Dennis Wilson..."Me and Charlie, we founded the family".

[Andrew G. Doe]

I've read too many things to believe that the Tate and Biancia house's were chosen at random.

The Tate house certainly wasn't: Charlie knew who lived there, knew it wasn't Melcher any more, knew who else was very likely to be there. He knew who he was going after and he got them.

[Mikie]

I have a hard time believing Melcher's house was selected at random. Of all the houses in L.A. he could have chosen, and which were much closer to the Spahn ranch, why did he single out Cielo Drive? Just because Manson was up there more than once and "knew" the neighborhood? Manson wasn't even WITH Watson, Krenwinkle, and Atkins when they went up to Melcher's house. They knew where to go.

The Labianca's house may have been random, but I don't think the Tate house was.

[Menace Wilson]

Hadn't they "creepy crawled" the LaBianca house once before?  Seems like I read that somewhere.

[The Heartical Don]

I have a hard time believing Melcher's house was selected at random. Of all the houses in L.A. he could have chosen, and which were much closer to the Spahn ranch, why did he single out Cielo Drive? Just because Manson was up there more than once and "knew" the neighborhood? Manson wasn't even WITH Watson, Krenwinkle, and Atkins when they went up to Melcher's house. They knew where to go.

The Labianca's house may have been random, but I don't think the Tate house was.

Perhaps the LaBianca mansion was expressly 'done' to distract from the fact that the chief goal was the Tate one? Killing a middle-aged couple could make for a smokescreen.

(says someone totally addicted to Inspector Morse, Columbo, Frost, Dalziel & Pascoe, Prime Suspect, Silent Witness, and the rest)

[Mike's Beard]

Charlie apparently screamed to Mr. LaBiancia after bounding him "I want that little black book". He was targeted for a reason. This was that brief window in time when Hippies, drug dealers, Satanist Cults, badass biker groups and Hollywood types mingled freely with each other - a bad mix - something had to give.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Charlie apparently screamed to Mr. LaBiancia after bounding him "I want that little black book". He was targeted for a reason.

Doubt it - Charlie and the others cruised the neighbourhood for a while before choosing the La Biancas place. Possibly he chose it because he'd been to a party next door over a year previously. Oddly, if Charlie had targeted the place and gone straight there, he'd have found the house empty - the La Biancas had been out of town and only got back to LA at about one in the morning. The 'black book' story is part of a discredited theory that the mob hired The Family for two hits, based on the fact that Manson knew Mafia members during his various spells in jail.

[Mike's Beard]

AGD, I forget where I read about the black book. As you state the fact that they went cruising for victims beforehand is at odds with this theory. However I never completely ruled it out as a possibility for a number of reasons. The car was very full on that second night. When they finally reached the LaBianca residence, Charlie split the group in two and went with the others seeking another target. Maybe he'd always had the LaBianca's in mind but was looking for another house beforehand for the second group to attack? Remember that if he specifally wanted certain people in the Tate house dead, he also wanted other households on that street attacked that night and blew his top when he found out they hadn't. Could it be he had a set target for both nights and just wanted other homes slaughtered to divert attention from a possible link between the two? All just shots in the dark I know!
I have heard some rather far fetched reasons for the slayings but as has been previously stated for every whispering there is a contradiction. Even the killers all seem to have a different reason for why it went down. As to WHY the Tate house was the target, I have read Linda Kasabian had drug connections to people at the house that night. Also, I admit this is pure speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be surprised if that creepy little bastard Polanski knows more than he let on. Only one guy knows for sure and he's not talking. 40 years later and Charlie's still pulling the strings.

[Mike's Beard]

.

[Reggie Dunbar]

For all of you outside the Bay Area unfamiliar with Selvin's work, I can tell you aside of the G.D. (he's a huuuuuge fan) basically everyone else has been liberally skewered in his column.

He's an angry old man from the sixties who can't disappear soon enough for most Chronicle readers, and fans of music in general.

[SBGIRL]

On March 23, 1969, Manson entered, uninvited, upon 10050 Cielo Drive, Los Angeles, which he had known as the residence of Terry Melcher.This was Rudi Altobelli's property, where Melcher was no longer the tenant; as of that February, the tenants were Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski.

Manson was met by Shahrokh Hatami, a photographer and Tate friend, who was there to photograph Tate in advance of her departure for Rome the next day. Having seen Manson through a window as Manson approached the main house, Hatami had gone onto the front porch to ask him what he wanted. When Manson told Hatami he was looking for someone whose name Hatami did not recognize, Hatami informed him the place was the Polanski residence. Hatami advised him to try "the back alley," by which he meant the path to the guest house, beyond the main house.

Concerned over the stranger on the property, Hatami was now down on the front walk, to confront Manson. When Tate appeared behind Hatami, in the house's front door, and asked who was calling, Hatami said a man was looking for someone. Hatami and Tate maintained their positions while Manson, without a word, went back to the guest house, returned a minute or two later, and left.

That evening, Manson returned to the property and again went back to the guest house, where, presuming to enter the enclosed porch, he spoke with Rudi Altobelli, who was just coming out of the shower. Although Manson asked for Melcher, Altobelli felt Manson had





come looking for him, as is consistent with prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's later discovery that Manson had apparently been to the place on earlier occasions since Melcher's departure from it.

Speaking through the inner screen door, Altobelli told Manson that Melcher had moved to Malibu; he lied that he did not know Melcher's new address. In response to a question from Manson, Altobelli said he himself was in the entertainment business, although, having met Manson the previous year, at Dennis Wilson's home, he was sure Manson already knew that. At Wilson's, Altobelli had complimented Manson lukewarmly on some of his musical recordings that Wilson had been playing.

When Altobelli informed Manson he was going out of the country the next day, Manson said he'd like to speak with him upon his return; Altobelli lied that he would be gone for more than a year. In response to a direct question from Altobelli, Manson explained that he had been directed to the guest house by the persons in the main house; Altobelli expressed the wish that Manson not disturb his tenants.

Manson left. As Altobelli flew with Sharon Tate to Rome the next day, Tate asked him whether "that creepy-looking guy" had gone back to the guest house the day before.....

[CosmicDancer]

The Tate house certainly wasn't: Charlie knew who lived there, knew it wasn't Melcher any more, knew who else was very likely to be there. He knew who he was going after and he got them.

Frykowski?

[Mike's Beard]

The Tate house certainly wasn't: Charlie knew who lived there, knew it wasn't Melcher any more, knew who else was very likely to be there. He knew who he was going after and he got them.

Frykowski?

If I had to lay money on any of them it would be Jay Sebring. Rumour has it he went a little too overboard with a whip on some of Manson's girls at an orgy. Still, it could have been any of the four. Rumours of Satanic activities, kinky sex videotapes and drug selling have all been levelled at them (of course with practically zero hard evidence). For conspiracy theories Ed Saunders "The Family" can't be beat, even if the text is outright juvenile at times.

[Mr. Cohen]

If Manson had been in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan at the right time, none of this would have mattered. He could have killed millions if it was the right people.

[Mike's Beard]

Shooting a guy before he shoots you in a warzone is very different from invading someone's house and stabbing them.

[hypehat]

If Manson had been in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan at the right time, none of this would have mattered. He could have killed millions if it was the right people.

Shut up, would you?

[Mr. Cohen]

It's true. Imagine if Manson had dedicated his powers to being a super-soldier? We probably would have found Osama bin Laden by now. The give soldiers guns for a reason, man. No need to be so huffy about it.

[hypehat]

Well, what if he'd 'dedicated' his 'powers' to creating the perfect fondue, or collecting rare 78's, or playing the waterphone, or quail hunting, or cheese, or dissecting the complete works of Ben Jonson, or putting on small off-broadway productions of forgotten Victorian satires, or studying penguins in the wild, or watching the Golden Girls, or fighting bulls in Catalonia or curating a toy museum?

He'd be a bloke with a hobby. Instead, he 'dedicated' his 'powers' to taking too many drugs and going off the deep end. I've never found him impressive, is all. I mean, throw a rock into Haight-Ashbury and it'd hit ten blokes who could talk the same amount of merda as Manson before someone would try and smoke it.

 I've got into arguments in Manson threads before, and I think with you, Dada, but the implication that there are 'right' people to kill, and that this is a good thing, is what's abhorrent to me in your statement. Got it?

[Mr. Cohen]

I've got into arguments in Manson threads before, and I think with you, Dada, but the implication that there are 'right' people to kill, and that this is a good thing, is what's abhorrent to me in your statement. Got it?

I can get behind your comments if you're against all forms of war. In that case, I respect your position and believe it to be commendable.

[hypehat]

I've got into arguments in Manson threads before, and I think with you, Dada, but the implication that there are 'right' people to kill, and that this is a good thing, is what's abhorrent to me in your statement. Got it?

I can get behind your comments if you're against all forms of war. In that case, I respect your position and believe it to be commendable.

Well, there are shades of grey. I am against most war, yes. WWI (the Somme excluded) and it's sequel are exceptions, but it's not like I'm exactly a fan of what either side did to each other. I do not think the examples you cited are 'good' wars. But we are derailing this thread! 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I used to work at a bookstore years ago and this old retired LAPD Detective used to come in a lot, and one time I asked him about the Tate murders and he said something about a couple of Manson girls getting beat up pretty badly at some S&M party at the Cielo Drive house. He didn't necessarily say this was the motive (or a motive) but he did say that it would help to go through the original police files on the case in order to get to the bottom of it.

[Mike's Beard]

 I'd like to see any of the surviving detectives who worked on the case be interviewed. It would make a nice change from hearing the same garbage Vincent Buglosi and Steven Kay keep spouting.

[runnersdialzero]

If Manson had been in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan at the right time, none of this would have mattered. He could have killed millions if it was the right people.

You fuck'n kiddin' me, here?

[grillo]

I've got into arguments in Manson threads before, and I think with you, Dada, but the implication that there are 'right' people to kill, and that this is a good thing, is what's abhorrent to me in your statement. Got it?

I can get behind your comments if you're against all forms of war. In that case, I respect your position and believe it to be commendable.

Well, there are shades of grey. I am against most war, yes. WWI (the Somme excluded) and it's sequel are exceptions, but it's not like I'm exactly a fan of what either side did to each other. I do not think the examples you cited are 'good' wars. But we are derailing this thread! 

How can ANY war be okay in any way? It's that exact gray-area thinking that allows unlimited wars to go on forever, because, after all, there's always someone who thinks it's a just war. No war, all the time. That's as simple as it gets. The morals are clear...

[Mike's Beard]

In a perfect world yes - no wars. But we don't live in a perfect world and some conflicts ARE unavoidable. WW2 had to happen. A madman was trying to wipeout half the planet and he had to be stopped. Every country has the right to protect itself from invaders. That is not the same as going to other countries to wage wars which I am totally against.

[grillo]

In a perfect world yes - no wars. But we don't live in a perfect world and some conflicts ARE unavoidable. WW2 had to happen. A madman was trying to wipeout half the planet and he had to be stopped. Every country has the right to protect itself from invaders. That is not the same as going to other countries to wage wars which I am totally against.

Oh yeah, 'countries' go to war. Uh uh. Individuals are sent to war. And NEVER to save innocents, but to help insure the well-being of the State and Empire.How did carpet bombing Dresden (a city full of 'civilians') protect 'us'? You see, when you follow the axiom of non-aggression to it's logical conclussion, an individual can only morally take the life of another individual who poses an immediate threat of harm. Not a possible threat. A real, active, gonna kill you threat. You cannot justify killing innocents in order to save innocents. You see, it makes no sense (said in an over-the-top Bill Hicks way). Please see this article written during the Great War (WW1) for more insight http://antiwar.com/bourne.php
Sorry to come off as a dick, but when will people stop justifying evil, even if it's the lesser of two (or more)?