Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Ed Sanders.... On Death Row part 2


 
 
Los Angeles Free Press Vol. 7 No. 45 Issue # 329  Nov. 6, 1970 
continued....


Frank Fowles, the District Attorney of Inyo County, testified about some sound tests he conducted recently at Myers Ranch in the Death Valley National Monument.  His testimony was given to add strength to Barbara Hoyt's testimony that she heard Susan Atkins say that Sharon Tate was the last to die because she had to watch the others die first.  The overheard conversation allegedly took place inside the Myers Ranch, which is about a quarter of a mile up the wash from the famous Barker Ranch.

Fowles really wasn't needed at the trial, but probably was brought down by the prosecution as a courtesy measure.  He did not testify about the famous file of nude photos of the Family, including the whispered-over Manson-Little Patty-Clem Brenda circle slurp.  Nor did he testify about the camera equipment confiscated at the Barker Ranch in October of 1969 or the film therein which, according to authorities, when developed turned out to be blank.

The continued search for the head of Shorty O'Shea(sic) continues unabated.  There once was a stuntman ranch hand at the Spahn Ranch who disappeared.  His car, loaded up with all his gear (minus his matched pistols) was discovered in Canoga Park after he disappeared.  According to many sources, he was beheaded after a few weeks of friction with certain people.

Anyway, one Vern Plumlee, a former "member" of the Family who is currently held for some stabbing in Long Beach, led the police recently on a skull search of the burnt Spahn Ranch, which included a search of a large water tank high on the hills north of the ranch.  Vern claimed to the fuzz that Clem told him that Shorty was buried by a campfire down by the creek by the cave, but only chicken bones were discovered.  This is about the fifth time that a massive search for Shorty's body has been undertaken.

We checked with Thomas Noguci, the LA County Coroner, when the rumors about the Sheriff's Office looking anew for Mr. O'Shea(sic) were spreading about.  It is known that Devil's Canyon was held to be sacred long ago when Indians lived nearby.  Well, evidently when they were digging in Devil's Canyon early this year for Shorty, they uncovered some sort of Indian burial ground, a fact that hampered operations in that each skull had to be examined as to its age and likeness to the one sought.  They have not found Shorty.

Vern Plumlee is famous in Mansonian circles in that, armed with a sawed-off shotgun, he creepy crawled the homes of Jack Jones, the star, and Marvin Miller in July of 1969.  From the home of Jack Jones, creepy crawled at 2AM even though the lights were on, the c.-c.-ers took only a cowboy hat.  For verily they creepy crawled only to experience the tidal wave of the Great Fear.

One of the last prosecution witnesses is to be Dianne Lake, who had lived with Charlie Manson for almost two years prior to her arrest in Death Valley in October 1969.  After her arrest and after further arrests regarding the murders, she was placed in an insane asylum through a frightening police state-like collusion of the Los Angeles District Attorney, the Inyo County District Attorney and hospital authorities.

In late December 1969, Dianne Lake (known as Snake to the Family) was extensively interviewed by one Jack Gardiner and one Buck Gibbons (famous in that he confiscated Sandy Good's breast pump during the Barker Ranch raids) about activities of Manson and the Family.  Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Gibbons. who are employees of the Inyo County District Attorney's office, came up with some interesting data.  However, what power on earth could have predicted that the pretty and nubile Miss Lake would turn up a year later with Mr. Gardiner as her foster father!?

Anyway, early this year she was admitted, as a minor, into Paton State mental hospital.  Her legal parents tried to visit her and to claim her but were told to fuck off.  Hospital lackeys diagnosed her as follows: "Diagnosis: 295.0 Schizophrenia, chronic undifferentiated type (with group delinquent reaction). 308.58 Behavior disorder of childhood and adolescence. 304.7 Drug dependence, hallucinogens (prominent).  Prognosis: Extremely guarded for any improvement in this girl."

A Conservator was appointed for her- the Inyo County Coroner.  She remained in the nut hatch until this past August, even though she was reported by her captors to be sane about a week after she was committed.  After her release from Paton Hospital she has lived with her foster father.  In coming to court to testify the other day she bore a startling resemblance to the English cousin in the Patty Duke Show, with her hair combed in a similar manner, her faced scrubbed shiny and a white sailor shirt and blue skirt covering her body, which seems to be tending towards chub-chub.

In honor of her impending testimony the x-browed girls vigiling outside moved inside- the group of snuff sub-alterns moved inside to wait for Snake Lake.  As she walked into court escorted by her "Father" and by one of those smiling deputy DA's who took the place of Aaron Stovitz, Squeaky yelled out, "You ain't plastic and you know it. You can't turn your back on love."  As I write this Snake hasn't actually testified but as of a hearing on her ability to remember events of summer-fall 1969, she has been adjudged competent to testify.  She is expected to testify regarding conversations she heard about the death of Rosemary LaBianca and also about the disposal of certain items pertaining to the LaBianca crimes.

In addition, as of certain interviews we have undertaken over the months, Miss Lake has some interesting data in her mind regarding the Gary Hinman murder, data which would in our opinion cast considerable light on the reality of that grim tragedy.

On Friday, October 30, there was a hearing to declare Tex Watson insane. Everybody knew that Watson was out of it.  The former all-district halfback for Farmersville, Texas High School was down from 190 pounds to 110!  One kept hearing from various officials, "Aw, he's just malingering!"  But there was and is some danger that he will die, and the last thing Sheriff Peter Pitchess wants is for Tex Watson to die of malnutrition in the Los Angeles County Jail.  So the human skeleton of Charles Watson has been shipped to Atascadero State Hospital, where probably they will thorazine him up for a few months and feed him some sort of liquid mounds bar through the nose for a while and then ship him back for trial- that is, if he doesn't die; and the secret gossip in the Hall of Justice is that death is imminent. The report to the court reads that he is "rapidly reverting to a fetal state."  And you can better believe the DA is not going to let Tex Watson into a nut hatch unless he is really in heavy orbit.  Even now, however, officials are very hesitant to say he is really insane, but rather say that "he's doing it to himself."

If he dies, it will be the fault of the District Attorney's office- because Charles Manson in front of witnesses, offered to bring him out of it.  Manson is alleged to have said, "Just give me 20 minutes with him alone and I will bring him back." 

Where was Sharon Tate on August 2, 1969?





31 comments:

orwhut said...

If nothing else, Mr. Sanders is entertaining.

St. Circumstance said...

I disagree respectfully... ( Well it was an entertaining book- so not entirely- but I have issues with Sanders)

2 parts for space

Bugs is credited with making up a motive and taking this case into a whole new stratosphere for his own gain... BUT I think that Sanders is more so responsible

Bugs was assigned the case and reported what he saw/found/was told by the relevant witnesses he spoke with. H/S was painted on a refrigerator at a victims house. It was painted on a door at the ranch. I have heard maybe a dozen "Family" members use this term and talk about it. THEY DID USE THE TERM. BUGS DID NOT MAKE IT UP...

Not one piece of evidence out there that BUGS made anything up. He got lucky and was assigned a case which would allow him to make some money after telling the story. It happens- just ask Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden...

The book sold a gazillion copies for a reason. There were so many books about this subject- why did his hit the jackpot?? I argue credibility was the reason. He was factual and believable to many of us.

But soo many here rule him and his theory of motive out first. Why??

St. Circumstance said...

Because of guys like Sanders, Schrek, and Terry who really did do what Bugs is accused of. Adding layers to the truth which cannot be proven, but titillate the imagination. Sex tapes,child porno rings, and satanism, tying every crime in the 60's and 70's together..

Is it shocking to know that a good deal of the sources these people use is each other??

The Cotton Club murders, Manson 1 and 2, The Mafia, drug parties where stars film each other having sex with common people. Underground porn societies, Satanic rituals...

This is what makes people go on and on is searching for some bigger picture where it is all true and linked and there was Charlie right in the middle of all these important and powerful people...

I think this is much worse case of sensationalizing the story than anything Bugs ever did...

I think at that time Bugs was just a young assistant DA who wanted to do a good job and make a name for himself. He probably realized this case would be one for the ages and he might have had his mind on what would come after. That is human nature....

But I can prove that several things Schreck,Sanders,Terry tried to hint or imply happened, or were related- did not and were not...

All I keep hearing about Bugs is that he made H/S up. There are plenty of places you can go to see for yourself that he did not...

What else about Bugs case can anyone for sure say wasn't true??

Sanders drops many names in his book and was a player of the times. Certainly he was a guy who was around the Haight Ashbury during its peak, and he was a respected member of the hippy community. He had skills for writing and the fugs were not my style but deserving of my respect as well....

But his book is just breeding ground for rumors and innuendos which any real seeker of the truth should not let them self get bogged down with..

He has a style and wit to his writing- no doubt about that- but he takes many, many liberties...

How can we hate and disbelieving Bugs for writing a book based on an investigation of fact- yet spend so much time trying to prove things guys like Maury Terry, and Sanders say when they are based on stories coming from other guys like Terry and Sanders??

How many people out there think, and tell others that Charlie, Folger and Shorty had dinner in San Francisco- just because it is in one of these books??

What bugs did was give a motive based on conversations he had with members of the family and evidence he found while poking around (the writing on the doors, refrigerators)

If you are investigating a case and a dozen witnesses tell you about H/S- then you find the term on property at the place the accused live, and then you see it on the premises of one of the crime scenes. Then you have people telling you that one guy is the leader and the others all serve him and follow his every word- and in court and during the interrogations they do exactly that ( from xing there heads after him to saying amen to him when he speaks...

it seems pretty simple and slam dunk to me...

people seem to think it is impossible to believe he simply called it like he saw it...

As long as guys like Sanders keep at it- stoking the imagination- people will always feel like there has to be more...

just maybe there isn't...

Panamint Patty said...

Some day when Patty isnt quite so busy she wants to go back and look at Sanders' recounting of the death of Gary. There's some stuff in there that Patty thinks has been overlooked. And with Ed, just like with Charlie, there's a seed of truth in whatever he says, even if he got the big picture wrong. Anywho, it has to do with Gary having guests from Santa Barbara right before he was murdered. Santa Barbara at that time ws a BEL stronghold. Just sayin'.

St. Circumstance said...

last thought...

one expample :

Bugs laid out the similarities between Charlie's beliefs and those of the "Process", but also points out- FAIRLY- that he could find no proof any relationship existed.

to me that was fair... interesting to compare, but honest about what he found....

Sanders and Terry dont bother with what can be actually proved - they just pile on coincidences and rumors and unnamed sources and imply to you it was fact...

Terry went through an enormous amount of trouble and presented incredible evidence in the first 3/4 of his book Ultimate Evil that the Son of Sam did not and could not have acted alone...

compare that with the small part he did trying to connect Charlie to the rest of his plot and you see the difference. within his own book you can see the difference between well researched evidence and where he takes incredible leaps to fill in holes in his theories...

I think Sanders is a interesting guy- and a great teller of tales of the times... But I feel much of it was added spice he felt he needed to sell books...

and that is what we accuse Bugs of doing. I am hoping just to point out how different the approach was both of these guys took, and question which one we should trust more???

and question why we give more credence to one over the other- UNLESS....

some of us just want there to be more to it???

leary7 said...

there is a state rep up in New Hampshire who had to apologize recently for proclaiming that the Boston Marathon bombings were a black ops exercise.
point is there will always be conspiracy folk. It's just part of the scenery.
what amazes me about the TLB truth-seekers is how completely they dismiss the testimonies of the participants. Tex, Sadie, Lulu and Pat. Certainly all did lie and behave delusionally back in the day because they were serious deep-fried wackadoodles. But what would the motive be FOR ALL FOUR to perpetuate lies thirty and forty years later knowing full well the odds of release are nill - especially for Pat and Tex.
Forty-three years and we still have folk looking for the secret smoking gun behind door number three. It is amusing.

Lauren Webster said...

The one part that makes me go "Wtf" when I read about the murder of Gary in Sander's book was when he said Kitty saw Gary's vehicle and did a garbage run. Kitty had no idea what was going on.. she only found about what Bobby did until AFTER he got arrested..

leary7 said...

the problem remains, and will always remain, the people want to assign reason and logic to the actions of Charlie and the wackadoodles. There was no reason and logic. Charlie wanted war, convinced himself and others that 'pigs' deserved to die, and then hit the wall with Bobby's arrest and the Crowe paranoia. He lashed out, ensnaring seven other Family members with dirty hands. Hats off to TJ and Ella Jo and others who said no.
The true story itself is interesting enough, but conspiracy and what's behind door number three is always more fun.

orwhut said...

St. Circumstance said... I disagree respectfully... ( Well it was an entertaining book- so not entirely- but I have issues with Sanders)

St. Circumstance,
I appreciate your respectful disagreement but, I can't figure out which of my seven words you disagree with.

St. Circumstance said...

me either lol

I don't disagree with you actually but didn't realize that until after my long winded rant was over...

He is very entertaining...

I disagree with some of the things he has said and written...

but not with you- sorry :)

orwhut said...

Thanks for clearing that up. I enjoyed your rant. :)

St. Circumstance said...

lol sometimes I loose myself :)

Farflung said...

The use of various motives like Helter Skelter, drug rip-offs, and films featuring the savage exchange of bodily fluids, among the clan have primarily mystified me; because they are distracting, deflecting, and utterly irrelevant. That is regarding how justice is delivered.

Motive (Helter Skelter) is NOT a requirement for conviction. Motive is something lawyers assume the jury pool demands, in order to reach a verdict. I simply don’t understand this perspective since a video of a robber shooting and killing a store clerk, is typically good for a guilty vote, sans the addition of what motivated that robber. Why make something unnecessarily complicated? That extra requirement is like adding another reel to a slot machine, or an additional number to the lottery, in order to win, and the inclusion is an exponential burden rather than linear.

The Manson murders contained plenty of loose mouthed participants, who blabbed about their deeds within hours of their completion. Brunner testified about Hinman, Kasabian on Tate-LaBianca, with Poston, Watkins, et al, on the Shea murder. It really doesn’t seem that complex or mysterious until the many, many motives are tossed into the mix. Is there some ambiguity about Tex walking up to Steve Parent and shooting him to death? The ambiguities exist with what Parent was doing at Cielo, his relationship with Garretson, the sale of a Sony clock radio, his involvement with theft, drugs, homosexuality, and whatever else is salacious enough to develop legs and run for forty years. Then add a layer about what motivated Tex Watson with drugs, music contracts, a social debt to Manson with Lotsapoppa, a copy cat killing to free Beausoleil, or a source of money to free Brunner, just to name a few.

Even though there is much debate about the various motives, and a wicked desire to attach other killings to the Family (Zodiac, Pugh, Hughes, and whatever), I’ve not come across anything which exonerates any of the Family members in the clink. Brunner avoided a murder trial via a technicality which the DA fumbled, Squeaky was released in Stockton for a ‘lack of evidence’, not an abundance of innocence, and TJ managed to avoid attempted murder charges thanks to a ‘professional courtesy’ extended by Bernard Crowe. That’s a lot of malfeasance oozing through the cracks in my book, and fodder for better conspiracy theories than Helter Skelter.

St. Circumstance said...

Farflung...

I agree with most of what you say

I think the ONE reason people THINK a motive was necessary here is because Charlie wasn't hands on and without a motive that involves him- he walks on the most serious charges...

I am not sure that I agree with that, but I have heard the argument made as to this being the reason bugs made up the H/S lie..

I have over and over heard it called Bugs creation/lie/ etc...

I just don't agree he made it up. The overall importance of it, and how much it had to do with the murders is suspect. The exsistance of it is not.

So if Bugs repeated to a jury what he was told over and over by those who were there- and he showed the jury physical evidence of the family using the phrases themselves, and then marched family member after family member in front of them to verify it...

I think that is different from what Sanders and the others do when they ask you to believe something...

maybe not any more true ultimately- but more reasonable at least. And I am not arguing H/S is correct, just pointing out that many many people throw it out as a product of Bugs making up parts of the story for personal gain, and I think that is exactly what Sanders and a few others have done.

I agree Farflung- Bugs wouldn't have needed a motive to win this one. The family made it that easy for him ... but I think he was given a gift in a basket from the family and people now resent him for doing his job and reporting what he found and what the witness' told him...

He had his murderers he knew it and he got them put away. many of us criticize how often Charlie was allowed to get in and out of jail while on probation. We wonder if these crimes could have been prevented if the system would have kept Charlie off the streets. Bugs got that done. Maybe he saved a few others who would have gotten it down the road? I don't know, but maybe...

kudos is one word I never hear about Bugs- he gets it from me

Not saying he would have been right to make something up just to get Charlie. saying that he didn't have to. It was presented to him and he ran with it...

As a result a career criminal was taken off the streets for good...

and there is no doubt about that

Farflung said...

I agree with your premise Saint, and agree that Manson and Family are correctly catalogued and housed. It’s the justice system which gives me heartburn in a Charles Dickens-onian way, where if that’s the law, then the law is an ass.

Bernard Crowe apparently chose NOT to press charges against the Manson Trinity of: Charles, Tex and TJ, for what that group had long assumed to have been a successful murder. Without getting too ‘Butterfly Effect-ish’, imagine what would have happened if those three ended up serving a few years for attempted murder. But with the fantasy of 20/20 hindsight and the following murders viewed as preordained, it is a bit too much to assume.

If Crowe was in fact killed, the option of pressing charges become de facto, with the presence of evidence, which supports the burden of proof by the state. What kept the DA from going after Charles, Tex and TJ once there was evidence of their culpability with shooting Lotsapoppa?

Three women have just escaped an ‘alleged’ kidnapper in Cleveland this week. Should they be given the option of pressing charges? What if they say it wasn’t that bad after all and they just want to put it behind them? This is the sort of procedural stuff which I find baffling and unnecessary. There’s evidence of a crime, then things should continue on autopilot.

Did Bugliosi have a tougher time with Manson’s particular participation? Absolutely. It’s just a matter of how far down the rabbit hole one needs to travel in order to complete the task at hand. I’m certainly no expert and Bugliosi was successful in gaining a conviction, but added an immense amount of complexity in the process (Helter Skelter, race wars, underground cities, coded messages on The White Album, copy cat killings, on and on). More complexity typically will lead to some systemic failure before the more simplistic solutions (retrials, reversals, and releases). The common thread associated with Lotsapoppa, Hinman, Tate-LaBianca, and Shea was: the firestone which is Manson. Manson did shoot Crowe, cut Hinman, tied the LaBiancas, and beat Shea, according to testimony free of the Helter Skelter chaff which has clouded this tale for so long. I too give Bugliosi kudos for his ultimate success, but I also feel there is some room for lessons learned, as a way to hone the future use of the justice system.

St. Circumstance said...

I think your very wise...

Great thoughts!

leary7 said...

Lessons from Manson as a way to hone the future of the judicial system???
A delusional psychopath who attacked the judge, had to be removed from the courtroom on numerous occasions and finally refused to put on a defense?
While I respect your thesis the only judicial lesson to be learned from Manson is you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Charlie convicted himself with his antics and his actions. He played right into Vince's hands, as did his followers with their slavish devotion (watch video of the crawl to the courthouse).
There are plenty of lessons to be learned from TLB but from my perspective they are more cultural and social rather than criminal or judicial.

Farflung said...

Leary7 pontificates:

“… the only judicial lesson to be learned from Manson is you don't look a gift horse in the mouth.”

I believe there are a few UPstream ‘gift horses’ which may have been ignored by the judicial system.

When did Manson become a delusional psychopath? Was it a binary occurrence, or like most cancers, were there increasing indicators and signs which are much easier to deal with via early detection? It seems that the malignancy which ultimately manifested in the summer of 1969 had been quite detectable in some of the previous years.

Around 1968, President Johnson pushed through some legislation which part of Title 18 of the United States Code, section 922, making the possession (meaning touching one) of any firearm, by a Felon (Manson), punishable by up to TEN years in prison. Sure seems like getting a compulsive law breaker off the blotter for a decade could have been done with Manson firing or possessing any of the dozens of guns on the ranch, or with the one he used to deliver a gut shot to Crowe. At least this appears to be a much simpler, cheaper, and quicker way to remove Manson from society till 1979, when he could try again.

Apparently when Manson delivered that live round of ammunition to the Beach Boys manager (or whoever), that was enough to throw him into the system for another stint. His felonious past appeared to be no secret to anyone in his social circles. Manson listed Spahn’s as his residence and it was filled with firearms from the raid, why didn’t the judicial system act? No lessons to be learned? Really?

GrumpFromPahrump said...

Panamint Patty said...
Santa Barbara at that time ws a BEL stronghold.

As a retired military member, BEL to me means "Behind Enemy Lines".

Panamint Patty said...

that and BROTHERHOOD OF ETERNAL LOVE. Patty ain't lettin' it go quite yet.

St. Circumstance said...

Me either and I have been working on that like Scientology my sister...

I will have something to say when I am thoroughly studied and ready....

Patty gave me one of my top 5 subjects about this period of all time and I am really grateful

:)

leary7 said...

of course you're right Farflung, plenty of lessons to be learned. But I thought you were talking just about the trial and such. The police can always learn - and clearly they hadn't by OJ trial and others - like getting the date on the search warrant correct.
The police always deserve the benefit of the doubt but their performance in TLB was laughable.
My original point was I just don't think much can be learned from the trial of Manson and the girls simply because they made a farce out of the proceedings.

brownrice said...

Patty,
the BEL were taken over by a guy called Ron Stark the same week that the Tate/LaBianca murders happened. Stark went on to pretty well flood the world with acid (thanks Ron). In the 70s, he went on to do time in various Italian prisons, infiltrate a number of left & right wing terrorist organisations and eventually put his hand up as a CIA agent so as to get himself released by the Italian authorities. Interesting guy…

Whilst examining the general mafia/intelligence community take-over of the acid biz in 1969, ya might wanna have a look at Altamont (which according to all the official histories was the other great nail in the coffin of the 60s along with the Watson murders).

Sam Cutler (the Rolling Stones & later Grateful Dead tour manager- the guy left holding the can after Altamont) in his excellent book "You Can't Always Get What You want" talks about how Altamont was flooded with free acid…. ridiculously strong acid (1200 mics a tab)… acid that none of the Brotherhood or other underground cooks had ever seen before or could identify.

They COULD identify the fact that it was tabbed very professionally… on the sort of tabbing machine that none of them had access to. Indeed, the only machines of that ilk were either in the hands of huge drug companies or the government.

He also talks about how the actual Stones tour was pretty well taken over by the mob.

Not sure if that has any relevance to your BEL theories but I've always found it verrrrrrrry interesting….

orwhut said...

Browneice said...
Indeed, the only machines of that ilk were either in the hands of huge drug companies or the government.

Did Mr. Cutler offer any proof that the government posessed these tabbing machines?

brownrice said...

orwhut,
Sam's book is entirely anecdotal and I fear my paraphrasing of it may have put words in his mouth. Here's the relevant extract…

"Several of the Bay area chemists had managed to get samples of that batch of bad acid and they were adamant that it was not manufactured by any of the California street chemists, all of whom formed a pretty tight little underground cabal.

They all agreed that the bad acid given away at Altamont was pressed on a machine of a type that can only be found in the upper reaches of the legitimate pharmacological industry. Such a machine would have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, which was beyond the reach of the underground chemists.

And even if the underground chemists had been able to afford such a machine, the federal anti-drug agencies were monitoring the manufacturers of these machines and would know of anybody who had purchased one. To purchase such a machine would make being busted an absolute certainty. Of course, such a machine would have been readily available to federal agencies if they required it."

He says lots of other stuff that's very interesting as well but he probably wouldn't want too much of his book splashed around the internet for free, It's a great memoir… well worth the read. And oh yeah, the tabs were 1600 mics not 1200 as I earlier stated. Blame it on my poor memory…

starship said...

If you get the DVD version of GIMME SHELTER, the special features include excerpts from the KSAN post mortem which is featured in the film, but includes quite a bit more than what was included in the film. it is very insightful as to the vibe at Altamont.

leary7 said...

brownrice...I love reading about guys like Ron Stark and Sam Cutler. Do you know if both are still alive?
I wonder how the acid business differed between coasts. I remember how easy it was to buy Orange Sunshine in Harvard Square circa '70-73 but both the scene and quality got nasty around '75. I gotta wonder if that was the transition from free-lance guys to mob-backed exploiters too.

Panamint Patty said...

OH! Cutler not Cutter? Now Patty gets it...

yes she is taking the piss

brownrice said...

Patty said:
OH! Cutler not Cutter? Now Patty gets it...

yes she is taking the piss

No, quite different people but just like any real person, a simple google search should tell you who he is... unlike Cutter and other imaginary playmates.

Affectionately taking the piss right back at you :-)

Leary,
Stark "died" soon after he was extradited back to the US. Sam's been living in Australia for decades.

Panamint Patty said...

Australia. Didn't owsley live there too? He passed recently patty remembers.

brownrice said...

Yep & yep. They were pretty good buddies until Bear's passing.