All Episodes Discussion

[pigs-in-space]

2 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

The You Must Remember This podcast is crazy good.  I think there's still quite a bit about the HS story that hasn't been told, or reported fully. 

I'd like to add "Restless Souls" to the references list.  While some things and dialogue may be questionable, it is a retelling of how the murders affected the Tate family. 

And Greg King's biography of Sharon Tate is very well done.  His recounting of how the murders went down is chilling and wholly upsetting (that her killers debated on whether to let her live while Sharon sat and waited before they turned on her.)

I can't remember if it was in YMRT or the Jeff Guinn biography, but I was surprised to learn that Manson went to the scene of the crime after the Tate murders and staged it some more (with the American flag and the glasses, I believe).  That somehow was the creepiest thing of all to me.

And thanks for the other recs, I'm going to add those to my to read/consume list!

ETA: And I just read somewhere else that the crime scene staging is contested as to whether or not it actually happened. I think it's possible but not provable, still creepy to think about though!

Edited June 20, 2016 by pigs-in-space

[Andromeda]

I just watched "Lost and Found" on the TLC syndicated version of Dateline. It's from 2012, I think. It's the weird story of Pepper/Rhonda/Ronique and her pretend-or-not sister, and how Pepper was kidnapped from her parents, but not really, but after all yes, from her birth mother... Anyway, if anyone remembers that confusing story, which is recapped here, does anyone else think the birth mother gave her kids away? I think so. I'm so confused about the timeline, too. Birth mother had photos of the girls as little girls, yet supposedly Pepper was adopted by Bobbie and Barbara at age 3 months? It was an illegal adoption, so I'm not surprised the adopting couple didn't really push the police, but the birth mother lacks that excuse. I think she sold them and Shirley turned around and sold Pepper. But now they're one happy family (well, sort of), so no one wants to push too hard about the true truth.

The episode is available on the NBC website, if anyone wants to help me puzzle through it...

The Girl That Didn't Exist (original name of the story, I think before the one I saw which had updates).

P.S. I've been taping and watching Datelines -- into a True Crime phase lately, sparked anew by "Making a Murderer" on Netflix and the OJ case on FX and ESPN. So I'm glad to have this place to share thoughts.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Andromeda

[glowlights]

I remember that ep, Andromeda! It made me so sad to watch Pepper's legal ordeal just to get documentation. Yes, I believed that the birth mother trafficked Pepper in the illegal adoption (that's what illegal adoptions are, imo: trafficking), and Pepper was then eventually traded into that nightmarish existence with the woman who kept her in motels and a car. Their story that the babysitter just up and took Pepper, then came back and took her again, doesn't hold water for me. I think some people are in cya mode, though happy to be reunited with Pepper now that she is an adult and they don't have to take care of her, and so long as she lets their lame "explanations" slide. :( 

I don't remember much about the sister. The ep I saw focused mainly on Pepper. She seemed like an amazing and resilient woman. Gloria Allred may be a fame-hungry grandstander but she did a really great thing in this case.

[psychoticstate]

20 hours ago, pigs-in-space said:

ETA: And I just read somewhere else that the crime scene staging is contested as to whether or not it actually happened. I think it's possible but not provable, still creepy to think about though!

I think Manson returned to the Cielo Drive property that night.   It would make a sick sense that he would want to see how well his minions followed his orders. It must have been gratifying to him.   There is no absolute proof other than the fact that blood types matching Jay Sebring and Sharon Tate were found outside on the front porch and neither of them left the living room area.   I think it's highly likely that if Manson did indeed return to the crime scene, he did not do so alone and he and his partner moved the bodies.

[Stampiron]

I just watched 'The Killing in Cobb County' (2013 ep) and while it's not the most compelling case, there is a real WTF twist at the end.  Full Episode: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/53696934#53696934

A beautiful young mother, Karmen Smith is murdered. Her 5 year old son, Nick, is also attacked and fights for his life. Their upstairs neighbor Lottie Spencer alerts the police that she believes she knows who did it—her teenage stalker Waseem Daker.

[glowlights]

Lottie Spencer was a real piece of work. Do you think

Spoiler

she was manipulated by Daker to recant her testimony or do you think she lied on the stand?

I see Daker is still filing lawsuit after lawsuit...

[CaughtOnTape]

Helter Skelter scared the shit out of me when I read it.  I refused to read it at night for that reason.  My mom kept telling me I wouldn't wanna read it, but I was fascinated.  Worst mistake ever.  

Vincent Bugliosi is a goddamn genius for how he convinced a jury to find Manson guilty even though he didn't actually kill anyone on either night.  I mean clearly Manson is batshit...but how he pulled that off is fascinating.

I don't believe any of them should be let out either.  I'm not for the death penalty, but they showed no mercy that night.  Sure, they were brainwashed, but they still made those choices.  Sharon Tate doesn't get to start living life after 50 years of being dead...either should they.

I always remember Diane Sawyer being asked about what interview sticks out in her mind and she answered the one with him.  Because during the interview he kept kicking the bottom of her foot.  She said she didn't let him know how much it bugged her but it really got under her skin.

Wonder whatever happened to Linda Kasabian.

[Stampiron]

3 hours ago, glowlights said:

Lottie Spencer was a real piece of work. Do you think

  Hide contents

she was manipulated by Daker to recant her testimony or do you think she lied on the stand?

I see Daker is still filing lawsuit after lawsuit...

I have zero doubt that she was lying about the blankets and about Daker's innocence in general. What I'm not sure of is if she was lying about having had a sexual relationship with him. If I had to guess, I'd guess that she did have a sexual relationship with him. It fits in with Daker's decision to represent himself and, against his attorney's advice, harp on that point at trial. But that's just a guess and ymmv.

But it wasn't so much the details of the crime and Lottie's various testimonies that fascinated me; it was Lottie herself. I just can't wrap my head around someone being as pathetic a human being as she is. Yeah, Daker is manipulating her but she's well past the point where it becomes willful on her part. He's in prison. She got away from him then chose to go back. Now she's mortgaged her house and made him a beneficiary on her life insurance. She gave a psychopath a financial incentive to have her - and her children! - killed. Real smart. I have nothing but contempt for this woman.

[glowlights]

^^ Supposedly there were rx drugs involved (regarding Lottie's erratic frame of mind) and she didn't change her testimony until after he pressured her via letters from jail. I guess one theory would be that he's a master manipulator and she is a perfect patsy, the way some people are more susceptible to cults and mind control than others. Or he has something on her. But either way your word - "pathetic" - sums her up.

Poor little Nick. :(

[Andromeda]

On 6/21/2016 at 7:37 AM, glowlights said:

I remember that ep, Andromeda! It made me so sad to watch Pepper's legal ordeal just to get documentation. Yes, I believed that the birth mother trafficked Pepper in the illegal adoption (that's what illegal adoptions are, imo: trafficking), and Pepper was then eventually traded into that nightmarish existence with the woman who kept her in motels and a car. Their story that the babysitter just up and took Pepper, then came back and took her again, doesn't hold water for me. I think some people are in cya mode, though happy to be reunited with Pepper now that she is an adult and they don't have to take care of her, and so long as she lets their lame "explanations" slide. :( 

I don't remember much about the sister. The ep I saw focused mainly on Pepper. She seemed like an amazing and resilient woman. Gloria Allred may be a fame-hungry grandstander but she did a really great thing in this case.

Thanks, Glowlights! Glad you read it the same way I did. The most interesting thing about the sister to me is that she considered Shirley her mother, and defended her against Pepper, who felt the woman had stolen her. Because the sister had no memory of better parents.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Andromeda
It's Shirley, not Sophia

[pigs-in-space]

49 minutes ago, Andromeda said:

Thanks, Glowlights! Glad you read it the same way I did. The most interesting thing about the sister to me is that she considered Sophie her mother, and defended her against Pepper, who felt the woman had stolen her. Because the sister had no memory of better parents.

I recall the sister (Renee) seemed to be very attached to Pepper/Rhonda/Ronique, in a way that almost seemed co-dependent because of the abuse they suffered from Shirley.  She mentioned being in awe of Pepper's childhood bedroom, because she had never experienced anything so nice, and then feeling abandoned when Pepper finally left Shirley in her teens.  I was so happy for her when she found out that Pepper was her biological sister - whatever the adults did in their lives, it seemed like these two at least had each other and I thought it was sweet.

[psychoticstate]

My dad took Helter Skelter away from me when I was 11.  I snuck a library copy and read it behind his back.  It scared the daylights out of me -- - but led me to a fascination with the case.  The first time I went to Cielo Drive, despite it being a sunny Sunday afternoon, I was thoroughly creeped out.  I didn't understand how the immediate neighbors didn't hear the murders being committed but once I went to the location, I completely understood.  It was very isolated.

With the exception of Van Houten, the Manson killers were convicted of killing seven people.  (The only reason they weren't convicted of eight was because in 1970, Sharon Tate's baby was not considered a legal human being who could suffer loss of life.)  They've been incarcerated for 46 years; that comes out to less than 7 years per person.  It's not enough. And while Van Houten didn't participate in the Tate murders, she was complicit in them and was more than thrilled to participate in the LaBianca killings.  

@CaughtOnTape, I heard that Linda Kasabian moved to the Pacific Northwest with her two children.  She had quite a few run-ins with the law.  She was busted repeatedly for dealing.  I personally don't buy Bugliosi's take on Kasabian being an innocent little hippie girl and being invited on both murder nights because she had a valid driver's license.  If your plan is to go and butcher a group of people, would your biggest concern being having someone in the car with a valid driver's license?  She didn't even drive - - Tex Watson did (who she was involved with, by the way.)  Kasabian admitted in a documentary, after years of claiming that she had stood by and done nothing at the Tate house, that she took Steven Parent's wallet off his body.  She also, when she finally fled Spahn Ranch, didn't go immediately to the authorities to tell them she knew who committed the Tate-LaBianca homicides; she ran to a friend in New Mexico.  Sketchy.  She only came forward when she heard the police were looking for her.

[Stampiron]

Anyone remember The Girl with the Blue Mustang? Michelle O'Keefe was shot multiple times in her car (the blue mustang) while it was parked in a dark corner of a parking lot. I think she'd just been at a club or a music video shoot or something like that. The security guard who found her was eventually convicted of second degree murder after 3 trials (first two were hung juries.)

That security guard - Raymond Lee Jennings - has now been released after the prosecution said it no longer had confidence in the conviction (you don't hear that often!) They aren't saying what the new evidence is, but it apparently relates to other people being at the scene and evidence of a robbery/car jacking.

The episode isn't available on NBC's site anymore, but I'm sure they'll be running a follow-up soon enough. Here is an article about the original conviction:  http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/19/local/la-me-student-slain19-2009dec19

And one about his release: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-palmdale-student-killed-20160623-snap-story.html

[Fable]

I never really bought into Linda Kasabian's story, but rather that the prosecution needed her testimony and painted her in a favorable light (since she had the least blood on her hands, so to speak) so they could clinch the convictions on the others.  Such is justice I guess!  

[NewDigs]

^^^ from top link:

"He said that jurors were mistakenly given portions of transcripts from interviews given by his client that a judge had previously ruled wcould not be used during the trial.

Houchin said prosecutors failed to secure a conviction until the case was moved to a courthouse near where O'Keefe's family lived and where the killing had provoked the most outrage."

Wow. That there kind of sounds like prosecutorial misconduct. 

Usually trials are moved away from areas of influence.

Glad he's out.

[NewDigs]

I remember when this happened. It was so horrific but also had a trainwreck-can't-look-away quality.

I used to put on CourtTv (I miss courttv) when I got home from work and at least once tuned in and saw him go before the parole board. He looked freaky scary batshit crazy. 

Have not read Helter Skelter. I had pretty much had my fill of the story by then. And the couple of Bugliosi books I have read can be eye-roll inducing as he pats himself on the back, lots. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by NewDigs

[CaughtOnTape]

23 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

 

@CaughtOnTape, I heard that Linda Kasabian moved to the Pacific Northwest with her two children.  She had quite a few run-ins with the law.  She was busted repeatedly for dealing.  I personally don't buy Bugliosi's take on Kasabian being an innocent little hippie girl and being invited on both murder nights because she had a valid driver's license.  If your plan is to go and butcher a group of people, would your biggest concern being having someone in the car with a valid driver's license?  She didn't even drive - - Tex Watson did (who she was involved with, by the way.)  Kasabian admitted in a documentary, after years of claiming that she had stood by and done nothing at the Tate house, that she took Steven Parent's wallet off his body.  She also, when she finally fled Spahn Ranch, didn't go immediately to the authorities to tell them she knew who committed the Tate-LaBianca homicides; she ran to a friend in New Mexico.  Sketchy.  She only came forward when she heard the police were looking for her.

I don't entirely disagree with you.  She clearly had issues.

But I'm more inclined to believe the reason she didn't go running to the cops is because she knew the other family members were gonna come after her.  I mean the one lady they had on, what was her name?  Barbara?  Even she got death threats and the family went after her and she had no knowledge of the murders.  Linda knew what they were capable of if Charlie ordered it.  She literally watched it happen.  Can't say I'd go running to the cops either.  LOL

I mean, yeah she dealt drugs and had a loose relationship with the law, but I don't think that's the same as brutally stabbing and killing people.

[Fable]

I understand fully why she didn't run to the cops, I just don't really buy her version as unwilling participant.  The prosecution had to make her look good to be credible with jurors.  I don't believe for a second that she had no idea what was going down!  

[walnutqueen]

One of the Mansonite "confidential informants" ended up in my neck of the Canadian Pacific Northwest woods, and was known by someone close to me.  The informant was armed to the teeth at all times and totally paranoid, and for very good reason.  One dark night while I was entertaining some friends at the remote barn I was living in, 2 spooky looking dudes showed up claiming to have seen my light from the road (not possible).  They stayed long enough for us to be uncomfortable, and mentioned "Charlie" several times.  I didn't make the connection until they were leaving, when one of them remarked how cool my barn walls would look written with blood.  I lived in terror until the "someone close to me" (biker) told me I didn't need to worry about them ever coming back.  I knew better than to ask any more questions.

This happened around 1972, and I suspect the 2 guys were Mansonites in town looking for the informant.

[NewDigs]

^^^ Gasp!

and Wow.

[walnutqueen]

^^^ True dat!  :-)

[PepperMonkey]

OMG those nut jobs were still around in 1972????

<Shudder>

[WendyCR72]

That's just...scary.

[ButterQueen]

I would love to see Keith interview Manson.

[Ohmo]

Quote

 

This happened around 1972, and I suspect the 2 guys were Mansonites in town looking for the informant.

I was a very little kid in 1972.  Just based on the episode, I didn't believe that Linda was totally innocent either.  I agree that the prosecution likely considered her the least culpable and the most believable.

What confused me during the episode was the idea that it was difficult to convict Manson because he didn't actually kill anyone.  Then I had to remember that this was 1969.  The law that says that you're as culpable as the person doing the killing (i.e. if someone hires a hitman) must not have existed in 1969.

I agree that it would have been nice for this to be a 2-hour episode, although I'm not interested in Keith interviewing Manson.  Whether he's actually crazy or completely sane and playing mind games (which is what I think), I don't think you'd get anything of substance out of him.

I'd be more interested in hearing from Van Houten,  Since I wasn't alive when this happened and only know it as notorious criminal behavior, she'd have to convince me beyond the "I've done good things in prison" routine of why I should ignore everything that has historically been reported.  I can understand why adults who were alive wouldn't parole her, but I also think that people who weren't alive then wouldn't parole her either.  There is no positive connotation related to the name or actions of Charles Manson.  None.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Ohmo

[glowlights]

On 6/24/2016 at 8:30 AM, NewDigs said:

^^^ from top link:

"He said that jurors were mistakenly given portions of transcripts from interviews given by his client that a judge had previously ruled wcould not be used during the trial.

Houchin said prosecutors failed to secure a conviction until the case was moved to a courthouse near where O'Keefe's family lived and where the killing had provoked the most outrage."

Wow. That there kind of sounds like prosecutorial misconduct. 

Usually trials are moved away from areas of influence.

Glad he's out.

So I guess "mistakenly" is the new "accidentally on purpose". :(

[NewDigs]

^^^ And what judge in their right (fair, non-partial) mind would grant a change of venue to a location closer to the outrage???

Boggles the mind.

[Ohmo]

I dunno.  It's been a long time since I've watched "The Girl with the Blue Mustang," but I don't remember it as one of the cases where I thought the accused was absolutely railroaded.  I think I thought of it as one where someone else might have done it, but it was also plausible to me that Jennings could have done it.

[Stampiron]

21 hours ago, Ohmo said:

I dunno.  It's been a long time since I've watched "The Girl with the Blue Mustang," but I don't remember it as one of the cases where I thought the accused was absolutely railroaded.  I think I thought of it as one where someone else might have done it, but it was also plausible to me that Jennings could have done it.

As I'm looking at a couple of 30 second clips of the episode I'm thinking about how thin the evidence against him was, but I don't know that I thought that - at least not strongly - when the episode ran. I think it mostly came down to some perceived implausibilities in his story, particularly if it was plausible that he didn't see anything given where he said he was standing.

There was one tiny bit of blood under the victim's fingernail that didn't match Jennings. I wonder if someone's DNA was recently added to the database and they got a hit?

[Ohmo]

I'm bothered by the defense's innuendo about Jennings's guilt coming on the third trial in Michelle's hometown.  That statement could easily be flipped around to the defense wasn't able to get reasonable doubt from either of two juries who heard the case in neutral LA.  If they had been able to do that, there wouldn't have been a third trial.

Prosecutorial misconduct. is also not a reflection of Jennings' behavior.  It's a reflection of the prosecutor's behavior.  The prosecutor could be corrupt, cut corners, or whatever, and Jennings could ALSO be guilty.  There are cases, many of which we've discussed, where I've felt that the prosecution clearly and without a doubt got the wrong person.  However, I don't feel that way here.  Maybe they did get the wrong guy, but maybe they got the right guy but were unethical in the handling of the case.

This is a case that I'd like to see re-tried by jury or bench trial.  If the justice system says we haven't gotten to guilty in an ethical way, OK.  However, we haven't gotten to reasonable doubt either.

[glowlights]

On 6/27/2016 at 11:42 AM, NewDigs said:

^^^ And what judge in their right (fair, non-partial) mind would grant a change of venue to a location closer to the outrage???

Boggles the mind.

Was it easier to seat a jury there?

I remember being flabbergasted by the choice of venue for that murder case in Terlingua (there was a mini-series on National Geographic about it, sorry can't recall the name). There were other larger cities to choose from that would not only be more impartial but also easier to seat juries, and instead for some stupid bureaucratic reasons they went with practically a ghost town where it was known that they couldn't seat juries. The verdict was a joke. Anyway, just wondered if court logistics came into play with this case, too.

[Ohmo]

1 hour ago, glowlights said:

Was it easier to seat a jury there?

I remember being flabbergasted by the choice of venue for that murder case in Terlingua (there was a mini-series on National Geographic about it, sorry can't recall the name). There were other larger cities to choose from that would not only be more impartial but also easier to seat juries, and instead for some stupid bureaucratic reasons they went with practically a ghost town where it was known that they couldn't seat juries. The verdict was a joke. Anyway, just wondered if court logistics came into play with this case, too.

I thought it had something to do with size of venue.  IIRC, the trial was high-profile at the time and interest was high.  LA could handle the attention and the proceedings, but I believe the Dateline episode said it was a 4-hour round trip every day for witnesses and Michelle's family.  Michelle's hometown was in the CA desert, I believe, and it was the biggest venue in the area for a trial.  After the second trial in LA, it was agreed to move the trial back to near where the crime occurred.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Ohmo

[Ina123]

I haven't re-watched this episode recently but from what I recall, I don't think Raymond Lee Jennings did himself any justice with his attitude in interviews. I just didn't like the guy. Of course, he can't be convicted just because you don't like him. I do seem to recall that the reason he made himself a suspect was his first words to the detective investigating. It seems it was something he couldn't have known without being the shooter. I just can't recall what it was. Anybody?

[Stampiron]

9 hours ago, Ina123 said:

I haven't re-watched this episode recently but from what I recall, I don't think Raymond Lee Jennings did himself any justice with his attitude in interviews. I just didn't like the guy. Of course, he can't be convicted just because you don't like him. I do seem to recall that the reason he made himself a suspect was his first words to the detective investigating. It seems it was something he couldn't have known without being the shooter. I just can't recall what it was. Anybody?

I don't know about what he said first, but the police asked him to speculate about the crime and "he responded that because of the way O’Keefe was dressed, he believed she was engaged in prostitution and that the crime was likely a sexual assault gone wrong. They asked him to speculate as to the order of the shots to which he responded that he believed the chest shot to be the first (because of the heavy stippling.")

The above comes from a pro-Jennings webpage that while biased towards the defense seems to give a fair representation of the prosecution's case against him. There's also a labelled map of the crime scene.

[Andromeda]

FYI, the Lost and Found episode I discussed upthread with its weird story of child abduction/kidnapping/selling(?) reruns THURSDAY on Dateline: Real Life Mysteries on TLC.

[Cherrio]

I was a teenager when the crimes occurred.  Combine that with the 1967 movie Bonnie and Clyde and I became fascinated with crime and criminals. Back then it was just a few books and newspaper articles. Along came the internet and I started doing a lot of research.   I have almost all the parole hearings on video tape and some inside info on some of the family members.    Nothing earth shattering, but back then very few people knew where Kasabian was or what happened to Steve Grogan after he was paroled.

My book picks are Helter Skelter by Bugliosi and The Family by Ed Sanders.   Sanders book will give those who are interested in the feel of what it was like back then your best description. He also has a great writing style and dug very deep for information.

Guinn comes along decades later after so many others before him did all the work.   He did the same thing with his Bonnie and Clyde book. I am not impressed.

           I do not think Van Houten with get her parole. So far, no governor has ever endorsed any of the family members for release, except Steve Grogan who most considered a useless moron.    

If I had to pick one of the women still living that I feel truly feels remorse and horror for what she did, it would be Krenwinkel.   While what she did was heinous, it was Van Houten who was very jealous she didn't get chosen for the first night and made sure she got to go to the La Bianca home.

The only participant who knew for sure there would be killing the first night was Tex.  The girls were told by Manson to go with Tex and do everything he tells them to do.

   Kasabian used to go (and might still) by the name Linda Christian. One of her daughters called herself Lady Dangerous. She lived or lives in the Pacific Northwest.

[RedheadZombie]

On June 17, 2016 at 6:36 PM, WendyCR72 said:

Oh, yeah. And some say it was as close to "heavy metal" the Beatles would come. It is on their White Album and worth a listen, if just to marvel how far it was from the likes of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". (And it speaks to Manson's crazy that the lyrics of this song were basically innocuous and - if one believes the rumor - based on a slide/amusement park ride.)

The actual song is down from YT (GRRR!!!), but someone did a masterful mashup of Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" with "Helter Skelter" by The Beatles and damned if it didn't work!

U2 did a cover of Helter Skelter. In their movie, Rattle and Hum, Bono introduces the song by saying - Charles Manson stole this song from the Beatles.   We're stealing it back.  

It's a really good cover. 

[WendyCR72]

34 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

U2 did a cover of Helter Skelter

Yeah, I have "Rattle and Hum" and am familiar with it. It's a great cover but still not nearly as "heavy" as the original, IMO. Motley Crue and even Pat Benatar have covered it, too.

[psychoticstate]

On 7/2/2016 at 7:50 AM, Cherrio said:

If I had to pick one of the women still living that I feel truly feels remorse and horror for what she did, it would be Krenwinkel.   While what she did was heinous, it was Van Houten who was very jealous she didn't get chosen for the first night and made sure she got to go to the La Bianca home.

I used to feel this way.  For many years Krenwinkle would say that she's where she should be, that she's paying the penalty she should pay.  Maybe two years ago she participated in some interview or documentary or something and blamed the entire thing on Manson.  Girl, please.  I'm not saying that Manson didn't influence them but there has to be something missing inside of you to do to innocent people what the Manson Family did.  They thrilled in torturing and killing their victims, Krenwinkle included.  So I don't know if she was making a play for parole or what but it really annoyed me when she shifted the blame to Manson.  Like Tex Watson and Susan Atkins.

One positive thing I will say for Krenwinkle while incarcerated was that she did (and may still) work with training dogs to assist the blind.

[glowlights]

Anyone interested in Houten's situation might like this piece by John Waters, which is excerpted from his book Role Models:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-waters/leslie-van-houten-a-frien_b_246953.html

I disagree with him, btw, and think the victims' families such as Debra Tate (Sharon Tate's sister) should be listened to.

p.s. WalnutQueen you always have the best stories! But mainly I'm just glad the creeps left your barn and you're here with us today.

Edited July 11, 2016 by glowlights

[psychoticstate]

The fact that the Waters article starts out with a "disclaimer" that he's friends with Van Houten pretty much assures me that I won't agree with him.  

Regardless, he mentions that he attended the trial so it makes me wonder if he was one of the men that were lovestruck over Van Houten.  I also don't like Waters' take that Tex Watson was turned into a "killer zombie" by the drugs and Manson.  It's interesting that Waters claims to have practically no interest in Manson and yet is fascinated with the murders and with Watson and Van Houten.  Huh?  

And "Leslie being left, holding the bag?"  What kind of b.s. is that?  She was guilty.  She stabbed Rosemary LaBianca sixteen times and something like 12 of her back wounds were sustained while she was still alive.  She was also there, providing support to Watson and Krenwinkle and helped them in cleaning up the scene.  If Manson is guilty as sin without actually thrusting the knives into the victims (and there seems to be no argument on that), how on earth can there be any question on Van Houten and any sympathy for her?  

I have to say that reading that article, with all its "poor Leslie, she has so much patience, she's paid her dues . . . " it makes my head want to explode.

@glowlights, I also think the victims' families deserve to be present.  I understand why Debra Tate wants to be there, even if Van Houten didn't participate in her sister's murder.  Giving Van Houten parole sets precedent.  If she's paroled, the clock is ticking on paroling Patricia Krenwinkle.

[Ina123]

There was just one thing that the Dateline episode never mentioned and I've always thought it was important. Manson was delusional in that he thought he could be a great "rock star" musician/singer. He was always trying to find someone to back him in a music career. He met Doris Day's son, Terry Melcher, a music producer.

I'll leave this here for the young people who never heard about it:

In 1968, Beach Boy Dennis Wilson introduced Melcher to ex-con and aspiring musician Charles Manson. Manson and his "family" had been living in Wilson's house at 14400 Sunset Boulevard after Wilson had picked up hitchhiking Manson family members Patricia Krenwinkel and Ella Jo Bailey. Wilson expressed interest in Manson's music and even recorded two of Manson's songs with the Beach Boys. For a time, Melcher was interested in recording Manson's music as well as making a film about the family and their hippie commune existence. Manson met Melcher at 10050 Cielo Drive, the home Melcher shared with his girlfriend, actress Candice Bergen, and with musician Mark Lindsay. Manson eventually auditioned for Melcher, but Melcher declined to sign him. There was still talk of a documentary being made about Manson's music, but Melcher abandoned the project after witnessing his subject become embroiled in a fight with a drunken stuntman at Spahn Ranch. Both Wilson and Melcher severed their ties with Manson, a move that angered Manson.

Not long after splitting from Manson, Melcher and Bergen moved out of the Cielo Drive home. The house's owner, Rudi Altobelli, then leased it to film director Roman Polanski and his wife, actress Sharon Tate. Manson visited the house asking for Melcher, but was turned away because Melcher had moved. On August 9, 1969, the house was the site of the murders of Tate (who was eight months pregnant at the time), coffee heiress Abigail Folger, hairdresser Jay Sebring, writer Wojciech Frykowski and Steven Parent by members of Manson's "family". Some authors and law enforcement personnel have theorized that the Cielo Drive house was targeted by Manson as revenge for Melcher's rejection and that Manson was unaware that he and Bergen had moved out. However, family member Charles "Tex" Watson stated that Manson and company did, in fact, know that Melcher was no longer living there, and Terry's former roommate, Mark Lindsay, stated: "Everybody speculated that Manson sent his minions up there to get rid of Terry because he was angry about not getting a record deal. But Terry and I talked about it later and Terry said Manson knew (Melcher had moved) because Manson or someone from his organization left a note on Terry's porch in Malibu."

At that time, Melcher was producing singer Jimmy Boyd's music for A&M Records. After initial tracks were recorded, the Manson murders took place, prompting Melcher to go into seclusion, and the session was never completed. When Manson was arrested, it was widely reported that he had sent his followers to the house to kill Melcher and Bergen. Manson family member Susan Atkins, who admitted her part in the murders, stated to police and before a grand jury that the house was chosen as the scene for the murders "to instill fear into Terry Melcher because Terry had given us his word on a few things and never came through with them". In this aim, the Manson Family was successful. Melcher took to employing a bodyguard and told Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi that his fear was so great, he had been undergoing psychiatric treatment. Melcher was the most frightened of the witnesses at the trial, even though Bugliosi assured him that "Manson knew you were no longer living (on Cielo Drive)".

Terry Melcher was big in the music industry. He produced the Byrds top hits "Turn Turn Turn" and "Mr. Tambourine Man". He also was producer for Paul Revere and the Raiders. Mark Lindsey, mentioned above, was lead singer.

[glowlights]

On 7/11/2016 at 10:47 AM, psychoticstate said:

@glowlights, I also think the victims' families deserve to be present.  I understand why Debra Tate wants to be there, even if Van Houten didn't participate in her sister's murder.  Giving Van Houten parole sets precedent.  If she's paroled, the clock is ticking on paroling Patricia Krenwinkle.

Watson and Beausoleil are both up for parole in October. Debra Tate is petitioning the governor of CA to deny parole for them as well as Van Houten, if anyone's interested:

http://www.noparoleformansonfamily.com/

[psychoticstate]

41 minutes ago, glowlights said:

Watson and Beausoleil are both up for parole in October. Debra Tate is petitioning the governor of CA to deny parole for them as well as Van Houten, if anyone's interested:

http://www.noparoleformansonfamily.com/

I signed!

[kat165]

I recently saw, on maybe 48 Hours or 20-20 the mother, Lee, and her side of the case. It was very enlightening. When I first watched this ep the father sort of gave me the creeps, but I couldn't really say why. After seeing the Lee's story I think I was picking up on some of the things she said. The son/brother was also featured in this story which added more to it and gave me a more rounded picture of the case.

I'm not believing the stuff about Lee being bi-polar. Whether Samantha strikes you as cold or whatever she seems a very happy well adjusted confident young woman to me. I completely believe her happy childhood story. Her brother is much the same. It appears to me that Lee did a great job with both her kids.

I can understand why Samantha is not really in contact with her bio father. She did the polite thing and finally visited but she grew up without him, loved her life with her mom and really had no reason to bond with a man who might be somewhat suspect.

I saw the mother's story On Demand recently so I highly recommend anyone interested in seeing a bigger picture for this story to check it out.

[biakbiak]

I have seen a lot of this case and while I think his portrait of her might not be accurate her solution to the court and response to him is crazy fucked up and as mentioned up thread I think if the roles were reversed more people would side with the court ordered custodial parent fighting to find her daughter.

Edited July 23, 2016 by biakbiak

[Ohmo]

Quote

I'm not believing the stuff about Lee being bi-polar. Whether Samantha strikes you as cold or whatever she seems a very happy well adjusted confident young woman to me. I completely believe her happy childhood story. Her brother is much the same. It appears to me that Lee did a great job with both her kids.

I am the oldest of 4 children.  All of us have college degrees, and I have one degree beyond the standard college degree.  All of my siblings are either in the midst of career changes or are successful in their chosen fields.  Not to brag, but we're considered to very likeable, well-adjusted people in our respective communities.  I had a very comfortable childhood that I would consider similar to Savanna/Samantha's.  My mother was great with us.  Many have told her so at various times throughout the years.

My mother also struggles with bi-polar disorder.  At this very moment, in fact, my family is in the midst of dealing with a serious episode relating to my mother's illness.  I can very easily smile at a camera and say "Yay, I had a happy childhood.  I went to college, and my mom was a good mother when I was a kid."

Samantha's happy childhood and beaming smile do not mean that her mother isn't bi-polar.  Both situations can exist and be absolutely true.  As to Lee's friends, they aren't an absolute indicator of anything either.  My mother has friends who would be shocked to know that she's actually bi-polar.

I believe Harris.  Extreme reaction to a threat is a symptom of bi-polar disorder.  Lee's decision to respond to the situation by fleeing the country with Savanna could definitely have been a sign of the illness.

ETA:

Quote

I have seen a lot of this case and while I think his portrait of her might not be accurate her solution to the court and response to him is crazy fucked up and as mentioned up thread I think if the roles were reversed more people would side with the court ordered custodial parent fighting to find her daughter.

Agreed.  I think Harris has been penalized as far as public opinion goes because of his gender and his personality.  He is a lonely, hardened, and sometimes not pleasant man, but that doesn't make him incorrect about Lee.  Back then, and even to an extent now, mothers who were hiding or restricting access to the fathers of their children were seen in very heroic terms.  If Harris had done what Lee did, he would likely have been seen as the villain, then too.

Somehow, this has turned into "what everything looks like."  Samantha's smiling and happy.  Lee's got friends, so she can't possibly be bi-polar.  Harris is wealthy and connected and he's not the life of the party, so the mom has to be good and the dad must be bad.

The one who's truly losing out on this deal (besides Harris) is Samantha, and she doesn't even realize it.  Whatever Harris might have done years ago, she's not even willing to entertain the thought that Lee is wrong or her perception is somehow skewed.  Samantha has no idea what kind of father Harris might have been then, and she's giving him very little chance to try now.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Ohmo
Had more to say

[Ohmo]

CBS This Morning reports that the governor of CA (Jerry Brown?) has denied Van Houten's request for parole.  He went against the parole board's recommendation.

[Ohmo]

Another angle about this that really gives me pause.  The 48 hours epilogue card states that Samantha is studying criminal justice and nursing in Australia.  It boggles the mind that the Australian legal system would let her participate in that field in any way.  If she were a defense attorney or a prosecuting attorney, she would be an officer of the court in either case.  She would not be permitted to support or assist in the commission of a crime.  If she were a police officer, she would be tasked with upholding the law, even the laws she does not agree with.

Whatever she thinks of Harris or whatever he might have possibly done, legally, according to American law, her mother committed a criminal act, and Samantha clearly and quite publicly has supported her mother's actions.  She sees her mother as in the right here, with little sense of objectivity or impartiality.  How can she then be trusted to not say to a client one day, "You know, the American courts said my mother was a criminal, but she really wasn't.  She took off with me for 17 years, and I had a great childhood.  She only had to spend a little time in jail, you know."  How can she be trusted to not facilitate future child abductions or the commission of any other crime that she believes is "right," given her childhood and her current view of what her mother did?

[kat165]

Ohmo, thank you for your thoughtful response & illustrating things I hadn't considered or knew enough to consider.