343 replies to this topic

[Bottledbrunette09]

joe25, on 29 July 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

Interesting comments and it seems more far fetched than before about CM going back to Cielo Dr. after the killings. Did Manson ever disclose to Emmons or anyone else exactly what he allegedly did (wipe fingerprints & put eye glasses in a room?), what he used ( I can't imagine a mop and Janitor in a Drum) to "clean" up the evidence, and how long it took? Where and how did he dispose of the materials they used to remove evidence? How could an inept criminal, with smoker's lungs, do what Manson claimed he did and get away undetected? Manson is not or was not Charles Manson "superstar" or "super crook". I agree, opinions differ on this topic and it's time to put it to rest (for me anyway).

Maybe CM and his gang didn't do anything but wipe prints off of certain areas, because I recall reading that the police did find the victims' fingerprints around the house along with PK's, plant the glasses and put the towel around Jay's head and perhaps move the bodies around. He just wanted to see what was done, and he came, looked around, did some jacking around and left. Why are we assuming he did a massive cleaning and wiping down the house? I'm in the camp of him coming back, but I think he just came, and that was it. He might of planted the glasses, he probably wiped down some things, and wrapped the towel around Jay's head, and that's it, he just wanted to see what was done and maybe realized this wasn't what he had in mind, which is why he went to the LaBiancas' the next night.

[Attyla]

All good comments, and some good thought went into them. I know we will never conclusively know, and that is a pity as knowing this would add insight into the next night. If he had seen what was done, then his entering the house the next night and binding the victims becomes much more directional.

I do wonder why they stopped short of doing the second attack the second night. It makes less sense to me. If he had seen the carnage, and determined to do a double attack, what stopped them. He was pretty determined to find a house the second night....what made him fold the tent after being so determined earlier.

And, here is the kicker. Bobby kills Hinman, they do Tate, then LaBianca...why a thought of a double dip the second night? After all, if they were going to try and get Bobby out, this becomes a variance on the crimes that would make it appear they were two different crimes. I realize the get Bobby out of jail thing was pretty much a disproven theory, but it does pose interesting views of this "mastermind" with his "masterplan"

[mahlerfan]

Attyla, on 31 July 2010 - 11:25 AM, said:

All good comments, and some good thought went into them. I know we will never conclusively know, and that is a pity as knowing this would add insight into the next night. If he had seen what was done, then his entering the house the next night and binding the victims becomes much more directional.

I do wonder why they stopped short of doing the second attack the second night. It makes less sense to me. If he had seen the carnage, and determined to do a double attack, what stopped them. He was pretty determined to find a house the second night....what made him fold the tent after being so determined earlier.

And, here is the kicker. Bobby kills Hinman, they do Tate, then LaBianca...why a thought of a double dip the second night? After all, if they were going to try and get Bobby out, this becomes a variance on the crimes that would make it appear they were two different crimes. I realize the get Bobby out of jail thing was pretty much a disproven theory, but it does pose interesting views of this "mastermind" with his "masterplan"

Another paradox - while the LaBianca murders were more careful and focused and supervised by Charlie, his overall behavior that night was wildly out of control. He tried to kill a random driver, abandoned one house because there were children in it, may have tried to snuff a priest, and went after Linda's actor friend before settling on the LaBianca house (which he knew because it was next door to Harold True's place). Seems completely chaotic and random. Maybe it wasn't - maybe he had a definite plan in mind. But again I'm haunted by the possibility that we split hairs trying to understand acts that were largely bonkers and batshit crazy.

[Attyla]

mahlerfan, on 31 July 2010 - 12:24 PM, said:

Another paradox - while the LaBianca murders were more careful and focused and supervised by Charlie, his overall behavior that night was wildly out of control. He tried to kill a random driver, abandoned one house because there were children in it, may have tried to snuff a priest, and went after Linda's actor friend before settling on the LaBianca house (which he knew because it was next door to Harold True's place). Seems completely chaotic and random. Maybe it wasn't - maybe he had a definite plan in mind. But again I'm haunted by the possibility that we split hairs trying to understand acts that were largely bonkers and batshit crazy.

quite true, rational people sometimes try to rationalize things that irrational people do. It is that which makes us sometimes ill prepared to face an answer that makes no sense.

Consider, we all assume the murders happened in a certain way because these people tell us what happened in what order. When you have a number of people telling a story, the story ultimately is personal perspective and thus the story gets muddled, even with rational people. We seem to somewhat trust the story is what it is, but we also do not trust the people who tell that very story.

In example, we trust that Sadie dipped the towel in a pool of blood, then wrote on the door, and then threw the towel and it landed on Sebrings prone and dead body. We know the towel was there, but we also know it was not in position of it landing haphazardly, but was more wrapped around the head. If we take the story Sadie tells at face value, the facts do not match the evidence. Thus, we have to assume either it was changed afterwords, or her story is not entirely factual...or that Sebring was not quite dead and moved after they left as he died and shifted the towel inadvertantly. All are possible, but we do know that of all we can see and hear, the one thing that remains true is that Sadie is a liar.

Back on topic, I see the following options:

1. Sadie lied, and placed the towel deliberately.
2. Someone moved the evidence in such a way that it was as it was found. This was done by an unnamed and unknown individual after the murders took place. That person did other things to the home and did it in such a way that they left no personal evidence of being there.
3. Sebring altered the evidence as he lay dying. Possible, and with no one on location to verify that he was, in point of fact dead, but lay dying he very well could have done so.

My gut, which I hate to use due to my desire to know the truth based on observable evidence leads me to think Sadie did lie, as she was given to do often. All reports indicate that she above most the rest was the most off tilt and willing to do anything and everything to both draw attention to herself (jailhouse confessions, the grand jury testimony, her outbreaks, her changing of the story to get an early release, her denial of killing anyone, etc)

The towel, while a minor part of the tale, is still a distinct question of what happened and when. Tex has lied, Sadie has lied, Manson has lied. The truth will never be fully understood, so the evidence at the residence is what we rely on the most. The evidence suggests that merely throwing the towel back in the room could not have landed as it was found. It was moved. Blood evidence was tampered with, and other physical evidence was altered or removed. Who and when it was done, we have limited resources to determine. My gut tells me the answer lies with Sadie who had the most to gain by disassociating herself from any intentional acts and making herself into more of an observer and less of a deliberate person.

[Attyla]

rubybelle, on 31 July 2010 - 01:59 PM, said:

Hi Si,
I've heard several different stories regarding the mystery towel over Jays face. I know the police didn't do it because they took it as a ritual killing & was trying to figure it out. I've also heard Manson did it on his return that early morning. I've also heard that it was the towel that Susan used to write PIG on the door and she threw the towel inside and that's where it landed, on his head - - ?? It did have Jays and Sharons blood on it.
This is one tiny part we may never know.

pretty sure we can establish that the towel was used to write "pig". Lotta debate on whether Manson returned, two good arguements both for and against it. We know the police messed up some evidence, but I agree the account is taht the "hood" as initially reported was not touched until they established what it was in acuality.

[mahlerfan]

Attyla, on 31 July 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

pretty sure we can establish that the towel was used to write "pig". Lotta debate on whether Manson returned, two good arguements both for and against it. We know the police messed up some evidence, but I agree the account is taht the "hood" as initially reported was not touched until they established what it was in acuality.

Unless I'm forgetting one there are three scenarios that have been presented to explain the towel on Sebring's face:

1 - Sadie says she threw her towel and Bugliosi posits that it landed on Sebring's face. (Helter-Skelter)

2 - The police told Polanski that an officer placed it over Jay's face because his wounds were so ghastly (Roman).

3 - Manson says he and his accomplice used towels to wipe away prints at Cielo and that he placed his over Jay when finished (Manson In His Own Words).

[Crawler]

Bottledbrunette09, on 30 July 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

Just reading your remarks and a thought came to me, whether it happened or not, but what if Manson and whoever was with him came in through Sharon's bedroom? That way, they wouldn't have to step in all the blood on the front porch and that could explain why there wasn't extra footprints around the crime scene. They could of been examining the bodies on the front yard, Abigail's being the furthest from the front door, and after examining her body, saw the bedroom door opened and went in through there. I haven't heard from any source that there was a lot of blood in Sharon's room, just a bloody fingerprint and perhaps some drops as Abigail was running away, and then the hallway was pretty clean, so perhaps they came in that way and then wiped off more fingerprints. Another thought occured to me. Maybe someone scooped up some of SP's blood, somehow, and then brought it into the house and threw it around, which could explain why (and IF) his blood was inside the house. I'm thinking all this stuff as I read everyone's comments. Ramblings......and wild thoughts..........

That actually could be possible. Never even thought about the door to Sharon's room. HMMM?

[mahlerfan]

rubybelle, on 31 July 2010 - 03:40 PM, said:

yea.. when it comes to the book "Manson in his own words" I can't believe much of it. It was a good book to read but CM was flipping out about it. About a year ago CM wanted to make sure Emmons really was dead. He still fumes about that book.

Maybe so, but I must ask: If Charlie's opinion of a book about himself is significant, which books get his stamp of approval? Helter Skelter? The Family? Child of Satan, Child of God? Has he ever said anything other than all the books about him are bullshit, written by liars out to exploit him?

IMHO: Reading Manson lore is not unlike trying to make sense of the life of Christ (not making ANY comparison here) by reading both the canonical and "apocryphal" accounts. Many books to choose from, all of which claim authority on the matter, none of which entirely agree with each other, and some of which tell wildly different stories. All we can do is sift through the accounts, compare and contrast each with the historical record, and try to approximate the chronology of facts based on our (imperfect) conclusions. And those events happened twenty centuries ago - the events we're discussing occurred when many of us on this site were alive and kicking.

[mahlerfan]

rubybelle, on 31 July 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

The only book he's mentioned to me is Emmon's. I can't speak for him on the others but I highly doubt any get his stamp of approval. The most truthful one (to me) is Taming the Beast. They all do differ in many ways.

Never read that one. Thanks for the mention, I'll have to get a copy.

[Crawler]

rubybelle, on 31 July 2010 - 04:25 PM, said:

The only book he's mentioned to me is Emmon's. I can't speak for him on the others but I highly doubt any get his stamp of approval. The most truthful one (to me) is Taming the Beast. They all do differ in many ways.

That is so weird. I just ordered that book this morning. (amazon)

[freebird]

mahlerfan, on 31 July 2010 - 04:34 PM, said:

Never read that one. Thanks for the mention, I'll have to get a copy.

If you haven't read it, do. It is a great read and very insightful. I read somewhere that there is a movie being made based on it.
Freebird

[Forbulous]

I just read Taming the Beat over the weekend, third time I have taken it out of the library.

I would recommend reading the book by Maury Terry “the Ultimate Evil”. It is mostly about the whole Son of Sam case, and the satanic cults surrounding it…but there is a few chapters towards the end that discuss Manson family and the killings…it shows a lot of evidence that Manson was part of the cult…
This guy has really done his homework on the Sam case, and makes some VERY interesting observations and connection regarding Manson..he pretty much blew the NYPD’s case against Son of Sam, and questions the police and lawyers involved in all cases, and in reading him, I get the feeling he is really a truth seeker, and not going to say anything he can’t really prove…he doesn’t name every name but does when he can…changes name to protect HIS safety..

He says that Abby, Shorty and Manson were seen a few times hanging out in restaurants and bars a few years before everything happened…that Abby was giving him money back then, and then she cut him off. He has a lot of information in there, supporting the theory of Voytek and the drug burn..that Tex knew Voytek well….that they WERE told that Sharon was not to be there….
Then it talks about the LaBianca’s and evidence supporting that they were a definite ‘hit’ that they were not random…
He makes a great point in that why did they stop after ‘only’ two nights? If the whole Helter Skelter thing was the motive, then why stop after only two consecutive nights?
Why weren’t they all out killing at random every night until they got busted? They could have kept going and really started a Helter Skelter, but they didn’t….they went out, two nights in a row…killed ‘random” people and then stopped…

OF course he goes into way more detail, and has way more evidence in his pages, but the evidence IS there, unless you believe in extreme odds and coincidences….

I know there is an area dedicated to the book and the cult theory..but with the way this topic was heading, I thought I would mention it as the book discusses this in length.

[Franksta]

I just can't get into the Emmons book. I put it down the first time and read 'Behind the Scenes' and then again and read 'Taming the beast'. I just put it down again to finally read 'The Family'. It reads like Charlie sat calmly and talked while Emmons dictated what he said. It's exciting enough but something about it just doesn't ring true, for me anyway.

[creepycrawler]

Attyla, on 31 July 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

pretty sure we can establish that the towel was used to write "pig". Lotta debate on whether Manson returned, two good arguements both for and against it. We know the police messed up some evidence, but I agree the account is taht the "hood" as initially reported was not touched until they established what it was in acuality.

It's often assumed the towel was used to write 'pig' at the Tate house. Is there similar consensus on what was used to write the words at LaBianca? Was a similar blood soaked towel or cloth found at that scene, or did any of the killers mention what was used? I can't recall ever seeing that information.

Thanks

[catscradle77]

creepycrawler, on 07 August 2010 - 10:53 PM, said:

It's often assumed the towel was used to write 'pig' at the Tate house. Is there similar consensus on what was used to write the words at LaBianca? Was a similar blood soaked towel or cloth found at that scene, or did any of the killers mention what was used? I can't recall ever seeing that information.

Thanks

For soem reason, I remember a bloody piece of paper at the LaBianca's being used to write with.