Monday, March 23, 2015

Goodbye Helter Skelter: Chapters Seventeen through Nineteen (The End)

Patty's book report on Goodbye Helter Skelter is coming to a close. She hopes that you have enjoyed it. Though Patty certainly does not agree with everything that George has written, she appreciates the opportunity to have read it, thought about it, and discussed it with the author.  Thank you, George, for your openness to enriching this experience.

Chapter Seventeen: "Aftermath."

The point of this chapter is to discuss what has happened to each convicted "Family member" since the trial: how their attitudes toward Charlie have changed and how Charlie is said to harbor no ill will towards any of them. Of Charlie, Stimson demonstrates that he has no desire nor illusions of being paroled. Charlie feels that we on the outside are the crooks who lie and cheat all the time. Also, he wants to be with "all the people that I came in with." Of a new trial, he does not want one for himself, but rather in order to uphold the sixth amendment for the good of the people.

Tex fought extradition to California long enough to have a trial separate from the others. Charlie says that he's a momma's boy, but kept his word, and did what he was supposed to do. Susan became a born again Christian in 1974 and lambasted Guns N Roses for recording Look at your Game Girl. Charlie says "I'm glad that she's got whatever she can get." Pat (Yellow) says that she was manipulated by Charlie while under the influence of drugs and that nothing was ever done at the ranch without Charlie's express permission. Charlie says that she has lied multiple times on TV but that he will not judge her. Leslie ("mean" Green) was granted bail for six months between 1977 and 1978. She said that Charlie became progressively more physically and verbally abusive of her during her time at Spahn, and even told her that she would die if she left him. She resents his dishonesty for not assuming his part of the blame for what happened. Charlie says that "I love her no matter what...She's not wrong in what she's saying...we can't look down at her like she's wrong because we can't see what she's looking at."

Bruce recounts a time in 1973 when he sat next to Charlie on a bus ride to Los Angeles. He remembers that "he was just carrying on as if nothing had happened." Bruce remembers thinking that "something's terribly wrong here." Bruce was denied parole twice at the time of this book's printing because, as Governor Jerry Brown wrote, "It is clear that he continues to withhold information about these events." Bobby Beausoleil has never overtly denounced Charlie, but says that "there is no love lost" between  them. He claims that he was never a "member" of the "Family" and has always supported the idea that the later murders were a reaction to the Hinman murder. Charlie says of Bobby and Bruce that he always tried to help them, that he took care of them by paying their bills and their rent. He says that Bobby always wanted to be Charlie, that Charlie was always trying to save his ass. Bobby has never responded to any of Charlie's letters. Steve Grogan is the only killer to have been released, presumably because he gave up the location of Shea's body, because he was only 16 at the time of the crimes, and because he developed increased empathy for his victim after having been stabbed in prison by Nuestra Familia. He says that at 16, he was easily manipulated. Charlie says that he pulled Steve out of the trash can, and never told him what he could or could not do.

The chapter wraps up with Charlie's observations about why everyone turned against him: because they were made to believe that if they did not, then they would never get released from prison. They have had to justify in their own minds why they believe that Charlie was to blame. They do not want to speak with Charlie because they are afraid of what they are thinking about themselves. Charlie says his only crime is that he did "mean" things to people who misused his friends: if you misuse his friends, then you misuse Charlie. He does not feel that he ever made a mistake because in his world, if you make a mistake, then you're gone. He says he fell down only when he was standing upon the words of others.

Chapter Eighteen: "Charles Manson."

Stimson offers up some analysis about who Charlie truly is. He begins with who he is not: he is not impressed by Scientology, the Process Church, or other organized religions. He is not a satanist. He does believe in the concept of God, however: "God is everywhere. God is nobody...he's all of us." Christ, he says, was a prophet: but does Charlie see himself as a prophet as well? "I was a servant to God...whatever God is. It's just a word." Does he believe that God and the devil are the same thing? "An intelligent man knows that God and the devil are his own interpretation...I am God, I am the devil within my own existence and my understanding of both."

Then Stimson broaches the topic of whether or not Charlie views Adolf Hitler as a hero? "He was a good man." Apparently Charlie admires the order that Hitler tried to bring to Germany. And it seems that he approves of the Nazi party though not the American white power movement: "The American Nazi party is the worst thing that ever happened to the Nazi party...a bunch of fat, sloppy, fucking assholes." On racism, Stimson concedes that Charlie IS a racist but that he has no hate for any race in particular rather, "I hate all white people. White people are rotten. And black people are just like 'em.  Because you've made em just exactly like you...they want to be you...why couldn't they be left to God? In the jungle they were God."

What had the most influence over Charlie, as with most of us, were his early years. Charlie says that he ruined his mothers life, and in exchange she was horribly cruel to him both emotionally and physically. He confirms the familiar story of how Kathleen sold him for a pitcher of beer, how she drank a lot, and how she hustled men for money (though, Stimson insists, she was NOT a prostitute). Nevertheless Charlie says that he respected and liked her, that what she did to him made him strong. His wife Rosalie also influenced his personality in that after Charlie was put into prison for stealing a car, Rosalie went off, slept with his friends, and eventually divorced him. "I believed if you got married to somebody...that we would, uh, till death do us part, and all that...And I held my way. I held my loyalness. And she went off down the road...and I just went crazy... I guess that's what we call 'jealousy'." Stimson claims that these events did not make him hate women but that he retains an old fashioned view on the relationship between men and women: "Male is the creator. Woman receives the creation from man. She's a receptacle, a receiver."At the end of this section, Charlie's grandparents and Uncle Luther are also mentioned.

Next, Stimson talks about prison and people that Charlie met there along the way. Charlie recounts a very long list of the institutions he has been in: Father Gibault's, White's Institute, juvenile hall, Boys' Town (Father Flannigan's); Danville, IL; Plainfield, IN; Salt Lake City, "federal joints," Natural Bridge in Washington DC; Petersburg VA and Lewisburg, PA among others. Because of this, he says he never got to do the normal things people do in life. He was often beaten: "When I would get up from there I would feel like - I would be relieved. I'd feel stronger and better."  In prison, he learned from "the old Italians" to not snitch, to fight and to mind your own business. At Terminal Island he saw a man killed in the kitchen, then butchered so that he would fit in the trash cans. "People getting killed around me is no new thing...when you live a life like that, it becomes a natural thing."

Everything, Charlie has learned, runs on favors. It does not matter if you think the favor is right or wrong, you just do it.  Prison runs on the enforcement of rules: the inmates follow them as do the guards, many of whom were previously servicemen. "War," Charlie says, "is a word you use when someone is coming to kill you....it has nothing to do with...what you think is right or wrong." Similarly, the idea of brotherhood is very important to Charlie because he has been in institutions all his life, where he was raised in a "collective mind," where your opinions and decisions are not your own. Many of these institutions were run by clergy, who are a brotherhood. Charlie thinks very highly of veterans, a brotherhood who sacrificed their lives for him. He says that decisions that were made at the ranch were not his, they belonged to the group, to the men there. That is what he learned in prison, to make decisions for the good of the brotherhood, not just for himself.

Why he is seen as a leader is puzzling to him. Stimson says that Charlie is a natural leader: he is charismatic, enthusiastic, and confident. He was 10-15 years older than the others at the Ranch, and he took an interest in people and their problems: for instance, many of his friends needed a place to live, so he provided that for them. Charlie continues to claim that he did not tell people WHAT to do, but rather told them what they COULD do. He does not want people to know him, he wants them to know themselves: "what you see in me is you." He is aware that media interviews are not impartial, so he has adapted to that situation.  The media will pounce on anything negative or crazy, so that is what he gives them: in fact, he likes to play them. He does not care if he is misinterpreted: "it's got nothing to do with me personally." Stimson feels that the public reaction to his persona, while superficially entertaining, it is unfortunate and a misdirection of Charlies energy and potential: he has so much more to offer the world than a series of performances. When he has said this to Charlie, he has simply responded by saying, "how would you play it?"

Chapter Nineteen: "Afterword."

In the final analysis, Stimson writes that had he severed himself from the trial of his co-defendants, he would have been given a much lighter sentence. However, he stood by his friends. Stimson finds him to be nothing if not consistent in the way he describes the events of the Summer of 69, and therefore credible. He is brilliant in many regards, though deficient in others. He is both ill tempered and negative, but also good humored and full of enthusiasm. "That he has survived this long is a testament to his integrity." Condemnation of him is easy, but it is more interesting and fulfilling to try and understand him as a person. It has made Stimson a better person, he writes. He can be a bad guy, but he can also be a good guy: "As such, I can't consider him to be anything like an icon of evil. Instead, I consider him to be an icon of humanity."





76 comments:

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Charlie is an icon of humanity...

Okay. If Mr Stimson is right about Charlie then I've been wrong about humanity for 40 years.

And that might well be true.

Matt said...

To me an icon doesn't have to necessarily be something good, but something defining of an era. Were Abby Hoffman & Jerry Rubin great men with ideas we should all adopt? No probably not but they are still iconic of that decade. Were Babe Ruth's personality and habits worthy of emulation? Probably not, but he was an icon.

In that line of reasoning I can understand why some consider Manson an icon.

Doc Sierra said...

Great review Patty.....

George Stimson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George Stimson said...

Thanks for the review, Patty. You did a fair job. I'm also glad that you spread the review out over so many installments, because it gives potential readers an idea of the size and scope of the book. I put a lot of thought and work into it, and I think that it will eventually turn out to be one of the defining (if controversial) works on the case. There is a lot of material and thought in there, and I would invite anyone who is interested to read the book and give due consideration any of the points or positions I have raised therein. I'm very proud of Goodbye Helter Skelter, and I'd be happy to discuss and defend any part of it here or in any other venue.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I have started reading this book and it's interesting. To me it's a "Manson in his own Words" as I don't see opposing points of view being presented. For instance, regarding Charlie and the music business we pretty much get Charlie's version of him and the business and the reader doesn't get to hear from all the people over the years who would say how much Charlie wanted to get a contract and was angry he didn't.

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES Patty thank you for an intelligent, easy to understand, much appreciated, objective book review.

YES Matt, that YOU "understand" why HE is an ICON is NO surprise to me.

AND that Vincent Bugliosi, a great prosecutor, and creative media types can make an ICON of most anyone - even a small-time ex-con - is exactly what provides much needed ENTERTAINMENT for the rest of US.

HellzBellz said...

Without mentioning things to agree and/or disagree,I think Patty did a pretty good Job making a short and Understandable review (dont know if thats the right word...but you all understand...)
Kuddos to Patty

Panamint Patty said...

Thanks you guys.

Suze said...

Mr. Stimson I get what you are trying to say (I think). I believe that reality is ambiguous. It's also hard to present an alternative explanation to a story that everyone judged 45 years ago. I think you are a brave soul for trying to present a different slant on this "reality". There will be push back and ignorance but you seem to have thick skin.

I read the book a few months ago and enjoyed it. You put a lot of elbow grease in and one thing no one can dispute is that you have had unique access to central players.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Panamint Patty said...

Nice Michael, Manichean and Nietzshcean in the same post. Raising the bar, bro! Patty can dig it.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Manson's views on the degeneracy of modern American 'Nazis' in comparison to the National Socialists of 1920s/30s Europe are very, very similar to those of James Mason.

For those who forget, James Mason is a former neo-Nazi who founded 'New Order', a secretive movement which viewed National Socialism in religious terms, venerated Hitler, and viewed Manson as a prophet- or at least a very blessed individual. Mason mixed with Squeaky and Sandy during the 70s/80s & had a strong impact on them, ATWA & Charlie... although I'm convinced Charlie always was a Nazi at heart, he just didn't fully realise it until he was imprisoned.

So, to get to the fucking point, this this Mason's article 'Boys from Brazil' from his journal SIEGE, Vol. XII, # 4 – Apr., 1983:

-----
"Last month I had the dubious "opportunity" of seeing the film by that name which took enormous, stupendous liberties with the identity of a still living persons– Dr. Josef Mengele– by placing him as a central character, played by Gregory Peck, in a fictitious Hollywood pot-boiler and actually killing him off in the film! Never before have I seen this done. (Not to get off my main subject but to draw an important parallel,
how many of you have seen, heard, or read about Mrs. Doris Tate's national campaign to deny parole to those members of the Manson
"Family" involved in the killings of 1969? Major national tabloids have given her full-page coverage and have even supplied COUPONS for
people to sign, clip and mail to the California Parole Authority! Never before!) Double standard? I guess.

But as screwy as the plot of "The Boys From Brazil" was, i.e. the cloning of dozens of Adolf Hitlers in the modern world, in a film made not very many years ago, what the Movement itself has been doing for over twenty years is even screwier: thinking that by dressing and acting like Hitler that similar results as his might be gained. There are those who deck themselves out– not in serious, dignified National Socialist attire– but in authentic World War Two German costumes complete with decorations, awards and insignia rank of that period. I don't know which is worse, rendering themselves utterly ridiculous or insulting the memory of genuine heroes. We have those who sport Hitler hairdos and moustaches and no fewer than at least one individual in the U.S. South who actually bills himself as "Adolf Hitler JUNIOR"! And people
wonder where the term lunatic fringe comes from...

Worse and more destructive than the obvious clowns that no one takes seriously are the "Poor Men's Hitlers"– those who take themselves seriously and those who are taken seriously by the Movement as "leaders". Names need not be mentioned. Worse still is the actual syndrome I have often witnessed of those totally inferior and unworthy types who try and pattern themselves off these very same overblown
losers all in the name of ego-caressing. With this as a general condition, it can be no wonder why the Movement is in a mess. And this has been one of the BIGGEST mistakes that I long ago swore to have nothing to do with in any of my own dealings. It is perhaps the easiest to
spot as it is the easiest to steer away from of all the common pitfalls. The problem is it forces you out in search of fresh human resources as it will automatically eliminate 99% of the existing Movement as the hobbyists, weirdoes, freaks and geeks that they are."
-----

Very similar to Manson's own views on the US 'Nazi' movement. I'm personally convinced Mason had quite a big impact on Manson's views (not just from this one comment, from various other things I've seen too), or Manson was such a natural National Socialist that his views coincidentally mirrored Mason's almost exactly. Realise this is trivia of such obscurity noone but me will give a shit but, this being the Internet, SOMEONE out there will discover this and dig it eventually.

SusanB said...

Well done Patty. And thankyou , Mr Stimson, for taking the topic of Helter Skelter on, and for discussing in an regard that wrenched it out of the box it has been in for 45 years. I look forward to reading a copy of your book.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Patty, you're right - I'm being a tedious windbag. Sorry about that :)

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Join the club, Michael. :(

Panamint Patty said...

Just teasing you Michael, Patty really did like your comment.

Robert Hendrickson said...

NATIONAL SOCIALISM - isn't that just another brand of COMMUNISM ? And how about MANSONISM ?

ALL seem to be rooted in "ISM" and therein lies the problem. Whether one desires to be FREE from ANY "control" imposed by another or whether one NEEDS a higher power for assistance to survive.

I know - let's split IT down the middle - and make IT "ENTITLEMENT" for ALL !!!

ColScott said...

I still need to read this but let's be clear- Charlie could never sever himself from the co defendants in the trial that wasn't up to him and the girls all testified during the penalty phase to take the blame off Charlie. Sixth amendment claim is nonsense, Charlie had a fair trial, even told BUG " you did a remarkable job". He should NOT still be in jail and the trial motive is a huge lie. But those claims are just nonsense

St Circumstance said...

Charlie stabbed Gary, Shot Crowe, tied up and assisted in the murder of the Labiancas.

He should absolutely be in jail.

Mr. Stimson should pick better friends and people to rally around.

Patty - you did a great job though :)

St Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
St Circumstance said...

PS- Charlie was on probation during this time as well - which he violated many times over. Had he been back in jail where he belonged for his repeated violations - maybe a few of the victims don't end up victims

ALIKEN said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ALIKEN said...

How can anyone deny the fact Manson is an Icon? Funny coming from someone who has made a living off of a movie about him! DOESN'T surprise me that same person thinks Bugliosi was a great prosecutor! What a riot! I got to ask, what's so great about perjuring yourself, withholding evidence, violating gag orders, abusing your position in office by threatening & intimidating witnesses to testify in your favor, refusing a man his god given rights in a court of law then sending him to the gas chamber on a conviction based off a 100% hearsay! And all while you turn around and profit off of it without one red cent donated to the families of the victims! Not to mention how this great man was arrested for beating his mistress because she refuses to have an abortion.... Stalking & threatening his milkman with violence because he thought he was sleeping with his wife.... All of the above makes him one hell of a man huh Robert?

Underworld Pope said...

"Good". "Bad". "Evil". "right". "wrong". These are words with no meaning. Some people got together and created them ages ago and everyone still blindly buys into them, always based on what the status quo thinks of them. They are subjective. To the 9/11 hijackers, they were "good" and attacking what they saw as an "evil" imperialistic empire and to the average american, they were evil, no good cave dwellers. Which is true? None, it's subjective. Deal with it, some people see Charlie as an outlaw hero. He went to talk to Crowe like a nice guy and Crowe insisted on threats, so Charlie did what he had. Some view that as a true american, before rumpkins created the idea of crime. You don't want crime, get rid of the laws.

ColScott said...

St. Lunastance- Charles Manson was never convicted of shooting Bernard Crowe. He assisted in the TLB killings and assaulted Gary Hinman. At most a real lawyer gets him accessory in those killings and Shea. In the real world that doesn't involve your childhood red wagon wallpaper, for those crimes he would have been out in 1978 tops

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Underwear Pope:

That's all easily said, all very clever.

The problem starts when you - or someone you love (another of those 'meaningless' subjective words that upsets you) is on the receiving end of some true believer actually living by those ideas.

Kimchi said...

Vermouth Vermilion said:

"Realise this is trivia of such obscurity noone but me will give a shit but, this being the Internet, SOMEONE out there will discover this and dig it eventually."

I don't normally comment here, there, or anywhere anymore, but this caught my interest...

I've tried over the years to research the Mason period, to be honest, I still don't understand it...

I (as a teenager) witnessed the Natzi movement first hand...my first job was as a cashier at a gas station in El Monte California on Peck Road, next door to what we called "The Nazi HQ"....

This was the early 1970's...they bought gas from me daily...I was scared shitless of them, mainly because of the stories my parents told me from the WWII...

They drove in, always in full military uniform with the swastika armband...all young blond Caucasian men...never gave me any problems...the house next door had a large flag hanging over the banister..

Anyway, that's my trivia...

George Stimson said...

Colonel,

We'll never know if Charlie could have severed himself from his codefendants during the trial because no one made any motion to do so. (Plus I don't think that he would have wanted to.)
As for the Sixth Amendment, I present a detailed and, I think, compelling case for the contention that Manson was illegally denied his right to defend himself. My presentation includes legal analysis and relevant citations from California and federal case law. If you disagree, fine. But if you disagree you're going to have to come up with some substance. Simply saying that "those claims are just nonsense" doesn't cut it.

Panamint Patty said...

Kimchi it is an absolute delight to see you. Kisses

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Robert, if I understand what you're saying, I don't really disagree with the point you made. "Ism's" can be used as a form of social control; what's more they are used as a way of absolving personal responsibility. If your ethical boundaries are derived from an external source rather than from your own education & experiences then you can justify both absolving yourself of personal responsibility & shift blame for your actions onto others- as we saw with the Family members.

That said, with all respect I don't think the comment that "NATIONAL SOCIALISM [is] just another brand of COMMUNISM" is accurate. I realise that was likely an off-the-cuff remark made to support your main point, but it's a frequent misrepresentation I see on the Internet and one that seems especially popular with Americans.

Both NS and Communism are worldviews which advocate the use of state power to change existing social orders, but aside from this (and a few superficial similarities in past regimes/parties, i.e. paramilitaries, symbolic use of colours red/black) they really are the antithesis of each other. At their most intrinsic levels Communism is a materialist philosophy, and seeks to impose man's will on the natural world; National Socialism by contrast is spiritualist, and seeks to place man back amongst nature- they want to impose the 'Natural Order' on human society. They are not defined solely by 'big government' and this common characteristic (which isn't a NECESSITY in either, btw, but I don't want to ramble on even more..) doesn't mean the two should be conflated.

Apologies for the lecture, the academic jargon, and for being too super serious on a subject noone honestly gives a fuck about. But misrepresentation of complex political philosophies bugs me and I feel it detracts from legitimate criticisms which need to be levelled at the current US government. The US Spy State is its own beast & comparisons to commies/Nazis doesn't do it justice. Hope you don't take any of this as a personal attack Robert, I've always dug your posts here. :)

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

And Kimchi, as you can probably guess, I found your experience really interesting. Thanks!
Suspect you were probably dealing with a later incarnation of the Nazi Party, but this article might still jog some memories:

http://www.arlingtonmagazine.com/September-October-2013/Nazi-George-Rockwell/
though judging from your post having your memory jogged about this kind of stuff probably isn't too enticing a prospect! :P )

St Circumstance said...

If it is fair to exclude Crowe because Charlie wasn't indicted whether he did it or not because he wasn't indicted-

Then it is fair to include TLB whether he did it or not- because he was convicted.

So- in the real world- How many people do you know who are convicted of multiple vicious murders, joke and laugh during the trial. Attack the trial judge. consistently break rules while incarcerated, either make a mockery of- or not show up at all to- parole hearings...

and get out in 8 years??

Can you give an example of one who did? I can give an example of one who did not and should not :)

Mr. Stimson- do you ever think about the people Charlie helped kill or the victims families?

In the big picture when mothers and fathers and little kids are watching people who just took something very precious away from them in such a violent manner- dancing and smiling, and acting belligerent and without any remorse whatsoever...

Do yo think a smart and wise man like yourself should re-evaluate who was really treated unfairly??

You have a soul man? I would like to see you answer the honest question..

Why of all people on Earth did Manson become the guy you just had to get to know? something you saw in Charlie or is something inside of yourself?

George Stimson said...

"Why of all people on Earth did Manson become the guy you just had to get to know? something you saw in Charlie or is something inside of yourself?"

It's probably both.

St Circumstance said...

Fair enough. I respect your hard work and opinion if not your taste. Congrats on your publication and best of luck.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

St Circumstance, it's hard not to notice a number of your questions have gone unanswered... Possibly Mr Stimson felt attacked, but I'd still be interested to hear his thoughts on those questions, or indeed anyone else who has some response to them. I think they're worth answering.

George Stimson said...

"….and get out in 8 years?? Can you give an example of one who did?"

No.

"Mr. Stimson- do you ever think about the people Charlie helped kill or the victims families?"

I don't think that Charlie "helped kill" anyone and I rarely think about the victims -- which is not to say that the victims' families and friends aren't totally justified in any thoughts or feelings that they have about their deceased loved ones, or against the people responsible for their demises.

"Do yo think a smart and wise man like yourself should re-evaluate who was really treated unfairly??"

No.

"You have a soul man?"

I'm alive.

St Circumstance said...

In fairness to Mr. Stimson I know they are not easy questions to answer. I am not sure how to ask someone about something I feel is a negative without sounding condescending or being negative either lol to me if you are already connected to someone or related- and they do bad things- I understand making excuses for them or going out of your way to defend them. But why pick someone who does bad things who you don't already have any ties as someone you want in your ( your'e?) life? I think Mr. Stimson gave the best answer a guy could. A little bit of both indeed.

St Circumstance said...

Mr. Stimson if I may

you are obviously a bright guy. I am glad you are alive, and really that is my only point in all of this to be totally honest.

I too am fascinated by Manson and the way of life the family lived. I have been reading, and blogging about it for almost 9 years now.

I just want to make sure that all of us who are on either side of this case understand that there is cool, rebellious, even dark to an extent that we can all live with and appreciate- even admire

and that there is dangerous and trouble which could hurt any of us or people we care about.

I guess my point Sir- is that maybe if one of the victims of Charlies crimes was someone you cared about- you would have no choice but to think about them.

But you do have choices.

And you seem an articulate and capable person- who is surely not going to be persuaded by a young preppy geek like me lol that what your choosing is wrong. Maybe it isn't wrong. Maybe I just dont understand.

and thats ok. I dont understand you- and you dont understand me.

as long as we can talk about it and not hurt each other...

we can both LIVE with it right ;)

I promise- that's all I am after in this. To live and learn...

Vera Dreiser said...

"I don't think that Charlie "helped kill" anyone and I rarely think about the victims -- which is not to say that the victims' families and friends aren't totally justified in any thoughts or feelings that they have about their deceased loved ones, or against the people responsible for their demises."

Chilling. I pictured Sandy's soulless eyes above her moving lips when I read those words. I think that encapsulates everything.

George Stimson said...

"we can both LIVE with it right ;)"

Right.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Your posts are much appreciated Vermouth - like a ray of sunshine in a really dark place. BUT my "comment" was actually a QUESTION ! I invited YOU - subliminally - to expound upon a subject that will likely define the future of America.

I called Bugliosi a GREAT "prosecutor", NOT a great man. There IS a difference. The man who pounded the nails in Jesus's hands may have been a GREAT carpenter, BUT he also could have been a SOB.

I KNOW Charles Manson is an ICON, because I and a few others helped make him one. It was either MANSON or LBJ and well, how the Hell do you make a pile of shit turn into an ICON. Actually, LYNDON JOHNSON freed the Black people or something like that - which allowed them to play in the rice paddies of Vietnam. So I guess we should make a statue of HIM sitting next to old ABE in Washington.

P.S. YOU guys are ALL making this blog a good place to get smart and I thank you for that. BUT, of course, I thank you - I'm making gazillions off this MANSON thing.

AND George - what are YOU going to do with ALL your new-found riches ?

St Circumstance said...

Very good. So again- congrats on being published and good luck with the book :)

Dr Dave said...

I tried to send a copy of "Searching for God in the Sixties," to Manson. Did he ever get it or make anything of my chapter trying to put him into a larger historical context?

St Circumstance said...


Hey Mr. Hendrickson- I am a major contributor to the gazillions you make lol

I had Manson and the follow up documentary and then re-bought them both in the "special addition" just to have your initials on the CD's
:)

So how about a quick question for you I always wondered about

What ever happened to Mark Ross? He seems to me to have been alot closer to the family than most of the major books or documentaries ever mention? He let them live in his apartment- he went to court with them- he partied at the ranch with them. What was his story?

George Stimson said...

The victims lives are not really relevant for the approach I take with the book. That's why the names of the persons killed at the Polanski residence are only mentioned in a footnote.

I that chills you, Vera, put on a sweater.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

A footnote...

Wow. Without those victims you would never have heard of Charles Manson, Manson would be the footnote.

Cielodrive.com said...

Is Charlie ever gonna admit he fucked up his own trials?

candy and nuts said...

CM is an icon in whatever category you will place him,,,however Red and Blue are also imo the photo of them handcuffed in their robes is iconic and legendary and truly shows what integrity really is,,no matter what the reason It was,is there

candy and nuts said...

I havent read Georges book yet, but in all fairness anyone who has followed this saga knows well the history of the victims since it has been written,filmed and shown on tv a zillion times,,,,why reiterate what is already been put out there?

Underworld Pope said...

Charlie didn't screw up his own trial. It was abundantly clear to him and anyone with common sense that he was always tried and convicted before he even stepped foot in the court room. What would you do? If you were on the cover of Lie magazine? Had a "confession" published in the paper that some shyster copyrighted and then sold as a book while the trial was underway? What would you do if the president got up there and declared you guilty? Two damn books released while the trial was going on, one by a guy who still prides himself on it being used to sentence Manson to death?

I would have done even more than Manson did to upset things. I wouldn't cowtow to a bunch of people using their positions in power to bury me.

candy and nuts said...

I have never thought he is racist but moreso believes in keeping bloodlines together

Matt said...

Undergarment Pup said...

Had a "confession" published in the paper that some shyster copyrighted and then sold as a book while the trial was underway?


Pup, get your facts straight. Bug's novel wasn't published until 1974

I would have done even more than Manson did to upset things. I wouldn't cowtow to a bunch of people using their positions in power to bury me.

You are buried already in your own hatred and ignorance.




bobby said...

candy and nuts said...
I have never thought he is racist but moreso believes in keeping bloodlines together

No offense Candy but I think that is pretty much the definition of racism.

Cielodrive.com said...

I think Pope is referring to "The Killing of Sharon Tate" and "5 to Die".

Rationalize it all you want, but no one did more damage to Charlie's case than Charlie. You mentioned Nixon's comment. Who informed the jury about that one?

Underworld Pope said...

Nixon's comment killed him in the public eye, but he was already dead there. Charlie showing them should have gotten him a retrial and let's not kid ourselves and believe that jury wasn't being exposed to stuff. That rumpkin bug was slipping the media stories, so I'm sure stuff was slipping in those places the jury were held

Cielodrive.com said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Cielodrive.com said...

You don't see a difference in those two things? Vince slipping media stories to the jury is something that you think could've happened. While Charlie showing the Nixon headline, people witnessed happen. Regardless, I'm still failing to see how Manson helped himself in any way during any of his murder trials.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Thankyou so much Robert, you don't know how much your comments brightened my day. :)

I do think I see your point about America's future, the way an entitled mindset creates so many avenues for the government to extend itself and its methods of control, surveillance, repression. Tbh though I might still be misunderstanding, I am not American and so many of the things I know about that country and its present state I get from discussion blogs like this- mainstream media provides a pretty skewed picture.

This blog's emphasis on Manson gives a really unique way of learning about modern America, I think, partly why I keep coming back. We all know Manson now is seen as a symbol for the death of the counterculture ideal (at least in its 'peaceful' incarnation), & our shared passion here for that era in general also encompasses things like Vietnam & Watergate- also seen as symbols for the death of American idealism & optimism. And I see the death of those sentiments reflected in the comments of posters here, their complete suspicion & cynicism of their government (also reflected through aspects of the Manson case, like frustration with the feds/law holding back vital info i.e. the Tex tapes), it brings everything full circle. I don't just learn about Manson, hippies, the 60s, drugs, the BEL, I learn a lot about the contemporary state of the US and how all those things from the 60s played a part in making the US what it is NOW. It's very eye-opening.

Anyway, I'm rambling and again diverging from the point- which is Stimson's book. I haven't read it. I probably will. But I CERTAINLY will if it contains some 'oo-ee-oo's', those should be essential inclusions in any Manson book imo.

George Stimson said...

There were some oo-ee-oos, Vermouth, but I left them out of the book.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I was surprised to read in this book Manson admitting involvement in Shorty's murder. He said he cut him, handed the weapon to Bruce and told him to do it.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Mr Stimson, are the name or names redacted from the Shorty story for the reason that they were not prosecuted/cut a deal with the DA? Or was there any other reason one or more people present remain anonymous? Do you know how many others were there?

Panamint Patty said...

Humphrat, that is intriguing to Patty as well.

George Stimson said...

I redacted the name because the person was never charged with the crime.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Good one ST. And what a story HE could tell. I finally met him again, after 40 years, at one of the CineFamily "MANSON" showings a couple of years ago. Actually there are a few who could tell much, BUT the INTERNET has made it STUPID for the TRUTH to be told.

Vermouth: From what you know, what political catagory do you think Manson would be affiliated with - IF he was a voter ?

The subject of Ethnic "purity" is now becoming a reverse reaction to the "remove ALL borders" movement. The Euro-dollar is only the beginning, as one day, we will ALL simply be: PEOPLE !

Dr. Dave - I think Manson would be stupified to realize just how much HE has become an ICON. I'm sure Jesus would be blown-away at all the fuss being made over him - IF he could come back to earth AGAIIN. OR maybe HE did "come-back" and realized "I'm not getting mixed up in that kind of drama again."

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Mr. H. I would love to have a beer with Mark Ross and ask some questions.

I also fee like, after watching Inside the Manson Gang, that Juann Flynn was closer to the family than we read in most places.
They were mesmerizing Documentaries!!

St Circumstance said...

Sorry the spaces were an accident. :)

candy and nuts said...

bobby i am referring to racism ie hating other races one can strive to keep bloodlines together and not hate other races it is kinda like arranged marriages type of concept if you will but thanks for the response

Panamint Patty said...

candy, that is a form of racism. racism does not have to mean hatred of other races, it can simply be a consciousness, a way of thinking about race. Charlie IS a racist if Patty understood Georges book correctly.

George Stimson said...

Going by the dictionary definition of racism ("The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others" - American Heritage Dictionary), I'd say that he could very well be considered to be a racist.

St Circumstance said...

I gotta say that Mr. Stimson - who I could not disagree with more by the way lol - has been a very "Stand Up Guy" honestly answering some tough questions... It gives us all a chance to see that it does happen. It wasn't just a book or movie. Capable people will go that way both then and now. I respect honesty in any and all cases.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Hi Robert:

"Vermouth: From what you know, what political catagory do you think Manson would be affiliated with - IF he was a voter ?"

Well, we both know he would never vote. :) I dislike Manson on a personal level (as much as you can personally dislike someone you've never met, I mean) but I acknowledge he is intelligent. Intelligent enough to know the democratic political machinery in most Western countries is farcical. Maybe it was originally set up with good intentions but it now mainly exists to give an illusion of popular control and to legitimise measures made by elites & various interest groups which disenfranchise most average schlubs (we're all "people alongside the road" now, as Manson himself said in his testimony).

If you put a gun to his head (didn't someone say that's where political power comes from?) to force him to fill out a ballot, I'm guessing he'd probably hold his nose and vote for one of the many minor environmentalist or National Socialist/'Nazi'/White Power parties in the US. As I've said before I think Manson is a National Socialist by natural inclination, but I'm not going to explain in detail why unless someone really genuinely wants to hear my reasoning- partly because it's not the point of this thread (Patty's review & George's book are, sorry to both of you for diverging) and I have a tendency to ramble a lot on this subject. Most people here also probably already think Manson, if any of his beliefs are actually genuine (always a chance he is a narcissist staging the ultimate put-on, an epic decades-long self-serving real-life troll), is some kind of White-Power-hippy anyway, doubt they need my analysis to provide evidence for the obvious! :)

"The subject of Ethnic "purity" is now becoming a reverse reaction to the "remove ALL borders" movement. The Euro-dollar is only the beginning, as one day, we will ALL simply be: PEOPLE !"

I'd say 'consumers' even more than 'people'! Citizenship, ethnicity, nationality, all becoming irrelevant as borders are made porous to facilitate vast population shifts- which coincidentally helps erode all those pesky cultures, traditions & communities which were getting in the way of generating $$$. When your ability to scan barcodes as a mindless store drone is going to be your defining identifying trait in the future, then raci(al)sm, tribalism, xenophobia are kind of natural reactions.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Robert, I just realised I maybe misunderstood you. Maybe you were asking me, again if there was a gun at his head (maybe the same one Squeaky tried to blast at Ford, stolen from his Presidential museum...), what he would choose if forced- Republican or Democrat!

If THAT was the question, I have no idea. The workings of the Reps and Dems are beyond my feeble attempts at comprehension, so figuring out which could be a fit for everyone's favourite 'Symbol of Evil' is beyond me tbh. I would like to see Manson attend a major Republican or Democratic convention, though. The mental image of him sitting on a folding chair amidst a vast sea of people in suits and polo shirts is just as appealing as that of Hunter Thompson at the narcotics' officers' convention in Vegas.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I hope Mr. Stimson is still reading this. I am on the Real Motive chapter and I have to say you do a very good job.

George Stimson said...

I am, and thank you.