Ed Saunders book says this as well, that the studio was picking up the tab. Mike, I've got my tin foil hat on and I am of the opinion that Manson didn't mastermind anything at all. He reminds me of Rasputin. At least from the characterization in the earlier part of Saunders book. he pooled the resources for the community then dispersed them. Reminds me of when people flocked to Rasputin in St. Petersburg, they gave him all sorts of things, he gave them away to those seeking his help. He would send messages along with people to officials (who usually threw them away)along the lines of "Thus and such needs this. Do it for me, Grigory." He (Rasputin) loved the adulation, the attention he received. I believe Manson loved the same from Dennis Wilson and Terry Melcher. Saunders says that Bobby B had some recording sessions as well. Did Tex ever record anything?
Leigh, I believe Roman bought the Belgravia home just before he met Sharon. Also while it doesn't tie Sharon and Roman to possible drug dealing - the Tate police reports link Voytek to possiblely dealing MDA when it came on the market and it doesn't say Jay was dealing but he certainly had connections to known drug dealers ie Joel Rostau so while there is nothing positive to link them to it - they definitely knew people who knew people. Of course you could say that about almost anyone in Hollywood of a certain age at certain time! I may be naive but I think if there was a link to dealing for either Sharon or Roman - someone in the past 40 years would have found it by now just like the adult films that were allegedly made.
There is a lot more than rumour. Jays secretary contacted Police in the aftermath telling them that he had been burnt on a big drug deal the day of the murders and was out for revenge. She was associated with organised crime characters, as were the Cielo victims, including drug dealer Rostau who reportedly visited that day, so Jay's secretary's statement made to Police was obviously done at personal risk and not for "gossip". Tying the Polanski's to this business is the circumstantial evidence that it was conducted in their house - also Sharon not wanting her sister to visit, presumably I'd say due to what was going on.
Nice analogy Mellyn66. I've also often thought there were similarities between Charlie & Grigori... not least of all being the media's portrayal of 'em. Grigori was after all "the father of the hypnotic stare". In the first half of the 20th century, Rasputin most definitely occupied a similar place in the popular mind to the one Charlie has been on since '69. In both cases, hysteria and hype seems to have played a pretty big part in perpetuating the myth. The crazed, bearded, hypnotic guru just seems to be an archetype of evil that the media (or the public) don't wanna let go of. Other characters in both stories also seem to share similarities... Squeaky as Anna Vyrubova? I'm not sure who Tex's counterpart would be though in imperial/revolutionary Russia... one of the sleazy business people or entrepreneurs hanging round the edges perhaps...
Leigh the secretary's name is Karleen McCaffrey and I googled her before posting about her a week or so ago. Since then she has become invisible to google. Another of these hidden people like Charlene Caffritz... whose death seems to have been faked way back. Had Caffritz and McCaffrey testified at trial I am certain that the Helter Skelter motive would have been blown out of the water, and the fun of exploring Hollywood connections with the drug world would have commenced. Seems obvious and needs no tin foil hat that authorities or someone is still obscuring things and have done ever since they blacked out certain tracts of Mansons FBI file.
Crow, I'd say more Sandy Good as Vyrubova remember in her bio. she was a virgin and Grigori was a holy man, a starets. (Not that Sandy was in any way virginal, she rather encompasses Vyrubova's very childlike nature and naievte. ) Another analogy would be when Rasputin looked into the Khlysty "religious" sect but rejected it although he carried some of their ideas with him. Sound familiar??
I have seen Charlene's name mentioned at various times in the past; she has her own section on these forums as well. Can you give me any more info about her? I appreciate your responses to my initial question. As I've said before, I first came to this subject out of my interest in victims' issues and the Tates' association with that, as well as my interest Sharon's and Roman's film careers, so on the investigation/Family end of this there is much I likely still have to learn (I've read Karlene Faith's book about Van Houten and that's really it so far on the Family end, and its purpose isn't really to explore alternative motives for the crimes or make an attempt to describe Family activities or associations in comprehensive detail).
Leigh , I believe the LAPD, the FBI and JS's secretary all had theories on the drug dealing angle/motive.
Oops ,thought I was on last page of thread when I replied, I see TL has partially answered your Q above at #64/66.
No more than what is posted in her forum. She was tight with the family, rich and drug addicted, divorced with one child. Supposedly died of a drug overdose so she was not able to be quizzed re TLB. She was close with Tate(whose funeral she attended) and with Manson's pal Dennis Wilson who said he knew the truth about TLB (implying official stories are not it), but would never feel disposed to share it. Apparently she had some naughty movies sourced from Polanski's place. No real evidence of her claimed death exists, all pictures of her have been hidden for posterity. Someone by her name turned up in a telephone directory recently, and I for one believe that she still lives. Admin has more info but it does not seem to be up for grabs in the Public forum.
Thanks again for the info, TooLate. I am now reading the Second Homicide Investigation Progress Report found here: http://truthontatelabianca.com/thre...investigation-progress-report-pages-1-26.195/ for the first time and it does mention McCaffrey, Rostau etc. I really need to buckle down and absorb all the documents that have been produced on this forum.
There is no evidence of naughty movies anywhere at the Cielo Drive save the Roman/Sharon movie which isreferred to in HS, police reports and RP's autobiography. Sanders (if that is who you are using as a reference Too Late) has never in over 40 years been able to find any pornography (or snuff films for that matter) with the victims or celebrities at the house. Again, I find it hard to believe anything exists because someone (possibly the same officer who took the last existing photos of the victims) would have sold the same by now as has happened with the death photos and the last photos taken of the Cielo victims. If such photos/films exist somebody (i.e. law enforcement/district attorney's office) would also have to have amended all of the police reports.
Snuff films! You'll hear everything at least once (and sadly, probably many times over) with this case...
No references Jean, was just doing a memory dump off the top of my head re main points in the CCaffritz threads. I'd like to know where the claim CC had tapes hearks from.
well I don't know where CC heard about tapes but Sanders has a hard on for these alleged tapes/films. He made several attempts to find them (not that I doubt his word) but he never found anything. If anyone would have located the films, I think it would have been him as he has been looking the longest and has the most contacts in the case as he has covered this story since before the trial in 1970. He even has a private investigator working with him. Or in the alternative, if there are films featuring Voytek and Gibby then Peter Folger no doubt found them and bought them.
Mike, trial lawyers don't do gospel. I was one for 16 years. And so unlike some here, I won't be spending wads of money and dying unsatisfied because I don't know the "truth". Note that I didn't name names, so I'm not even specifically including you. You prove what is essential or necessary and beyond that, you stay away from things that can generate dispute so as to avoid the other side's sure to come attempt at obfuscating. Next, there is corroborating evidence here. People's 40 was the .22 handgun used in the murders. People's 40 is missing some of the pistol grip. The pieces found in the home fit or complete the grip on People's 40. Kasabian testified that Tex hit Frykowski on the head with the gun, which could conceivably break or fracture the grip. Kasabian also testified that the knives and clothes were disposed of on the road home. Kasabian testified that she didn't see the gun get tossed but assumed that Tex had done so. A bundle of clothes, with type B blood was found along the road home. Type B is Folger, Frykowski, and Parent. Found "attached" to that clothing was human hair that demonstrated "similarities in terms of color, length and medullary characteristic" with Atkins' hair. When you put the two together...i.e., the clothes and the "attached" hair. People's 40 was also found not far from the clothes. Then there's the letters from Sybil Brand from Atkins that were reviewed and intercepted by the authorities. One can say all one wants about the low self-esteem human trying to hype self and/or tell a horrifying tale so that you will be perceived as a threat and so won't be violated, but neither of those excuses and/or rationales applies to her letters. And then there was the letter to the one gal who she "confessed" to while in Sybil Brand. Her prison comm provides, in pertinent part: Yes, I wanted the world to know M. It sure looks like they do now. There was a so called motive behind all this. It was to instill fear into the pigs and to bring on judgment day which is here now for all. In the word kill, the only thing that dies is the ego...In killing someone phisally [sic] you are only releasing the soul...I did not admit to being in the second house because I was not in the second house...I know now that it has all been perfect. These people died not out of hate or anything ugly. I am not going to defend our beliefs. I am just telling you the way it is...I am giving up me to become that love a little more every day. By the way, that's the fospel (false gospel) at issue here. Giving yourself up to Manson by way of butchering 4 people and more "cleanly" killing a 5th. Here's her statement of the fospel, how she ends that prison comm: Cease to exist, just come and say you love me. As I say I love you or should I say I love Me (my love) in you. As you can imagine, Christianity requires submission of will, but there is not the loss of personal identity or existence. To put the matter in Family terms, that would be, you join and become an indivisible part of the One but you don't lose your individual identity and existence. Don't otherwise imagine that Deity is loving me because Deity sees self in me. That One is not remotely close to that narcissistic. Next, re other physical evidence, Kren has to explain how her fingerprint managed to be found where it was. So that rules her out as being the Linda Kasabian here, since Linda's report is that she never entered the home. Tex's fingerprint was also found. He'll need to explain that as well. And for more on Susan, did you and rest read this piece here: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2008/06/susan_atkins.php The pertinent item here: Asked if Atkins should be released? “Absolutely not,” said Graham. “Why should she?...She murdered in cold blood a woman who was going to have a baby. I will never forget the joy and glee when she was telling me how it was done.” And back to her prison comm to this same human, that joy and glee was owing to her becoming that love a little more every day, here by participating in the brutal and vicious murder of4/5 humans. In other words, since death is only the release of the soul, then why not celebrate? By the way, I know there's a dispute on whether it's 666 or 616 or some such, but if you take 666 as one short of perfection three times, well, that would be thought of, by way of the ancient Hebrew/Jewish sages, as being oh so close to perfection but what with those singular trifecta failings being on such critical points, and so horribly wrong, turns out that you couldn't possibly reach a worse state of imperfection (despite being oh so close). And that's what it means to call the murder of a pregnant woman, giving up me to become that love a little more every day. And to round out this digression, in addition to the ceasing to exist part, the one other seminal failure here is, as I always say: The first "command" is to love your God with all your... Query, how does one do that? Hence "command" no. 2, to wit, love your neighbor as yourself. And our confirmation? Whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brothers, that you do to me. And that's the part that Charles never preached, since if he had, no one would have thought that butchering an 8 month pregnant woman was somehow an example of becoming that love (that is Deity) a little more every day. Next, I get a whole other read than you. Kasabian was never the poor little hippie girl. Just the one human who managed to show some empathy and remorse. That's all. Not necessarily all that much when compared to most of us here, but it's a Grand Canyon between her and Tex/Susan/Kren/Leslie. Oh, and re her post Family life, well, one can say what one wants, but what the violent nature of her post Family life? So meth head is bad, but it isn't going out and butchering once more. Oh, and by the way, for those who cling or adhere to the whole drug deal gone bad or some such, she is your star witness. Remember what she said when that one fool tried to break her down by parading the victim photos, Oh God, how could you do that? Which, as always in this matter, leaves us with one of two possibilities: (1) she did think that it was solely about drugs and/or money, and so was horrified when it turned into butchery, or (2) she thought she could handle humans being butchered but then came to realize that such just wasn't her. Again, with money and watch and some other valuable items left lying about the place, I'm going with (2). Well, that, and as I've said here, I really cannot fathom why you would go from we got scammed on the drugs, and so now we're gonna set ourselves up for multiple counts of murder. Sure, the mob does that, but they aren't nearly as messy. The point is to send the message and not get caught, or if one prefers, to have one's cake and eat it too. Next, the Manson as mastermind in Tex's trial. Mike, the result in the one trial is not binding here. Tex was not a party to the first trial, did not have a chance to contest the matter, and the claim that their is some unity of interest rather begs the question. So he had to lay the blame off on Manson. Next, Mike, you misapprehend the nature of proof. It's the modern TV shows that ruin the human mind. Since there's more to life than DNA testing. We know that murders occurred. We know that Kren's fingerprint is there. That's very near enough to convict. And, remember as well, she doesn't have to be the one who shot or stabbed. She just needs to be an accomplice. And what you suggest re her coming upon the scene after the fact, well, why might she do that? Because she's part of a conspiracy to commit murder? And she's checking to see whether the end or goal of the conspiracy was met? Lastly, I don't agree with but can understand the, the whole lot of them are liars, meme, but one thing you learn after years of trial work is that statements against interest are usually reliable. I'm not referring to Kasabian here, since her immunity means that her statements were not against interest, but instead think of Susan's letters to some on the outside and her prison comm to her one noted fellow inmate. For an almost forgot, someone here, somewhere, said some unflattering things about that Sanders book. I'm not going to even begin to defend all, a major portion, whatever, of that work, but I will say that there are some gems. Remember, the whole strategy at one time was Manson trying to get the girls to take the fall and leave him unscathed. So the girls were prepared to testify, had written out their own questions for their counsel to ask, but their counsel refused, informing the judge that they could not ethically ask their clients questions that were sure to provide incriminating answers (if they (the girls) want to do that, they can simply plead guilty, which leaves the lawyer in the correct position of simply giving competent advice re guilt/innocence/proof, understanding of what it means to plea (rights being given up, etc.), is there a factual basis for the plea, etc.). Then the girls said they wanted to testify in narrative form. Then somehow instead of the girls, Manson takes the stand and testifies in narrative form. Then the report is that when he finishes and comes back to the defense table, he tells all concerned that the girls don't have to testify now. Presumably, now that Manson has tried and condemned our society by way of his rambling narrative. That's actually the cherry on top, since the transcript reflects that his narrative was in fact so rambling and out there, as it were, that the judge thought the narrative form unmanageable, and so, presumably, even if Manson hadn't given the order for the girls to stand down, his poor showing would have precluded the girls from testifying in narrative form in any event. For yet one more, Mike, it seems to be the near universal opinion that Kasabian's testimony was compelling, and I take that to mean that some concluded that her tears, etc., were genuine. Again, doesn't absolve her of any moral guilt, but as I wrote above, if her tears and the rest of her empathy were genuine, there's a Grand Canyon between her and the rest of the accused. And I'll take it was given that perhaps some of her post Family troubles were owing to her own guilt owing to the affair and her empathy was and is genuine, then I can live with her walking, at least when the exchange is putting Charles, Susan, Pat and Leslie away. Not the utopian solution, but one I can live with. Now well and truly, the first 10 years there was as plaintiff's personal injury attorney and the following six were family law, to include a "healthy" serving of child protective services matters. So I understand one of Linda's answers completely. More specifically, her, Oh God, how could you do that, was on cross. However, on direct, Bugliosi was concerning all concerned with a photo of Frykowski, to which Linda said, for cruel irony, I don't need to see the picture; I can see it in my mind. And that's why I'm no longer a trial attorney. The pictures just never fade away. Sorry, but since I'm on a roll, there is that von Houten photo thread and that multiple page discussion between Doc and her/his adherents, on the "liberal" side and some others on the purportedly "conservative" side. The " " means that I don't for a moment by the distinction. In any event, go back and read that piece that I linked above. Our former Atkins' cellmate on the proper result here: “I know she was young,” said Graham about Atkins. “But this born again stuff. They all find Jesus when they go to jail. I am not a cold lady...but this was so terrible. Why in the world should she be given any compassion? What goes around in life comes around. I wonder what Sharon Tate must have gone through. I have no empathy for this one at all. Hasta la vista baby.”
