Thursday, December 17, 2015

THE TATE LABIANCA MURDERS - IS THE TRUTH UGLIER THAN WE THINK?

Submitted by D. LaCalandra:

The Tate-LaBianca Murders, better known as the "Manson Murders", were not what news reporter Linda Deutsch once called, "the first real cult killings this country has ever seen". They were the first major example of the increasing violence directly related to the illegal drug trade that this country has ever seen, because it was the first time it erupted in a place people didn't think things like that happened in and during a period of time when the last thing the country needed was a scandal that would have exposed corruption, criminality and a host of dirty secrets in a wide range of political and social aspects. All of which were already the target of extreme criticism. They threatened to pull the sheets off the rich and famous and their entanglement with the Mafia and so-called Counter Culture of the time. But more than that, a corrupt legal system working in harmony with the Mafia to prevent a black uprising the underworld of crime and legal system of America.  Helter Skelter was coming down during the summer of 1969. But it wasn't Charles Manson who wanted to ignite it.

"If a Roman Catholic comes over here and gets in your district attorneys office...Rome! Rome, mamma! That's talking all the way back to one cross and they'll do anything in the world to put one cross back in order, because if they don't put one cross back in order, they got Islam right up their ass from Chicago bouncing that god damn fucking basketball" - Charles Manson 1997

What Helter Skelter really was:

Black dope syndicates (with the legal aid from the Nation of Islam ) would rise in power and start fighting back against the Roman Catholic Italian Mafia (with the legal aid of Italian lawyers), police and rich white dope pushers in Hollywood and upper class neighborhoods. That's what Helter Skelter was. The same Italian mafia trying to take control over the drug market, were always operating behind the scenes in the music and entertainment industry that Manson and the gang were apart of as well.

Charles Manson and The Family found themselves on the front line of Helter Skelter after the shooting of Bernard Crowe and rather than get any help or protection, they were purposely left open for an attack by local law enforcement, eager to ignite what looked like a racially motivated attack, despite knowing the drug-related nature of the crime. There is evidence that they might have been under the watch of a much larger intelligence agency too.

After the murder of Gary Hinman, Bobby Beausoleil wrote "Political Piggy" in blood on the wall, knowing fully well that the police and criminals alike were purposely covering up drug crimes to prevent any leads from being made and in some cases, getting off with the aid of mob attorneys. With the intense hatred of blacks felt by the police and knowing it was open season on them, racial motives were the best cover (ironic that after the murders, cults became the new cover). With the cops laying off Manson and his foolish kowtowing to them about his problems with a Black Panther (they knew fully well he shot Crowe and that Crowe was alive and well), he might have thought he was on their good side. Bobby figured the cops would automatically go after the Panthers for the crime, or just consider it yet another bizarre cold case like so many others in California.

For years and years, people have often demanded proof of drug transactions. They were all covered up by those involved, so as to not blow any other covers. To most of the run away kids, it might have appeared they were deadly serious about Bugliosi's fantasy version. I believe it may have been Beausoleil's purpose to get nailed, so he could establish a fake story and get a lawyer with the right connection since he murdered a rogue, small time dealer and tried to cover it, or somebody convinced him of such. Two years earlier, a dope dealer was stabbed multiple times. His killer was found on the highway with his arm in the car, speaking nonsense. His defense: a bad trip. A few months after the arrest of Beausoleil, a strange girl would be wandering around LA County Jail for the same crime, acting outrageous and confessing to have murdered Sharon Tate and drinking her blood... after seeing her two Italian attorneys, Paul Caruso and Richard Caberello.  They would later tell us she was under the influence of LSD and the hypnotic trance of 35 year old petty car thief.

The Tate murders occurred only three days after Bobby Beausoleil was busted. Unable to get any help for a non-white hippie drug dealer from anyone in the system, the girls cooked up the idea that a copy cat murder might get Bobby released. We've been told that part. The rest of this ill-logical plan makes sense when one considers other aspects of research into the case. The rest has been all but hidden, revealed only in hints. Sebring and Frykowski were both dope dealers and were no strangers to Charles "Tex" Watson.

The idea that the killers and victims were strangers is  perhaps the biggest lie told to conceal the truth about what happened.  They did something to get on somebody's bad side, thinking they could get away with it (much like the Italian business manager of The Beach Boys), while the Family were in a state of hysteria fearing an attack from the Black Panthers they knew the cops were anticipating (and perhaps even the Mafia and FBI). A deal involving drugs and $5,000 Linda Kasabian stole had to figure into it some how, since this seemed to be something Bugliosi brushed under the rug in court.

"White man would kill white man. The black man would sort of be there, too, helping him along." - Leslie Van Houten, interview with attorney Marvin Part

Billy Doyle and gang would kill Voytek Frykowski and Jay Sebring. Black dope pushers would get the blame, then start to retaliation against rich white pushers. The idea was to cause "confusion" as to who committed the crime: The Black Panthers or three Canadian drug dealers: Billy Doyle, Tom Harrigan and William Dawson. The ropes on the body, mock hood in the form of towel over the head of Jay Sebring and the fact that Voytek Frykowski was pistol whipped repeatedly and found on the lawn with his pants down is indication this is true. The wave of horror over fear that covers will be blown and a possible wave of Black dope dealers attacking rich white dealers, would prompt the police and right attorney to act fast and link the crime to Hinman and get Bobby released. If the three Canadians weren't busted, they would then become targets in the drug underworld or at least go up the river for their dealing. The murders were to send a shock through the drug/entertainment underworld running underneath the entire state of California. The cops and Panthers would now be busting the heads of white rich dealers, not the small timers like Watson and The Family. Watson then can corner a lot of new markets and rise up, maybe even over the blacks. Parts of it worked. In other ways it backfired in the worst possible way.  The farce of the Spahn Ranch raid was no doubt to save face. The only question remains: What about the LaBianca murders? For that, the possibilities are endless, but somewhere there is a strong link. Isn't interesting that Bugliosi would also write books on the drug war, JFK and OJ?
Recommended Reading:

The Manson File: Myth and Reality of an Outlaw Shaman (Nikolas Schreck)
Goodbye Helter Skelter (George Stimson)
Death to Pigs (Robert Hendrickson)
BBC Interview with Charles Manson (Bill Scanlan Murphy)
Mae Brussell interview with Preston Guillory (arresting officer of Charles Manson during the Spahn Ranch raid)






156 comments:

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

Hell of a lot more credible than the old "Charles Manson was a loony who was trying to puppet-master his way into the Presidency of the United States of White-Power AmeriKKKa" line we've had shovelled at us over and over since Forever.

The more you learn about this case the more that simplistic Helter-Skelter motive doesn't add up. All the various drug/criminal connections between the players (peripheral or otherwise) are so significant it's puzzling they're ignored in the Official Narrative. Not sure I fully agree with the hypothesis here, but as much as I personally like (in an off-kilter aesthetic sense which panders to my own pet obsessions) the Manson-National-Socialist-Revolutionary angle, it IS bullshit- D. LaCalandra's post trumps it in credibility.

Trump Trump Trump.

St Circumstance said...

Great post. I have heard some these ideas before and it does make a lot more sense than HS.

My problem with them is lack of proof

By now after all these years there should be some hard evidence that jay or Voytek knew Tex if they did..,

And there just doesn't seem to be any

St Circumstance said...

As well I don't want to be argumentative but we have argued this many times lol. We have talked over the years about all of these sources.

Lots of great stories, ideas and rumors which sound much more plausible than HS...

But where is actual proof? We can say for the rest of our lives Bugs was full of BS and the real motive was drugs or revenge...

But where is real evidence of something else? And I don't count the words or stories from Charlie or any of his friends that can't be backed up by actual evidence :)

Manson Family Archives said...

D. LaCalandra here.

First, let me say that post is largely theory and not everything in it is to be taken in a literal sense. I could have elaborated on certain things a lot more, but that is being saved for another time.

As for the connection between The Family and Sebring/Frykowski. As I pointed out, drug transactions are usually conducted in a secretive manner and there are no bill of sales involved. Secondly, it's a fact by now that the drug elements of the crimes were hidden even to those in the Family (for instance, some didn't even know the Crowe shooting was dope related). Even during the early Police interviews with people from the Polanski circle was the drug connection downplayed.

Susan Atkins attorney, Debra Fraiser did openly state during Susan Atkins last parole hearing (I think it was her last?) that Frykowski was a connection to Watson and Manson. NOW, we can assume she was lying. But for an attorney to openly and so boldly state that during a parole hearing...she had to be telling the truth or is officially one of the worst attorneys in the world. I don't think she would have just pulled that out of nowhere without Susan and her having discussions.

Secondly...in the days following the murders, multiple people were taking about the Billy Doyle/Voytek Frykowski incident. Perhaps it didn't happen, but obviously that rumor was floating around and they were the first suspects. For Frykowski to end up dead, pistol whipped and with his pants down after that...would be one hell of a coincidence.

I never even notice his pants being down in the crime scene photos until I read Paul Caruso's interview with Atkins (the one that turned into a $150,00 confession that was 'accidentally' released to the public) in which he asked her....where Frykowski's pants were? What relevance would that have to anything or his asking if drugs were taken?

Joey Duet said...

I read this blog every morning when I wake up. I really joy it but I have never commented before. Why doesn't anyone believe the helter skelter motive? Is it that the truth might be to strange to believe? Do we have to keep coming up with stuff so the case doesn't die away and we have nothing to talk about? It's been over 45 years, if you listen everyone in Hollywood hung out with Manson, mingled with Manson, ran in the same circles as Manson, partied with Manson. Sounds like he was living the life he wanted. It's been 46 years people just want to be a part of the strangest murder case in history. Maybe helter skelter is just helter skelter. Just my thoughts.

StarRider said...

I think it's useful in most things to follow the KISS principle and try to reduce things to the simplest possible scenario, and in this chain of events that has always made the most sense to me. Bobby and Charlie needed money to pay people back to people who had intimidated them, which led to the Hinman murder. After Bobby is caught (and to the police it's very clear that he's guilty) someone at Spahn comes up with this ridiculous plan to get him out, and the events we all know about happen. Despite all the metaphysical bullshit spouted by Charlie it's pretty clear he's both mentally ill and not that bright, and is basically nothing more than a hustler and conman trying to get by with as little effort as possible. He is clearly, at minimum, a sociopath. Atkins and Watkins also clearly have some very serious issues going on. The Family's disillusionment with society and the drug use makes them easily manipulated and subject to their own bizarre thought processes, which leads to their willingness to go along with the plan. It's impossible to say how much importance the Family actually placed on Helter Skelter, IMO very little importance can be placed on anyone's statements in the years since (including Bugliosi), as all are jockeying for position to put themselves in the best possible light, but some of Van Houten's statements seem, to me, to ring truer than much of the rest. In the end it seems the most likely scenario is that they thought they could get their friend out of jail by making it look like Hinman's killer was still operating, and thus all of it was just a stupid, senseless, drug-crazed idiocy that cost all of these people their lives. Sure there was some drug use going on by some of the victims, but I've seen no evidence that any of them were engaged in any violent drug activity, and I have no doubt any that existed would have come to light long ago. Conspiracy theories are interesting, but it goes against human nature for things like this to be kept covered up for very long; people like to talk. Conspiracies to kill JFK or hide UFO's that crashed in the desert are cottage industries used to make money for the people who advocate for them, but even the most cursory look reveals that most of this stuff doesn't really make much sense. Bill Clinton couldn't keep a dalliance with an intern secret, and initially only two people knew about it. It would be impossible to keep any secret that dozens or hundreds were privy to for very long. (Many point to the Manhattan Project as an example of a "Big" secret that was kept under wraps successfully, but remember that the Soviet government knew what was going on while that project was still in operation.) And that's what makes this whole thing just sad to me, all these people were killed for nothing, for a stupid "plan" that had no chance of success. My two cents, for what it's worth

George Stimson said...

"But where is actual proof? We can say for the rest of our lives Bugs was full of BS and the real motive was drugs or revenge...

"But where is real evidence of something else? And I don't count the words or stories from Charlie or any of his friends that can't be backed up by actual evidence :)"

Circumstantial evidence is real evidence.

St Circumstance said...

Touché George. But an entire motive based on Circumstantial evidence with no real proof?

Joey is right :)

Show me one substantial piece of evidence that Jay or Voytek knew Tex?

Where were drugs or drug making equipment at Gary's ?

The case is interesting enough. When you as Mae and Nik Schrek it is just going to get more fantastic by the minute.

George you are a good smart man but hardly impartial. I read your book and think it has some great points but is lacking in hard evidence. I can't base my opinion on Charlie and the girls words after the fact- they have an obvious agenda

One has to go on facts and evidence and that points more to HS than anything else

I know that bothers some people immensely lol but I keep hoping to see something concrete that points to something else...

I really do. :)

George Stimson said...

"Show me one substantial piece of evidence that Jay or Voytek knew Tex?'

I don't claim that there is any

"Where were drugs or drug making equipment at Gary's ?"

You don't need drug making equipment to extract mescaline from peyote. You can do it on a stovetop with pots, pans, and a candy thermometer.

St Circumstance said...

Was there Mesc there? I didn't read about it any of the police reports?

George, I am not doubting most of what you wrote was true. All of it even. I am not taking issue with your theory in particular, because a lot of it makes sense to me.

But just because someone YOU trust told you something- doesn't always make it so. You cant ignore hard facts simply because someone accused of something says something else is reality instead.

Mae Brussel thought everything was a government conspiracy. So she took some real facts and then added them to some coincidences and bang- Manson was a government agent. sounded believable back then- but now we know that wasn't true.

Nik schreck though he was a vampire- If anyone wants to take this guy seriously be my guest.

Charlie is likely to say anything to anyone at any given time- do we selectively decide he is telling the truth whenever it serves our individual purposes?

Bugs was an assistant DA assigned to the case at the time. He was allowed to distort the law and case any way he chose so could set himself up for a best seller later?


Joey may be the new guy- but he seems to dig pretty good in my estimation.Bugs got lucky and did a manipulation job. But his basic case was supported by facts.

I wrote a long post on this which we dont need to rehash here. But the killers printed H/S and War at the scene of the crime,nothing about drugs or revenge. They painted political piggy not druggy at Gary's. There were no drugs at Gary's and they left drugs at Cielo. There is much testimony about H/S from various members of the family, and almost none I have ever seen about a drug burn at Cielo or Waverly. Mafia as well- lots of stories and rumors- but zero actual evidence. Physical evidence, testimony evidence- to back up the circumstantial evidence.

I have only come across one motive which covers all 3 ...

George Stimson said...

Why would there be mesc there? He was getting ready to go on a trip. He probably had his house tidied up. Why would he want stuff lying around when he wasn't going to be there?

(See ya in LA, roomie!)

St Circumstance said...

let me illustrate more clearly me feelings for you lol


Bugs gives a statement that Charlie used H/S as a way to manipulate the others to kill:

-Then gives a dozen witness statements which back this up- Testimony evidence
-Then shows refrigerators at the crime scene with the words- Physical evidence
-Then shows property where the accused live with the words-more physical evidence

All which supports his statement - but most of you wont believe that.


Bobby gives a statement that he was at Gary's to get back money from selling bad drugs to bikers:

-No drugs at Gary's
-No biker testimony anyone was burned or pissed ( not my problem they wouldn't want to talk- its still not evidence if you dont have statement for whatever/any reason)
-no money at Gary's
-no evidence any biker ended up with anything taken from Gary
-no evidence Gary sold drugs.

But many think this believable...



Hmmm.........

St Circumstance said...

Yeah- we will have to work this out over coors-lites- this is not s short conversation

:)

St Circumstance said...

After all these years and parole hearings Bobby never named any bikers which might validate his story because :

A) he is still afraid of retribution
B) he still has honor
C) the biker doesn't exist

?

Matt said...

Joey, in all of these years the ONLY thing I'm certain of is that HS was not the motive. Catherine Share once said in an interview that she never heard Manson say the words Helter Skelter, "not once".

Bugliosi (in my opinion) saw an opportunity given the high profile nature of the case, to cash in. He had all the evidence he needed to send the kids to the gas chamber, but painting Manson as the evil, manipulative Svengali was bizarre enough to send the ratings of the coverage of the trial into orbit! The behavior of the defendants helped him sell it, and Curt Gentry was in the courtroom writing his book for him.

He was a brilliant prosecutor. But as Leary once said, "[he] sold the world bullshit!".


Cielodrive.com said...

This is as deep as this will get.

St Circumstance said...

And Matt can be right too lol that's the beauty of my angle. I don't think HS was the motive either.

I just haven't heard another which can be proved to the extent that one can. And I use the evidence presented for HS to remind people how little evidence there is for some of the other "theories"

But I know we will keep looking and trying lol

Robert Hendrickson said...

Very interesting - I was going to add to the last POST about SF and now it may make more sense. "Archives" raised a little known point ("Mafia Bars")

BUT the real connection goes back to the turn of the century when the "Bank of Italy" rebuilt SF after the QUAKE. I don't know about NOW, but even up til the i970s San Fransico was a Mafia town.

IE: There is Saloon called the "Gold Spike" where there is a back room for Italians ONLY. NO menu and ONLY Italian is spoken. Best Italian food, this side of Italy.

Patty mentions a Dr. doing "drug" research as a Federal employee, and Manson is told to make contact with HIM.

AND SF was the "government's" "drug" research CENTER. AND as I've said before, the CIA knew whoever learned HOW to "control MINDS" with drugs - had a secret weapon. How many out there actually KNOW what LSD was created for? How did CM know EXACTLY how to administer LSD effectively.

Charlie told his best friend from prison (PHIL PHILLIPS) Let's go up to SF -I got a good friend who makes the BEST "candy" in the world.

Some would say: "GEE, only a crazy person would drive all the way to Frisco for a "candy-bar." So Charlie MUST be crazy.

ANYONE ever research just what "kind" of cases Bugliosi got HIS 98% conviction rate from ?

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

I get too wound up talking motive lol

Nice job D. LaCalandra- my hats off :)

CarolMR said...

What's with all the "Italian attorneys" nonsense?

Fiddy 8 said...

“If God dropped acid, would he see people?” ~ Steven Wright

Matt said...

I was trying to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.
Steven Wright

George Stimson said...

"The ice cream truck in my neighborhood plays Helter Skelter." - Steven Wright

Fiddy 8 said...

Question: Was Genty present in the court gallery for the entire trial, or just at the guilt phase?

Perhaps time frame of Gentry in court is only *after* that amazing letter (George posted) had been sent to publishers by Bugliosi.

DebS said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

ANYONE ever research just what "kind" of cases Bugliosi got HIS 98% conviction rate from ?

Briefly, Robert, Bugliosi was the deputy DA who prosecuted a group of campus demonstrators that had taken over a couple of buildings at San Fernando Valley State College, holding about 30 college administrators, faculty and other college employees hostage at knife point for several hours Nov. 4, 1968.

The case went to trial before a judge, not jury, in September 1969 with 21 defendants. All of the defendants were students of the college. All of the defendants were Black and belonged to the Black Student Union. Twenty of the 21 defendants were found guilty of a variety of felonies.

At the time of the demonstration many of the demonstrators were wearing sweatshirts imprinted with "By Any Means Necessary", a Black Panther slogan.

This was a landmark case for campus demonstrations.

DebS said...

I should add that the trial ended Nov. 19, 1969, just days before the case against Manson and the Family came to light. Bugliosi definitely had the Black Panthers on his mind from the beginning.

Joey Duet said...

After all these years I finally get to type Matt. I'm not saying I think HS is only motive. I just think it shouldn't be dismissed so easily. Haven't many talked about HS? Bugs had to get it from somewhere.I just feel people want this big conspiracy because it makes for great conversation. As far a Catherine share, you know how to tell when she is lying? Her lips are moving. By the way I was really excited to see someone mentions my name.

Lonnie Martin said...

Longtime lurker from the EvilLiz days, first time poster.

The TLB murders as CIA conspiracy is a great plot for a movie.

https://vimeo.com/149312052
pswd: manson

Manson Family Archives said...

The Mae Brussel interview is worth listening for what Preston Guillory has to say. After the Crowe shooting, the police suddenly told they aren't to arrest him? Why? Then he says that a higher agency must have had him under surveillance. This is around the time Danny DeCarlo starts to load the ranch up with weapons. Somebody else pointed out that it reeks of Cointelpro. Which was something very real at the time, not a whacky conspiracy theory.

Bruce Davis by the way once said nobody believed in Helter Skelter. It was fantasy and even said the song they really liked was "Tomorrow Never Knows", which isn't even on The White Album. But in his last parole hearing, he was telling the board how serious Charlie was about it. You'll get a release when you tell them exactly what they want to hear.

As for why they would hide a drug connection with Cielo. There are a million and one reasons. Tex plead not guilty and tried to get off by playing the role Bugliosi casted him in. Robbing drugs or picking that house out of revenge would be an automatic death sentence. With the narrative Bugliosi put forward, they all had a shot at trying to get off.

Susan, although she said a whole lot, did say something about Linda buying MDA.

During the trial, Manson kept yelling out to Fitzgerald to ask Linda about the $5000. Now, Manson wouldn't do that simply to make Linda look bad. He's not that petty and not into being a snitch. So that $5,000 has to play into this case some how. The way Bugliosi rushed in tell the jury exactly what Linda was "about to testify" tels me there is something there.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Thanks Patty - for most that might mean much - for ME OMG ! I've actually NOT wanted to hear that. NO question Mr. "B" KNEW the difference between a Black Panther and a Black Muslim. AND their similarities. And HIS obsession with BLACKS in general.

NOW, here's one for the ST. : On this day in 1969, the U.S. Air Force closed its Project "Blue Book" and said there was no evidence of extreterrestrial spaceships.

CrisPOA said...

I agree HS could've been used to explain the family activities at that time to the more naïve or less commited members.
It always seemed to me that was the case, and Bugliosi just used that to get his conviction - and his book? Or even a cover a up? Was he working with the mafia and the police?

In this case the law enforcement would have to be highly involved. From the police officer who was sent to the crime scene to the higher ranks. The "right people" you if you know what i mean.


Something i would like to add about the copycat motive: one has to be pretty commited to go along with it - too much effort to release a brother. It was a "hanging job" right?
I mean, you were willing to die for it.
Unless you were told nothing would happen, that the mafia would take care of it and put the blame on the blacks.
But then - they (the mafia) turned their backs on them.

DebS said...

Robert Hendrickson said...
Thanks Patty - for most that might mean much - for ME OMG ! I've actually NOT wanted to hear that. NO question Mr. "B" KNEW the difference between a Black Panther and a Black Muslim. AND their similarities. And HIS obsession with BLACKS in general.


Robert if you call me Patty one more time, I'm going to quit answering your posts!

St Circumstance said...

lol I have to go read what 'Project Blue Book" is...

Damn. I thought I was with you for a minute there lol :)

Manson Family Archives said...

There are questions that very few people have ever asked. When you watch these TV specials and read the books, they always say that the case really broke when Susan Atkins started to blabber to her jail mates. That is 100% bullshit. They were suspects in the Tate-LaBianca case already. After speaking with her attorney, the next thing you know, she is telling everyone who is willing to listen that she was in on the Tate murders. Case breaks when Virginia Graham squeals. This woman, who looked like a fictional mafia moll and had connections to the mob and Hollywood.

Then a prominate Beverly Hills attorney, Paul Caruso is supposedly playing second banana to Richard Caballero? WHY? Why was this never questioned? The conduct on their part with letting Bugliosi speak to her, the $150,00 book deal, leaking the story to the press, etc. ....what were they trying to hide with this case that would make somebody like Caruso come to the aid of a broke hippie and then break every law in the book?

Then stuff like this is being said to the press:

"Caballero said later Miss Atkins fears her testimony may make her a “marked woman” through the black magic and mystical spells with which the leader of the “family” commune, hypnotic-eyed Charles Manson, 35, once held his followers.

“Charlie would, in effect, conjure up a vision detrimental to her in his mind and then transfer it to her mind and then she would know if she is marked.” the attorney said."

Really, now? That's on par with the Salem Witch Trials.

Manson Family Archives said...

...and after all of this we're told: the murders happened in less than a half hour and totally random. So much emphasis has been put on the "total strangers" thing. It's nonsense. Where were Tex and Linda in the days that Charlie was at Big Sur? Why were those two in the front of the car? Why did one go in first and one stayed look out? Was this the Tex and Linda caper? Why was one kept in the safty of a Texas jail not saying a word while mommy cooked him meals and the other was given full immunity?

DebS said...

Manson Family Archives

You might want to reference an earlier interview with Preston Guillory which ran in the LA Free Press Dec. 19, 1969, very early in the saga. It essentially says the same thing as the Mae Brussell interview but many times when Brussell is in the mix people immediately people think conspiracy theory and glaze over.

We ran the article here-
http://www.mansonblog.com/2013/11/preston-guillorys-first-interview-with.html

If you have a hard time reading it because of the size of the text just email me and I will send you the article. I think that Guillory's input is quite enlightening.

Panamint Patty said...

Lol Deb its not THAT bad to be Patty is it?

St Circumstance said...

Deb is that the interview where he says the cops were told NOT to raid Spahn? Can you send that to me as well please... I remember that and thought it was interesting as well- but I dont remember and cant read that small font...

I think Mae Brussell is very interesting and I know MK-ultra happened. I am just not sure that it has relevance here

But- I do remember thinking that article about the cop who talked about the surveillance at the ranch was very intriguing, and would like to refresh my memory

Manson Family Archives said...

Also, let me point this out to you:

What does Charlie mean when he said Islam coming from Chicago? The Nation of Islam HQ is in Chicago. Who paid the legal fees for the Zebra Killers? The Nation of Islam.

The Manson case was twisted and shaped into what it was by three Italians, clearly to protect the interests of others. You could understand the fear of Black Muslims "rising" in the legal world.

It would be Helter Skelter!

Manson sees the Underworld of crime being just a mirror reflection of the overworld. Racial conflict in the underworld was just as real as that in the overworld and as this case shows us, the two are almost one and the same.

Manson Family Archives said...

That article is VERY good. Read what he says about narcotics officers.

DebS said...

No Patty, it's not you, it's me! If Robert would have attributed the find to Donald Duck I would have been just as miffed.

St. the article has been sent!

St Circumstance said...

Thanks. Deb was kind enough to send it to me, and I had read this before, but hadn't really focused on anything outside of the Spahn Raid parts...

Cielodrive.com said...

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Uh, Mr. Guillory, you said that you saw the files with regard to the August 16th raid on a Sergeant's desk sometime after the raid, is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Did you ever see the files again after you saw them on the Sergeant's desk?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I did not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Did you look for the files after you saw them on the Sergeant's desk?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I made no effort to look for them.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Mr. Guillory, how many times did you go to the Spahn Ranch?

MR. GUILLORY: I had never gone to the Spahn Ranch prior to the raid. After the raid I had probably gone there once or twice because my patrol area was shifted and I was then working a car which went to Twin Lakes and covered the Spahn Ranch area.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: So after the Spahn Ranch raid on August 16th, you went to the Spahn Ranch as part of your routine patrol, is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: That's right, sir.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Did you ever personally observe other Sheriff's deputies having Spahn Ranch under surveillance, as you called it?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I did not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Did you see Mr. Manson when he was arrested on August 16th?

MR. GUILLORY: Yes, I did.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Was Mr. Manson arrested, to your knowledge, after the August 16th raid?

MR. GUILLORY: No sir, not to my knowledge.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Were you aware that Mr. Manson was arrested on August 24, 1969?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I was not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Now, do you know the chief investigating officer in this case, Sergeant Paul Whiteley?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I do no

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Do you know the person who was his partner at the time the investigations began in the Hinman murder and the Shea murder,Deputy Charles Guenther of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department?

MR. GUILLORY: Not by name, sir. If they are homicide officers, I may have seen them at Malibu during the preliminary hearing on the Hinman case.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Mr. Guillory, you said that you were in fear for your life, is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: I am in fear of my personal safety, yes, sir.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Is that from Sergeant Paul Whiteley?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, it is from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office, based on my experience as a Los Angeles County Sheriff and procedures followed by that Department.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Have you ever been threatened physically or have you ever been harmed physically?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, that used to be my job.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: And you have never been threatened with physical harm by members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office?

MR. GUILLORY: As such, sir no.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Your answer is no, is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: That's correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: And you've never been threatened by Sergeant Paul Whiteley or Deputy Charles Guenther, the two investigators in this case, is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I have not.

Cielodrive.com said...

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: And you've never been threatened by any physical harm by any members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: Sir, one doesn't have to be threatened to know one has been subject to such threats by virtue of my position as a Deputy Sheriff, what I witnessed.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: I’m asking -- my question is to you, have you ever been threatened by physical harm by any member of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I have not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: And you have not been threatened with harm from the chief investigator in this case, Sergeant Paul Whiteley, or his partner, at that time, Deputy Charles Guenther?

MR. KANAREK: Well, your honor, how can that be? He doesn't know these people. There's no foundation for that particular question.

THE COURT: If that is an objection --

MR. KANAREK: Maybe he should show him a picture, and maybe he can --

THE COURT: If that is an objection, it's overruled.

You may answer.

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't know either officer: And to the best of my knowledge, neither officer has ever threatened me.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: And you were not involved in the investigation of this case; is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: No, sir, I was not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: Then the first time you went to Spahn Ranch was on August 16, 1969, is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: That's correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: And when Mr. Manson was mentioned -- when Mr. Manson and his followers -- which I think was a phrase you were using -- were mentioned in these briefings, while you were stationed at Malibu, was this in connection with Spahn Ranch?

MR. GUILLORY: Yes, sir, it was.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: And during these briefings, were you told that employees at Spahn Ranch had complained about the presence of Mr. Manson and his followers?

MR. KANAREK: Just a minute. I'll object to that on the grounds it's ambiguous, It's -- I don't object to what he was told, but it’s assuming facts not in evidence, your Honor, about employees. That calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED>

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MANZELLA: During these briefings, you received information during these briefings that complaints were made about Mr. Manson and his followers being on Spahn Ranch; is that correct?

MR. GUILLORY: Yes, sir, we did receive complaints.

christopher butche said...

Mr Hendrickson, Bugliosi possibly in his final campaign for office, his opponent stated that the near perfect success rate, etc could not be verified. It was in response to Bugliosi claiming the other guy had never convicted any murders, rapists, etc but only lesser cases.

As to TLB motive, I am tempted to invoke Occam's Razor. The simplicity of the idiocy of it all appeals to me.

As to Helter Skelter, wasnt Tex listening to Abbey Road on a portable tape player on that last aborted walk to Barker's? Was he expecting the next instructions or was it just the next Beatles album?

Robert Hendrickson said...

OOPS Deb - a senior moment !

ANYONE know the extent of any "physical" evidence pointing to "Helter Skelter" as the motive ????

flip said...

Clearly, none of it had anything to do with Helter Skelter... Everyone knows that Healter Skelter was the real motive....the physical evidence for Healter Skelter is as clear as the blood on the fridge.

Manson Family Archives said...

In regards to Hinman. How do we know what was in his home? I've never seen a property report for that crime. Beausoleil was busted rather fast, so who knows if one was even made. From then on the only question is did he murder Hinman. Not why. Why doesn't matter and if a prosecutor can brush something under the carpet, they will. In court you have to fight the evidence the prosecutor lays out. If your lawyer tells you to go with a certain defense, you do it. Rather stupid to explain what happened if you have a shot at getting cut loose. Especially if the prosecutor could easily dismiss it.

The Straight Satans are the ones who largely set the course for the Hinman case. Al Springer did, as I just recently found in testimony from the Hinman/Shea trial of Davis, said he didn't know Hinman "that well". That well? He told police he didn't know him at all.

I don't know why anyone would assume they would implicate themselves in that crime. They were testifying in exchange for dropped charged.

grimtraveller said...

D. LaCalandra says...

But more than that, a corrupt legal system working in harmony with the Mafia to prevent a black uprising the underworld of crime and legal system of America

What exactly does that mean ? I get up to 'black uprising' which, incidentally, it was hardly just the corrupt legal system and Mafia trying to quell that uprising. Dirty tricks and a lot more besides had been used on both the Nation of Islam, the Civil rights movement and the Black neighbourhoods that the Panthers were strong in through, ironically, any means necessary.

Helter Skelter was coming down during the summer of 1969. But it wasn't Charles Manson who wanted to ignite it

Even though at least 4 people expressly stated this to be the case ?

The same Italian mafia trying to take control over the drug market, were always operating behind the scenes in the music and entertainment industry

It's a marvel of American history that the Mafia managed to plant their fingers in any pie that yielded revenue. And in local and national politics.

Charles Manson and The Family found themselves on the front line of Helter Skelter after the shooting of Bernard Crowe and rather than get any help or protection, they were purposely left open for an attack by local law enforcement

Rather than get any help or protection ? You mean like Charlie should have gone to the local police station and confessed to killing Lotsapoppa ? Purposely left open for attack by the cops ? Crowe told the police he didn't know who had shot him or why. And he never did go and tell them, even though he nearly died.

eager to ignite what looked like a racially motivated attack, despite knowing the drug-related nature of the crime

So it makes sense for the police at that place and time to ignite racial attacks with an over arching motive.....but not Charles Manson ?

There is evidence that they might have been under the watch of a much larger intelligence agency too.

How can there be evidence that they might have been ? There's either evidence that they were or there isn't any evidence and what you have is supposition and nothing more. "Might"s are tactics to muddy the waters.

After the murder of Gary Hinman, Bobby Beausoleil wrote "Political Piggy" in blood on the wall, knowing fully well that the police and criminals alike were purposely covering up drug crimes to prevent any leads from being made and in some cases, getting off with the aid of mob attorneys

How did Bobby know this and can you point us in the direction of where there's a source of Bobby stating this ? I'd like to see where he was coming from.

they knew fully well he shot Crowe and that Crowe was alive and well

Alive and well ? The guy was on the critical list for 18 days !
Just out of interest, how did the police know "fully well" that Crowe was shot by Charlie during July '69 ? Isn't the story that Lotsapoppa called the ranch asking for "Charles" and TJ answered and didn't connect the name Charles with Tex because he only knew him as Tex ? So who passed the name of Charles Manson to the police at that time ?
By the way, I'm posing these questions because I genuinely want to know, despite some the incredulity in my tone. Because some of what has been written seems pretty incredulous but incredulity is no barrier to truth......unless it is.









Manson Family Archives said...

What four people? The killers themselves who're more or less forced to accept what is on record and who have a better shot at release by doing than, rather than tell the truth?

Charlie didn't need to go to local police. They knew already and since Crowe refused to tell them anything, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure he probally had something up his sleeve.

Yes, it makes far more sense for the police to want to see a hippies vs. blacks war. Not Charles Manson, correct. It would be rather foolish to think he'd want to ignite a war when he was already losing his mind over the Crowe shooting and then Hinman. It defines logic why he would want to bring that on himself. The cops? Please. As I stated, this was happening at the time of Cointelpro.

Might isn't a tactic to muddy waters. I'm not out to muddy waters and when I make an error, I correct it and rarely state anything as a fact. As Preston Guillory said, they were not to arrest Manson. But memos were to be handed in on him and he stated that those memos were going to a specific department and when memos get sent to that specific department, it usually means they are then going to a higher intelligence agency. Those are the words of the arresting officer in the Spahn Ranch raid. Not mine. Then when you consider the weasel DeCarlo is using the ranch to stock pile machine guns, it's worth taking into consideration there MIGHT, yes MIGHT have been something going on.

Maybe my wording on Bobby wasn't too good. But obviously he left a red harring and did so knowing the cops hated blacks. That was just a known fact then. COnsidering all these people were in the criminal underworld, I'm sure they knew a thing or two about what was going on. It's not a strech of the imagination that there wasn't cops on the payrolls of organized crime. I'm certain there were instances where black competitors were killed and it was all covered up. Bobby must have seriously thought all he had to do was just tell the police blacks did it and it would be OK. Hell, his first trial ended in a hung jury. It's possible Bobby COULD have gotten off!

Guillory himself said they were getting word that Manson shot a black guy, or Panther, whatever. Considering Dennis Wilson knew the next day, one has to imagine word travels pretty fast. Charlie himself was telling cops they "roughed up" a Panther, put one in the hospital (which was foolish). He probally assumed they would aid him, knowing their hatred for him. Unfortunatly for him, they hated him just as much. I also believe Dianne Lake told them something about him shooting a Panther.

grimtraveller said...

For years and years, people have often demanded proof of drug transactions. They were all covered up by those involved, so as to not blow any other covers

It's rather pointless expecting proof of an illegal transaction like a drug deal. You want £1000 worth of drurrrgs, maaan, deals are verbal. Most of the drug world is like that. The most proof you'll get are the bags that stuff come in and they get thrown away after their use is over !
That said, there was a surprising amount of drug openness in TLB. And in the initial police investigations apart from Steve McQueen purportedly getting rid of the drugs at Jay Sebring's pad, it seems like drugs were all over the place.
But people do talk. Even if it's just gossip. The number of people that never say a word about their dark ventures seem to be few and far between. And you'd think that at least one person could be found to substantiate Gary Hinman being able to make mescaline. I don't know one way or the other whether he dealt in drugs, even on a small time friendly basis, although Vince Bugliosi thought so. On a TV programme, I think from 2009, he categorically stated that Gary furnished the Family with drugs. He never specified the period though, so it could have been 1968 {which apparently Susan Atkins & Sandra Good attested to at the time}.
Getting drugs for friends or groups that would like some isn't unusual for someone ensconced in that world. I used to do that myself. I never thought of myself as a drug dealer.

I believe it may have been Beausoleil's purpose to get nailed, so he could establish a fake story and get a lawyer with the right connection since he murdered a rogue, small time dealer

Well, that worked pretty well didn't it ! As I said to you elsewhere, in your zeal to dance away from the official version which you say means nothing to you, you end up dancing such moves that you end up tying yourself in knots that are more fantastical than the official version ever could be. And there is an example right there, that Bobby's purpose was to get nailed. Simple fact is, if he had not written anything at the scene, not kept the knife and not driven off in Hinman's car there's really nothing that could have tied him to the murder other than the 2 women that were with him and notably they kept their mouths closed....until Kitty got catty.

Unable to get any help for a non-white hippie drug dealer from anyone in the system

Again, what does that actually mean ? Even if I knew what it meant, the question would need to be asked "did they try ?"

the girls cooked up the idea that a copy cat murder might get Bobby released

There are as many problems with the copycat as there are with Helter Skelter, possibly more. It's notable that Bobby's accomplices, Mary & Susan were both at Spahn when when these copycats were supposedly discussed. They knew what was written on the walls in Gary's blood. Susan even told the grand jury "I had previously been involved in something similar to this where I saw political piggy written on the wall so that stuck very heavily in my mind" yet that wasn't written at Cielo or Waverley. They both knew how the Hinman gig had gone down. One man was stabbed no more than 5 times, yet on either of those two nights the number of stabbings was way, way in excess of 5. I also find it rather interesting that Bobby, when phoning the ranch to tell them he was under arrest for murder, didn't mention what the police had on him and the reasons the police had for placing him under arrest.

orwhut said...

Manson Family Archive,
I'm puzzled by your name. It sounds like some kind of forum yet, I can't find it. I searched for D. LaCalandra and got a youtube presentation of an accordion player and some people singing. If you have a Manson Family Archive or something similar on the internet, please supply me a link. I'd like to see it.

Manson Family Archives said...

Just this. I don't think I'll be doing anything more with it.

http://mansonfamilyarchives.blogspot.com/

orwhut said...

Many thanks!
Whut

AustinAnn74 said...

The lunatic is on the grass....

Robert Hendrickson said...

When I asked "does anyone know the extent of the "physical" evidence that points to "Helter Skelter" as the motive" I only got (1) response regarding the "Healter Skelter" written on the Fridge Door. So let's add "Death to Pigs" on the dinning room wall at the SAME crime scene.

I also mentioned to the ST that the "government" in 1969 publicly declared that there was NO evidence that extraterristial spaceships existed.

WELL, YOU are dealing with the exact SAME situation HERE.

Most folks just give a sigh of relief that the "government" has done the "investigative" THINKING of relevant matters for THEM and then there are others that "QUESTION" the government.

WHICH one are YOU ? Cause the difference - that is a "question" which should dominate YOUR entire life - IF you really want one that works.

St Circumstance said...

I wrote a whole post about the HS evidence and put up photos of examples of physical evidence supporting that motive

Just because I don't believe it but won't let anyone tell me it can't be it...

Until we know FOR SURE that it wasn't it lol

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Mr. H - by the way- I read about "Bluebook" last night. Very interesting stuff.

CrisPOA said...

A little off topic now...

I was reading part of a "book" by Will Cavanaugh online, where he describes his meeting with Manson. He was Manson parole officer for a short period of time around January 1969.

Well he says that Steven Parent was on probation to L.A. county on a dope charge. I tried to get information on that but only found a theft charge (the one the p.o. says he had homosexual tendencies).
Is that correct? Was he buying or selling drugs? Or just using? Just curious.

Thanks

Manson Family Archives said...

Bugliosi said "Pigs" was the word they used to describe the rich, white establishment. That was a bold face lie. Based upon early police interviews, it appears they used that word for the police like just about every young person of every race back then.

So it would appear that the goal might have been to stir up tension between the police and blacks and that ties into my post. If the police issued a stand down on The Family after hearing whispers of a possible show down (despite the fact they had children on the ranch) after the shooting of Crowe. Maybe they were "reflecting" and maybe when Charlie said "you taught them, I didn't teach them" he was...right?

After that, Danny DeCarlo started to stockpile the ranch with machine guns and was teaching the kids how to use weapons and guns? Who's idea was that? Mansons? It's rather odd the Straight Satans rolled into Spahn the night before the raid. One cannot help but to wonder if they were in fact informants for the FBI. It could just be over active imagination, but given the climate of the time and circumstances it all appears very fishy.

..and this is not "looney" conspiracy theory, OK? Hoover had no problem issues fake letters between black organizations declaring war on each other that resulted in a few fatal shootings, in public nonetheless and if you don't find it odd that a Beverley Hills attorney with celebrities and organized crime figures as clients would rush to take the case for Atkins....but believe Bugliosi's b-movie bullshit then I think you're a lunatic.

Robert Hendrickson said...

YES ST, but can YOU list "here" ALL the "PHYSICAL" evidence that points to Helter Skelter as being the "motive" ? I can ONLY think of "Healter Skelter" written on the Fridge door at the LaBianca's and "Helter Sckder" written on a piece of wood at the Spahn Ranch. Of course, Bugliosi would include the Beatles White Album with the song "Helter Skelter" on it.

BUT exacly how do YOU connect those three pieces of evidence to an absract "motive."

Because what YOU are implying is like ME implying that Obama is in cahoots with Muslim terrorists, because HE refuses to effectively HELP prevent such terrorists from entering the U.S. to KILL innocent Americans.

Maybe, all that is CLEAR from the "physical" evidence is that the ENGLISH know how to "spell." AND whoever actually did the subject "writtings," should know what "Helter Skelter" was all about.

Of course, WE both may be correct: Charles Manson was, at least, in a position to prevent the Tate / LaBianca masssacre and Obama, at least, had a fidicidary DUTY to do ALL he could to prevent foreign "WARRIORS" from landing on our shores.

flip said...

No, D. LaCalandra, the Helter Skelter theory did not come simply from the mouths of 4 murderers. For example (and he is not the only one, of course) there is no evidence to suggest that Paul Watkins was ever involved in murder or needed to testify to Helter Skelter theories in order to get a reduced sentence for a crime. Nevertheless, Watkins' testimony about Helter Skelter does jive pretty well with the memories of other Family and suggests that he probably heard the original HS ideas from the same great philosopher that Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkle, Kasabian and the rest heard them from...Charlie "Socrates" Manson, himself.

Excerpted from Paul Watkins' testimony at Tex Watson's trial:

Q: I take it that Manson discussed helter-skelter with you; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Many times?

A: Many times.

Q: And he told you that helter-skelter was what?

A: It was a great big revolution, a big revolution where the black people would fight against the white people and everyone would fight against everyone else.

Q: Did he tell you how helter-skelter would start?

A: Yes.

Q: What did he say?

A: He said that some spades from Watts --

Q: Spades from Watts?

A: Yes.

Q: Go ahead.

A: -- would go into the rich piggy district up in Bel Air and just commit some really vicious murders, smearing blood all over everything and just hang limbs all over the place, and just really make some really vicious looking murders; and then he would go back and hide in the ghetto, in the cellars.

Q: Who would?

A: The spades; and then the white man in retaliation for all this vicious murders, would go into the ghetto and start shooting black people; and he would only shoot what he called Uncle Tom niggers, the garbage men and the ones that he could see; and he say the true black race would be hiding because they knew what was going to happen, and then --

Then the Black Muslims would come out of hiding and appeal to the American public by media of television and say, "Look what you have done to my people," thereby splitting the white man into two factions or many factions, but specifically two, those who were for black people and those who were against them.

They would start fighting each other, and then after they fought for a while and killed each other off, then the black people would come back and kill off the remaining whites; but all the while the family, who would be all white, would be hiding in the desert and then --

Q: Hiding where in the desert?

A: In a hole, in a big, big hole that was supposed to be in the desert, according to Charlie's prophecy; and then after the black people had killed everyone, they would re-establish the establishment and have the power.

Then they would get tired of it after a while and they would turn -- well, then Charlie would come up out of the hole with the family and they would have had their stomach full of killing and then they would recognize Charlie and turn everything over to him and he'd scratch him on his fuzzy head and kick him in the butt and tell him to go pick the cotton, and then we'd all live happily ever after.

Q: Did Manson ever say anything about whether the black man would know how to start helter-skelter?

A: Yeah.

etc, etc

flip said...

D. LaCalandra: "Bugliosi said "Pigs" was the word they used to describe the rich, white establishment. That was a bold face lie."

Paul Watkins trial testimony: A: "-- would go into the rich piggy district up in Bel Air and just commit some really vicious murders, smearing blood all over everything and just hang limbs all over the place, and just really make some really vicious looking murders"

Somehow, I imagine that Paul Watkins was a more reliable source of knowledge concerning who and what the Family members meant by "Pigs" than D. LaCalandra is.

Manson Family Archives said...

Paul Watkins also said Crowe was shot simply because he was "fucking white girls" and told one journalist that the Ranch was controlled via black magic. Paul Watkins would say anything to draw attention to himself and he had not the slightest idea of what was really going down. It's arguable that much of the Helter Skelter story came from him. He was after all a former Bible student and much of what he and Brooks Poston said about Charlie sounded an awful lot like Krishna Venta.

Manson Family Archives said...

Let me recap: Watkins was a bullshit artist who wasn't even at Spahn when things started to get nasty (after the Crowe shooting). He testified for Bugliosi under who knows what circumstances and used the publicity of the trial to try promote his music.

flip said...


Same goes for non-murderer Family member Brooks Poston, right? Was he also spouting the Helter Skelter theory because the DA told him to say it during his testimony?:


Q BY MR. BUGLIOSI: What did he say when he returned on New Year's Eve of 1969?

A: He said, "Are you hep to what the Beatles are saying"?

Q: Who was he saying this to?

A: Well, the entire family, the ones that were there at that time.

Q: What did he say the Beatles were saying?

A: He said that the Beatles were telling it like it is and that they were programming the people to helter-skelter.

Q: Okay; so he started talking about helter-skelter; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And did he use helter-skelter in any particular type of a phrase?

How would "helter-skelter" come up in his speech; would he just say, "helter-skelter"?

A: No, when he is talking about the war, the revolution.

Q: I am not asking you what he meant by "helter-skelter," I am asking you how it would come up.

A: That's when he would say it, when he was talking about how it was coming down in the cities

St Circumstance said...

Mr. H Sir..

I could try to list here all of the physical evidence I have come across to back up H/S here, but I am not going to. This is someone elses post and I had my chance in my own lol

suffice to say- in addition to the ones you mentioned there are, at least, a couple more.

As well- I dont want to become known as the Defender or a proponent of the HS motive because I dont really buy it completely myself...

I just think it is fair to point out a few pieces of actual physical evidence that do actually back HS up because:

Even the 2 or 3 pieces of physical evidence you mentioned, without me adding any others, is more physical evidence than I have ever seen or read to back up any of the other motives so many people like better...



Manson Family Archives said...

Brooks Poston was never an accepted member of the Family. But from what Juanita Wildebush had said, he wanted to be. I think Poston had some animosity towards Manson for leaving him up at Barker Ranch and Paul Crockett only added fuel to the fire. That guy wasn't the hero a lot of people think. he later tried talking Watkins into leaving his wife and not treating his cancer, but rather fork money over to him.

Anyway, I listened to the Inyo police tape with Poston and while he did explain what Helter Skelter was, said nothing about murders, igniting it with murder, etc.

Also, by a lot of accounts, Helter Skelter wasn't something that had to be ignited, but something already happening. I'm sure he did say that about the Beatles. But once he did, who elaborated on it and opened up their bible?

A concept, a descriptive term, yes. Motive for murders? No. Manson wouldn't risk going back to prison for a such a stupid idea.

Matt said...

flip, you remind me of somebody. Somebody badly in need of meds.


grimtraveller said...

The idea that the killers and victims were strangers is perhaps the biggest lie told to conceal the truth about what happened.

It's one thing to say the prosecution got it wrong. It's another thing to say they made their case up. It's something else altogether to say that they lied. Given that a lie is a deliberate misleading of a known truth, you're going to have to do better than just state it on a blog that leaves you with no accountability. I would take your supposition a lot more seriously if you didn't state as fact stuff that as yet has not been verified. Or even if you said you believed it. To state it's a lie means there is a truth, a truth that you know. Which now puts the onus on you to demonstrate that truth.

A deal involving drugs and $5,000 Linda Kasabian stole had to figure into it some how, since this seemed to be something Bugliosi brushed under the rug in court.

It seems to me that he was at pains to explain that as soon as she nicked the money, she handed it over and never benefitted from it. Everybody got to hear about Linda Kasabian pilfering that money so it's hardly true that it was brushed under the carpet.

Billy Doyle and gang would kill Voytek Frykowski and Jay Sebring. Black dope pushers would get the blame, then start to retaliation against rich white pushers. The idea was to cause "confusion" as to who committed the crime: The Black Panthers or three Canadian drug dealers: Billy Doyle, Tom Harrigan and William Dawson

Are you saying this was the Family's plan ? It's unclear exactly who is being referred to here.

Vermouth Brilliantine said...

The more you learn about this case the more that simplistic Helter-Skelter motive doesn't add up

I find it to be opposite. I think there are great swathes of stuff regarding the power of belief, group dynamics, spiritual insight, biblical prophecy, equating happenings of the past with what was then the present day, moving away from straight thinking & straight sensibilities, the quest for meaning and the power of psychedelic drugs to play a significant part in altering perceptions and lead one into new perceptions etc, that get frequently ignored in this case, even 46 years later.
We try to apply straight logical deduction to an endlessly improvising, countercultural, psychedelic scenario in which no sense made sense, that ebbed and flowed with contradiction or paradox {take your pick}.

Manson Family Archives said...


Prosecutors and lawyers are scumbags. That's just a fact. They have a job to do and that job isn't to "tell the truth" or establish what "really happened" and why. Their job is to win convictions and they will do whatever they can to do that.

A good example would be a case in which a woman murdered her molesting, abusive father. A prosecutor will tell you all day long that she is a liar and that her father was an angel from heaven. Even if he knows otherwise. That is the American judicial system.

To imply that I'm out of line for saying Bugliosi would lie, is bullshit my friend. Because Bugliosi DID lie. While I'm sure I can pull up a shitload of examples, the little episode where he was brought up on perjury charges to me is proof he was a liar and Stephen Kay busted him and it's no wonder why he'd refer to Kay as, "that little cocksucker" years after the trial was over.

Little, if anything was known about these murders prior to Susan Atkins opening up her mouth. I've gone over that little episode with her attorneys too many times now. To me, it had "opperation" written all over it. Now, what would be the point of such an opperation? Why would the lawyer who would later go onto to represent Eddie Nash, take her case?

To reveal the victims and the killers knew each other, would drastically change the entire dynamic of the case and the lenght they went to establish these murders as totally random, is suspect. One thing they don't tell you, is that Peter J. Folger launched his own investigation too and was talking with those three Canadian drug dealers. Kinda odd, coming from a family who considered the murder a scandal in and of it's self huh? Imagine if it was revealed Abigail Folger was funding her commie boyfriend's drug dealing and exposed she was buddy-buddy with some dirty, murdering hippies? If you think this is something they wouldn't cover up, you're insane.

Atkins attorney said Voytek Frykowski was a drug connection to both Charles Manson and Tex Watson. Now. Let me ask YOU something. Under what circumstances would she say such a thing? Did it just pop into her imagination and she blurred it out without consulting with her client? Did Atkins lie to her own attorney in private? Is it more logical to say she was lying about that, but telling the truth about being underneath a hypnotic spell as she did 30+ years prior in an attempt to absolve herself of guilt and walk away scott free?

Manson Family Archives said...

For what it's worth. Pat Krenwinkel said something rather interesting during one of her parole hearings as well. That on the night of the murders, it was their understand there were "two women" in the house. Despite the record saying they had no idea who was there. If that was her understanding, then I believe she purposely misworded or made a mistake.

The physical evidence. The rumors of Voytek Frykowski pistol whipping and sodomizing Voytek Frykowski was significate enough for Atkin's attorney to ask her, on record of course, where his....pants were? Rather an odd question, isn't it? People accept at face value the most simplistic explainations of so many things, but this doesn't strike anyone as being a significate clue that Charles "Tex" Watson, a man who lived in Hollywood and dealt drugs prior to living at Spahn, might have known Voytek Frykowski?

About the $5,000. Why did this even come up in court? Bugliosi's explaination of this episode reeks of bullshit. His lazy explaination of, "she believes she gave the $5,000 to Leslie, althought she did not know for sure Leslie was the person whome she gave the money too".

INTERESTING. As he made her say on the stand, she DID give it to Leslie. He also tells her, this innocent flower child never stolen in her life until she was "exposed" to The Family and "not in her right state of mind". He also tells us each and everyone of them were on a kill mission, except for her...she just thought it was another creepy crawl mission. He didn't know why Charlie needed the money and "apparently" Linda felt he did.

Why did he shout so many objections to June Emmer when she wanted to talk about Linda being up at houses in Bervely Hills? Because he saw where it was going. It begs the question what was her and chemically depent, dope dealing Tex who used to hang in Hollywood were doing in the days prior to the murders.

I'm not saying the killers put that much thought into the plan. But considering the rumors of what was going on in the Polanski circle the days leading up to the murders and the nature of the crime scene....it's no wonder Billy Doyle was the first suspect .

But Crowe was a black dope dealer. Tex was a dope dealer and after that shooting, an attack was feared. Voytek was a dope dealer. If you believe Steve McQueen's first wife, it appears Jay was a dope dealer and obviously since Rousatu is said to be an associate of Sebring International, he probally was. The crime scene looked a lot like the three canadians dealers commited the crime. Hinman, was a dealer. Regardless if you believe there was a deal. The confusion it would meant to cause would keep the panthers and police OFF Spahn and on other circles. Black or white.

grimtraveller said...

D. LaCalandra said...

First, let me say that post is largely theory and not everything in it is to be taken in a literal sense

Well, that's not the way it is written, neither is it the way you argue your points in the comments section. When you start telling people that if they don't agree with your point {because your dislike of Bugliosi and by extension, whatever he said or did, is your point} they are, as far as you are concerned, a lunatic {mad, crazy, mentally ill, not in their right mind, an idiot, not using their brains, however you choose to pitch it} it really becomes hard to believe you are actually so detached and therefore kind of hard to believe that you don't want to be taken literally.

Secondly, it's a fact by now that the drug elements of the crimes were hidden even to those in the Family (for instance, some didn't even know the Crowe shooting was dope related)

Is the first part of the sentence theory or do we take that literally ?
It's interesting that as part of the recommended reading you include George Stimson's book. Interesting, because actually, that book contradicts what you say about the Crowe shooting. His point is that the very outcome of that crime is the single event that makes all the other crimes makes sense because, according to what he writes, the Family now knew just what lengths he'd go to for them. And because he was cleaning up a mess Tex had got them into, how could it not be known that it was drug related ?

Derek Callella said...

Doesn't the LASD have MANSON'S copy of The White Album in their possession? I thought I've read the record had peculiar scratch marks on it. I've seen footage on Youtube

Manson Family Archives said...

Oh, so now you're trying to create a rift between George Stimson and I? ;)

Considering Paul Watkins attributed the Crowe shooting to being in regards to his "fucking little white girls", Brooks Poston claiming he shot a "black leader" and Dianne Lake believing it was done to "start the revolution". In no way shape or form do I contradict his book. I'd imagine George would agree with me that many were in the dark and what was going down.

Susan Atkins herself in her last book said that Charlie didn't want the kids and girls to think the Black Panthers were going to launch an attack over what was Watson's botched dope deal. So he played along with the Helter Skelter fantasy. But obviously, some in the Family did know. Certainly the men in the group did as I am sure those who TOOK PART IN THE CRIMES did.

I don't care too much if people disgree. It would be rather insane for me to think they wouldn't given the 50 years of media nonsense! But when somebody brushes aside a prominate lawyer taking the case of Atkins and finds that to be of no significance, but believe LSD can control minds....then yes, I'd say they're asleep behind the wheel and it would be pointless to try and discuss things in a down to earth manner with them.

Manson Family Archives said...

Let me clarify this for those who are of divided minds. The argument of Goodbye Helter Skelter vs. The Manson File: Myth and Reality of an Outlaw Shaman has come up a bit.

I believe the motive, first and foremost was to get Bobby out of jail. That was the genesis of what happened and I do believe the Crowe shooting was the catalyst for a lot of nonsense. I believe Manson's only concern in this mess was Bobby and by his own admission, that was where his "thought" was in all of it and I believe the girls, were there with Bobby in mind. That was their PORTION of the crime.

But when it comes to Linda and Tex...I think, based on the amount of fishy circumstances with this case, that there was more to their role and I believe that while the motive was to free Bobby, the victims were not picked out at random and I believe that part of the crime has been covered up and given Manson's adherence to the criminal code of silence and the fact he knows the others want to get released, he has kept silent about that "portion" of the crime.

Tex had to have some personal incentive and that kind of violence is not born out of a belief in an impeding race war nor is it speed alone nor is it simply Tex just repaying a favor.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives/D. LaCalandra said...

Even during the early Police interviews with people from the Polanski circle was the drug connection downplayed

Do you mean the drug connection with the Family or do you mean drugs among that Hollywood crowd per se ?
Part of the early police interviews, this one with William Doyle {courtesy of CieloDrive.com}:
LT. EARL DEEMER: Have you ever seen Cass use narcotics?

I already know the answer to it, just uh —

WILLIAM DOYLE: Yes I have.

LT. EARL DEEMER: Ok.

WILLIAM DOYLE: May I ask you something?

LT. EARL DEEMER: Yes.

WILLIAM DOYLE: Is any of my testimony, uh – will my testimony concern whether I was into that.

LT. EARL DEEMER: No. (unintelligible) —

WILLIAM DOYLE: I have nothing – nothing to hide protect or hide, but I don’t want to cause anybody any more undo pain. This secondary investigation has caused a lot of people, a lot of pain, because a lot of people feel that they’re guilty or they have something to hide about something, and go through enormous emotional wringers. This is what Cass is hysterical about.

LT. EARL DEEMER: Well, of course —

WILLIAM DOYLE: I don’t want to hurt her but I want to help you with everything I can.

LT. EARL DEEMER: — in this background, we are running into all this drug business. Now, whether if drugs actually had anything to do with the killing, we’ll see. And uh —

WILLIAM DOYLE: I tell you everything I know and you put the picture together because I can’t, I don’t have any of the, any of the – you people obviously have a big puzzle you’re trying to fit together and I’ll just tell you want I can.

LT. EARL DEEMER: We don’t have any interest in drugs per se. That’s been entirely separate from it – for instance, Harrigan told us a great deal about drugs and we gave him a free ride. We’re not really investigating anything that has to do with drugs; only has it has interest in this case.

WILLIAM DOYLE: Can you give me an idea of what Harrigans told you?

LT. EARL DEEMER: Well, he's indicated your uh, part in this to some extent. But again, we told Harrigan that we weren’t interested in —

WILLIAM DOYLE: My part in this?

LT. EARL DEEMER: Well, as far as your part in the drugs. Your use of drugs and you being at these parties, and taking part in it. And of course I know (unintelligible)

WILLIAM DOYLE: I’m not denying, I’m just asking.

LT. EARL DEEMER: All these names dropped out, and so one thing leads to another, to the extent that we are talking to all kinds of people.

WILLIAM DOYLE: I only asked you because Cass has a career and uh, I wouldn’t want to hurt anybody, or cause any more grief to anyone then that’s already been caused by this whole thing.

LT. EARL DEEMER: Well uh, if we tried to uh, publish the names of everybody that used drugs in Hollywood uh, you know it would take up a telephone book. We’re not interested in that, frankly.


I wouldn't say it was downplayed. In the two Tate police reports, drugs are not conspicuous by their absence. Quite the opposite in fact. They are all over the first report and the second report goes into so much detail on various suspects drug connections. Three of their five initial theories on the case were to do with drugs.

grimtraveller said...

Susan Atkins attorney, Debra Fraiser did openly state during Susan Atkins last parole hearing (I think it was her last?) that Frykowski was a connection to Watson and Manson

Interesting that Manson and Watson have never copped to that. It would make no difference to their standing so what would they have to lose ? Furthermore, Susan Atkins never said anything about it, before or since ~ her lawyer did. In a thread we were in on another site, more than once you went to great lengths to make the point that the three female co~defendants did whatever their lawyers advised them. You also mention here that lawyers are scumbags. That's just a fact. They have a job to do and that job isn't to "tell the truth" or establish what "really happened" and why.....until of course, it suits your purpose for them to suddenly be wonderfully honest and full of truth. Why in the world should anyone believe Fraser was operating from a position of truth when all lawyers are scumbags that have a job to do and that job isn't to tell the truth ?
Your words.
Interesting also that a short while later she fired Fraser and you tell me, did such a statement ever appear at one of her parole hearings again ? It certainly didn't in her final two.
In her interview with Richard Caballero, Susan Atkins said many interesting things, one of which was that she could tell that the victims were 'turned on' just by looking at them and seeing the looks in their eyes. Point being, it was a discovery she was making about people she did not know and had had no personal contact with before. That's how she knew they were into drugs. A case of it took one to be able to spot one. But from your assertion the implication, if not the outright statement is that she told her lawyer this titbit about Manson, Watson & Frykowski. Also makes one wonder why, when he was awoken by Watson, he felt the need to ask him who he was and what it was that he wanted if he already knew him.
Even stoned drug dealers know their connections.

If you think this is something they wouldn't cover up, you're insane.

Well, if I am insane, I've got say, it brings me to odd insights & feels kind of nice.

Manson Family Archives said...

The difference is wiping out the drug angle for Bugliosi was beneficial for his case. In the case of Atkins parole, counter productive. The concept he was a drug connection had to come from somewhere, no? Do you think she read Ed Slanders and just blurred it out? I never said Fraiser was wise for saying it or a good attorney. Rather stupid, even! But certainly that had to come from somewhere? Given Crowe was about drugs, Hinman was about drugs. Watson being a dealer in Hollywood, bragging about sippin' $5 beers watching limos go by. His being at Cielo Drive. He, Atkins and Kasabian being on speed (or Cocaine, Atkins wasn't sure). Where where they getting it? We know Joel Rostau was supplying Sebring. I'm not going to go into the long winded detail of how, but it's pretty obvious. Given the small world this was and that fact Watson was more Hollywood than SPahn, it's no stretch of the imagination he most likely knew Sebring and Frykowski.

Charlie has in my opinion hinted at the possibility. But other than that...why in the hell would they want to? Charlie has no problem coping to what is known and his portion. But I don't think he believes in pulling the sheets off even the dead.

There is ZERO reason why Watson would cope to it. The record says what it says. To go against that would be moronic. Did he ever admit to killing Shea?.....*crickets*

His defense was that he was just a good ol' Texas boy who was brain washed by Charles Manson and he didn't even cop to even the killings at his trial.

It would make a major difference for Watson. At this stage of the game, it would expose him as being a major liar. Plus why drag up that ugliness, that he did what he did over dope?

I think the general belief among all of them is: the murders were committed. Nothing can change that. To bring up the drug connections would not only go against record, but just make the victims look bad and they've suffered enough indignities.

With the exception of Manson, none of them are in control of anything they say. They have lawyers and a smart lawyer will tell them to stick to record. Especially when it could re open a whole can of worms people would still view as a scandal today.

If you had the chance, what would you go for?

Flew into a violent rage over a drug burn? (what defense is there for that?)

or

Brain washed by the most dangerous man alive (which was already a reality in the mind of the world and the court room)? He DID plead, not guilty after all.

I'd hate to see any of you ever on trial for murder. By your logic, you'd confess to everything like an idiot.

Manson Family Archives said...

Consider that helping to erase the drug angle from the Cielo Drive murders and keep the private lives of the victims safe and protect and avoid a scandal could reap a lot of rewards when it's done on behalf of owner of Folgers, a subsidiary of Proctor & Gamble. Think about the amount of people in this case who had ambitions of being Attorney General. That's a pretty healthy campaign donation right there.

As Schreck pointed out, had the case been presented that way, Bugliosi would have to face off against much stronger defense attorneys, rather than the stooges they assigned them and people who didn't want to be in the witness stand would be called upon.

It was known Peter J. Folger spent a half a million in "hush, hush" money. To hush what? Makes one wonder why the girls fellow inmates would boycott Folgers for their sisters.

Also, "weird" That Caruso was the attorney for LA Times. The same paper he leaked that fantastic confession of Atkins too. LA Times also owned the company who released Larry "the shill" Schiller's bogus book.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Oh, so now you're trying to create a rift between George Stimson and I ?

If you bring up points that I happen to disagree with, I will do my best to back up what I say with something solid that you or anyone one else can look at for themselves. It will be my interpretation, naturally, but that's part of the way I debate. People may say something that gets me thinking and the way my insane, asleep at the wheel brain that's pointless to discuss things with in a down to earth manner works, I'll cross reference that with something that I've thought about and try to provide reasons for my answer that are not just supposition. If I can't then I'll state something like "I suspect that...."
For the record, whether my points turn out to be wrong or not, if I'm making them, I do not consider my arguments so weak that I need to begin working out how to turn contributors against each other. I'm not even sure how one does that.
You take a position, I take a position. You've already told me elsewhere that I should bring nothing from the "official version" your way because you won't hear it. Fair enough. I think that's weak on your part. I think your general position is a dance where your left leg doesn't know what your right leg is doing but I also think you make loads of really interesting points and I consider them to be worth entering into a discussion about, whether I disagree with much of it or not. There are indeed parts that I agree with wholeheartedly. But if someone else makes points that I consider shine an uncomfortable light into things you've said, by golly gee mate, I'm going to raise them.

For Frykowski to end up dead, pistol whipped and with his pants down after that...would be one hell of a coincidence.

Maybe, maybe not. It occurs to me that the real connection here would need to be Tex and the Canadian guys.
But coincidences happen all the time and become a conspiracy theorist's cottage industry. 48 years on, people still believe "Lucy in the sky with diamonds" is about LSD. The story behind it reveals one of the great coincidences of our time.
They happen.

StarRider said...

Despite all the metaphysical bullshit spouted by Charlie it's pretty clear he's both mentally ill and not that bright

If he is mentally ill, I would not argue that it's at all 'clear' and in all honesty, 'bright' doesn't do the man justice. Whatever one thinks of him, he was really smart in many ways, a chess player no less. Jail's 'gain' in my opinion is society's loss where he was concerned.


Manson Family Archives said...

I just came upon this thought, but it is rather interesting the extent an obviously smart lawyer like Caruso went for Atkins. WHAT made him so CONFIDENT his little schem wouldn't result in a mistrial? (who was on his side?). A defense lawyer and a prosecutor can made not so strange bed fellows when the case presented serves the benefit of both.

It's also interesting the parells between John Holmes and Tex Watson. Both good ol' boys from devout religious familys move to LA and become coked up messed on the scene of two of LA's most violent crime scenes. Watson ended up in prison, Holmes died an aids infested, drug addicted mess. Who was his Charles Manson? His penis?

christopher butche said...

Apolgies for vagueness, but wasn't one of Atkin's attorneys a former LA DA? Who remained on good terms with Bugliosi's boss Evelle Younger (who went on, I believe to become Attorney General).

What is the timeline for Atkins confessing about TLB? I realise by Oct 69 she was immediately speaking to LASO with regard to Himan. Perhaps a dull explanation was a friend of the LA DAs was brought in to help them out and offer her representation. The book deal possibly was presented to her as a means to pay for having a decent lawyer rather than a public defender.

For reference this incident was brought up during the penalty phase of TLB with those involved giving testimony.

So, for me, it's less about organised crime and more about the LA DA office making use of one of their own to guide a client eager to confess before she changes her mind.


Robert Hendrickson said...

ST - I was just trying to get you to help me illustrate how types of evidence can be viewed in various ways. YOUR "post" needs to be linked to this POST. What we ALL learn here is what is important - NOT who's ego trip we are riding at the time. SOON, there will be NO First person witnesses left ALIVE and then it's "ego" time FOREVER more.

christopher butche said...

Mr Hendrickson, which reminds me to ask who is still out there? McGuin mentioned in his footnotes that someone from the family wanted tens of thousands of dollars to go on record.

Gregg Jakobson is still alive, I wish he would come forward.

I do hope you are using your coffee breaks wisely to key in EVERY detail you recall. Dont worry about grammar or spelling just dredge it up and get it on the page!

St Circumstance said...

My apologies Mr. H. I am honored to help you in any way I can. I just don't want to become a HS blowhard lol. :)

Cielodrive.com said...

Caballero said they didn't see anything wrong with selling the confession was because it would essentially be the same information that was in the Grand Jury testimony which he thought would released around the same time. The Grand Jury, however, would remain under seal until the last defendant received their copy of it. Since Watson fought extradition, the Grand Jury transcript was under seal until late September of 1970.

flip said...

What medication do you have in mind for me, Dr. Matt? Goggle-eyed Gullibility Enhancers? Crack-pipe Conspiracy Promoters? Rational Ideation Inhibitors?

No bones about it, I personally gravitate toward AustinAnn's thoughtful sensibilities and grimtraveller's dedication to rational interpretations of known evidence. I don't mind if you enjoy LaCalandra's rather liberal and sycophantic interpretations of evidence, mostly hand-crafted with tortured logic in support of his personal agenda (Bobby was a good boy just tryin' to get his drug-burn money back from Gary "the Masked Mescalero" Hinman, it is irrefutable fact that all prosecutors and lawyers are lying scum, no one ever gets a fair trial in America, the Mafia did it, the CIA and/or FBI did it, etc, etc, etc).

I think I'll just ask my physician for a fuckitol prescription...

Mr. Humphrat said...

I'm not clear from this post who the police wanted to control the drugs-the Italians or the Blacks. And was Watson helping with TLB, just himself or the Italians? The way the first part is written leaves me unclear.

Robert Hendrickson said...

CHRIS: I am ever mindful of that reality and that is why I read and comment here - to refresh my memory. BUT the reason YOU'all come here is because there are red-flags waving all over this Manson case. $5,000 in cash, Black Muslims, Witnesses that are evading the draft. Cops bribing witnesses with the $25,000 "reward money."

Most apparent is a TOTAL miss-carriage of justice. The Judge VOIDED Charles Manson's Constitutional RIGHT to "represent" HIMSELF and even called it "a fundamental denial of due process" to allow Manson to act as his own attorney.

BUT then the Judge allowed Manson and the co-defendants to be convicted WITHOUT their lawyers even putting on a defense - that was the most blattant denial of "due process" I have EVER witnessed.

Just the other day a Judge ORDERED a jury to go back in the jury room and deliberate MORE. I was THERE in 69 and I dealt with some of those "Officers of the Court." Daye Shinn was later disbarred for "pretending" to represent another defendant in another murder case.

It's called "Fraud upon the Court."

Fortunately, WE can chose to turn a blind eye to ANYTHING until WE are personally affected.

Matt said...

My first instinct was Prozac, so let's go with that...

flip said...

Ahhh....I thought as much. Dr. Matt prescribes serotonin re-uptake inhibitors for unrepentant patients who refuse to happily join in the spirit of conspiratorial bullsh... er, fun. SRIs may have helped to rewrite Descartes' famous premise: "I'm happy, therefore I deserve to be".

Manson Family Archives said...

People taking about "rational interpretation of evidence" in a case where a Beatles album was considered a smoking gun is funny.

Charles Manson ordered his troops to get knives, rope, gun, bolt cuts and sent them out to commit a murder, "as gruesome as possible" in the Hollywood Hills in a piece of shit car with no back seats. Not only that, to hit every house on the block!

But Linda was only there because Charlie wanted to make sure somebody had a driver's license. Wouldn't want to break any laws or anything and she had no idea of course they were on a kill mission. Why she thought it was just another creepy crawl mission.

That's rational. Despite the overwhelming similarities between Hinman and the TLB murders, occurring three days after the arrest of Bobby. The "rational" minded Bugliosi told us people don't kill like that to help a friend out of jail. But they do when they are LSD fed zombies who think the world was going to end, out of the blue of course. One night Charlie just decides it would be a good idea to send some people up to a block and randomly slaughter everything. Even though he thought Tex was a "rumpkin" who botched the Crowe shooting.

Considering we live in a society where people are taught to believe a man walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. and that every guy in a suite and tie is a respectable gentleman who tells the truth and none of this should be questioned (in some cases, you get your knuckles smashed if you do)....then I shouldn't be surprised when everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator of intellect and everything is taken in the most literal sense. Considering this mentality is all too prevalent in the world, perhaps some were convinced Helter Skelter was real!

Manson Family Archives said...

The post should at least show the amount of people with vested interest in concealing what happened.

The police. Who for what appears to be extremely shady reasons, let Manson run wild. But after the murders, they put the raid into effect. With TV cameras and media coverage? All that and the warrent was misdated? Gee golly. Opps! But they are the police. They're good guys, they wouldn't have had something up their sleeve.

The victims families: To this day, the Folger Family considers what happened to be a "scandal". Why? I don't think a single member of the Folger Family ever sent a letter or anything to a parole board and it's rather odd that Abigail has been pretty much erased from the pages of history. How powerful Folgers was I think is grossly underestimated.

The mafia: Most of, if not all the bought and sold by the Family and Watson were being supplied by organized crime. I don't even need hardcore proof that many cops in LA where on their payroll, because since the beginning of time, dirty cops have been taking pay off from them that are bigger than their regular paychecks. Wonder why such a mess was made of the crime scene, huh?

Bugliosi: who knew a "far out" case would be a headline grabber and keep his name in the press. The angelic the victims, the more deranged the killers, the more of a hero he is.

Hollywood Celebrities: Dennis Wilson just being one. Melcher another. Was he sweating out of fear of Charlie or the fact he was committing statutory rape? That they were buddy buddy with who was not the most hated man on earth. A demon responsible for every transgression of the 1960's is something they would just never allow to come out.

The killers themselves: with the motive presented and Manson as the ringleader, opened up the doors to a defense they would otherwise not have for such a crime.

Bugliosi said once that the most important thing that a detective needs, is common sense. One of the few things he's said that I agree with.

Manson Family Archives said...

I should have just made it a little easier and said the entire state of California.

leary7 said...

what a great thread...but I am biased because it has two of my all-time favorite posters in the Saint and Grim both standing on the mountaintop beseeching the need for hard evidence and clarity. Supposition is epidemic on blogs so guys like Saint and Grim are invaluable.
And a thread cannot be great unless Matt is prescribing meds for at least one poster - and RH, Deb and Patty are chiming in. Killer stuff.

flip said...

Re: "People taking about "rational interpretation of evidence" in a case where a Beatles album was considered a smoking gun is funny..."

Actually, it's hilariously funny...but rationally considered in light of the accumulated evidence, not terribly difficult to understand. Did anyone here even listen to LuLu's taped interview with her lawyer from 1969? [posted on CieloDrive.com]

Ever read any of the hilarious pre-trial pro per motions Manson filed with the court? [posted on the Col's website, as part of his transcript collection]

Just because a gang of acid-soaked half-wits did crazy murderous shit for reasons that appear utterly ridiculous from a rational examination of the physical and testimonial evidence doesn't mean that an alternate, more rational explanation (especially one not supported by any evidence) must exist.

Unfortunately, LaCalandra, common sense does not manufacture new evidence when the available evidence does not meet your personal needs. Common sense deals with the evidence that is available and applies Occam's Razor to what it's got to work with.

Common sense is a necessary, but insufficient, requirement for a detective to do his job well. The other requirement, of course, is evidence--the more the better.

Manson Family Archives said...

That tape was made for the purpose of trying to convince the court she was insane. As little LuLu too was trying to go for a Diminished Capacity defense in hopes she'd walk out of the courtroom a free woman. I suppose you think Vinny the Chin was really crazy too? "play crazy" is one of the oldest tricks in the legal book, my friend. They were also careful to establish she only stabbed a corpse too on that tape ;)

If she and the others were that insane, then California sentenced three mentally ill girls who would have been need of mental health care to death. But I guess we'll conviently and "rationally" make an excuse for that with a dumb, dumb explaination that they all had "something" inside of them that made them kill, as Bugliosi put it.

She said on that tape that was she did "was right". Soooo crazy, she thinks what she did was right! WOW. That's why earlier she implicated the others in the Tate murders, but didn't even know about the Labianca murders. Why she never even heard of it.

Bugliosi and his co-conspirators (Atkins attorneys) had a good little game going. With his motive, he knew it opened the door for the co-defendants to jump on the "blame it on Charlie" defense. Watson tried to play the role Bugliosi gave him and that enabled Bugliosi to take him down like a stack of cards. Bugliosi's job was essentaially to prove himself wrong in that trial.

flip said...

By the time he got through with them, I personally do think several of Manson's key murderers were bat-shit insane...but self-induced drug insanity and willing self-enslavement to the will of a manipulative 35 yo con-man who found himself on the outside of jail during a particularly ripe time for the exploitation of 'lost children' was not enough to save his followers from legal culpability for their idiotic actions. Or his.

One of the primary differences between Manson's cult of morons and the Heaven's Gate cult of idiots was, the Heaven's Gate folks were considerate enough to simply kill themselves for their amazingly stupid beliefs when Ti and Doh, their gurus from outer space, told them to do it.

Was going to say something similar about Jim Jones and the People's Temple...but then remembered: In addition to the 900+ pathetic souls who killed themselves and their children because Jim told them to do it, the cult leadership in that case also killed some rational outsiders who went down to Guyana to check out the rumors that Jimmy J. wasn't quite the benevolent fellow he claimed to be.



Manson Family Archives said...

How come nobody ever considered the girls to be groupies instead of followers? Charlie played music and was being promoted by the Dennis Wilson for a perioid. That's enough to get a bunch of young girls following you. The Family was a music group. Juana Wildebush remembers Susan Atkins calling themselves that, a group.

So many of those people had a different idea of what was happening, it couldn't be a cult. You had one guy with a bunch of girls and a bunch of guys involved in criminal activity. Then a butt hurt hayseed named Brooks Poston and Paul Watkins start telling everyone he was Krisna Venta.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But the only conspiracy I believe in besides JFK is Jim Jones. I believe that whole thing was the CIA.

Fiddy 8 said...

When the Heaven's Gate mansion was torn down the demolition crew found one more member, under the kitchen sink - behind the comet.

christopher butche said...

Pre-Manson Brooks was involved with Rev Jim Jones apparently. So he appears to have been a seeker and follower by nature. If we accepted the premise its Jim Jones to Manson to Paul Crockett. His father died when he was young if you want to get pyschological about it all.

On an aside, on his pre-Barker police tape he does make mention of what we would now consider sexual abuse of the children. This aspect of the family, I feel, has yet to be fully explored. In parole hearings the gang are now accused of racism and terrorism, but not yet as paedophiles. A downer for Pat and Leslie when it happens as they usually claim to have been looking after the kids back at the ranch.

christopher butche said...

Pre-Manson Brooks was involved with Rev Jim Jones apparently. So he appears to have been a seeker and follower by nature. If we accepted the premise its Jim Jones to Manson to Paul Crockett. His father died when he was young if you want to get pyschological about it all.

On an aside, on his pre-Barker police tape he does make mention of what we would now consider sexual abuse of the children. This aspect of the family, I feel, has yet to be fully explored. In parole hearings the gang are now accused of racism and terrorism, but not yet as paedophiles. A downer for Pat and Leslie when it happens as they usually claim to have been looking after the kids back at the ranch.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Me thinks DEB's discovery that Bugliosi's previous case against the Black Student Union may be relevant HERE !!!

Manson Family Archives said...

I think Brooks Poston lied about a lot.

He told Inyo County that Manson threatned his life several times and put a knife to his throat. But when Lawrence Merrick interview him, he said he only "heard" of Manson doing it.

He said he witnessed Charlie force the girls to do sexual things and beat them. He told Merrick he only saw Charlie slap a girl once.

He told them Manson would make the infants do sexual things. But all he told Bugliosi apprently was that he "went down on a boy" once. Maybe he was talking about Paul Watkins.

If anything, I think the Family, especially Susan would say things for shock value to the more inhibited ones for a laugh.

Juanita Wildebush said Poston was never accepted by them and wasn't a member of the Family. I think he had animosity towards Manson for leaving him at Barker and then Crockett really turned him against Charlie with his own programming.

Robert Hendrickson said...

NMA got a bingo - Like hazing / initiation rites.
NO more clues for YOU !


grimtraveller said...

StarRider said...

The Family's disillusionment with society and the drug use makes them easily manipulated and subject to their own bizarre thought processes

I think there's some truth in this. Absenting yourself from what you perceive as society's norms has the direct result of forcing you to replace those norms, usually with your own or those of a dominant group or person around you. I've observed this numerous times since the early 80s. I've observed it with church groups, various ethnic groups, certain groupings of young people, groups that were into drugs, rockers, Islamic hardliners....
When you isolate yourself and draw only on the thinking of the group or individual you are with, pretty much anything can seem normal. It's really simple to rubbish Helter Skelter, the White albumn and all the other aspects of it but there is barely one aspect of it that isn't in some way paralleled by what was being spoken of by some other group in the same period.

George Stimson said...

Circumstantial evidence is real evidence

Thinking about it, I wouldn't at all be surprised if most cases have a large component of circumstantial evidence as part of their make up. Eye witness testimony or CCTV don't solve every case.
A fingerprint is circumstantial. It's presence does not prove anything other than the owner of the print was there at the scene at some point. And even CCTV evidence can be circumstantial unless the actual crime is caught on it. Circumstantial evidence needs a context to fall into in order to be given any meaning.

St Circumstance said...

Show me one substantial piece of evidence that Jay or Voytek knew Tex?

Funny thing about the thing Debbie Fraser said at Susan's 1993 hearing; after she said Frykowski was the drug connection of Manson and Watson, she went on to say he was a "terrible" drug abuser, not dealer. She also doesn't elaborate which way the supposed connection went.

Where were drugs or drug making equipment at Gary's ?

He might have cleared up the equipment the day before he supposedly gave Bobby the 1000 hits of mescaline !
Debbie Fraser also stated that the murder of Gary Hinman was some sort of gay vendetta on Bobby's part. Susan Atkins didn't contradict it on the day; does that make it true also ?


grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

George you are a good smart man but hardly impartial. I read your book and think it has some great points but is lacking in hard evidence. I can't base my opinion on Charlie and the girls words after the fact

I can. In the book Charlie gives his explanation for each of the murders and it comes down to a simple matter of whether you believe his explanations or not. So Crowe is self defence {though somewhat negated by TJ wearing the gun at his back}, Hinman is self defence {though somewhat negated by the fact that at one point there were 5 Spahn-ers there to Hinman's one and that the sword slash was said by the ME to be "possibly fatal"}, Cielo he had nothing to do with and him telling the women to get a change of clothes, a knife and to do what Tex said was simply a garbage run instruction that he regularly gave out {though somewhat negated by him twice saying in the book that he gave Tex the glasses to plant as a false clue}, LaBianca he admits he went into the house and spoke with Leno but left Tex and Pat there {which is interesting, not denying he was there} and with Shorty, admitting that he merely cut him. He sounds like such an innocent party and I don't believe him on those incidents. And it's not bias. I have said for a very long time, I dig Charlie, find him interesting, smart and very often deep and articulate and when I consider his start in life and background, having spent all but a couple of my adult years working with kids and young people in some way, shape or form, and seeing how certain scenarios can hamstring a person, I feel for the man and indeed, a number of the players in this saga.
I think George's book is a superb book and I've said a number of times that it really should be on every book shelf of interested parties, right there next to "Helter Skelter"; the two should be read together, especially for interested newcomers to the case. But I also think that where the murders are concerned it doesn't do Charles Manson many favours.

St Circumstance said...

Bugs was an assistant DA assigned to the case at the time. He was allowed to distort the law and case any way he chose so could set himself up for a best seller later?

This has become one of those things that has been said so often in the last 16 or so years that it has become almost like it's a truth that can't be disputed. I personally think it's crap. Now, I'm a Christian and Christians are under no illusions about human beings and human nature {particularly our own} and I will never state that it is impossible for someone to do something like that. My own life is testimony to the reality that it can happen because it's happened to me a few times. And I've been involved in other cases where people threw an innocent man to the wolves simply out of dislike, knowing he was innocent. I know. I just don't believe it was the case with Vincent T. I might have done, had it not been for the documents that exist that thanks to people like Cats and Cielo Drive.com we can actually read and balance and make up our own minds.
I don't think the sun shone out of Bugliosi's buttkus and neither do I dispute he had a flair for the dramatic. But to have a pop at him for recognizing that TLB would be "the crime of the century" seems rather odd to me. We're still fiercely debating it now, nearly 50 years on. He maybe had a point ?

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Bugs gives a statement that Charlie used H/S as a way to manipulate the others to kill:

-Then gives a dozen witness statements which back this up- Testimony evidence
-Then shows refrigerators at the crime scene with the words- Physical evidence
-Then shows property where the accused live with the words-more physical evidence

All which supports his statement - but most of you wont believe that


MFA/D. LaCalandra makes the point in another discussion elsewhere that Bugliosi covered up the truth of these murders and pretty much accuses the DA's office of not investigating other elements of the crime. But that is simply not true. The drugs angle was looked into deeply as was the business angle {mainly because of Leno} and the sex angle. They even looked at the Black power movement angle {the Tate detectives} and it was really when they'd exhausted those avenues that the LaBianca detectives looked in other directions.
In March of 1970 Aaron Stovitz gave an interview to Rolling Stone magazine. He says he didn't think it was a bona fide interview for printing, that it was just given as background for the case. The interview was actually printed in the June 25th '70 edition and Stovitz got into some bother for it from his office. In that interview, which was called "Book two ~ Porfiry's complaint" {Porfiry was a pseudonymn given to Stovitz}, the lead prosecutor talks at length and at one point, while talking about the Hinman murder, says this: "Now in order to fully understand the thing and give an accurate picture to your readers, you have to start with Gary Hinman" and further on he goes onto say "Manson, you see, had this crazy philosophy that the world was coming to an end, or at least there would be a revolution, and he wanted a place in the desert, which he'd already picked out" and then further still, goes onto say "Anyway, and the timing here is very significant, August 6th he's arrested in San Luis Obispo. August 7th Beausoleil is returned to L.A. County, and he puts a phone call in at the ranch telling them that he was arrested there and telling them he hasn't said anything.
Now ~ this is only a supposition on my part, I don't have any proof to support it ~ I suppose he, meaning Manson, said to himself, "How am I going to help my friend Beausoleil out? By showing that the actual murderer of Hinman is still at large. So I know that Melcher used to live in this house on Cielo Drive.
Go out there, Watson, with these girls and commit robbery and kill anyone that you see there"

The important thing to note here is that Stovitz, who was the lead prosecutor, was thinking along copy cat lines but admitted it was supposition on his part and that he had no evidence to back it up. Bugliosi on the other hand didn't get the case one November day and then make up some obscure tale called helter skelter the next. It came to him in the first 6 weeks he was on the case from at least 8 different sources, some of whom {Springer, Howard, Graham, DeCarlo} were actually not in the Family. He went on to find that there were ample sources for Helter Skelter {Watkins, Poston, Jakobson, Lake, Kasabian}. Not a single person came forth with the copycat. No one, even though Atkins and Van Houten by the end of the year had admitted to murder and implicated Krenwinkel {and for that matter Manson & Watson} and therefore had little to lose, came forward to either say the murders were done for Bobby or even help Bobby out in his trial by providing an alibi for him.
One can hate on HS all one likes. But at least get the history and chronology right. The copycat wasn't taken seriously because the Family themselves did not demonstrate {until well into the penalty phase} that they were taking it "seriously."








Manson Family Archives said...

How was the drug angle looked into deeply? By LAPD, it was. But Bugliosi painted a portrait of them as bunglers and once he was assigned the case, he wasn't looking into anything except a Beatles lyric sheet and a bible.

It should also be noted, there were two investigations running together. The DEA was involved from the very beginning. How much of what they knew has been revealed? ...

What did Springer and DeCarlo say about Helter Skelter? Aside from a comment, "he has this thing built up to where he'll be king of the world". None of them uttered the term "Helter Skelter". Howard described it as a "movement". Something about "die to live".

Watson, Poston and Jakobson, yes. But in the early interviews with Poston, he never said it was something to be "ignited" with murders to be blamed on Panthers. That came out after they spoke to Bugliosi. Nobody knows what Kasabian said initially, since Bugliosi *surprise* didn't record her interviews. Jakobson told Bugliosi that Manson didn't believe Helter Skelter was something they had to start, but something already happening. Something he was already reacting too.

Anyway....

I said earlier I suspected Peter J. Folger might have donated some cash under the table to keep the drug angle out of the official narrative. Long before I stumbled upon an article in which he was accued of having a "slush fund".

"The favors, his Democratic opponent in the Nov. 3 general election maintained, included writing a virtual “character reference” for a man under suspicion of crimes, and allowing a defendant in the Tate-La Bianca slayings case to give a press interview, creating the prospect that any convictions in the case would be reversed. The defendants included Charles Manson."

Article http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/perspectives101508.htm

I heard something interesting in the interview with Bill Rinehart too:

""a client of Caruso, you know the lawyer, told this friend of ours who also knows Charles, that he had been working with Evelle Younger"

HUH!?!

Caruso I read (though not confirmed) was Rostatu's lawyer, Tommy Harrign and I think Billy Doyle. THEN he jumped at Atkins and did that shady little deal.

Who was he really working for?

What it says in Helter Skelter gets more and more useless as time goes on with this case.




Manson Family Archives said...

EVELLE J. YOUNGER that is, was accused of having a slush fund*

Some say Stovitz because he too wanted to run for Attorney General. I that is true, but also because he didn't want to go for that Helter Skelter idea. What he was tossed off the case for was a joke compared to what others were doing and did.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

After all these years and parole hearings Bobby never named any bikers which might validate his story

To be fair, he did say Danny DeCarlo was the major go between in the drug deal.

Matt said...

in all of these years the ONLY thing I'm certain of is that HS was not the motive. Catherine Share once said in an interview that she never heard Manson say the words Helter Skelter, "not once"

When did she give that interview ? Because in that 40th anniversary documentary they did in 2009 she says "When the Beatles’ White Album came out, Charlie listened to it over and over and over and over again. He was quite certain that the Beatles had tapped in to his spirit, the truth — that everything was gonna come down and the black man was going to rise. It wasn’t that Charlie listened to the White Album and started following what he thought the Beatles were saying. It was the other way around. He thought that the Beatles were talking about what he had been expounding for years. Every single song on the White Album, he felt that they were singing about us. The song 'Helter Skelter' — he was interpreting that to mean the blacks were gonna go up and the whites were gonna go down."

Robert Hendrickson said...

How many out there actually KNOW what LSD was created for? How did CM know EXACTLY how to administer LSD effectively

It wasn't a great secret that LSD was thought of as a drug that could actually help people with psychiatric problems, a tool to help dredge up many buried troublesome items, the idea being that they could be faced and dealt with and new ways could be planted into the mind to perhaps help stabilize it. Of course, we're human and our darker, more manipulative side also came into play and elements within the army and CIA in the USA saw that it could be used not only for their people....but also against their enemies.
As for Charlie administering it effectively, one of the things about acid that has long made people wonder is the fact that some can handle it really well and others' minds just caved in. As Charlie once pointed out, forget about controlling the mind with it, it may well uncontrol the mind !
If one looks through the stories of 60s rock and pop, it's notable how many of the leaders of their bands {John Lennon, Brian Jones, Syd Barrett, Gene Clark, Eric Burdon, Peter Green etc} and just artists in general fell apart mentally due to acid....and how many remained mentally strong through the process. And in some of those instances of people falling apart, they were definitely kept plied with acid as a means of keeping them, well, under some sort of control. Keeping Lennon fed with acid meant that a number of people made vast amounts of money, meant that McCartney positioned himself as band leader with Harrison at his most influential in those halcyon years of '66~'68. Jimi Hendrix was provided with acid by Mike Jeffries their manager as a means of control as by that point Hendrix was finding his older music and stage act too limiting and wanted out but for Jeffries, there was money to be made. People who wanted to keep riding the Pink Floyd gravy train ensured Syd Barrett was continually roaming the acid universe in the early days. Same with Brian Jones in the Stones....
There are basically many stories of how young people {it's easy to forget how young they were} with a liking for LSD were controlled by others with rather insidious motives. That they liked acid and happily ingested was an important factor: as with members of the Family, it's not as if they were forced. The relationship between acid consumption and the resulting control isn't necessarily as nefarious as it's made out to be but discovering that having people around you who like and keep taking acid and who become sufficiently suggestible to much of what you say is something quite a few people have discovered. And used.

Manson Family Archives said...

"well they used to make a lot of the Beatles, White Album. Yeah, it was sort of a coincidence to everybody I think. Charlie would talk about the importance of particular lyrics. and everybody would go "yeah, Charlie, umm hmm sure". But, but not being patronizing. "oh yeah Charlie, that's very profound". Nobody would, I would say, dare, claim lightly. But I'll tell ya, the piece of the Beatles music that, that seemed to manifest with us. and and, used to, not sing the song, but it said "turn off your mind, relax and float down stream there is no dying". - Bruce Davis

Not an exact perfect quote, because I have audio of it and Bruce is pretty hard to understand.

Max Frost said...

That's from the Bill Scanlon Murphy documentary circa '94-'95

christopher butche said...

Mr Stimson quoted from a book on here, the post with the Bugliosi letter touting the HS book. It's called the DA's Story. In it the author (a LA DA himself) describes the workings of the office as being fairly paranoid with regard to whoever is in charge keeping possible challengers at bay.

Aaron Stovitz apparently fell foul of Evelle Younger attempting to side-line him in an attempt to curtail any future challenges for his job. The story is made ironically because Bugliosi would of course go on to do this and not Stovitz.

As far as I know, the first trial to have the gag order was the re-trial of the Onion Field murder case toward the end of the 1960s. Something the LA DAs weren't happy about, somewhere I've read, possibly Evelle Younger, that when the Manson trial gag order came in his office intended to break it as a matter of principle. I guess to try and put a stop to its use in all trials.

beauders said...

I thought the initial reason the military was interested in LSD was as a mind control drug. They were looking for a way to create the perfect soldier, a soldier that would do anything under it's influence.

Kevin Marx said...

Hey GrimT, that's the first i've ever heard someone say that John Lennon and Brian Jones were being fed acid to keep them under control. Where did you read that?

i've always thought that those two were the most experimental (musically and drugs wise) of the Beatles and Stones and Brian was supposedly quite fragile mentally but never heard that people were controlling them thru drugs.

Robert Hendrickson said...

What a GREAT discussion going on here.

SO let ME add something relevant from my own observation.

I met with CM in LA County jail in early 1970 (when HE still had his ProPer status) He was just like any inmate preparing for his case in a very business like manner. THEN when the "Judge" took away HIS Constiturional RIGHT to represent himself with the AID of an attorney by HIS side, HE started to "blow-it."

You and or I would think, "What the fuck Chuck, you are much better off with an attorney running YOUR life - cause ONLY a "fool" would be his own attorney."

BUT just twenty years ago (1996) the LA Courts were making a defendant SIGN a piece of paper agreeing that IF they wanted to be their own attorney - they could - BUT they would NOT be provided with ANY aid from "counsel" as provided for in the Constitution.

Of Course, I then realized the "establishment" was STILL fucking with the Constitution AND that's NOT a good thing.

I also realized the ONLY thing that separates the Cops, Judges and other "officers of the Court" from the rest of US, is the Constitution - which exists ONLY to PROTECT "then" from "us."

JESUS Christ was allowed to "speak" and "represent" HIMSELF at HIS trial- 2000 years ago. IF you can't find the piece to the puzzle that breaks the case, maybe it's simply a matter of "YOU can't."

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

that's the first i've ever heard someone say that John Lennon and Brian Jones were being fed acid to keep them under control. Where did you read that?

It's kind of something that one has to put together through many, many interviews, books and TV chats etc. The first time it came to me was around 1977. It was a copy of "Woman's own" or "Woman" that my Mum had and in it was an interview with Lennon's first wife Cynthia. She had just married a guy called John Twist and written a book called "A Twist of Lennon." At the time, anything about drugs caught my eye and she was talking about how drugs had wrecked her marriage with John. I remember her saying that people would give John acid and tell him that "he could have his own private island and he'd believe them."
So that caught my eye back then. A couple of years later I read the Hunter Davies biography and George Martin, in the last part of the book {this is before the White album came out} when commenting about them managing themselves {this was not long after Brian Epstein had died} remarked "They are very like children in many ways. They love anything magical. If I had to clap my hands in front of John and produce a vase of flowers, John would be knocked out and fantastically impressed and I would be able to do anything with him" which, even when I was 16 made me shiver. That was in the period where he was being persuaded to buy a Greek island for them all to run off to, when Magic Alex would get all kinds of funding to ostensibly put together a 72 track studio and wallpaper loudspeakers, all on the basis of him having made John a box that had lights that flashed randomly, when Apple, which he later savaged came into being.....Some of the people that were supposed to look after him kept him plied and he wasn't challenging anything. When he woke up in '68 after realizing he wasn't Christ come again, he started fighting again, more than he even had before and it's that period of '66 to '68 that a lot of Beatle fans get hurt over him dismissing. But he did so because he saw that time as the time he was being controlled. Two months before he died he said "I was used to a situation where the newspaper was there for me to read and after I'd read it somebody else could have it.....I think that's what kills people like Presley and others of that ilk...The King is always killed by his courtiers, not by his enemies. The King is overfed, overdrugged, overindulged, anything to keep the King tied to his throne. Most people in that position never wake up. They either die mentally or physically or both. And what Yoko did for me...was to liberate me from that situation. And that's how the Beatles ended. Not because Yoko split the Beatles but because she showed me what it was to be Elvis Beatle and to be surrounded by sycophants & slaves who are only interested in keeping the situation as it was. And that's a kind of death."
It has to be stressed that John liked drugs so it's not like someone was forcing them down him but a number of people took advantage of his state and saw to it that he got what he wanted because they saw that it was easier to maintain the situation they wanted that way. It's a similar story with Brian Jones except that he was easier for Mick & Keith to overthrow because he wasn't a songwriter.
The thing about drugs and control that I was alluding to earlier is that it's not a simple cause and effect happening. It's a little more complex than that. That's something that I think some people miss when it comes to Charlie, the Family and drug use. It's not like the Nazis and people being forced. It's power is precisely because the person taking the drug likes the drug. The process is pretty gentle. Ostensibly.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Bruce Davis by the way once said nobody believed in Helter Skelter

Well that obviously wasn't true. And since when was Bruce the spokesman for everyone at Spahn ?

With the narrative Bugliosi put forward, they all had a shot at trying to get off

But you're slightly contradicting yourself. You're asserting the system was corrupt, they were dead and buried beforehand and therefore the result was a foregone conclusion. But now they were given a shot at trying to get off ?

Susan, although she said a whole lot, did say something about Linda buying MDA

And has also stated that all of that was a lie. In the very parole hearing you tell us about in your attempt to show Tex knew Frykowski, just because Susan Atkins' lawyer said so, Susan states and not for the first time {in fact, she was remarkably consistent about this over 40 years with plausible explanations for the three lapses} that she lied in the penalty phase and that it's what she said in front of the grand jury that was the truth. Now, one can laugh that off and I wouldn't blame them because she did change her stories a few times. But I was surprised to hear her admit this in that same hearing and she explained why she had changed her story.

During the trial, Manson kept yelling out to Fitzgerald to ask Linda about the $5000. Now, Manson wouldn't do that simply to make Linda look bad. He's not that petty and not into being a snitch

So then why do it ? Another contradiction.
It was nothing to do with being a snitch or not being petty. If you are on trial for your life, literally, there's a good chance you'll get as petty as it takes. As for not petty, check out what he says about Leslie Van Houten's privates in that 2013 Rolling Stone interview. That's petty. Charlie has generally given as good as he's taken.

So that $5,000 has to play into this case some how. The way Bugliosi rushed in tell the jury exactly what Linda was "about to testify" tels me there is something there

Of course the $5000 plays into the case. It explains Tex, Linda, Bob, Charles Melton, the Family, the situation, the loose morals, generosity, inheritances, partially why Linda may have been selected on the nights of murder.......
Bugliosi got in to the jury what Linda was going to testify to because the defence was trying to infer something negative about her testimony via the fact she'd wolfed that money from a friend. As I said to you last week, it's called pre~empting a strike. You get the bad shit about your side in before your adversary does. It's a clever move, lots of people do it, like I explained to you, my kids do it if they've been questionable in some of their behaviour. They'll get to me first before the school does.
The courtroom often is not fair, on that we agree. And it's adverserial, without a doubt. Neither side was tip toe~ing through the tulips.

Manson Family Archives said...

What evidence do you have to the contray that Bruce wasn't tell the truth? Aside from A: a girl trying to get immunity with a sold confession B: a girl who put together a tape with her lawyer in an attempt to get immunity under the impression she was insane and brainwashed and C: a girl who GOT immunity ?

Kids on the fringe of what was happening doesn't really count.

I wasn't contradicting myself at all. Robotic slaves under the spell of LSD and control of a cult leader who ordered them to commit murder. That opens the doors up for a defense, as Caberello, Caruso, Ronald Huges, Marvin Part and Maxwell Keith demonstrated. While Bugliosi was hellbent on convicting all of them, it still opened the doors to some kind of shot at walking out of the court room or at least a few years in a comfy nut ward. Copy cat? Drugs? Not much excuses can be made for that.

What I mean about Manson, is he wouldn't just talk about a stolen $5,000 just to make a person look bad. That's not his style. He dropped a clue to make the presecution sweat a little. He also urged Irving to ask the maid about LSD.

Bugliosi went into a big speil about that $5,000 to Merrick. Why? Protesting too much, I think.

Bugliosi said to him, she "thought she gave it to Leslie, though she was not sure". So when Bugliosi made her testify that she DID give it to Leslie...hhmmm..

If you ask Bugliosi what he thought of Atkins last book, I'm sure he'd say she lied there too. He was always annoyed by those who insisted it was to get Bobby cut loose.

Susans obsession with what she said during the trial all came down to one issue and one issue only: she didn't want the world to think she killed Sharon Tate.

grimtraveller said...

CrisPOA said...

the copycat motive: one has to be pretty commited to go along with it - too much effort to release a brother. It was a "hanging job" right?
I mean, you were willing to die for it


This is a really good point. For me, it's not enough to pre~empt a strike by admitting that it's not a very good plan. We are talking about the gas chamber if you get caught, if it all goes wrong. Now, what would puzzle me if the copycat was the true motive is why you'd make a great show of love for brother, even to the extent that you'd go out and kill seven people, but when you then had the chance to come out and really show love for brother by doing something for Bobby in regards to his trial, you don't. You wouldn't even have to kill anybody.

Manson Family Archives said...

and after all of this we're told: the murders happened in less than a half hour and totally random. So much emphasis has been put on the "total strangers" thing. It's nonsense

I wonder what people mean when they say it was random. Do they mean that the killers just randomly decided to go to Cielo on a whim or do they mean it was random in the sense that there was no specific relationship between the occupants of the house and the killers ? Random in the sense that it wasn't a revenge kill. That there was no particular reason for them to choose that house, that they knew of.
Watson obviously knew the house.
Although people try to put across that it took a long time, there's no reason to suppose that it wasn't over in 40 or so minutes.

Where were Tex and Linda in the days that Charlie was at Big Sur?

Who knows ? Where were Leslie, Brenda and Ouisch ? what did Bobby do between the time he killed Gary and the time he left Spahn ? Why did he leave Spahn ? Why in Gary's car ? Why did no one support him during his two trials ? Questions, questions.....

Why were those two in the front of the car?

If anything, it demonstrates that maybe there was something in the supposition {for that's all it was, a hunch} that there needed to be a licence holder along.

Why did one go in first and one stayed look out? Was this the Tex and Linda caper?

Tex knew the house and the layout, having been there a few times before. Maybe, being in charge that night, he felt a look out was needed. It kind of indicates that he didn't know what to expect which pours cold water on the idea that he knew Frykowski. Besides, he'd known the other two a lot longer, even if he did have those first night hots for Linda. He probably had a better idea of what they were capable of. You talk of the Tex & Linda caper but the way he spoke to her later on during the night doesn't suggest any great love there.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Why was one kept in the safty of a Texas jail not saying a word while mommy cooked him meals and the other was given full immunity?

Simple. One didn't want to return to California and the law of the land allowed him to stall.
The other happened to have a lawyer who, even when the prosecution had a star witness, kept angling for a deal of some kind because he believed her when she said she didn't kill {backed up by two of the killers, interestingly}. And when the prosecution lost it's main witness, they needed her. It never ceases to amaze me how some people miss the bleedin' obvious sometimes. When Susan Atkins pulled out of the prosecution case, there was nothing to bind Linda Kasabian to either crime. She couldn't be convicted on the say so of an accomplice without corroboration and there was no corroboration. There was no case against her. She took the dangerous path doing what she did and it went on for years because she had to testify at Watson's and Van Houten's further two trials.Robert Hendrickson said...

ANYONE know the extent of any "physical" evidence pointing to "Helter Skelter" as the motive ????

A little more than the physical evidence that points to the bad drug reasoning of Gary Hinman's murder.
Even physical evidence can be circumstantial in terms of actually shining a light on the motive for doing something. Because how does it do that ? Helter skelter as a concept was pretty abstract. It's not really something that there would necessarily be physical evidence for.

Manson Family Archives said...

What four people? The killers themselves who're more or less forced to accept what is on record and who have a better shot at release by doing than, rather than tell the truth?

Three of them were among the killers, in addition to Diane Lake and Paul Watkins. Interesting thing is that Charlie told George Stimson that on Aug 8th he may well have said "now is the time for Helter Skelter." He doesn't deny it.
This thing about the killers getting a better shot at release if they go with what is on the record simply no longer holds. Reality blows that one well out of the waters. Bobby Beausoleil does not go with what is on the record. Susan Atkins by saying she lied during the penalty phase and in actual fact did not stab Sharon Tate and did not kill anyone by her own hand did not accept what was on the record. Pat Krenwinkel in stating that she did not carve WAR on Leno LaBianca and by stating most emphatically that she did not tell Leslie Van Houten to wipe the LaBianca house of prints does not accept the record.
I've felt for a long time that that's a red herring argument and it's coming to the fore more and more.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Guillory himself said they were getting word that Manson shot a black guy, or Panther, whatever

On 28th July, Charlie told an officer that himself.

Manson Family Archives said...

Bugliosi said "Pigs" was the word they used to describe the rich, white establishment. That was a bold face lie

You say that you don't state things as facts then you come right out with "that was a bold face lie."
The onus is on you to prove that, not just state it.

Manson Family Archives said...

It's arguable that much of the Helter Skelter story came from him. He was after all a former Bible student

America was a lot more christianized in the 60s than it is now, in terms of less alternatives when it came to religion and various philosophies. Possibly most of the Family had at least nominal upbringings involving Christianity or church going. Which is partly why there could be so many of that number that thought Charlie was Jesus, why Charlie himself thought he was Jesus {not at all uncommon under acid} and why HS could be so readily considered and thought of as real. Not only did many people have a little biblical knowledge, this was the era where the common person outside of the clergy actually could read and interpret the bible for themselves. So radical interpretations like Charlie's actually breathed some new life into what had up to then been rather staid pieces of writing in 17th century olde English that bored the pants off those that were made to listen to it week after week.

Kevin Marx said...

i've always thought that those two were the most experimental (musically and drugs wise) of the Beatles and Stones and Brian was supposedly quite fragile mentally

Musically, I think what set the Beatles apart was having three excellent writers and all three were highly experimental. That set the bar high. In going through Lennon's songs from 1965 on, I notice that although McCartney was using strings, brass and classical instruments and Harrison was using Indian instruments, in terms of instrumentation, Lennon followed the other two, utilizing what they used first. And much of the bold experimentation in his great songs of the psychedelic period were really influenced and arranged by McCartney and to a lesser degree, Harrison. Lennon later accused McCartney of subconscious sabotage when it came to his songs. I think they all liked their drugs, John seemed to be the one that couldn't handle them well.
With the Stones you're right, Jones was far away the most experimental instrumentally and substance abuse wise. Much of their mid 60s output and their psychedelic phase just would not sound as it did had he not been part of the band.

Manson Family Archives said...

Charlie told them they beat a Panther up. He didn't say anything about a shooting.But they certainly heard it from other sources.

That's all generalization and brushing things aside. It's funny the bible student and the guy looking for Jesus (Poston) spend time with Charlie up at Fountain of the World, then basically told Inyo County he was Krishna Venta. Both musicians and they were the ones spewing most of that Helter Skelter stuff. I think Helter Skelter was their trip. The Helter Skelter theory is basically what Krishna Venta preached, minus the fab fours involvement.

MHN said...

Where is Trilby when you need her.....?

christopher butche said...

....not forgetting The Process literature and open meetings up in SF. Their end of the world scenario is a fairly spot on blueprint for Helter Skelter.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Last night I was switching TV channels and hit upon an OLD episode of OZZY and Harriett. We're talking
B & W TV with a story line about preparing for Christmas. I actually LIVED that era (hanging the colored lights outside and putting on skits for the PTA / Church crowd) and still I could NOT even relate to the trival non-significance of such a program TODAY.

SO what Happened to CHANGE all that ? VIETNAM ! Was that a Good thing or a BAD one. ?
I don't KNOW, but I'm now thinking, to make ME watch such dribble now, could be considered "cruel and unusual punishment."

Keep-up the GOOD work MansonBloggers

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

I believe the motive, first and foremost was to get Bobby out of jail

I have my doubts about this now. Up until a while ago, I felt it was possibly in the ether, along with other things. For me though, there are some serious question marks against the idea. However, it is certainly plausible.

I do believe the Crowe shooting was the catalyst for a lot of nonsense

If the shooting of Lotsapoppa really was at the start of July {for some reason, during the penalty phase it kept being stated as August 1st rather than July 1st}, then I can't see how it couldn't be a catalyst, and a major one, for what went on to happen. For me the part the Crowe shooting plays {regardless of which motive[s] one ascribes to} in the overall narrative is the same part that rain plays in the eventual flooding of a town or village after a river bursts it's banks.

Manson Family Archives said...

He, Atkins and Kasabian being on speed (or Cocaine, Atkins wasn't sure). Where where they getting it? We know Joel Rostau was supplying Sebring. I'm not going to go into the long winded detail of how, but it's pretty obvious

It's not really obvious. Statements made without back up to verify them or at least point to a general truthfulness are anything but obvious. The very thrust of your original piece is that people have, for decades and in a most unthinking way taken what was put out by the prosecution as 'obvious' and right....yet you keep doing the very thing you castigate others for supposedly doing. Where were Atkins and Watson getting their stuff ? You don't know.

Given the small world this was and that fact Watson was more Hollywood than SPahn, it's no stretch of the imagination he most likely knew Sebring and Frykowski

The small world it was ? You make it sound like everyone lived on the same street and bumped into each other every other day. In my druggy days, I knew a few people that were dealers and runners. And there were tons that I did not know.
It's by no means beyond the realms of possibility that Watson knew Frykowski or Sebring. He may well have. They could have been pool and drinking buddies on the sly. They could have enjoyed evenings talking about Jefferson Airplane lyrics & European cuisine. "Could have" is a far cry from "most likely did" however. Especially when you're trying to make a connection that no one has ever been able to make tenuously, let alone definitively.

Did he ever admit to killing Shea?.....*crickets*

Do you know for an absolute and unshakable fact that he did kill him ? Those that mention him in connection with it {such as Kitty, DeCarlo or Bruce}, you've cast off as liars who said whatever suited them when it did suit them. The one whom you infer never lies {Charlie} says in George's book that he doesn't know that Tex was there.

His defense was that he was just a good ol' Texas boy who was brain washed by Charles Manson and he didn't even cop to even the killings at his trial

He did.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BUGLIOSI:

Q: Mr. Watson, I show you some photographs here: People's 87, a photograph of Sharon Tate; People's 107, a photograph of Jay Sebring; people's 102, a photograph of Abigail Folger; people's 89, a photograph of Wojiciech Frykowski; people's 42, a photograph of Steven Parent, people's 91, a photograph of Leno LaBianca; and people's 93, a photograph of Rosemary LaBianca.

Now, just for the record, did you kill all seven of these people?

A: Yes.

Q: So you also killed Sharon Tate, then; is that correct, the female Caucasian depicted in people's 87?

A: As far as I know, yes.


I'd hate to see any of you ever on trial for murder. By your logic, you'd confess to everything like an idiot

I'd hate to see you on trial for murder. By your logic and reasoning, you'd dance your way to the lethal injection.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

The post should at least show the amount of people with vested interest in concealing what happened

You keep saying or implying that. But in order to have a vested interest in concealing what happened, then: i] something other must have happened and ii] those with the vested interest must have known what had really happened.
I do not dispute that a number of folk connected with this case had dodgy intent. But that applies on virtually all sides and you know the one thing it still doesn't do ? It still does not change the events, the motivations, the intents, the moves....of prior to 11th August. Throwing in a box of red herrings involving corrupt cops, judges, lawyers, and all the rest ultimately has little to do with what this band of people that killed felt it was all about. It's all very interesting and adds to the greater drama of the overall story but really, tells you nothing about what came before.

Manson Family Archives said...

That tape was made for the purpose of trying to convince the court she was insane

Yes, that's right, it was. But be sure to tell the right story. Having spoken with her and heard what she had to say, Marvin Part did think she was insane. He's not the only one. Lots of people have thought that, both at the time and since. Part thought that she was incapable of making a rational decision and was desperate to prove this to the court. On that tape, he asked her things he'd obviously asked her before and I say 'obviously' because he would want evidence of what he felt was her madness on tape so he knew what to ask her. From his perspective there's nothing unusual about that at all as to him it seemed rather obvious.

As little LuLu too was trying to go for a Diminished Capacity defense in hopes she'd walk out of the courtroom a free woman

Leslie Van Houten was not going for a diminished capacity defence ~ her lawyer was. Big, big difference. She refused to be examined by the psychiatrists. She tried more than once to get rid of Part. She even fired him before the court ratified it. She was clear that she was going to do whatever Charlie wanted her to do and she was not going to tell the world she was mad. Part actually said, when opposing Leslie's motion to fire him, that she didn't care if she got the gas chamber.

Manson Family Archives said...

How come nobody ever considered the girls to be groupies instead of followers?

Well, groupies usually go home after the night's extra curricular activities !


christopher butche said...

RE: police instructed not to bother those at Spahn Ranch:

4 June the date given for the rape that was reported to police.

Sometime around 17 July 1969 two homicide detectives visited Spahn Ranch as part of their investigation into the recent murder of 16 year old Mark Walts.

During the week of the Hinman murder one of these detectives received from patrol officers three loaded clips of ammunition clips for a .30 calibre carbine that had been found on the highway. It was noted Manson had contacted the police to claim ownership.

24 July fireman on routine fire patrol observed at the ranch a flat-bed truck loaded with car parts and VW engines covered over with sleeping bags.

Around this time two officers on patrol at Spahn Ranch had a conversation with Manson during which he boasted about the quantity of weapons available and how rifles at that moment were trained on officers and that this was standard procedure when police approached the ranch.

28 July is when the conversation took place at Spahn Ranch which probably places the Crowe incident as happening before August 1. Manson (using the alias Summers) in answer to why they were armed replied that they were anticipating an attack by Black Panthers because "...we got into a hassle with a couple of those black motherfuckers and we put one of them in hospital." And those offer was made for both groups to join together to solve the problem of their common enemy.

30 July firemen heard gunshots and spoke to 'Jack' who explained that they had guards at each road and a telephone system (this is also the day Lutesinger first went to the police).

August 9 a VW spotted by police a short distance from the ranch reported stolen 15 July.

Around this time the Butlers who run a mechanics notice that a recently purchased dune buggy from Manson was made up of stolen parts from their storage yard (Phil Butler was also a police officer).

Robert Hendrickson said...

The real problem is, as more recently demonstrated by the LAPD cops WITHHOLDING the Watson "audio tapes," the powers that be, don't WANT the public to KNOW the TRUTH.

BUT Grimm has made a VERY relevant POINT with his "RAIN" anology. EVERY "drop" of water contributes to the resulting FLOOD.

THUS, it is possible that Helter Skelter actually DID begin with the release of the Beatles White Album. AND every predicate act of violence from then up until the Tate / La?Bianca Massacre - and even the violence AFTER that climatic weekend - may LEGALLY be considered a REAL "revolution" against the American "establishment."

It also appears THAT that is what Bugliosi was actually going for, BUT if HE truely believed that a Black and White "race" WAR was even in the wind, WHY didn't HE CALL in the FBI ? Imagine if TODAY, nobody called the FBI when radical "terrorists" were planning a religious ATTACK in America.

Was HE actually playing some kind of "Don't ASK, don't tell," GAME or was HE just as "crazy' as Charlie. Kind'a like a "two peas in a pod" thing ?

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

When you watch these TV specials and read the books, they always say that the case really broke when Susan Atkins started to blabber to her jail mates. That is 100% bullshit

Here's an irony for you. The book "Helter Skelter" does not say that. It outlines in increasing detail how a series of roads led to a common destination starting from October right through to December with November being commented on as the month of confessions that initially no one believed.
The book "Five to die" which came out even before the trial began in 1970 does not put it as simplistically as you put it in your quote.
I've rarely found any of the TV specials to be of too much interest in their entirety. At best there'll be snippets here and there and in my opinion, too much lazy/sensationalist journalism.

Manson Family Archives said...

The Manson case was twisted and shaped into what it was by three Italians

Sort of like, mind controlling, criminal masterminds that used legality as their kind of LSD and were able to dupe the thinking of much of the population through repetition and deviousness ? So you do believe it's possible !


I jest brother man, I jest !

Manson sees the Underworld of crime being just a mirror reflection of the overworld. Racial conflict in the underworld was just as real as that in the overworld

Jesus was pointing in that direction long before Charlie was being messed about by straight and respectable authority. It's one of the basic understandings of God's view of humanity, that it's what is inside a person that determines what they really are and as our world has shown us for centuries, it's not the heroes that are written about in glowing terms that are always the "good guys" nor vice versa, the villains are not always or exclusively the "bad guys" {Lenin, Christ, Che Guevara, Mandela.....}
And yes, all the shit that exists in the real world exists in the criminal world because the underworld is made up of flawed people that came from a so called respectable world filled to the gills with.....flawed people.

Robert Hendrickson said...

the powers that be, don't WANT the public to KNOW the TRUTH

Agreed in some instances. But that truth that the powers that be don't want the public to know, has to be known at least by those powers. We're talking about a case in which none of the powers knew.

It also appears THAT that is what Bugliosi was actually going for, BUT if HE truely believed that a Black and White "race" WAR was even in the wind, WHY didn't HE CALL in the FBI ?

I don't believe he did think a race war was in the wind. His thrust was that the Family had tried to ignite it ~ and failed. In his book, he asks Charlie when he thought the Black man was going to take over and Charlie replied that he may have put a clog in it, which Bugliosi understood as the trial alerting "Whitey."

Manson Family Archives said...

He told them rifles were trained on officers and they didn't act into August 16th. Something doesn't add up with these reports.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

I dont want to become known as the Defender or a proponent of the HS motive

It's really not that bad a life !

Manson Family Archives said...

Paul Watkins would say anything to draw attention to himself

Even after he suspected that it almost cost him his life ?

and he had not the slightest idea of what was really going down

Which could perhaps indicate the truthfulness of what he said ? His main use for the case was to articulate HS. He could not prove anyone had anything to do with the TLB killings. And he didn't.

It's arguable that much of the Helter Skelter story came from him

If you mean he made it up, then how do you explain Gregg Jakobson and Leslie Van Houten ?

He was after all a former Bible student and much of what he and Brooks Poston said about Charlie sounded an awful lot like Krishna Venta

If anything, that demonstrates the number of different movements that had very similar thoughts. You yourself have pointed out how aspects of Black Muslim thought came out in HS. It could also demonstrate that Charles Manson was a good listener and with the way acid can bring up lots of what's going on inside and the mind rearrange things....
Besides which, Krishna Venta died in 1958 and one could easily draw parallels between him & Charles Manson.

Manson Family Archives said...

Let me recap: Watkins was a bullshit artist who wasn't even at Spahn when things started to get nasty

He, along with Juan Flynn & Brooks Poston spoke at length with Ivor Davies and Jerry LeBlanc who ended up writing "Five to die" before the trial ~ stuff they said made up part of the book. It, along with John Gilmour's "The Garbage people" and William Zamora's "Trial by your peers" is a much forgotten book but it's packed with fantastic information that many present day interested parties wouldn't be losing out by reading.
Watkins spoke to those writers long before he spoke with the DA's office.

Brooks Poston was never an accepted member of the Family. But from what Juanita Wildebush had said, he wanted to be

If you're going to accept Juanita's words about this in order to try and show that Poston's words couldn't be trusted because he wasn't a Family member and was pissed off, are you going to take on board all she said about Helter Skelter and the Family's mental preparation for it and the way they dosed up on the White album and saw the Beatles as their prophets from the very same interview ?

I think Poston had some animosity towards Manson for leaving him up at Barker Ranch

I agree with you that he had some animosity towards Charlie. I don't think it was because of Barker though. You see the same animosity bit by bit from a number of those that were with him in that period, not least those that did time in jail. So it's not particularly surprising or noteworthy. Some artists in the film and music biz bear animosity towards former managers, despite the strides they appeared to make in their time with them or towards former bandmates or actors they've acted with. Animosity doesn't necessarily equate with lying.

grimtraveller said...

Anyway, I listened to the Inyo police tape with Poston and while he did explain what Helter Skelter was, said nothing about murders, igniting it with murder, etc

Murder was never part of the narrative of HS. The Family igniting it was never part of the narrative of HS. That it was imminent was part of the narrative and that the Family would escape the heavy shit by being hidden in the desert was part of the narrative. Most of us wouldn't give HS a second glance had that summer been uneventful. Gregg Jakobson didn't seem to have been worried that it was going to truly result in anything dangerous when it was being spoken of as "the shit is coming down." Stephanie Schram's sister didn't run out and call the San Diego police when Charlie laid it out for her the day before the Cielo killings. I get the impression it was seen as the ramblings of a druggie or free thinker at best. Though subtle hints were being dropped I don't even believe that Family members were walking around thinking that they must commit murder to ignite HS. I don't even think the three women had that thought in their minds on the way to Cielo......

Also, by a lot of accounts, Helter Skelter wasn't something that had to be ignited, but something already happening

That's absolutely right.
I don't overlook simple human traits in exceptional people. Charlie seems to have become impatient. And the sequence of events starting with Lotsapoppa and continuing with his music stalling, the Hinman affair, paranoia over the Panthers, more encounters with cops, dissed at Esalen, arrests of his friends and in both sets of arrests, people connected to Hinman's murder....I just think these and more combined with the processes of his mind to produce what we've been talking about for goodness knows how long.

Manson wouldn't risk going back to prison for a such a stupid idea

But he would for a stupid idea like copycat murders ?
Murders !
On the other hand, you could argue that the way he was going on, he was pretty much risking going back to prison most days.
Fact remains though, he did not want to go back to prison and whichever motive one ascribes to, as far as I can determine, it explains pretty much his stance and actions from August of '69 all the way to spring of '71.

To imply that I'm out of line for saying Bugliosi would lie, is bullshit my friend

I never once stated or implied that you were out of line for saying he would lie.
Sometimes however, I think you need to understand what lying actually is.

the little episode where he was brought up on perjury charges to me is proof he was a liar and Stephen Kay busted him and it's no wonder why he'd refer to Kay as, "that little cocksucker" years after the trial was over

People get brought up on charges all the time. Was he found guilty and convicted of perjury ? To say that being brought up on charges is proof of one's guilt is a horrifyingly dangerous road to go down and frankly, I am surprised you do go down that road. You argue the opposite for Charles Manson but that's inconsistent. By your Bugliosi logic, Charlie is guilty of murder and conspiracy simply by dint of the fact that he was charged for it.
With Steven Kay, you should go and look at exactly what Steven Kay did testify to. You couldn't convict someone on that evidence. Maybe he referred to Kay as a little cocksucker years later because Kay's story is essentially the one that brought the charges. If you were in his position and you'd been innocent, maybe you wouldn't just be inclined to write it off as a mistake on Kay's part. Maybe you'd call him something stronger too.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

For what it's worth. Pat Krenwinkel said something rather interesting during one of her parole hearings as well. That on the night of the murders, it was their understand there were "two women" in the house. Despite the record saying they had no idea who was there. If that was her understanding, then I believe she purposely misworded or made a mistake

If you look at Pat's hearing transcripts that are available it's quite noticeable that she's not often articulate. She kind of rambles nervously and so often doesn't complete sentences and other sentences just run into new ones. It's even more noticeable when you hear her in some of those hearings.
In the hearing you mention, she's talking in the context of reflecting that she should have left before she ever climbed the fence with Tex because she'd not long been made aware that they were to kill everyone in the house. I think her mentioning foreknowledge about the two women in the house is a slip of the tongue. Her main emphasis isn't so much on who was there as much as it was clear to her that whatever was going to happen in that house was not going to be good. I don't think she knew the victims because she has always maintained that.

People accept at face value the most simplistic explainations of so many things

Which people ? And how do you know that people just take things at face value and haven't in fact gone through a vigorous weighing up process and concluded that some of the things you call simplistic explanations are actually true ? You make out every sentence of explanation to be pregnant with intrigue and deceit.

Why did he shout so many objections to June Emmer when she wanted to talk about Linda being up at houses in Bervely Hills?

Because that's what lawyers do in court. Kanarek also objected many times and sometimes his objections were sustained, just as some of the prosecutions' were overruled. Remember, June Emmer was questioned outside of the jury's hearing.
Kanarek payed for her trip and June Emmers' role in that trial was simply to make Linda Kasabian look like an unreliable witness. And it turns out she was unreliable herself and her testimony was stricken from the record.

grimtraveller said...



I believe that while the motive was to free Bobby

One of the question marks against it is something Pat said when she had her first parole hearing. She said "I know that like, when you say ~ I did not know that night where I was going. We had never discussed in that family killing anyone really, as far as like anyone going out to kill someone. I had known there had been a murder of a Gary Hinman, but it was kept very quiet and I had no idea that what ~ Mr. Kay makes sounds like there was these big times when people sat around and talked about killing. I was never there. So if they happened, I wasn’t there. And when you start, you know, a whole lot of ~ I did not know that night until I was in the car. I was in taking care of the children at the time at ~ when I was awakened in the night and I was told to go with Tex by Charlie. I got into the car with Tex and it wasn’t but way late down the road somewhere that I asked Tex what we were going to do. And it was when we were ~ and for a long time he said nothing. And then eventually, and so we just gabbed and whatever and we drove. Eventually, when we went up Cielo Drive, Tex said that we were going to go in the house and kill everyone there. I had no idea where I was going. Yes, I followed directions from Tex from then on. But I did not know where I was going."

Robert Hendrickson said...

BUT then the Judge allowed Manson and the co-defendants to be convicted WITHOUT their lawyers even putting on a defense - that was the most blattant denial of "due process" I have EVER witnessed

Irving Kanarek went on to say the reason he never put on a defence was because as far as he was concerned, the prosecution had no case and had failed to prove their case.

Manson Family Archives said...

How was the drug angle looked into deeply? By LAPD, it was. But Bugliosi painted a portrait of them as bunglers and once he was assigned the case, he wasn't looking into anything except a Beatles lyric sheet and a bible

Actually, one of the first things he did was to go to Spahn and look around for physical evidence like bullets and the like. Your bias unfortunately tends to steamroller the actual facts. Which it doesn't need to. You could accept the factual realities and still have your view.
Over at Truth on Tate/LaBianca, there is an interesting interview with Irving Kanarek and in the course of it, the interviewer mentions that she threw away her copy of "Helter Skelter" because she thought it was crap and he tells her off a few times because of this. His reasoning, he says, is because it should be used to verify facts. I thought it was a good point. You could use it as factual and still have a totally different conclusion from the one Bugliosi had.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

What did Springer and DeCarlo say about Helter Skelter? Aside from a comment, "he has this thing built up to where he'll be king of the world". None of them uttered the term "Helter Skelter". Howard described it as a "movement". Something about "die to live"

Between them, they outlined some of the tenets of HS. The concept is what's important, not the phrase. You allege the prosecutor made it up. The evidence tells otherwise. That outsiders grabbed even tiny bits of the picture, though they didn't understand it, is significant. There is plenty of evidence {even Bobby's actions after killing Hinman, though they were not done in actual furtherance of HS} to show that HS was in the air that the Family breathed. Their actions and words in that July to December period show it demonstrably, even to the extent that outsiders picked up on it, at least in part. It really is as simple as that.

grimtraveller said...

MHN said...

Where is Trilby when you need her.....?

You may have to ask Svengali about that....

christopher butche said...

Another angle of fun and games is to look at the system of carrots and sticks offered to potential defendants who are given an opportunity to become prosecution witnesses.

I believe De Carlo had at least three charges against him, felony weapons charges, drug smuggling, stolen goods, and a fourth the assaulting of his wife.

Obviously Kasabian had multiple death sentences hanging over her.

The decision not to prosecute Dianne Lake for perjury is of interest because she was a key witness against Van Houten (and also Tex in his trial).

Mary Brunner was all over the place facing possible Hinman murder charges, followed by perjury and a lengthy battle not to have her immunity withdrawn.

Ella Jo Bailey also had a charge withdrawn in exchange for testifying.

Manson Family Archives said...

I never claimed Bugliosi invented Helter Skelter. I think he over emphasized it and ducked and dodged any other possible motives. Your right, he went to Spahn for PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Because he wanted a "far out" motive. Because you know, "far out" cases make for "far out" headlines and "far out" headlines keep your name in the press. Which is great when you have ambitions to run for Attorney General. A mundane drug crime would be detrimental. Allowing for a motive that would pull the sheets off a lot of powerful people might hurt your campaign.

Bobby's action after Hinman mean nothing in regards to Helter Skelter. It was a last minute decision to thrown suspicion at the Black Panthers and this was inspired by the recent concerns over the Crowe shooting, not a silly plot to bring about Armageddon.

DeCarlo and Springer said nothing about Helter Skelter. Springer said the murders were simply robberies. He did say one thing that stands out. That the Tate murders wasn't the "score" he hoped for. It's funny that, while their details were off, they knew more about the crimes and murders than some of those in the Family, including Charlie's supposed "right hand man". The males hanging around knew what was happening and it wasn't some Helter Skelter bullshit. Maybe the runaway kids thought that.

Right, nobody said Helter Skelter would start with murders and blood on the walls....until they were testifying for Bugliosi. That's when little Paul Watkins even including the word Pig in blood being involved in the whole thing! Yet that started with a red herring left by Bobby at a crime Little Paul knew little about.

Manson Family Archives said...

Here is an interesting little statement from Billy Doyle's LAPD interview:

WILLIAM DOYLE: I think his relationship with Gibby – I think Mr. Folger should and will soon investigate everything and everyone. Gibby Folger was not a drug addict. Gibby Folger, I repeat, was not a drug addict. And, and – thought it was a big deal, and thought she was being incredibly mischievous to take a poke off of somebody else’s joint.

Clearly Peter J. Folger had a little chat with Doyle. After revealing that, he REPEATS she was not a drug addict and claims it was "mischievous" of her to poke off a joint, yet we know she had MDA in her system that night.

Protest too much? Why would he need to put such emphasis on that?

Then, another suspect Bill Reinhart reveales Caruso had another client in connection with the case and that he was "working with" Evelle Younger as early as September. The same Caruso of course that swooped in to rescue Susan Atkins with that whole shady little opperation. Of course her "confession" didn't involve drugs, knowing the victims, etc....totally random. Just a bunch of dirty hippies attacking some clean cut rich people enjoying a nice evening of milk and cookies.

You're very good at picking apart what I write and offering rebuttle after rebuttle with Bugliosi's official narrative.

But you seem to brush off and over look important questions.

WHY WOULD AN ATTORNEY LIKE CARUSO BE SWOOPING IN TO REPRESENT ALL SUSPECTS IN THIS CASE? WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF HIS "WORKING" WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY?

Was he just a good hearted fellow?

christopher butche said...

Do we know the what/how of Caruso becoming involved with Atkins?

I see he was known as "Call Paul" to the rich and famous of LA as the guy who could help you when you had to go to court.

Atkins did well to get him. In 1967 or so he received an award for aquittals in 3 or 4 murder trials in one year.

I can see that the book deal would have paid his fee, and perhaps the high profile nature of the crime may have attracted him to the case.

...but the nature of Atkins grand jury testimony pretty much screwed any chance of an aquittal.

One thing I have noticed is that the girls, in particular Atkins really had an idea that a life sentence was around 9 years. I do wonder if Atkins thought that by confessing it would only cost her 9 years.

Bear in mind that the death sentence repeal was apparently common knowledge prior to it happening. So the drama of a death sentence wasnt quite as sobering as we might expect.

Manson Family Archives said...

Another thing to consider: Pornography.

Supposedly, a lawyer representing a young well known actress contacted Kanarek and Shinn about trying to get back a reel of undelevoped film from the Tate house in which she appeared.

Hal Lipset, the private eye was a pretty respected guy and he was convinced there was a lot of truth too all of that.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

You're very good at picking apart what I write and offering rebuttle after rebuttle with Bugliosi's official narrative

Because most of my answers have been to you in particular, bearing in mind what you said to me about not accepting anything from the official version because you think it's bullshit, I have gone 75 miles out of my way to answer your points that I've chosen to answer, drawing as little from the official narrative as possible. It hasn't always been possible and 14 times, I've used the official narrative in the answering or rebuttle of some of what you've written. I've also used historical references 6 times and I have used other sources {some of which I've actually linked to} around 53 times. George Stimson does not subscribe to the official narrative. I've used some of his writing. Michael White does not ascribe to the official narrative. I've used some of his writings. Bobby Beausoleil, Charles Manson and Susan Atkins do not ascribe to the official version. And so on. A large number of your points can be rebutted using info that comes from people not in the slightest bit sympathetic to Vincent Bugliosi.
If you go public with your opinions, expect them to be picked apart if there are aspects that aren't agreed with. You should also note that there are times when I do agree with you.

christopher butche said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

I never claimed Bugliosi invented Helter Skelter. I think he over emphasized it and ducked and dodged any other possible motives

Ok, fair enough, I take that back.
However, when you drop in asides like

Bugliosi's fantasy version...

The idea that the killers and victims were strangers is perhaps the biggest lie told to conceal the truth about what happened....

So much emphasis has been put on the "total strangers" thing. It's nonsense....

The Manson case was twisted and shaped into what it was by three Italians...

Bugliosi said "Pigs" was the word they used to describe the rich, white establishment. That was a bold face lie...

but believe Bugliosi's b-movie bullshit....

Prosecutors and lawyers are scumbags. That's just a fact. They have a job to do and that job isn't to "tell the truth" or establish what "really happened" and why. Their job is to win convictions and they will do whatever they can to do that....

To imply that I'm out of line for saying Bugliosi would lie, is bullshit my friend. Because Bugliosi DID lie...

Bugliosi: who knew a "far out" case would be a headline grabber and keep his name in the press. The angelic the victims, the more deranged the killers, the more of a hero he is...

and once he was assigned the case, he wasn't looking into anything except a Beatles lyric sheet and a bible...

Right, nobody said Helter Skelter would start with murders and blood on the walls....until they were testifying for Bugliosi...

Bugliosi erased the real reasons why that explosion of violence occurred...


then you're sailing mighty close to the wind in alleging that he did indeed make it up or was certainly it's prime architect. If you are saying that he over emphasized it, are you daring to suggest that there was perhaps some truth in it ? Or are you sticking with what you've long said, that it was bullshit ?
You see, you play with words and don't always leave clarity in what you are saying. Did he over emphasize something that was totally wrong or did he over emphasize something that may have had some truth to it ?

When you say I think he over emphasized it and ducked and dodged any other possible motives that's your head putting it rationally while your heart is actually saying "he didn't pick the motive[s] that I wanted him to."




grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

and ducked and dodged any other possible motives

A good month before Bugliosi was on the case, the police had run out of leads. They had gotten nowhere with the ideas of motives that they had been pursuing. Look again at those Tate progress reports. They tell you what had emerged in the investigation and what they'd looked into. If it was drugs, no one was talking. If it was a copy cat of some kind, no one was talking. If it was a Black power uprising no one was talking. If it was robbery no one was talking. If it was a hit no one was talking. If it was revenge no one was talking. By the time Bugliosi came on the scene, all that had emerged were the fragments of HS. And over the next few months, quite a few people were talking.
In the course of his investigation no one came forward and said, oh, it was done to free Bobby. By the time the trial had started, Bobby had already been sentenced to death. But no one came forward to help him. No one came forward to say to Bugliosi or Stovitz 'these murders happened to help our brother Bobby who we love so much' even though Stovitz thought that to be the case and did so till at least a few years before he died. The women were prepared to take the fall. They could have gotten both Charlie and Bobby off; Two had already confessed to murder and had implicated the one whose actual prints tied her to the crime.
No one came forward to say, look, there's a connection between Tex and Voytek that needs to be looked into or hey, Linda has had some druggy dealings with some cats up at Cielo.
So to say that Bugliosi ducked and dodged other motives is at it's very best, pissing in the wind.
He followed the evidence. And in court, during trial he clearly said to the jury in his opening statement that HS represented circumstantial evidence.

Did he over emphasize HS ? If he did, he explained why; that if you heard it from the lips of just one person, you'd never believe it.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Atkins attorney said Voytek Frykowski was a drug connection to both Charles Manson and Tex Watson. Now. Let me ask YOU something. Under what circumstances would she say such a thing? Did it just pop into her imagination and she blurred it out without consulting with her client? Did Atkins lie to her own attorney in private?

Debbie Fraser also said about Frykowski "He struggled very hard for his life. He probably would've survived if he hadn't been coming down from a 10 day high." Did that just pop into her imagination or did she get that from Susan Atkins too ?

If you ask Bugliosi what he thought of Atkins last book, I'm sure he'd say she lied there too

I agree, he probably would have. Ironically, his own book actually demonstrated that Susan Atkins didn't kill anyone by her own hand. Bobby stuck Hinman, Tex stuck Tate & Frykowski {though she admits she stabbed his legs but none of them were fatal}, she was never in the running for Parent or Folger, all of which are recorded in his book, all of which he ascribes to the people who in actual fact admit to the actual killings.

Susans obsession with what she said during the trial all came down to one issue and one issue only: she didn't want the world to think she killed Sharon Tate

I partly agree with that, she was keen to not be known as the woman that stabbed Sharon Tate or tasted her blood. But that penalty phase threw up a number of lies and in "The myth of Helter Skelter" she goes into detail about what wasn't true. She does definitely say a lot about not stabbing Sharon, alludes to not tasting her blood and she actually makes a very logical and eloquent defence of how she wasn't the knifer of Tate and she uses Bugliosi's words to do it. She also talks at length about the ridiculousness of trying to blame the murders on Linda, the lies they told on that and how they were put up to it, thereby clearing Linda of all that MDA nonsense because let's face it, the two went hand in hand. So if you lose her mastermindedness, you lose her drug dealership. Though she claimed the motive was the copycat, she says they told the wrong copycat so that it would look like Linda masterminded it all. It can be found in chapters 24~26 and says more than simply "I didn't stab Sharon."

But you seem to brush off and over look important questions

Do I ? I've answered absolutely tons of your questions and statements both in this thread and in a few others we've butted heads in on other sites. Not everything you count as an important question is important or relevant to me and I'd be very surprised if the vice was not versa.

Well, for now, "I've relieved all my pressure !"

grimtraveller said...

CrisPOA said...

I was reading part of a "book" by Will Cavanaugh online, where he describes his meeting with Manson. He was Manson parole officer for a short period of time around January 1969.

Well he says that Steven Parent was on probation to L.A. county on a dope charge. I tried to get information on that but only found a theft charge (the one the p.o. says he had homosexual tendencies).
Is that correct? Was he buying or selling drugs? Or just using? Just curious


Is that the book "My life in crime" ? If it is, I'd disregard most of what Cavanaugh says. The 5 pages {103~108} in which he speaks of Manson are filled with inaccuracies. That's being generous ! He claims he was Manson's parole officer for 5 months in '69 and only met him once, in February. He says one of the trial lawyers managed to get himself murdered, keeps calling Bugliosi the DA, says VB theorized that Manson sent the killers to Cielo because he thought Terry Melcher lived there, says Melcher had left 2 years before, says Steven Parent was on probation on a dope charge, says VB couldn't have known what was said by the killers to Manson once they returned to Spahn {Atkins ? Kasabian ?}, claimed William Garretson was the gardner, claimed that the killers followed the LaBiaancas home the next night, says Manson stayed outside in the car while the LaBiancas were killed, says none of the killers implicated Manson in the murders, says that Bugliosi's big lie in his book {on page 74 !} is that Manson was arrested in the 6 months prior to the murders and as his piéce de resistance, states Manson was not arrested from his arrest in Ventura county in April '68 {he says it was December} until his arrest at Barker in Oct '69, totally ignoring at least the Spahn raid arrest. He finished by saying it was after several months in jail that Manson was connected to the murders which is nonsense given that he was in the LaBianca police report of 15/10/69 and had only been arrested 3 days before.
Steve Parent may well have been a probationer on a dope charge but this guy's credibility in just 5 pages is at least 45 below 0 !

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

Catherine Share once said in an interview that she never heard Manson say the words Helter Skelter, "not once".

Maybe she wasn't listening !
I find that an incredible statement of hers. I've seen the interview or rather, a YouTube clip of it. I don't know if it's part of a longer interview. One thing I did notice is that it was made what seems to be quite a while before that 2009 documentary where she does talk about Charlie's interpretation of Helter Skelter.
I can't find the clip anywhere {I only saw it 6 days ago but I wasn't looking for it, I came by it by accident so I didn't note where it came from} but I want to hear it again in context.