WHO TIED UP LABIANCA ?

"...was that tied by somebody that knew what they were doing ?"

Charles Manson to Bill Stout

Photo Source-CieloDrive.com
Photo Source: CieloDrive.Com 
 
January 22, 2015
 
Brian Davis - TLB Radio
 
Mainstream media, Facebook groups, blogs or even here on the Tate-LaBianca
Radio Program. 

Whether I'm in the conversation or not, wherever I see a LaBianca murders
discussion I repeatedly hear or read the comment, "Charlie went in and tied-up
the LaBianca's".

The first thing that needs to be clarified is it was not the "LaBianca's" as in plural.

It was "LaBianca" as in singular.

Leno LaBianca was found with with his hands tied. Rosemary LaBianca was not tied-up.

Yet, it seems most people, media included, tend to think it was both LaBianca's that were
tied-up.

So, who did tied up Leno LaBianca ?


TLB Radio - Sundays - 8p ET

Again, most will answer "Charles Manson" but I beg to differ. I feel it was the other Charles.

Although I have never read his trial testimony, I'm guessing the notion that Manson tied-up Leno LaBianca was started by the actual killer of all the victims, Charles Tex Watson, during his trial or possibly Tex told the girls at some point that Manson tied-up Mr. LaBianca and the girls ran with it.

Or maybe it was murderer Pat Krenwinkel and co-murderer Leslie Van Houten or all of the car occupants who started it by simply assuming Manson went in and tied Mr. LaBianca.

Perhaps it was Manson himself bragging that he went in and tied Mr. LaBianca

much like he boasted of decapitating Shorty Shea. Most now know that Shorty Shea was not decapitated.

Regardless of how it came to light, I don't believe Charles Manson tied up Leno LaBianca.

I believe it was Tex Watson.

Before we get into why I believe this, one thing to remember is all of the TLB players lie.

All of them, even the prosecutor Vince Bugliosi, lie about TLB.

However, they all also tell the truth, even prosecutor Vince Bugliosi.

So, the trick is to try and determine when these people are telling the truth or telling a lie.

Determining where the truth separates from the lie will vary for each of us because

we all infer what we see, hear and read differently.

With that in mind, here is why I think Watson, not Manson, tied-up Leno LaBianca.

First, Manson denies tying up LaBianca on at least a couple of occasions.

In the 1988 Nuel Emmons book, "Manson In His Own Words", Manson denies tying up Mr. LaBianca: 

Excerpt From Manson In His Own Words - Nuel Emmons
Excerpt from Manson In His Own Words - Nuel Emmons

Next, around the same time period as the Emmons book, Manson denied tying up LaBianca in an interview with CBS-Los Angeles's Bill Stout at San Quentin:

(Source: Bill Stout CBS-Los Angeles)
 
 
"But the girls said Manson went in and tied up LaBianca then came back and got Tex", you say ? Well, listening to one of those girls, murderer Pat Krenwinkel, recalling from her 1993 parole hearing, I don't see how her claim of Manson tying up LaBianca is believable:      
Excerpt From Patricia Krenwinkel - 1993 Parole Hearing
 
 
You hear Krenwinkel state that Manson went in and tied the couple up, yet, Krenwinkel say's she was in the car and doesn't know how Manson got in the LaBianca residence. So how would she know if Manson tied-up LaBianca ? As you can see, there is a long driveway going up to the LaBianca house so it would seem the most they would be able to see from the car is Manson going up towards the LaBianca house.
LaBianca Residence
3301 Waverly Drive
 Once Manson disappears from view how can anyone in the car actually know what Manson did after that ?  No one actually saw Manson go into the LaBianca house initially, so how could anyone be in position to actually know if he tied-up LaBianca ? So how is Krenwinkel's claim of Manson tying up LaBianca credible ? Finally, Tex Watson himself admits it was he who tied-up LaBianca. In chapter 15 of his book, "Will You Die For Me ?", Watson writes:           
 
 
Watson's book account matches Manson's book account almost exactly. In my opinion, the death squad pulled up across from the LaBianca residence, Manson got out of the car and went up to the LaBianca house alone and "creepy-crawled" the outside of the house, peeping in windows to see who was inside and checking for unlocked windows and doors. Manson then came back down to the car and got Watson. Those two went back and into the LaBianca house together as Tex writes in his book, "...We went in the unlocked back door..." Krenwinkel, Van Houten, Susan Atkins, Steve Grogan, Linda Kasabian and Watson were all in the car when Manson first went up to the LaBianca house.  I don't see how it is possible for any of them to actually know if Manson even went in the residence at that point, much less if Manson tied-up LaBianca. I think in this case the only two people who know are telling the truth Manson. I think Charles Tex Watson tied up Leno LaBianca not Charles Manson.

7 comments:

chatsworth charlie said...

"...We went in the unlocked back door..."
That's another puzzling aspect.
Why in the world would a door be unlocked with Mrs. Labianca reportedly being spooked by the news of the previous night?

Anonymous said...

Watson's explanation as he wrote in his book is reasonable. Manson held the gun and Watson tied up Leno.

Krenwinkel said she knew Manson went inside. Since she couldn't see how would she know Manson went into the house? Either Manson told her or she's only assuming.

I read somewhere, maybe the police report, that the back door lock was easily defeated. As concerned as were Rosemary and Leno after hearing of the Tate murders they surly would have locked all doors.

My guess is that Manson was able to get around the lock. After all he was a thief and professional criminal.

It's a mystery to me why the dogs didn't raise hell when Manson was sneaking around the house and when he and Watson entered. My guess is that the Mansonites had "crawled" the house many times and made friends with the animals.

Amazingly, Rosemary's hands were never tied nor were her feet.

johnnyseattle said...

"Wake up Lady, you got company"

Yikes, I can't imagine how creepy a feeling Rosemary had on hearing those words from Charlie…

Anonymous said...

The reference to it being Charlie that tied up the "LaBianca(s)" came from Linda Kasabian's testimony:

"He called Leslie, Katie and Tex out of the car and I heard Charlie say there was a man and woman up in the house. That he had tied their hands and told them not to be afraid that he wouldn't hurt them."

grimtraveller said...

Something that I think frequently gets overlooked in the commission of most criminal pursuits is that the perpetrators aren't looking to get caught, therefore, they won't be studying, in minute detail, every single thing that takes place. Unless a criminal is planning their autobiography during their crime[s]or is a serial diary writer, details won't be important. And even if horror or guilt causes you to replay events over and over in the mind, it won't be in exact, detail rich sequence.
Can you remember hearing the eye witness testimony of the many people that witnessed the events of 911 about a year or more after the events ? There were all kinds of discrepancies. In England, a year after it, there were a load of programmes commemorating it and I remember seeing one guy in particular on two different programmes {one was 'Arena' on BBC2 and one was from a programme that was shown on channel 4} and he gave two different accounts of his escape and the moments just before the first building fell.
I don't doubt that any of the things he recounted happened. But at the time, he was concerned with getting his buttkus out of that building and saving the guy he was trying to help out so the actual minutiae of how everything happened and the sequence really isn't that important.
It doesn't mean he was lying. We get the general sense of what happened.
And thus is this event. If you think about it, the people in the car would have been anything but calm and rational, especially Linda, Pat & Susan. Leslie would also have been hardly thinking of breakfast. So the exact sequence is secondary to certain established facts ~ Manson was in the house; Watson was in the house; Mr LaBianca was tied up; Manson told them to hitch hike back to the ranch......after doing what, exactly ? Even if we take the view that he never gave them instructions to kill, I have to ask the question, if Watson was so in control of events would he leave himself out in the sticks without a car to make a quick departure, given the events of the previous night ?
Maybe he would !
But it seems to me that he wasn't the one directing operations, especially given what happened later that night. It seems it was Charlie's decision to stop next to the former True house, even if one accepts he played no further part. Which makes no sense.
The accounts given in Watson's book and "Manson in his own words" are so near identical that it leads me to conclude that the quote in the Manson book is culled from the Watson book in the same way that Watson culls many of his details from Bugliosi's book {he actually tells us this}. In the comparison given in this thread, support for Manson's actions {or lack thereof} is shown by demonstrating the close harmony of the Manson & Watson accounts. But Manson regards the Emmons book as {in his own words !} "bullshit" which throws further problems on the line taken in this thread.
That said, I agree with the overall premise that Watson tied the hands of Leno LaBianca.....because he says that's what happened. He also states Charlie had the gun and that he woke the guy up with it which, any way you look at it, makes him somewhat complicit.

Anonymous said...

It is off-topic. Please, don't pounce me if you happen to be a troll of any nationality:

I'm interested in how the convicted got away from the LaBiancas. All I see are references that they hitch-hiked in the night inevitably from a road that would next be known as one that led by another gruesome, signature murder scene. Does anyone know if these people really hitch-hiked afterwards?

One place says Watson showered so maybe he didn't have blood all over him and didn't raise suspicion. Then, if they did hitch-hike then did anyone come forward? Do you think someone was afraid to admit it even though it could have helped the prosecution if the prosecution needed it?

Also, could the "hitch-hike" account be a way to distance Manson from further involvement in the scene at the LaBiancas? Although, they went somewhere else, who is to say they didn't go back and pick up these convicted for the murders of the LaBiancas? There is no more evidence that Manson did not go back for them than that they hitch-hiked.

People who do not want to get caught are not hitch-hiking away from the scene on a highway in threes and in the night. I also don't expect them to have made reasonable decisions considering the murder-scenes. Maybe, they hitch-hiked and that might make perfect sense given the insanity of the killings.

Do you guys think the "hitch-hike" detail was just another way to be vague and evasive? Even some guy who let the convicted wash their hands with his water hose eventually came forward to say, "Hey, I didn't know, but..." Why not some good Samaritan who happened to pick up dangerous people and give them a ride?

I'm just wondering if anyone's heard of anybody coming forward in terms of giving them a ride after the murders or is that just open-ended testimony from all the convicted? Nobody with a car went missing that night in L.A., did they?

Thanks a lot if you can share that you've seen any other account of their journey back to where they stayed besides that they hitch-hiked.

Anonymous said...

There were all these cars out there where they stayed, ranch-hands, etc. There were six stolen cars too. So, who in the world would hitch-hike from another murder scene?

The people stole cars. Who plans to hitch-hike 30 miles after doing what they did? Especially when they steal cars?

The narrative was that Manson and a few went to kill somebody else in Venice who wasn't home. Venice is 30 miles in a direction away from the LaBiancas as well as where they stayed.

If anybody gave these three a ride, then I don't know why it wouldn't be Manson. They had time to kill, Watson had time to shower, and the others did too if they were bloody, surely.

Nobody gets far walking around in bloody company on a road or a highway. They wouldn't even have had to walk far or to arrive at a predetermined place and linger in the shadows for their ride to come back.

Why does anybody care? Well, I was surprised no one came forward and said, "Yeah, I picked up these three people here on the highway dressed in dark clothing on the night of the murders."

Then, if they stole all these cars, then why wouldn't they just steal another car instead of "hitch hike"? Not that the crimes make sense, but the hitch hike idea makes as little sense in a little detail kind of way.


Crazy.

 

Blogger Templates