Monday, November 18, 2013

Ella Jo Bailey

Ella Today


Ella 1969 (used with permission cielodrive.com)






19 comments:

leary7 said...

Ah, my favorite Family female. Thanks Matt. It's a great photo, she looks so healthy and happy. Does anyone know if she has spoken publically at all since her testimony at the trials? Since she was one of the originals, it sure would be gold to hear some reflections from her.

Max Frost said...

Yes it would be gold to hear anything from her.

Chances are she, like most of the others, would rather not be recognized/associated with her past.

What's the big deal? Yeah I was a Manson girl but I've since changed and here's my story.

It's another indication that there's a lot more to the history. What exactly are these people trying so hard to distance themselves from?

Panamint Patty said...

uh...freaks maybe?

DebS said...

Max most of the people who were with the Family back then have gone on to try to live a reasonably normal life. They've married, had children and probably have grandchildren. When you are a parent there are just some things you never tell your children about what you did in your youth. I never did anything that comes close to what went on in the Family but there are still things I've never shared with my kids.


If Ella or any other person who was with the Family weighed between a total stranger's need to know all the little details against the impact those disclosures may have on her own family or her relationship with her own family, what do you think the choice would be? As you grow older and have your own family you realize that your actions and words affect far more people than just yourself.


There is only so much a person can or is capable of rationalizing or justifying to their kids to present a life lesson that most kids would be deaf to anyway, until they are much older. Can you imagine telling your teenager that they shouldn't do this or that only to have them throw back at you, "Well you were in the Manson Family" and the discussion that would ensue from there?


Patty makes a good point about freaks, too. While it is doubtful that any of the other Family members would harass you, there are misguided "followers" that can make your life miserable. Just ask Patty about that!!!

ElComadreja777 said...

She bears a resemblance to Sara Gilbert in that mugshot.

ElComadreja777 said...

She bears a resemblance to Sara Gilbert in that mugshot.

leary7 said...

yeah, Patty and Deb, you guys nailed it. Nothing to gain and to much to lose. I guess I am such a history junkie that I always feel that if someone has something to contribute to "history's understanding" they should do it. But that is a selfish and naïve perspective on my part. And I don't have kids so I forget to factor that into the equation too.
And actually, Ella Jo has some guilt to deal with as well. She clearly knew that Charlie and others had killed Gary and yet while she did leave the Family right away, she didn't drop the dime which might have prevented TLB and Shorty's death. That's gotta weigh on her a bit, certainly enough to counteract any positive memories she has of Family life.

Cielodrive.Com said...

Very well said Deb.

leary7 said...

Damn, I am having a brain freeze and can't thing of the name of the poster who was such a quality legal authority.
Who am I thinking of...Lynyrd, Patty?
Anyways, I wonder if Ella Jo always worried she could have been charged with conspiracy in Gary's death since she admitted to planting the idea in Manson's head that Gary had come into an inheritance. Could she have been charged?
Is it Mr Dilligaf I am thinking of who was our legal expert? Where's he been?

leary7 said...

shit, I am mixing up the blogs again. Getting old sucks.

Matt said...

I always chuckled at his name. It's an acronym for "do I look like I give a fuck". I haven't seen him here in quite some time.

Panamint Patty said...

yeah, Mr. Dill. He was great.

christopher butche said...

As far as I am aware Ella assisted Brunner when they wiped fingerprints on one of Hinman's vehicles at Spahn ranch.

Not just cleaning the vehicle, but knowing what she was doing and why. This took place after the murder, I don't know if she knew Hinman was dead, probably as she left soon afterwards.

So, technically she could have been charged with conspiracy to murder.

Similar to Atkins letter to Bill Nelson (9 June 1992) where she names herself, Grogan, Davis, Brunner and Share in cleaning up evidence at Shorty's murder site on Manson's instructions.

More reasons to not come forward and assist the history buffs.


leary7 said...

yeah, that's dead on Christopher. Do you know if Ella Jo had an immunity deal when she testified against Manson?

leary7 said...

weird to think, Mary and Gypsy living their quiet suburban lives today knowing they still technically could be charged as accessories after the fact in Shorty's murder.
I still will never understand why the state of Cal didn't try Tex for Shorty's murder after the death penalty was reinstated. If anyone deserved the gas chamber it is Tex. They're executing that white supremacist serial killer from the 70's John Paul Franklin sometime soon (it was supposed to be tomorrow but he got a temporary stay). Why not Tex?

christopher butche said...

Leary, there's another recent thread on here that said Ella had a charge dropped against her in exchange for testifying (forgery?) against Manson.

You've also got Share moving Shorty's vehicle and leaving it parked elsewhere. I think Bugliosi mentions that one in 1974's Helter Skelter. Inside is Shorty's case with Davis's fingerprints on it that got him convicted.

As to Tex (not to mention Larry Bailey and Bill Vance) not being charged with Shorty's murder, it may be a similar reason why Grogan didn't get charged with the LaBiancas.

If you look up initial press coverage of the grand jury indictments Grogan is named along with Leslie Sankston (van Houten) for the LaBiancas, and then when the indictments are handed down he's no longer on the list.

It may have something to do with legally needing to have a witness plus evidence. (I haven't really thought this one through and I am shaky on Californian law).

For example: Witness testimony from Kasabian places Tex and Katie at Cielo Drive, bear in mind she is also a conspirator and her testimony is tainted, but the discovery of their fingerprints at the property is the "plus evidence".

There is also the gun, the clothing, the guy who catches them using his hose, etc.

With Shorty no one was talking, and there was no evidence. This is the bit where I get the feeling that if the DA wants to get you they will, but if evidence is lacking you may get away with it as they may decline to prosecute.

For example, the DA declines to prosecute Grogan for LaBiancas, but Atkins and Van Houten get death sentences. Yet Atkins never entered the property, and Van Houten is only charged on Atkins grand jury testimony,

However, the evidence against van Houten is essentially the testimony of Barbara Hoyt and Dianne Lake, and the women Atkins snitched to in Sybil Brand (DA can't directly use Atkin's grand jury testimony as van Houten is a co-conspirator and as they are being tried together it will also implicate Atkins, ie. incriminating herself).

That does also give the impression that witness testimony alone (not from co-conspirators) is all the DA needs to present a case.

So why not go for Grogan? but then decide to on Shorty where again it's only witness testimony about what Hoyt hears or Ruby seeing the group drive away with Shorty (presumably to his death).

Tex can only be placed at the scene by the other killers, there are no murder weapons and no evidence. However Ruby did name him as being part of the group who drove Shorty away from the ranch.

I believe there was simply more will to go for Manson and Atkins on every separate count as they were generating more publicity. Tex's Tate-LaBianca was just a repeat performance and he didn't exactly generate any interesting headlines during his own trial.

Grogan and Davis there may well have been a feeling that they presented a danger to the public, whereas Pitman, Share, etc were expected to drift away from the each other.

Matt said...

That's exactly right. You cannot be convicted solely on the testimony of coconspirators. There must be other corroborating evidence.

leary7 said...

wow, mucho thanks Christopher. that is as reasoned and informative an explanation as I have ever read on the Manson blogs. and I think Matt may have even mentioned that before and I simply forgot.
But of course none of that would have precluded them all being named in civil suits which I wished had been more vigorously pursued by victim's kin back in the day, as was done with OJ. Of course none of them had a dime so that was probably why it wasn't done.

christopher butche said...

Frykowski's son won a civil suit that is renewed every so often. He got some money from the Manson T-shirt sales back in the 1990s (I believe).

The more interesting point is that Kasabian was named in that suit. So I don't see her writing a book anytime soon.

Beausoleil shouldn't face a problem with his book, as and when it is finished and or published. Oregon has different laws to California about convicted criminals profiting from their crimes, and he hasn't been named in a civil suit (as far as I am aware).