topic=4417.msg40027#msg40027 date=1254227203] If she lost it before the killing, then there wouldn't be any blood on it, if she lost it "defending" herself, wouldn't there blood on it?[/quote] Somebody help a feeble-minded fellow here. But didn't Atkins ask for Kasabian's knife when the alleged, 'Sadie, make it stop', conversation took place? If so, that was after Frykowski had staggered from the house, yes? Which means Atkins' original knife would have been bloodied, yes?
[quote author=jadedjamie link=topic=4417.msg40034#msg40034 date=1254231659] BB~ IIRC, there was no blood on her knife. Which leaves me even more puzzled. One thought is that PK did more stabbing than we have heard about. ??? Jamie [/quote] Yikes , in a way, that's a pretty scary thought. That means she was probably in on Sharon Tate, too, and not so much Sadie. I still think Sadie stabbed Sharon by the armpit because it seems logical-she's either got her in a headlock and just stabs once, or while she holds Sharon's arms behind her, right before, or maybe after Tex starts his barrage, she stabs her there, just to make her look all tough. But for some reason, the stab wounds on the back-that's is starting to bother me, know, because I'm thinking Leslie and Pat on Rosemary's back stabbing her. Is it possible that Susan an Pat did the stabbing on Sharon's back? Wonder, though, STILL yet, why wouldn't anyone say anything about Pat being involved in the stabbing of Sharon?
[quote author=Mike link=topic=4417.msg40045#msg40045 date=1254243135] [quote author=Bottledbrunette09 link=topic=4417.msg40027#msg40027 date=1254227203] If she lost it before the killing, then there wouldn't be any blood on it, if she lost it "defending" herself, wouldn't there blood on it?[/quote] Somebody help a feeble-minded fellow here. But didn't Atkins ask for Kasabian's knife when the alleged, 'Sadie, make it stop', conversation took place? If so, that was after Frykowski had staggered from the house, yes? Which means Atkins' original knife would have been bloodied, yes? [/quote] If one is assuming, I'd assume yes, Mr. Mike. There would be trace amounts of blood, depending on how much got wiped off when it fell between the sofa and the cushions. That's why I wondered if the Police cared about blood on weapons back then, like they do now. And what about the fingerprints? Why wasn't there any fingerprints on the knife? I wonder how she lost in the first place? Did it get knocked out of her hands? I always thought that she lost it when she was sitting on the back of the sofa, watching Sharon and taunting her, but that's just a thought. The whole thing with her attacking Voytek and then suddenly relegated to watch Sharon has always been sort of confusing for me. who was watching Sharon at the beginning when Pat started in on Abigail, Tex was on Jay and Susan was on Voytek?
My husband has had two comments in the past - 1. How do we know that Manson was not there during the crime (or nearby) the cuts on Abigail's face was so much like the cut on Hinman's - criminals have a favorite weapon and a signature - 2. He thinks that Sharon was suspended while being killed - that way she was in a situation of containment that allowed the perp's free reign of frenzy without hitting that baby - and for some reason that entire large abdominal area was avoided - Hanging or containing a victim is one way to control the act of the murder itself - he said sometimes it's done with 'meat hooks' just like hanging a beef to slaughter - That sounds so awful - way beyond human comprehension - but he's never surprised by the act of what humans can do to others - he says that the definition of 'inhumanity' - he told me once that he was privy to a tape that was made of abducted children as they are killed - it was something they had Adam Walsh's father listen to and he was a consultant on that case as was much of law enforcement in Florida -
Miss Courtney, You tell that wonderful husband of yours thank you for his imput on here. I know he doesn't like it, but that's what he gets for being in the profession he is! His opinions and thoughts and knowledge is unmeasurable, in my opinion, and sometimes it answers some questions, and sometimes it adds more questions, but I love when you tell us what he says. So very interesting. Blondie :-*
I have a quick question for all of you. I am trying to convinve my mom that she needs to include her current life in the book..I think people would want to know what has happened to her since then..in addition to her time with The Family. If you have a moment, could please agree or disagree?? I want to let her know what people actually want to read.
Hey, ssdau, nice to meet you. Ask her this: Is the Pope catholic? Are there mountains? The answer is YES!!!!!!!!! I would be interested, and I just bet everyone member on this board is interested, and everyone on Col Scott's board is interested, so there's a couple thousand, maybe, and that doesn't included the unseen masses who are interested in it also. I say, YES, however, that is MHO!!!!!!!!! :-* Bottled Brunette
