Thursday, June 4, 2015

Mansonblog Poll: The Motive

Recently a reader asked if there had ever been a poll on the site regarding motive? He feels interested to see what percent of people believe each of the motives. He got us curious too.

There are six choices. Pick one and cast your vote, even if we don't have one that fits perfectly into your personal theory - just pick the closest. We can discuss the rest in the comments section.

I'll leave it up for a week. This should be interesting. Click HERE to vote!







91 comments:

95bca178-0a7a-11e5-a854-ef88df0083ec said...

Outstanding blog! New to commenting so casting a vote seems an appropriate way to begin. I look forward to the results and discussion.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Saint Circumstance - just be aware that Bugliosi claims not to own a computer, so if Helter Skelter wins this poll by several hundred votes, we'll all know who has been up all night clicking, clicking, clicking, clicking...

Just kidding :)

Very interested to see the result of this.

equinox12314 said...

Matt,

Thanks for all the work put in setting this up.

PS. It's always great to get another look at Tex's 'pudding bowl' haircut. It must have been one of the Family who cut it. Unless, of course, it was Jay Sebring who did the job, and Tex was looking for revenge.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Col: IF you are not joking, don't you, at least, see some legal issues here ?

Especially if the Big Three did NOT give their permissions AND I own the copyrights to what they said in my films and book.

Matt said...

Wow. The amount of people who voted in the first 6 hours is far beyond what I expected. Results won't be announced for a week but what I don't mind saying is that HS is in a very distant 4th place.

St Circumstance said...

:) lol I am not voting for HS as a motive. I Just havent completely ruled it out as at least a possibility. I still don't know if I am sure enough about any motive to even cast a vote... But if I were forced to have to pick just one... Lol.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Matt, now you're trying to bias subsequent voters against HS! Jeez, this is gonna be Bush-Gore all over again ;) Thank God hanging chads are a digital impossibility.

St C - I don't think any of us can claim to be certain about any of this. SO yes, consider yourself forced to pick one!

Zdena Gaarova said...

I think it could be combination of drug burn, some revenge to showbiz and manson´s paranoia of being victimized by then society and establishment.

Six Miles From Cielo said...

Ive always felt it's not just one sole motive since it appears that those involved were most likely given diffetent information. I lean towards the drug burn

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Voted for HS solely because I /want/ that to be the motive. Anything else would be so.. pedestrian.

So sorry to everyone else who actually have put a whole bunch of research and thought into their conclusions!

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

My God Vermouth I admire that. I mean, we'll never know for sure anyway, so why not make it as fruitloop crazy as we want it to have been?

Matt said...

And folks I appreciate all of the emails but I honestly don't have the time to reply to them all. The comments section is a much better place so that other readers can see them.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Hey, does the CIA qualify as "Crime" Organization ?

Dr Dave said...

Is the new show "Aquarius" even worth the trouble to dismiss?

AustinAnn74 said...

After listening to Leslie Van Houten's interview with her attorney on the wonderful Cielodrive.com, I have no doubt that Helter Skelter was the motive, as weird as that might sound. My opinion, nothing else.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Hey Dr Dave, good to see you. I'm hoping to catch Aquarius this side of the Pond sometime soon, especially if it's as bad as people are saying.

Matt said...

AustnAnn, keep in mind that HS is the motive from LVH's "point of view". It very well could have been Manson's or Watson's or Davis' or any combination thereof used HS as a motivator for the "underlings" who weren't privy to the truth.

I'm not saying that that's fact. But it could very well be.

Matt said...

Dr. Dave, the actor playing Manson was playing it a little spooky in the pilot, but as the episodes go on I think he finds the character. It's certainly better than Jeremy Davies. They at least have made the effort to show that Manson didn't look like the crazed maniac that appeared on the cover of Life and why people initially viewed him as hip and cool.


CrisPOA said...

I completely agree with you Matt, i think the motive could be different depending of who we're looking at.
I voted for the hatred toward the music industry (society, PIGS) - because for me this was Charlie's motive and he could have used HS to convince other family members, specially the girls. Not to mention that the hatred toward society, the "pigs", were a common feeling in the family at that point. Remember even Ruth Ann would like to get some pigs.

Other members of the family accepted the murders as part of HS, in my opinion. Maybe even Tex accepted his role in HS because he owed Charlie "favours".
But for me, the principal motive that night for Charlie command Tex and the others to get in the car and go was his hatred toward society and the house on Cielo Drive represented that. Some days earlier he tried to talk to Melcher at Cielo and was mistreated.

Charlie was under enormous stress considering the Crowe and Hinman murders. It was just part of the madness.

Or...I don't know....LOL!

grimtraveller said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
candy and nuts said...

Whoever takes a good mugshot ? Lol

AustinAnn74 said...

I still think the killers did it, because Manson told them to go do it. Leslie Van Houten was one of the killers. When you hear that interview, you are mesmerized that somebody could actually believe something like that. If Manson had a different motive, that is one thing, but I think the actual monsters who did the "bloodletting" were motivated to kill per Manson's instructions. Manson, himself knew Helter Skelter was ridiculous, but he had those people like robots. They would of done anything for him. Melcher probably had something to do with it in Manson's mind, but the other killers were thinking along the same lines as Leslie.

AustinAnn74 said...

Oh, by the way, Leslie Van Houten's interview, which was conducted in December of 1969 (on cielodrive.com) clearly states that they killed Gary Hinman for money and anything else he had of value (not drug burn or bad batch of mescaline) and that the Tate killings took about 20 minutes per Sadie Mae Glutz's blabbery. Just sayin.....

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

"but what I don't mind saying is that HS is in a very distant 4th place"


I voted HS but I must emphasize it's with a humongous caveat. Though rarely mentioned or rarely listened to with both ears, in his opening statement Vincent Bugliosi stated that there wasn't only one motive. HS is actually referred to as a further motive, obviously indicating the presence of more than one.......



Six Miles From Cielo said...

"I've always felt it's not just one sole motive since it appears that those involved were most likely given different information"


And that is the humongous caveat. I couldn't vote for "get a brother out of jail" as well but I do think that was floating in the ether. I've long linked Charles Manson's view of Helter skelter as "confusion, really" with what went on to happen. And as a result, there could be no one reason linking everything from the Crowe shooting {I think it's crucial to note that everyone, CM included, thought Lotsapoppa was dead} to the Shorty stabbing.
I just put everything under the general umbrella of Helter skelter because when I take into account the varying things that people {in & out of 'the family'} were saying as far back as 1969 {in some instances even before the indictments and the ensuing media frenzy} and subsequently what has come out since the convictions, it seems to me that different players had different reasons for doing various things and there were all kinds of factors at play and these all came together in one place in a period of time.
Sort of like a piece of jazz that starts off quite sanely then bit by bit becomes freer and more abstract before 'descending' into apparent chaos with all the various instruments taking the lead while accompanying at the same time before finding their way back to the starting section, or something resembling it !



Matt said...

"They at least have made the effort to show that Manson didn't look like the crazed maniac that appeared on the cover of Life"


In "Goodbye Helter Skelter" George Stimson says that was a mug shot.
You know, I've always thought that was a fantastic photograph. I love photography and photos have always relayed interesting things to me.

equinox12314 said...


@AustinAnn,

re LVH's interview - yes, that puts the final nail in the coffin of Bobby's mescaline burn motive. I think the California Parole Board should take that into consideration in July. He has systematically lied to them for years, while all the while diminishing the character of the victim. You have to give Patrick Sequeira credit for calling BB 'a pathological liar' during the 2010 hearing.

Twenty minutes for the killings at Cielo sounds like a reasonable timescale. It puts paid to Schreck's contention that these murders took hours.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Dr. Dave, I was hoping someone like you would watch "Aquairous" and give us your take on it.

While watching it I thought it was very bad, but later I realized they were, at least, revealing some things that heretofore were considered un-mentionable on TV. IE: "Pigs" were considered "Cops." AND even the "Nation of Islam" was connected to the Manson scene.

Of course "Muslim" is still a tabo to even be mentioned in connection with Helter Skelter, but let's see just how far Acquairous goes.

Maybe some day it will even be acceptable to use "pope" and "mafia" in the same sentence.

grimtraveller said...

candy and nuts said...

"Whoever takes a good mugshot ?"


I guess they can be like passport photos. Some people are just photogenic. And others, you have to really work hard to get a good shot. And others still, rarely take good pictures.

Suze said...

Oh, Mr. H that is a terrific idea!!! Dr. Dave please please please take him up on it. I loved your series of posts on this blog. They were GREAT, and the banter in the comments were a perfect compliment!

Matt said...

Almost 1600 votes taken. The results so far are eye-opening for me. Hmmmm...

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Matt: "AustnAnn, keep in mind that HS is the motive from LVH's "point of view". It very well could have been Manson's or Watson's or Davis' or any combination thereof used HS as a motivator for the "underlings" who weren't privy to the truth."

I agree, and I just want to be clear that I voted for what I felt was Charlie's ultimate 'true' motive - and I recognize that citing Manson as the prime mover behind the murders is not in itself historically certain or proven (except to the satisfaction of one particular jury at one particular time) - regardless of what anyone else thought they were doing and why. In other words, I voted for what I believe Charles Manson's motive to have been, not what LVH thought she was doing.

Bloody hell it's complicated :( This is a very blunt tool to use for such a multi-layered event.

candy and nuts said...

Sorry Matt i didnt vote,,,RH your films have already told me enough no need to watch aquarious

candy and nuts said...

Charlie said the answer to a question is inside yourself

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

1600!!! Wow. Are we all multiple voting or is there an army of lurkers who never comment but are happy to vote? I'm glad they're voting, but still.... spooky!

I feel like my laptop has been creepy-crawled. ("Matt, Robert, I'm sure when we went to bed last night there weren't 1600 ballot-papers laid out on the bedroom floor.... I think.... I think someone's been in here last night.")

candy and nuts said...

As i said i didnt vote but the fact the girld embroidered devils witches vests for over a year tells alot

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

AustinAnn - I think 20 minutes is a welcome corrective to some of the wilder scenarios imagined. I find that people often overestimate how long things take. Sit for twenty minutes and do nothing but watch the clock, and ask yourself - is it possible that everything that was done to the people at Cielo was done within that timeframe? I think it could be. What gives me doubts, and inclines me towards half an hour or more, is the business with the rope, the rope burns on Sharon's jaw, her fingernail marks on her own neck. Factor in an impromptu and improvised semi-lynching, as well as chasing down Folger and Frykowski, and I dunno. Maybe the actual violence itself is doable in 20 minutes, but there's no way I think they were in and out of the property within twenty minutes. Especially not if the blood evidence does indeed indicate bodies being moved around after the event.

cheryl said...

Michael H-N, I've been a long time lurker, and decided to vote on the poll. I voted for the "music industry" option although I do believe other motives come into play in a smaller way. I have no doubt that Charlie's "followers" and they were followers for the most part, would have done almost anything he "suggested".

He was really po'd about not getting the record deal he wanted, and somebody had to pay for that insult. After he got his rocks off on Cielo Dr. he wasn't satisfied, and personally hand-picked the "pigs" on the following night.

In his narcissistic mind, he probably thought he'd got his message across, and that was enough for now.

Matt said...

Well Michael we are at 1751 and counting. I made it very difficult to vote multiple times. It's not impossible, but such a PITA that it isn't worth it, even to the most insane haters.

But the votes don't even account for 1/3 of the visits. If all of the lurkers began commenting at once it would be out of control.

Thank you Kevin Marx. Great idea...

CrisPOA said...

Candy i am curious now...You didn't vote because you have no choice there?
May i ask what's your opinion about the motive?
I think that there's a lot of "devils" in this story: Tex's infamous "presentation", Pat Krenwinkel's drawings during the trial, the vests and all.
The family, they surely had a thing for satanism as well...

Personally, i think the copycat motive is weak. I don't see the reason why would 5 people commit multiple murders to get some "brother" out of jail, risking going to jail too! And Bobby wasn't much into the family after all.

Let's see what happens!

Scraper Pro said...

Can't vote with clarity. For the actual killers I would vote HS, but for Charlie i would vote rejection by the music business..... So abstaining reluctantly!

candy and nuts said...

Cris i really have no right to vote as the truth is known only to those there

Mr. Humphrat said...

I certainly loved listening to the LVH interview on Cielodrive.com also. I didn't know that was out there. It is mesmerizing to hear her. I voted for HS as motive partly based on hearing the interview, but,as many have said, a multi-motive motive or different people thinking it was different things, makes sense I guess. And as people have said, many of them would have done anything for CM. Could the deepest motive be Love of Charlie?-a desire to break on through to the other side-like the Hale-Bop cult, but, instead of suicide, murder. Could it be if we are true to Charlie in these things we could reach a level of awareness closer to his? If we accept this insanity, embrace paranoia, others will follow and it will spiral out of control and the unseen answers (where is the hole in the desert?) will be revealed.

equinox12314 said...

For what it's worth, in later years, Susan Atkins came down firmly on the copycat murder motive.

From her 1985 Parole Hearing:-

Susan Atkins: Yes sir. That’s — it’s really difficult, Mr. Aceto, to assess what Mr. Manson’s thoughts and feelings were, but that’s what I had heard at the time. My personal belief is the former, the Copycat killings was more in touch with what was really happening.


Also, the draft of Susan Atkins 'The Myth Of Helter Skelter' Ch 10 'The Targeting Of A Friend' and Ch 11 'The Killing Of A Friend' gives the run up to the Hinman murder (from her perspective) in much more detail, and she states that it was to save Manson's skin because Bobby was going to blab to the DA about Crowe, rather than 'for the love of a brother'.

Atkins believed the catastrophe was set in motion with Crowe rather than with Hinman. Charlie's paranoia necessitated money for the move to the desert. Apparently, the Crowe shooting was known among numerous Family members and he needed to get something on them.

Having read the draft, my opinion is that it was in Atkins' favour to support the copycat motive as it places the blame fairly and squarely on Charlie. You come away with the impression that none of them had the free will to say 'no' or walk away.


equinox12314 said...


EDIT:-

When I said in my above post "...You come away with the impression that none of them had the free will to say 'no' or walk away", I should have more clear. I meant according to Atkins draft book, you come away with the impression etc. People came and went at the Ranch. Paul Watkins left. If they believed that their children would be detained at Spahn if they moved on, they could have gone to the police.

AustinAnn74 said...

Anything Atkins said was very self-serving. I think she lied quite often.

Kevin Marx said...

"Thank you Kevin Marx. Great idea..."


You're welcome Matt - glad its proving popular. Can't wait to see the results!

equinox12314 said...

@AustinAnn

Yes, Ann. That was the impression that I got on reading the draft. I also took exception to her Harvard educated lawyer husband using a comment from a parole hearing on her site and using it out of context:- "...At the end of Susan’s 2005 Parole Hearing one of the victims’ family members stated on the record, “I’m 60 years old and I don’t know anyone who’s done as much as [Susan] has.” I seem to recall the victim's representative meaning this as she (Susan) has done so much, which her victims were not allowed those opportunities.

equinox12314 said...


Correction to my above post. Typing error. Instead of 'which her victims', it was meant to read 'while her victims'.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Operation Get A Snitch Out Of Jail

Robert Hendrickson said...

WOW, when you have to vote like this, you have to do some serious thinking - and that's the name of the game.

For ME - I could choose HS, but NOT Bugliosi's VERSION (Black & White Race War) Little Paul's black "MUSLIM" version , to a certain extent, maybe.

Thus, it's more of an elimination process for ME, which leaves only one: CRIME Family connection.
After all, don't WE all agree - The Manson Family was CONNECTED to CRIME in a very snister way ?

PS: What a great POST, just love some of these comments, like eating your favorite candy.

jl2305 said...

Is it known at what point Charlie became aware that Crowe was still alive?

That particular event is one of the least focused upon aspects of the whole case, and yet it seems to be a catalyst for so much..

equinox12314 said...


@jl2305

I can't respond as to when Charlie became aware of Crowe still being alive, but I do agree with you that the Crowe shooting seems to have been given lesser significance than, say, Hinman. Perhaps it's because it did not involve a fatality and Crowe didn't go to the cops. When I was reading Susan Atkins' draft 'The Myth Of Helter Skelter', which I mention in my above post, it became apparent that she places considerable weight on that event as setting the whole catastrophe in motion. However, she tries to blame the Crowe scenario more on Charlie rather than Tex, and because she was not present at that event, I have to assume she is either relying on heresay, or bending the facts to make Charlie more culpable.

(I would read Ms Atkins' draft with a critical eye because it looks like it was written with the California Parole Hearing in mind. i.e. Blame everything on Charlie because that's what the Parole Board would like to hear).


grimtraveller said...


jl2305 said...

"Is it known at what point Charlie became aware that Crowe was still alive?"


They both happened to be in the same prison when Charlie saw him and said something like "sorry, but you know how it is."
It must have been one of the most unsettling events in Manson's life as well as one huge relief. How in the world do you process seeing someone whom you've thought for 9 months you've killed ?




jl2305 said...
"That particular event is one of the least focused upon aspects of the whole case, and yet it seems to be a catalyst for so much.."


It's one of the least focused upon aspects from most points of view.....except Charles Manson's. In Nuel Emmons book, interestingly, and in "Goodbye Helter skelter" both authors place it in a context that enables one to see it as the start of the road that led to hefty consequences rather than a B movie second feature alongside the main TLB show.
But I don't blame Vincent Bugliosi for that because his job was not to prosecute the killer[s] of Gary Hinman, Shorty Shea and Bernard Crowe. His job was to prosecute the Tate/LaBianca killer[s]. Everything outside of that was merely window dressing unless it furthered his cause/case.
We on the other hand have had 46 years of thought, debate and hindsight and can see some things so much clearer.
Another thing strikes me ¬> it could be that Manson, thinking he'd killed Lotsapoppa, now was in the frame of mind that he'd committed the ultimate violation and had gone as far over the edge as it was possible to go. I suspect Susan Atkins might have a point in "The myth of Helter Skelter" when she said that having gotten his hands dirty in that way, everyone else {either by action or knowledge} was going to have to likewise get dirty hands.
I can almost see Charlie sitting in his cell, feeling utterly sick after having seen Lotsapoppa, thinking that he need not have gone through all this TLB shit in the first place and that he only went down that road because he thought he'd already crossed the line of taking a life. "Dammit, Crowe's alive ! Son of a bitch !! "



starship said...

grimtraveller, your thoughts in the post above are on point indeed.

grimtraveller said...

equinox12314 said...


"I would read Ms Atkins' draft with a critical eye because it looks like it was written with the California Parole Hearing in mind. i.e. Blame everything on Charlie because that's what the Parole Board would like to hear"


I also read Susan Atkins' draft with a critical eye and it was, like so much of Susan's musings, a hodge podge that makes it virtually impossible to know exactly what is truth, what is embellishment, what is revenge, what is jealousy, what is untruth, what is filling in the blanks....
I think she underwent the most dramatic change of the three female defendants in jail. And I really believe Christ impacted her in a major league way. She wasn't perfect, however and when you take into account her two books, her parole hearings, her interviews etc, one is left with more questions than answers.
That said, it's a good book with lots of interesting stuff in it {and almost as many notes as text !} so long as you approach it knowing that you can't form many solid conclusions based on it.
But I disagree with you about the parole boards liking the "blame it all on Charles Manson" approach. From the initial parole hearings in the 70s right up to some of the most recent ones, it seems all the convicted killers really were in the most awkward catch 22. If they said "We fell sucker to Charlie's manipulation" they would be denied parole for not recognizing the gravity of their own actions and culpability and how they were manipulated in the first place. If they focused on themselves and in any way minimized Charlie, they were denied for not parroting HS and the desire to ignite a race war as well as having it brought up how they were anti establishment rebels with a disdain for society & authority independent of Manson. So they couldn't win. And even when they did, the Governor would just reverse the decision.
You can almost feel Leslie, Pat and Bruce thinking "What the hell have I got to do ?" Bobby hasn't helped himself at all. He's changed his tune even more than Susan Atkins down the years.
In Susan Atkins' 2005 hearing, I got the distinct impression that she realized that no matter what she said, she wasn't getting out so she took the forgiveness line....

equinox12314 said...

Hi Grimtraveller,

I think some condemnation of Charlie by prospective parolees would be a prerequisite for getting the green light. The Parole Board would not to risk releasing anyone who was in any way 'loyal' to Manson.


"You can almost feel Leslie, Pat and Bruce thinking "What the hell have I got to do ?""

I am sure that Pat did say something along those lines at a Hearing, except she asked "die?".

We know that in April the California Supreme Court upheld the Governor's ruling to reverse the Parole Board's decision regarding Bruce. The judge said he gave broad deference to the Governor's discretion and that the governor's decision in August didn't amount to cruel or unusual punishment. Therefore, I can't see how any of the remaining incarcerated Family members will ever get past that stage. Perhaps if they offered any pertinent information they have (it worked for Clem), but they could end up incriminating themselves. Yet another Catch 22.

We only have to wait until July to find out which version of the Hinman murder Bobby will come up with this time round.

_jck_ said...

lurker & follower for a while. though i only signed up for the newsletter email only recently. this is my first comment on this blog. i read everything above this. very interesting reading. i love the discussions i've seen on this blog.

anyway... i wanted to comment on the show "aquarious." even though i went in knowing it was all made up, i was still surprised by the lengths they went to in order to stretch everything about manson, his associates, and the culture he created. however, having said that, i like the show. it pulled me in, made me interested in all the characters and care about them. i'm picky, but that's what i look for in a show/movie: immersion. so even though none of it is true, i think it's a pretty fun ride. and i'd recommend watching it. just remember to have your suspension of disbelief fully in place and try not to criticize everything they're getting wrong. if you're able to do that, i think you would enjoy it, too.

St Circumstance said...

Many comments on Aquarius:

If I may please:

For those who want to watch a chilling movie about Cults, and in my opinion, the best acting job of being Charlie you will see- Check out- "Martha Marcy May Marlene"

It isn't specifically about Manson - but you watch this and tell me it wasn't the inspiration. The acting is incredible and you will see many, many similarities.

It is absolutely worth a watch for anyone who is interested in this case. John Hawkes is the best version of Manson I have ever seen in a movie and you tell me after watching that isn't who the part was modeled on...

( John Hawkes was the mechanic in the movie "The Perfect Storm" who couldn't fix the Ice Machine for those who are uinfamliar with him.

CarolMR said...

I like Duchovney so I will continue to watch "Aquarius." As I've said before (I think), I don't like the made-up stuff about Manson such as his relationship with the young teen's lawyer-father. Charles Manson and his minions are interesting enough in and of themselves. The actor playing Manson is OK, but he doesn't have the charisma that the real Manson must have had in order to amass such a following of young people who seemed willing to go to the ends of the earth for him.

equinox12314 said...

Hi St Circumstance (my favourite Saint!!)

Thanks for the heads up on 'Martha Marcy May Marlene'. I shall check it out due to your recommendation. I think John Hawkes bears a striking resemblance to Charlie from the photos online. Cheers.

St Circumstance said...

You will not be disappointed! The Col mentioned it awhile back and it was the real deal. The youngest sister of the Olsen Twins is the Star, and this was awhile ago before she made the bigger flics she is in now, and she is really incredible.

It had to be made, at least loosely, on Manson and it is really convincing in quite a few scenes.

St Circumstance said...

LOl I would put a sawbuck on 1,3,5 being the leaders so far...

Exactly what Tex claims on his site...

Matt said...

_jck_ said...

have your suspension of disbelief fully in place and try not to criticize everything they're getting wrong. if you're able to do that, i think you would enjoy it, too.


I agree jck. I think this actor studied very hard and he almost has it. I will continue watching too.



grimtraveller said...

equinox12314 said...


"I think some condemnation of Charlie by prospective parolees would be a prerequisite for getting the green light. The Parole Board would not to risk releasing anyone who was in any way 'loyal' to Manson"


But that's just it. None of them have shown any 'loyalty' to him in 40+ years. And only Steve Grogan walks the streets. They're kind of put in a position where they're damned if they do and are damned if they don't.
Grogan actually represents an interesting anomaly. Had he not been paroled when he was, I suspect he'd be in the same situation as the others. But he was, 30 years ago and as far as I'm aware has stayed on the right side of the law.
I wonder what the DA's office and the Governor make of that.

Scraper Pro said...

grimtraveller: I'd say they are just flat-out damned in any meaning of the word you like.

leary7 said...

Hey, sorry to interrupt and go off topic...but I just saw something weird on TV. It was a commercial for IPhone promoting the quality of their camera so it was a video taken by a IPhone user of a ladybug on a twig. And at the end of it the tag line was "Shot on an IPhone...by Cielo D."

Could there really be somebody named Cielo D. out there or could it be the one and only CieloDrive???

Mr. Humphrat said...

Yeah Saint I saw that movie with John Hawkes and it was terrific. I thought he looked like Manson and it was similar to the family. He also acted in Deadwood on TV as the business partner of the sheriff, in the hardware store, boyfriend of Trixie I think was her name.

Mr. Humphrat said...

So will Aquarius continue to have the Manson character?

AustinAnn74 said...

Yes, I've noticed that before too. It's disgusting.

Six Miles From Cielo said...

Cielo D is Cielo De La Paz a photographer. Her web site is behindthepics.com.

equinox12314 said...


@grimtraveller,

"... But that's just it. None of them have shown any 'loyalty' to him in 40+ years."

I have to SLIGHTLY disagree with the above, Grimtraveller. If you look at the previous post on this site i.e. the biography on Pat Krenwinkel, she remained very loyal to him through the seventies. Also, if you look at the media interviews given by Bobby Beausoleil in the early 80's he was not dismissive of Charlie, and indeed told one Parole Board hearing that Manson was not at Hinman, and it was LE's attempt to get Charlie involved. Here's an excerpt from BB's disastrous interview with Capote:-

TC: Listen to me, Bobby. And answer carefully. Suppose, when you get out of here, somebody came to you-let’s say Charlie-and asked you to commit an act of violence, kill a man, would you do it?

RB (after lighting another cigarette, after smoking it half through): I might.


Susan and Leslie had certainly ditched Charlie by the mid-seventies.

Grogan being paroled was self-serving on the part of LAPD/LADA because they got a conviction, but still had no body. Shorty Shea lived a transient lifestyle, there was always the chance that he might turn up. I agree with you that if it were not for the deal Grogan cut with the authorities, he would still be languishing in the bowels of a State Penitentiary. Yes, he does not appear to have been in any trouble since his release, and it is ironic that Mrs Kasabian, who was not convicted, has been in trouble on a number of occasions. Due to their age, and the education and vocational courses completed by Pat, Leslie, Bruce and Bobby, their is no doubt in my mind that, if paroled, they would not commit any offence. However, I would put it that they are denied release because this was a crime spree that America would like to forget.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Capote: Listen to me, Bobby. And answer carefully. Suppose, when you get out of here, somebody came to you-let’s say Charlie-and asked you to commit an act of violence, kill a man, would you do it?

Beausoleil: (after lighting another cigarette, after smoking it half through): I might.


Yikes that is a VERY LONG PAUSE.

St Circumstance said...

Bobby Swears that interview was a lie. He says Capote promised not to talk about the Family, and as soon as he realized where the interview was going- he terminated it.

I cant remember where I read that, but am sure I did. I did find this from a Oui Mag interview with A. L. Bardach:

SIDEBAR:
Beausoleil on Capote

BB: There was a Truman Capote interview that took place in 1973, a television interview by CBS. It was going to be a series, but I think that a one hour special was the extent of it. What Truman Capote did was to take a few fragments of that original television interview and rewrite it. I have the actual original transcript somewhere and it doesn't match at all with his interview in Interview magazine. Most of it was a complete fabrication.

ALB: Why do you think he did that?

BB: Well, I can assume by his Rolling Stone interview with Andy Warhol that he's trying to relive In Cold Blood or something, I really don't know. But he seems to be obsessed with this idea, and no matter what I say to him, he's not going to get that idea out of his mind.

ALB: Did you personally dislike him when you met him?

BB: Oh, the moment I met him, I didn't dislike him. I was open to doing something with him. The only thing I knew about him was that he had tried to do some prison reform work, or something like that. Everyone in San Quentin at the time he came there was interested in cooperating with Truman Capote in the hopes that he could do something for them. Truman Capote, to put it mildly, did not meet their expectations.

ALB: Did at San Quentin feel that way?

BB: Everybody at San Quentin assumed that he came in there for the purpose of discussing prison problems and trying to educate the public as to what was really going on in prison. And things were bad in a lot of respects. Everyone was interested in having that opportunity. It turned out that Truman Capote was only interested in coming there to have some conversations with the so-called "notorious" murderers.

I would never have cooperated with him had I known this. The day before he interviewed me, he had a short personal interview with me, to explain his intentions. And what he explained to me was that he wanted to expose prison problems, discuss prison problems, and let the public know what's going on. The next day we're in front of the TV camera and he comes on with "This thing with you and the Manson family" and he never got off of it. I fenced with him the whole time in front of the cameras.

St Circumstance said...

By the way- same interview bobby casts his motive vote:

TC: You’re not making much sense-at least to me. And I don’t think you’re stupid. Let’s try again. In your opinion, it’s all right that Manson sent Tex Watson and those girls into that house to slaughter total strangers, innocent people­

RB: I said: Who says they were innocent? They burned peo­ple on dope deals. Sharon Tate and that gang. They picked up kids on the Strip and took them home and whipped them. Made movies of it. Ask the cops; they found the movies. Not that they’d tell you the truth.

TC: The truth is, the Lo Biancos and Sharon Tate and her friends were killed to protect you. Their deaths were directly linked to the Gary Hinman murder.

RB: I hear you. I hear where you’re coming from.

TC: Those were all imitations of the Hinman murder-to prove that you couldn’t have killed Hinman. And thereby get you out of jail.

RB: To get me out of jail. (He nods, smiles, sighs-compli­mented) None of that came out at any of the trials. The girls got on the stand and tried to really tell how it all came down, but nobody would listen. People couldn’t believe anything except what the media said. The media had them pro­grammed to believe it all happened because we were out to start a race war. That it was mean niggers going around hurting all these good white folk. Only-it was like you say. The media, they called us a “family.” And it was the only true thing they said. We were a family. We were mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son. If a member of our family was in jeopardy, we didn’t abandon that person. And so for the love of a brother, a brother who was in jail on a murder rap, all those killings came down.

St Circumstance said...

I meant the Capote interview lol- if it happened lol

Have a great weekend all!!

jl2305 said...

What's he referencing with the whipping videos?, if indeed he actually said that.

equinox12314 said...


St Circumstance,

Regarding the Capote interview, Bobby has a couple of Facebook pages which are run on his behalf. At the beginning of this year, Bobby posted on one of the pages that he admitted that his answers were reported correctly, but said that Capote had changed the questions when it went into print!!! (If you believe that really happened....) The post has since disappeared from the page.

St Circumstance said...

Yeah. Hard to believe much when he changed his tune as often as his guitar. He went way out of his way to distance himself from the family in later years.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

jl2305:

There have been rumours for years (I think Ed Sanders even mentions them in the first edition of The Family?) that the Polanskis were into off-kilter sexual stuff, that when the cops searched the Polanski-Tate home they confiscated footage Roman had shot of bondagey sex & other stuff. It kind of comes across as victim-blaming a bit but it ties in with the idea the Family had links to them before the murders, that they knew of this behaviour or knew of rumours of it. If Manson really did party with people like Mama Cass or if the Family really did have drug links to Frykowski it's not unlikely they would have picked up rumours about other Celebrities.

Of course there have also been rumours the Family filmed snuff films etc. (also propagated by Sanders) which kind of seem less credible to me for some reason. Weird little details like this which pop up from time to time is why this whole thing has so much Mystery behind it imo.

equinox12314 said...

St Circumstance,

Amazing isn't it, that Bobby acknowledges that the murders were committed to get 'a brother' out of jail, but he does not appear to be devastated, or bothered in the least, that such an act were committed for his benefit. Indeed, he seems to be flattered!

As I said above, his attempt in the early part of the year to mitigate the Capote interview on one of his Facebook pages has been deleted.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Whether YOU got it (motive) right or NOT is less significant to the fact that we ALL did some serious THINKING about what could be the TRUTH. Obviously, it's something MOST folks almost NEVER do in an entire lifetime (the "estabishment" does it for THEM).

Thanks to ALL for a very stimulating experience.

Michael Hloušek-Nagle said...

Robert, thinking is not easy. And sometimes not pleasant. I personally try to avoid it. One philosopher said - and I'm slightly paraphrasing because I don't have the quote to hand - 'most people go through life thinking they're thinking, but in reality they're mostly doing little more than rearranging their prejudices'.

equinox - damn right, that bothers me. There is this unspoken subtext from all involved: no we weren't doing anything as immoral as trying to spark an end-of-times racial war, you've misjudged us, we were murdering an innocent pregnant woman for the entirely moral and noble purpose of fooling the pigs into releasing our buddy who had cruelly murdered an innocent man

Oh well excuse me for getting the motive so wrong. Give yourself a friggin Nobel Peace Prize!

equinox12314 said...

Hi Michael,

On the question of 'getting a brother out of jail', I am of the view that it was not for the sake of getting the cognitively challenged Bobby Beausoleil released for his own sake, but more so because he could cut a deal with the DA bringing Manson in on the Hinman murder and the Crowe shooting.

Indeed, what I find particularly offensive is that in the Capote interview (excerpt above from St Circ) he demeans the character of the tragic Sharon Tate and her companions, in the same way that he has insulted the character of his own victim, Gary Hinman, with the ludicrous mescaline burn fiction.

mrgroove said...

These motives don't do it for me. I'm going with Charlie, in his own typically convoluted way, wanted to stir up shit with both his family and the establishment. And the murderous twits wanted Charlie's approval, or just wanted to be bad-asses and subscribed to whatever idiotic notion they thought would suit his wishes or however the hell they interpreted his wishes.

Or how about someone create a reliable truth serum and give it to Tex? And then ask him.

TomG said...

Welp

The simplest explanation is usually the accurate one.

Goofed up kids. Drugs. I could end my argument right there.

But I'll continue. Think of the stupidest thing you ever did in your life. Did you weigh the good and the bad? The future consequences? Whether Jesus loved or didn't love you? Or did you just do what you did because it seemed right right then?
I think these kids were high as kites and just killed people and its a shame but there ain't nothing nice about 1969, if any of you was there.

ziggyosterberg said...

What Charlie said in part of his interview with Ron Reagan Jr :

"Leno La Bianca was killed for a black phone book with all the numbers in it - the phone numbers that control the music market.

Sharon Tate and those people were killed because Terry Melcher broke a contract and sent 3 Orientals with hatchets over to kill somebody else. He didn't directly do that. What he did was he sent his mother's man over to put the light out in another chamber.

In other words, you raise a man up in the music and everybody wants to say 'Hey well, mine is better than his.' and 'What are you doing up on my stage?' and 'Who controls what on this set?' and 'Who is the man on this set? Clark Gable?' or 'Where is your fear?' or 'How does your heart beat up on this alter when you see Sharon Tate's body laying there all naked and murdered dead.'

Do you think I had something to do with that? That was the alter. It had nothing to do with me. It was the turnaround of a whole world. It was the Aryan woman that was being bought up from the head for Rosemary's Baby. They were the cult."

It's hard to decipher all the metaphors in that and in particular what they mean to Charlie. It's odd that he would mention the music market in relation to Leno, since as far as I know, Leno had nothing to do with the music business. Terry Melcher breaking a contract that sent 3 Orientals with hatchets over to kill someone else, I assume is a reference to the consequences of Melcher not keeping his word with Charlie. The "3 Orientals" is possibly a reference to Watson, Krenwinkel and Atkins or Watson, Krenwinkel and Van Houten. The part where Charlie starts with "you raise a man up in the music" might be making reference to Charlie's rejection by Melcher, then Charlie asserting his dominance and asking Melcher if he's scared now that he sees that Sharon Tate is dead as a result of what Melcher did to Charlie. The altar, I assume refers to a sacrificial alter and that Sharon was sacrificed because of Melcher's actions towards Charlie. And the little thing at the end about Rosemary's Baby et al is to imply that Sharon and company weren't exactly innocents. He goes on a little more about it after that, briefly, in the interview.

I'm just guessing in my explanation of what Charlie was saying. I have no way of knowing what he meant for certain. If someone has any way of making sense of what Charlie said, please do. TIA

Robert Hendrickson said...

Welcome to the MansonSenseBlog ZIGGY:

The Black Book contained the names of MAFIA Guys who controlled the MUSIC industry in Hollywood.

Leno and HIS partner were well CONNECTED to the MAFIA. AND the authorities were well aware of this.
In FACT Leno's "partner" was the FIRST suspect in the LaBianca HIT.

TRIVA: The producer of the Ron Reagan Show went on to produce "Friends."


CrisPOA said...

Hi Ziggy,

I think that the last part of the interview you transcribed, where Charlie mentions Rosemary Baby and the Aryan woman, may refer to the "conspiracy theory" about Polanski being a satanist and having to sacrifice Sharon and the unborn baby in order to get money, fame, etc.
Listen, i am not desconsidering the theory...it's too far out, but in this case everything is.
I already said that i think that there's lots of devils in this story.

Interesting, i've never read that interview. Of course you can't get Charlie's words without a huge grain of salt but who knows if he is leaking some truth in what he's blabbering?

ziggyosterberg said...

Hi, Mr. Hendrickson. Thank you for filling in some of the blanks for me and it's an honor to be welcomed to the blog by you. Love your Manson documentary. Such a well constructed film from start to finish. One of the few documentaries that doesn't become boring after repeated viewings.

Hi, Cris. Thanks you for your response. That's a great point that you make and one which I overlooked. It could very well be what Charlie was saying. I've heard other family members say something similar, so there's a very good chance that it's what Charlie meant. I should have posted the next thing that he said as well, but I was too lazy to transcribe it. For the sake of clarity, here's the part after the last bit I posted. This is what he says immediately after he says "They were the cult." :


"Did they tell you about all the film that they got with the dogs and chauffeurs, that came out of the black and white, when Yul Brynner and Peter Sellers paid $30,000 to get the videotapes back that they had done with the pornography, where they were gobbling on each others knobs in the closet with poor Sharon, beautiful Sharon?"


It's a very interesting interview. Charlie seems very lucid and has a very soft tone in it at times.

Here's the video of the part that I posted. It starts at about 1:06 and ends at around 2:39 :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98Hr1sp5nmU

R K said...

I tend to lean with Equinox. I do believe that Crowe was THE beginning of the extreme violence and stupidity. I think Charlie was the guy who pulled the trigger, shot Crowe, assumed he was dead and, at that point, set in motion in the tragic sequence of horror events he orchestrated. He thought he shot a Panther and was fearful of reprisals and/or arrest.

grimtraveller said...

equinox12314 said...


@grimtraveller,

'But that's just it. None of them have shown any 'loyalty' to him in 40+ years'

"I have to SLIGHTLY disagree with the above, Grimtraveller. If you look at the previous post on this site i.e. the biography on Pat Krenwinkel, she remained very loyal to him through the seventies."



Ok, none of them showed any loyalty to him in 35 years. Pat K has had some very harsh things to say about Charlie in that time, so much so that in "Goodbye Helter skelter" it's to her anger that he won't come clean about his part that Charlie addresses a quote about how he has no responsibility to tell the world about his part in all the cosmic madness.
I've noticed an interesting pattern that has repeated itself twice in history with Susan, Pat & Leslie. Back in '69, when separated from Charlie, they each told independent people {cellmates, lawyers, psychiatrists} Charlie was behind the TLB killings. Pat even went as far as to say she was scared of Charlie finding and killing her. Then he gets to them in custody and they repudiate all that. Then once the trials are over and they have time to clear their heads and reflect {and Pat said all she could with do with so much time in which she wasn't busy was think}, they all put Charlie once again as the centrepiece of these killings. None of them denies {or denied} their their culpability in murdering. But I for one, find it interesting that when on their own, they all put him as the centre hub.




equinox12314 said...
"Also, if you look at the media interviews given by Bobby Beausoleil in the early 80's he was not dismissive of Charlie, and indeed told one Parole Board hearing that Manson was not at Hinman"


True. But by the 90s he was coming out with quotes like "there's no love lost between me and that individual...."
I was just reading a 1970 newspaper report on his second trial. It's very illuminating. That's the one where he says Manson was actually the one that killed Gary Hinman. I've read interviews with Bobby where he downplays his association with the family and makes it seem that he had very little to do with them. I wish I could find them but at the time {this was 2007 or 8} I had linked to Bobby through research I was doing on David LaFlamme and It's a Beautiful Day so it was a kind of sidetrack before getting back to what I was looking up.
Point being, that at this point, it's pretty much impossible to take anything Bob says with any degree of seriousness because he's so distorted the story over the last 46 years.

equinox12314 said...

@grimtraveller

"... I've read interviews with Bobby where he downplays his association with the family and makes it seem that he had very little to do with them"

For someone who had very little to do with them, BB went to stay with them when he had nowhere else to go. He introduced Catherine Share, Kitty Lutesinger and Leslie Van Houten to the group. He fathered children with two female family members, Kitty Lutesinger and Sandra Good. He was a friend of Dennis Wilson, Gary Hinman, Gregg Jakobson, Johnny Echols of 'Love' i.e. all Manson Family associates. According to Paul Watkins, BB was present when they were looking for the 'hole in the ground'. He was present when the Family were discussing how to raise funds to move to the desert. When he was being held in Los Angeles County Jail after being arrested, he was visited by female members of the Family. When he was in San Quentin, he was being visited by Family members. It is believed that it was he who set up the deal between the Family women and the Aryan Brotherhood to "take care" of AB members on their release, in return for the AB offering protection for the incarcerated Manson. I'd say Bobby was well and truly a member of the Family. He may not have stayed at Spahn all the time, but then again, neither did Tex. In fact, during one of Bruce Davis' parole hearings shown on YouTube, a member of the California Parole Board acknowledges that Davis admits to being a member of the Family, and says that his problem with Beausoleil is that he will not admit to being a member.

"... But by the 90s he was coming out with quotes like "there's no love lost between me and that individual...."

Yes, indeed, but by the 1990s, it had probably dawned on Bobby that he better change his tune and toe the party line about being down on Manson if he wanted out. By the 1990's, you have the influence of Barbara Beausoleil, and presumably a new attorney, both of whom would be giving advice on how best to pursue parole.



"...Point being, that at this point, it's pretty much impossible to take anything Bob says with any degree of seriousness because he's so distorted the story over the last 46 years."

Yes, and on that basis, it is readily apparent why the California Parole Board continues to deny him. Not only is it insulting to his victim, but also to the CPB themselves. The Parole Board hearings must be costly and time consuming. In 2010, Deputy District Attorney Sequiera hit the nail on the head when he told BB that he is a pathological liar.


"...But I for one, find it interesting that when on their own, they all put him as the centre hub."

Yes, I agree with this, and I think it has to come down to the simple explanation that they were in fear of recriminations. But if they are sufficiently aware of being at risk if they don't downplay CM's role, then surely they wouldn't be able to later claim diminished responsibility.