Questions and more questions

I think the best explanation for this comes from Watson's book.

"Telling us to wait, Charlie slipped up to the house alone. A few minutes later he was back, telling me to come with him. Pointing through one of the windows, he showed me a man asleep on a couch with a newspaper over his face. We went in the unlocked back door and, as a big dog nosed at us with friendly curiosity, crossed through the kitchen into the living room, Charlie still carrying the gun, me with the bayonet."



"Charlie poked the man gently with the pistol to wake him up. As with Voytek Frykowski the night before, grocery store owner Leno LaBianca's first words were: "Who are you? What do you want?"


"Holding the gun Charlie smiled and murmared "We're not going to hurt you. Just relax. Don't be afraid."

"How can I help being afraid when you've got a gun on me? LaBianca asked with unintentional irony.

"Charlie's voice remained low,soothing "It's okay. I'm your friend. We don't want anything but money."

"Telling the heavyset man to roll over onto his stomach , Charlie pulled off a leather thong that had been looped around his neck and had me tie Labianca's hands with it."

Brings up more questions but I think that's pretty good on how Leno was subdued. Watson tied up Leno LaBianca and CM had the gun. I'll have to check out further how and when Rosemary was subdued but right now it appears she is unaware of the intruders. I'll take at look at Kasabian's testimony and see what she says. Just in defense of Kasabian and her viewpoint of sitting in that car she wouldn't had been able to see if CM entered the house by himself. Need to check out her testimony. Does she testify to seeing CM enter the Waverly house by himself?

and what about the behavior of those dogs? what about the dogs at the Tate house as well?

i believe there were three dogs at the labianca house, i don't know about breeds. i just why didn't they even bark? one was found the next day with blood on it.

The dogs reactions at both crime scenes is something that has always bothered me. What are the chances that all those dogs (at least 4) were worthless as watchdogs? One would think that at least one of them would alert. Mine alert at the drop of a hat. At the very least they will lay there and growl when they hear something. What kind of dumbass dog won't protect their family? Throughout my life I have had about 45 dogs in the meduim to extra large size and never had one that wasn't a watchdog. There is no doubt in my mind that my girls would fight to the death any and all comers to protect me. I'm stupified by the dogs reactions to what transpired.

FB

I don't understand the dogs' reactions either. At the Cielo house, were Sharon and Gibby's dogs kept in a kennel? I never heard if they were in the house. Were they in the guesthouse too?

3 yappy little dogs and not one squeak on the night the La Bianca's were being killed??? I don't know, I have a little dog and she barks at a flee fart, but were we all being slaughtered? (shudder), she might run and hide.

not my dogs. My one dog is very protective if anyone comes too close male or female. If I was afraid he would bark. Sharon's dog was a Yorkie. Yorkies bark. Does anyone think they drugged the dogs?

Mine is a Yorkie too and she barks, should she witness us being stabbed to death, I really cannot say if she would make noise or not or run and hide. IMO I do not think there was time or a plan to drug all of the dogs at Labianca, the dogs not making noise from Garretson's pad though when they can't see what is going on, that is odd

atkins said a hunting dog came to window during the slaughters----she also said it might have took her knife. the only thing i can think at least at the labianca's was that the dogs knew manson, watson, krenwinkel, and van houten, remember the creepy-crawls. the tate house had never creepy-crawled as far i know.

Just a thought here on the dog situation. LOL. I've always thought that Atkins describtion of seeing a "hunting dog" would have been a better description of Altobelli's dog, Christopher, than of Folger's dog, a Dalmation. Seems like anybody would know what a Dalmation looked like as opposed what a Wiemaramer looked like. It just doesn't seem like a fitting description of a Dalmation. That is to call it a "hunting dog." Would open up a whole line of inquiry if actually Christopher was out at the time of the murders which I believe he was. Any thoughts?

On the Labianca's dogs reaction to our intruders, I can only surmise that some people have a "way with animals." In one of my past job incarnations I was an Animal Control Warden aka "Dog Catcher." I too had a "way with animals" and could often approach dogs which even police officers were apprehensive about. Enough said!

Manson was the one who entered first, and with the stories from Sandra Good about Manson bringing back to life the bird, I wouldn't be surprised if he was able to quiet them!

i do believe manson has a special way with animals---the picture with him and the crow on his arm proves that, even if he raised that bird as a chick, which i have not heard, that is a wild animal there with insticts and i believe one of it's insticts would be to avoid all humans. also didn't garretson say all the dogs were with him the night of the murders yet atkins claims she saw a hunting dog at the window. also when kasabian went back to 10050 cielo drive with bugliosi she started crying and he asked her what was wrong and she said as the dogs were barking in the background "where were they that night." I'm not sure but was she talking about actual dogs on the property or dogs in the neighborhood? i'm sure at least altobelli's dogs were back at the property by that time. why was there no barking that night?

Yes very strange on the No barking. It does bring up a rather interesting line of inquiry. Thanks to Cats we have Garreston's polygraph. I'll have to reread it to find out what Garreston says about the dogs barking. Rather interesting if I recall the last time I read it is that Garreston only becomes confused when answering questions about if he went outside that night. That is very strange. I mean WTF?

If you would like to do some research on this the only comparision I was able to find was the Vicki Morgan Murder. There's an interesting article on the Internet entitled "Who Really Killed Vicki Morgan" an excerpt from Hollywood's Unsolved Mysteries" by John Austin. You will have to put on your TFH. Apologies but... Basically the short version is Vicki Morgan was mistress to Alfred Bloomingdale. Alfred Bloomingdale was in the Reagan Administration. Also owner of Bloomingdales Department Stores. Alfred dies but leaves Vicki a nice allowance in his will. Alfred's wife protested and cuts Vicki out of the will. No money to Vicki. Vicki threatens to go public with her and Alfred's escapades. The usual "kinky sex' , drugs, high level government officials involved in orgies. Went all the way to the White House. Alfred apparently liked to get "roughed up." LOL. I just realized I just gave this Forum an X rating. Sorry!

Bear with me as the analogy to our case here is coming up. Vicki's roomate, Marvin Pancoast, a homosexual male with psychological problems confesses to the crime. Walks into the police station and confesses except he doesn't recall who drove him to the police station. He later recants. Bloomingdale lived mostly in L.A. Pancoast was seen in the company of 4 men 1 1/2 hours before Vicki's Murder. Vicki Morgan had tapes of those orgies.

This posted before I was ready to post so apologies to for any errors. I'm not completely convined of this but here's the theory. Let's say that Garreston is hypnotized and left at the crime scene as a "Fall Guy." Would explain alot like Garreston's more than erratic behavior throughout the years. Would also explain why his memory becomes fuzzy when trying to recall if he went outside that night. Would also explain the disturbed crime scene if the people that hypnotized Garreston were present during the murders or right after our killers left. Pancoast also believed he had been Hypnotized into confessing to Vicki's murder by the people that drove him to the police station.

My own research into hypnosis indicates that homosexuals would be very easy to hypnotize. I do believe that Garreston was at least bisexual. I also believe that Parent was there for more than a clock radio. Doesn't mean anything other than Garreston like Pancoast would have been a good subject to be hypnotized. This theory does put into perspective several loose ends but it is also pretty bizarre but then this whole damn case is pretty bizarre. CC has put it out there for the members of TTLB. Could be just plain crazy or Food For Thought. Either way I would like to hear form others on their opinions on what they think happened at Cielo Drive.

i'm curious, i'm a lesbian, does that mean i can be easily hypnotized? where did you get this information? i know lesbians have bigger brains then straight women , but i've never heard this one before.

What is your research experience with homosexuals and hypnosis? What was your sample size? Do or did you have a control group and an experimental group with your research? Why would sexual preference or orientation have anything to do with susceptibility to hypnosis or hypnotic suggestion? How are you defining hypnosis, i.e., procedurally, what are your approaches that you have practiced, observed, or measured? Please clarify.

I've had and observed dogs that were not desensitized to the sounds of gun fire, e.g., gunshots, fireworks, lightning, and/or car backfiring. As bold, protective, fierce, and loud barkers as these animals were......with visitors, mailman, cars, animals, etc., they would become silent, detached, stop dead in their tracks, retreat, or run away at the sounds of anything like gunfire.

Garretson's behavior can also be explained if he was cognitively delayed (mild or moderate developmentally delayed), had traits characteristic of a mental or developmental disorder (Asperger's Syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, thought disturbance, etc.) taken drugs, and/or a combination thereof. A moderate to severe hearing loss in one or both ears compounded by drug usage would also have affected his behavior.
Was he able to work at any point in his life after the Cielo Dr. homicides? What did he do for a living when he returned back to Ohio? How could he believe that Rosie Tate Polanski was who she purported to be and how did allow her into his life?

OK, fair enough. I was hoping I wouldn't have to go into this but I was also aware of the possibility of it. To tell you the truth I feel a little like Crockett trying to explain to Bugliosi how he was able to unprogram Poston and Watkins but here goes. By the way physical work tends to put a person into his conscious mind. It pulls you away from thinking into action. Lots of mechanics behind this. I'll say more later on this but this is basically what Crockett did. He put them to work. LOL.

OK in the course of my work I have come across homosexuals just as a matter of routine. I would say close to 400-500 subjects over the course of alot of years. I would never consider them to be experiments. The psychological terms just are ways to confuse a subject which actually is pretty simple, the Mind.
In other words I wanted to find something that produced tangible results and I don't see "most" psychology doing this although Freud and Breuer opened alot of doors to the Mind.

OK, we all have a mind. LOL. Actually 2 and we can call them a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. When in the conscious mind or using it you are thinking rationally and you are bright, alert, awake. This mind resolves our problems and is pretty flawless in doing so. You feel pretty good when you are using it.
The conscious mind contains our pleasurable experiences.

As opposed to its opposite which is the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind contains our traumatic experiences. It doesn't think rationally. It is pretty idiotic in it's computations. It is where hypnotic commands would be stored. These commands picked up during our traumatic experiences or put there by a hypnotist dictate to us all the things we do that are unwanted or irrational. Any lowering of awareness would kick in the unconscious mind such as experiences which are traumatic. Drugs of any kind would also put a person into his unconscious mind. Commands, as words, could be instilled while in the unconscious mind and those words could be triggered later and the person would in some way reenact the hidden commands. The person would in some way act out the command. Even the command such as "You will quit smoking" would be detrimental to the person because it would become compulsive and the person would not be "not smoking" on a rational level. No one really enjoys compulsive behaviour in themselves.

OK, my specialty is removing these hidden commands a person picks up during his traumatic experiences and transferring them over to his conscious mind where he becomes aware of how they have been effecting his decision making and the results I must say are quite spectacular. So I do know for a fact that hypnotism is real and can be done and the opposite is true. That they can be removed. My own personal experience with homosexuals is that they are in sometimes a mild trance which means the majority of the time they are in their unconscious mind as are alot of other people such as children beaten by their parents. Just from my own personal observation of working with these 2 different minds. Someone in his unconscious mind is already in a trance and it would be really easy to bring about greater unconsciousness. The hypnotist is ONLY working with this mind. He is implanting commands into it. You could get a person to believe almost anything.

The conscious mind cannot contact the data that is in the unconscious mind or becomes extremely confused when trying to do so. Thusly a person could do something and later upon reflection say "Why the hell did I do that." Simple he was in his unconscious mind and it dictated that action to him. Hopes this makes sense and the only error would be in my explanation.

Garreston's behaviour later very much indicates that he was hypnotized as when his conscious mind would try to contact data that was stored in his unconscious mind without knowing how to do this. Not sure what he did back in Ohio but I would imagine he had a pretty rough life. The good news is that his memories from that night could be accessed. Thanks for giving me a chance to do this.

Not sure about Rosie Tate Polanski or whatever the hell she called herself but it could have been as simple as " OK I'll believe your story. Now will you sleep with me?" LOL

Apologies if I offended. Fortunately or unfortunately depending on perspective, one's brain size has nothing to do with it. The Mind and The Brain are seperate and not connected. Alot of people are walking around already hypnotized. Maybe you know a few!