Thursday, January 7, 2016

Sanders New Book

Both Matt and myself have Sanders new book Sharon Tate- A Life.  We are both trying to read it but we are having trouble because it's so damn bad.  Speculation and flights of fancy abound.  We have agreed to each work on certain parts of the book and present a book report together.  So stay tuned.

When Sanders wrote his first book, The Family, veteran reporter Mary Neiswender who covered the Tate  LaBianca trial for the Long Beach Independent did a review.  In the opening paragraph she proffered an alternative title for the book "Rumors I Have Heard Or Thought About Re: Manson, Cults, Weirdos, Etc." .  This would have been a great title for the new book!


Transcribed:

Manson book mixes fact and fancy

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK
Mary Neiswender

"The Family — The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion." (E. P. Dutton & Co., $8.95) by former Free Press writer Ed Sanders should have been entitled “’Rumors I Have Heard or Thought About Re. Manson, Cults, Weirdos, Etc.”

It's 412 pages of journalistic minutiae, put together in an attempt to show the “real" Charles Manson, the "real" Manson Famiiy and the "real” blood-and-guts behind the Tate-LaBianca killings and any other murder that looked or sounded similar.

But what it really shows instead is a massive amount of disjointed stories tied together with the now-infamous name of Charles Mlles Manson.

HOWEVER, it's a fantastic piece of journalism. No one I know except the long-haired, always-digging Sanders could come up with all the fact-and-fiction he did, then get it all down chronologically as well as comprehensively.

If you're not used to underground press phraseology - shock instead of sharpness - some of the tales may raise year eyebrows. But, to Ed's credit, there are fewer four-letter words in his book than there were in any one of the Manson articles he wrote for the Free Press.

Although Sanders uses many dates that don't match with the faces (they may be typographical errors), many of his "facts" sound more like the writer's Imagination than Manson’s actions. And, In many of the shady arrests of the Manson story, Sanders uses rumor to fill the void where no  known facts are available.

BUT THEN, no one - except the hippie chief himself - knows how to fill those voids accurately.

Sanders seems to gloss over this "real" Manson - and this also may be because no one really knows the "real" Manson. Sanders apparently hasn't talked with Manson sufficiently - if at all on nitty-gritty matters - to illuminate the subject.

Sanders himself seems confused about what he thinks Manson is all about. But that's understandable too.

He accepts the courtroom testimony of Juan Flynn, a Spahn ranch hand, without question.

WHEN I FIRST interviewed the curly-haired Panamanian at Spahn Ranch a few days after Manson was arrested, he was quoting the Bible and telling anyone who would listen what a rotten guy Manson wae oed what a rotten VD-infeelod bunch of girls he had.

A few months later, I saw the same Juan Flynn in a corridor of the Hall of Justice playing "hand love" with one of Manson's girl “followers and telling television reporters Manson was his "brother" and the greatest guy since Jesus Christ.

When he got an the witness stand, he was back to his his first stories - only vastly expanded and strengthened.

AT THIS POINT I don't think even Juan Flynn knows where he stands, but Sanders took his courtroom testimony only - without hedging his bet, or letting tits readers know the background.

Sanders apparently did the same with other Manson "contacts."

There are a lot of questions Sanders left unanswered in his book - but the answers probably will never be known until Manson tells his own story, if he ever does.

Until then, Sanders' book is the most detailed on the subject to come out… even though the details have a little to be desired.

What I’m waiting for now is Sanders' next book -  which he told me a few months ago would be on another carachter: Richard Milhous Nixon.





98 comments:

Sun King said...

Great find on that review! Seems like she actually read most of the book and did a spot on review an even gave some insight into Juan Flynn.

So I'm getting the feeling from this post that Mr. Saunders my not have matured as an author.

OOOeeeooo

christopher butche said...

Her own book is ok too, unfortunately print-on-demand with massive type, so not as long a read as expected. Chapter on her covering Manson trial and a bit of a catch-up with him. Is a good read about being a woman in a man's world 1950s-80s. Some of the crime stuff is not for the squeamish.

Back on message, in anticipation of your mammoth Sanders review, have a 30 minute break and watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asim-1Tqjpo

It's an interview with Timothy Wylie about the Process Church covering 1966-77ish. I submit it in an effort to deflate Sanders' claims about the 'Satanic English Cult'. About halfway in he does answer questions about their relationship with Manson.

goomba said...

I'd like to read Sanders' Free Press articles. A cursory search came up empty. Anyone read them?

Panamint Patty said...

Patty has ordered her copy...can't wait

christopher butche said...

Goomba, have a google for:
los angeles's free press charles manson report

Matt said...

goomba, is this what you're looking for?


Robert Hendrickson said...

OH Shit, ED is still alive? How old is HE ? Maybe you could post the BOOK dust jacket ?

What does the BOOK use to Stimulate a purchase?

The "hand love" mentioned was actually called "The Motion" by the Family. Here is a perfect example of WHY nobody can write a factual Manson Case book. Authors make it "cryptic" -
unintentionally. IF you didn't spend any REAL time with the Family (like Bugliosi DIDN'T)how do you WRITE about THEIR exploits.

OH, that is where THIRD parties come in. OR fourth parties, and even some already written books. Just look at ALL the Youtube videos where "pirates" TAKE pieces from others and piece them together to make THEIR stuff.

OH, the stuff you are going to see and hear BEFORE the election.

St Circumstance said...

It seems to me that Ed Sanders used Maury Terry like sources for his process information, and it is fact that Terry used Sanders for some of his Manson information which probably why Both The Family and The Ultimate Evil are interesting reads but hard to accept as realistic..

We know Sanders added some spice, and "Far Out" stories the the crimes and the "Family" to sell books.

we know Bugs did the same thing in a way...

But, personally, over the years I have read Helter Skelter dozens of times. I have only read the Family once.

I wonder why that is? As simple as it is just a much better book? Or would Mr. H say as the son of a cop I trust the word of authority more than I do an old school hippy?

I just think H/S was a better book lol

Manson Family Archives said...

The feedback the book is getting is totally negative because of what is said about Sharon and Roman's private life. At least Ed names his source for the real dirt this time around: Shelia Wells.

What is really interest is, people are up in arms over the truth. I don't think Wells told any lies here, but it seems people have a real problem with it being made public. That gives some interesting insight into society and no doubt did was that same mentality behind the reason why the case was handled the way it was.

Interestingly enough, nobody had a problem with Ed Sanders prior, when he wrote about Squeaky blowing dogs, the Family killing dogs, making snuff movies, etc. that's acceptable. But even when you speak truth about the victims, it's a big crime unless it's not some white washed, fairy tale take on reality.

The book has two valuable features:

Hatami admitting he lied under preasure from Bugliosi and Col Paul Tate's private investigator.

It also reveals there was a seperate federal investigation into the narcotics angle with a whole task force. This is supposedly the root of Sanders information about the Process. So the idiot Sanders lets himself go down a rabbit hole, which was most likely the point to that "lead" turning up. This and an INS document. But the stupid Sanders doesn't seem the grasp the fact what is said in this document appears to be influenced by what HE wrote in The Family.

I think Sanders has sour graps with the Process. Odd how his book comes out right when the documentry is making the rounds at the film festivals. Terry's The Ultimate Evil is now a mini-series by James Franco.

The root of the Process being dragged into this case was.........

L RON HUBBARD.

The Church of Scientology planeted that seed with a press released intented to smear The Process and that is the only truth there is to it. So congrats Maury Terry, Sanders and every other idiot who falls for this conspiratorial stupidity: You've all pawns and stooges for the the most dangerous cult there is.

Maury Terry died about a month ago, btw.

ColScott said...

I had such a hard time following the preceding comment. Franco is not doing Maury Terry's nonsensical book.

What does Ed say about their private life?

I knew Ed in 1998 and optioned his book to base a film on just to have something to base it on. He is a poor writer and mostly full of shit. His main thing is that he was able to cobble facts together, that's it. For somebody that has written so much he really was unable to glean ANY perspective into what happened. When I tried to remount the movie in 2001 I was using Bobby's notes, which were equally self serving but made more sense.

Hey Matt I paid for those Dame FREEP issues before I shared them with the world on the ONLY Official blog.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Don't get me wrong ST. I LOVE Helter Skelter and IF I were the son of a cop, I would LOVE walking and talking with MY head in the clouds ALL the time. Feeling safe and secure ALL the time - it just doesn't get any better than that. So IF Charlie Manson's FATHER was a cop, how do you think HIS life would have turned out ?

MY only problem is, Cops allow themselves to be USED by the "beautiful" people for $$$$$.


Manson Family Archives said...

@ColScott?

He's not? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD2chdXOcv0

Wrong. He already did.

St Circumstance said...

Mr H sir I walk and talk with my head in the clouds because I stay fairly well buzzed almost all of the time

Because in reality I'm mostly a nervous wreck lol :)

St Circumstance said...

Manson Archives- I'm sure you are aware the two leaders of the Process were Scientologists before splintering off ... Robert and Maryann Degromsomething lol. I forget

ColScott said...

Archives- I stand corrected. I was unaware that someone had optioned that idiotic nonsense and then made an internet show about it. Thanks.

St- DeGrimston

I met you you aren't a nervous wreck you just didn't get taken on walks as a small child

St Circumstance said...

Lol. Thanks :)

christopher butche said...

If the Satanist Sanders-Terry thing is your bag, download America Bewitched by Daniel Logan published 1974. Opening chapter is about Tate-LaBianca. It also includes a nine point explanation of how The Process and their ilk were involved in the RFK murder mentioning TLB.

As far as I understand Sanders new book takes this one step further in that one of the Satanist groups made Manson their murderer for hire with regard to silencing Tate over something she overheard with regard to Sirhan Sirhan and the RFK hit.

JWD said...

A film has recently been made on the Process Church called Sympathy for the Devil (http://www.theprocessmovie.com). There's coverage of the connection with Manson, and an interview with Barbara Hoyt. It's a good film, and worth seeing, if you can get to a screening.

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Christopher! I had not heard of this before.

The boy wonder said...

Personally I love the family with al it's oooo eee oooo and ting,I also likes helter-skelter and indeed the ultimate evil, and hey there's a connection: the dwarf was never proven to have killed anyone ( don't mean he didn't tho)and Berkowitz and sure as hell didn't either, hmmmm.

The boy wonder said...

Personally I love the family with al it's oooo eee oooo and ting,I also likes helter-skelter and indeed the ultimate evil, and hey there's a connection: the dwarf was never proven to have killed anyone ( don't mean he didn't tho)and Berkowitz and sure as hell didn't either, hmmmm.

CarolMR said...

RIP, Maury Terry. I don't know if anything in THE ULTIMATE EVIL is true. I just know that I've never been so frightened by a book before or since.

The boy wonder said...

I'd say between the eyewitness accounts Berkowitz own admissions and several other points in the book it's highly unlikely he acted alone or was even capable, plus officer dibble took a while to nail him due to in fighting and reluctance to face facts, now what does that remind me of?

The boy wonder said...

Ps, CarolMR if you want to read a scary book try " house of leaves " scary and brain warping all in one go!

The boy wonder said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Manson Family Archives said...

What the hell is Barbara Hoyt doing in the Process movie? Telling more lies for money? I might be going to see it next Friday.

Maury Terry was an idiot. His book might be "scary", but it was at the expense of a lot of people.

Berkowitz acted alone and killed and wounded each and every Son of Sam victim himself. The only accomplice he had was Maury Terry, who aimed him in making the Carr Family's life a living hell.

The boy wonder said...

That's right and Oswald killed JFK all on his own to,despite audio evidence the Zapruder film / magic bullet and an autopsy that appears to show someone messed with the corpse in transit ( see the book " best evidence ") oh yes twas that pesky commie Oswald you bet.

The boy wonder said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarolMR said...

Thanks for the book suggestion, boy wonder. I just looked up HOUSE OF LEAVES on Amazon. Sounds intriguing.

christopher butche said...

Thanks JWD for the heads-up on The Process movie.

I'm reading up on the MacDonald murders, just been watching a Ted Gunderson talk on youtube. In it he claims that the killings were an initiation into The Process. The Process were also involved with drug dealing smuggling narcotics into the USA from Vietnam and their distribution fron NY to Florida.

Crazy days! On the one hand you have a group founded on psychoanalysis who get religion, then fire their teacher, change their theology and then drop religion to now run a successful animal charity whose adventures you can watch on National Geographic (Dogtown). Who may have only numbered around 150 at the height of their popularity.

Or, they are involved with political assassinations, murder for hire, murder, serial killings, organising USA dead soldiers to be used as drug mules on their final journeys home to enable them to control a racket spanning the east coast.

I guess another degree of separation is that post-split it's the 4pi offshoot who are the proper wrong 'uns apparently.

Grimstone's Christ and Satan coming together is a great concept. Love thine enemy and all of that, but bigging up Satan didn't half cause them some grief, you can understand why they dropped it to become the Foundation. With hindsight having Manson contribute to their Death issue during the TLB trial wasn't probably there best idea.

Manson Family Archives said...

Berkowitz is a sociopath and not one word out of his mouth is worth a plugged nickle. What admission, anyway? He changed his story mutiple times depending on who he was talking too.

As for "eye witness accounts", Maury Terry was deceptive in his book when he took the various different police sketches (which are only accurate 8% of the time) when he put "shooter" next to them. A few were only wanted for questioning as potential witnesses and I think at least one was the same person being described by two different people. So that shows how accurate they were.

The yellow WV that Terry made a big deal about? Police only wanted them as a potential witness.

Tommy Z. the guy who said he saw the last shooting gave two different stories.

Terry shaped things out of his imagination. Berkowitz tormented not only the Carr Family, but also a guy named Craig Glassman who lived on the floor underneath him.

He shot the Carr Family dog, throw a fire bomb through their sisters window, made harassing phone calls which caused some of their mother's (their mom ran the answering service, NOT their dad) employees to quit. He sent threatening letters before and AFTER his arrest, the last one a threat to implicate them in crimes. Which he of course did and Terry aimed him.

I gained the trust of their sister and talked with her. Terry twisted and distorted so much. All that shit Berkowitz was saying was based on news articles he requested from a girl he was conning with his born again act. Terry was stupid enough to put that he asked for articles in his book. It was AFTER he got them, that he started to toy with people. Like imply that he had knowledge of Arlis Perry's murder.

I do however think John Carr might have been murdered and the killer(s) used what was being said in NY by Berkowitz and Terry as a cover to lead detectives down a rabbit hole. If true, Terry helped to let a murder go unsolved with his delusions and helping a psycho bullshit the world and hurt a family.

CarolMR said...

"As for 'eye witness accounts', Maury Terry was deceptive in his book when he took the various different police sketches (which are only accurate 8% of the time) when he put "shooter" next to them." - Manson Family Archives

After I read THE ULTIMATE EVIL I had my ex-brother-in-law, who was a cop, to read the Son of Sam sections. He thought Terry was full of bull and he said that eyewitness accounts and police sketches are worthless much of the time.

Manson Family Archives said...

Watch these
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/34016-son-of-sam-vw-escape-video.htm

Maury Terry sqaures off against Lawrence Klausner. Klausner wrote a book on SoS too, which I have coming in the mail.

The host btw was a guard in the prison where Krenwinkle, Atkins and Van Houten are.

St Circumstance said...

The only thing about that book that made me look twice was the Arliss Perry story. That was really weird if true. The start of the book is why I bothered to sit through the rest of it.

Manson Family Archives said...

Like I said, once Maury Terry got on his kick with Berkowitz, Berkowitz requested from somebody else as many articles on serial killers, the occult, "druds"(?), animal sacrifice, cults, etc.

After that, he sent the book to North Dakota police in which he hints he had insight knowledge of that murder. He was a trolling. He later claimed the fictional, "Manson II" did it. Who of course he ID'ed later as Bill Mentzer which makes absolutely no sense.

St Circumstance said...

No. He was the Cotton Club murderer. Which was really all about a female drug dealer named "Laney" Jacobs who got her start in here in South Florida

JWD said...

@ Manson Family Archives "What the hell is Barbara Hoyt doing in the Process movie? Telling more lies for money? I might be going to see it next Friday."

The director did a Q+A at the screening I went to. He seems knowledgable about the Manson situation. Why Hoyt? Manson is predisposed, Squeaky and Sandy didn't get back in touch, Gypsy wanted $2,000; so I guess Barbara was available, reasonably lucid, and cheap.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I would sure like to know exactly what Hatami finally confessed to, because otherwise HE still has S. Tate's blood dripping out of HIS mouth.

AND Ed, in case you are listening, try emailing me at rarefilms@yahoo.com regarding the Hatami story.

orwhut said...

Archives,
The video about Berkowitz dragging his foot is very interesting. My problem is that I can't remember any other reference to him having a problem running or walking and I didn't notice any limp at all as he walked with the cops. Did he have a deformed leg or something I've missed?

christopher butche said...

Barbara Hoyt.

I guess it will be about Bruce Davis's UK trip, it's accepted that he visited/work for the Scientologists (I do like the idea that he sailed over with the Seaorg), but there is some oo-ee-oo that he was hooking up with The Process as well.

She may well have run into them in LA, I would imagine she will spend most of her screen time banging on and on about regardless of how many Californians saw Shea being murdered in the morning that she heard a scream at night.

Didn't she become a nurse? Wasn't Susan Murphy also one? Perhaps that's what became of them all.

Manson Family Archives said...

Sanders is doing a lecture about the book at the NY Public Library later this month. I'm debating with myself if it's worth getting on a train in the freezing cold to attend.

Kevin Marx said...

About a third of the way thru the book and disappointed so far - I was hoping for much better from him. Too much information about the plots of the movies Sharon was in (for me, anyway) - a quick one paragraph summary of each would have sufficed. Hoping it will get better.

"the past is like quicksand" is his new buzz phrase - he's making a good point here that facts get forgotten, distorted, lost, changed etc but compared to "oo-ee-oo" it's an epic fail on the witchy scale.

Robert Hendrickson said...

KEVIN: Could you be so kind as to comment here after you READ the part where Hatami confesses to lying at the Manson trial? It is likely the most significant THING to have EVER been revealed on this or ANY internet site / blog.


Panamint Patty said...

Hyperbole much Robert? Lol

orwhut said...

Anybody?

The video about Berkowitz dragging his foot is very interesting. My problem is that I can't remember any other reference to him having a problem running or walking and I didn't notice any limp at all as he walked with the cops. Did he have a deformed leg or something I've missed?

Kevin Marx said...

Robert - in Chapter 6 "1969:Cielo Drive and Pregnancy" there is a subsection entitled "A Visit From Manson Looking For Terry Melcher".

For the most part this section just repeats, almost verbatim, the "official" trial version of Charlie's March 23rd visit to Cielo.

However in the middle of this version there is a bracketed paragraph which states that Hatami, whilst being interviewed by Sanders for the book, said he has no memory at all of Manson coming to Cielo. He says this "memory" was suggested to him by an investigator called Reeve Whitson, working for Colonel Tate and VB. He testified under this pressure, but still maintains he has no memory of Manson coming to Cielo.

christopher butche said...

I guess this takes the wind out of the sails of Manson and Tate locking eyes. And with Mr Stimson publishing the info that Emmons confessed to making up the Manson returns to Cielo post murders his 2027 parole hearing should go more in his favour.

Kevin Marx said...

Christopher - Charlie and Sharon were once at the same party according to Michael Caine - in his 1992 autobiography he said he was invited to a party by Mama Cass and was introduced to Charlie. Sharon had been at the party earlier.

This doesn't quite have the same dramatic drum roll oo-ee-oo effect as the locking of eyes at Cielo.

St Circumstance said...

Kevin Marx I had been looking for that connection for years lol. I couldn't find one actual person who would put them together at Cass Elliot's house but I used to harp on endlessly I believed if there was any connection it had to have its roots in that exact scene.

And Caine is also the answer to an interesting trivia question. He is the only male actor to be nominated for an academy award in every decade since the 60's

How many guesses would you need if I asked that question before you got to him lol

St Circumstance said...

Although after checking to see if that still holds I see Jack Nicholson was nominated for about Schmidt so now there may be 2

Robert Hendrickson said...

I can see where Col Tate could exert pressure on Hatami (a foreigner) and Bulliosi for sure.

This subject is certainly worth a "POST"

Kevin Marx said...

Robert - the question is what sort of pressure could have been put on Hatami at that time to perjure himself? He must have either a) had a secret or something that he could be bribed with or b) felt fear for his personal safety if he didn't go along.

And what changed for him to tell the truth all these years later? I'm sure Ed Sanders asked these questions and maybe he knows the answers but agreed not to divulge them.

Saint - p319 in Caines book contains the part about the party. I'm not sure if I can post google links here so I won't but you can easily get it by searching the following in google "michael caine mama cass charles manson sharon tate".

St Circumstance said...

Thanks!!

Manson Family Archives said...

I'm sure with Bugliosi, the situation went something like this with a lot of witnesses:

"Look, this guy was behind the murder of Sharon and we need to bring him to justice, so____"

If a prosecutor is telling THIS guy was responsible for the death of a friend you hold most dear and explains that there is little to no evidence, of course people would lie.

Also, Charlie mentioned an "Iranian" who dealt hash from out of Cielo ;)

Schreck dedicated a whole chapter to the March visit complete with "cut" and "action". His use of the word "Cinematic" summed it up perfectly.

I love it when the "pro-Manson" "bad guys" are proven right.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Family Archives said...

Also, Charlie mentioned an "Iranian" who dealt hash from out of Cielo

And he would know this how ?

I find the Hatami testimony curious in the overall scheme of things because it's really not important. We know that Charlie was already familiar with Cielo. He has never hidden that and both Terry Melcher and Dennis Wilson had been there with him. Charlie even told Bugliosi he'd been racing dune buggies down the hills there five or six times.
The fact that 46 years later {or whenever Ed was interviewing him for the book} Hatami has no memory of Charlie being there is not in the slightest bit unusual. You can tell from some of Tex Watson's descriptions of the murders 7 years after the events that there are swathes of it that he has no real memory of and that the recollection has come from "found objects." Even a few months afterwards, Susan Atkins and Linda Kasabian had no memory of him approaching, much less slashing at Steven Parent with a knife. But he had done. The simple reality is that even important events, we can have no memory of years later. For all those who have children and were at their children's births, how many can actually remember in clear chronological detail every event that took place that day including all that was said ? How many people can recall their second ever day at work or their third day of college or university ?
But all that aside, the person such a statement being untrue would cast real shadows over would be Rudi Altobelli. Hatami only enters the picture because Altobelli placed him there. That whole March '69 scenario came into being only because Altobelli said that Charlie came to the guest house and said that he'd been sent back there by the people at the main house. When asked who had been at the house he said 4 of the 5 Cielo victims. He also said Sharon asked him on the plane to Europe the next day if the creepy looking guy came back.
So the real villain of the piece here would be Altobelli, if he was lying and the question has to be asked, why would he drag Hatami into what was obviously a lie, especially as Hatami then had to be located and asked about it.
If, on the other hand, he was not speaking with fork tongue then how important was Hatami's testimony given that Charlie is positively ID'd & placed on the scene and treated in a somewhat brusque manner by Mr A ?

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

IF you didn't spend any REAL time with the Family (like Bugliosi DIDN'T)how do you WRITE about THEIR exploits.

OH, that is where THIRD parties come in. OR fourth parties, and even some already written books


Or you speak to first hand participants that were actually spending time with the Family or better still, were part of the Family. The Family proved one great thing that humanity has never been able to get away from ~ people talk ! Whether they're Nazis, soldiers, explosives experts, secret agents, midwives, servants or orange pickers. In most groups someone will talk.

St Circumstance said...

personally, over the years I have read Helter Skelter dozens of times

Same here. It was the first long book I ever read and in the same way that the Pink Floyd's first two LPs gave me the taste and eventual patience for long, complex songs, HS got me prepared for lengthy books.

Manson Family Archives said...

The feedback the book is getting is totally negative because of what is said about Sharon and Roman's private life.
What is really interesting is, people are up in arms over the truth. I don't think Wells told any lies here, but it seems people have a real problem with it being made public


Well, yeah, I can see that and I think it does say a lot about various sections of different societies. I say 'various sections' because it's misleading to lump every single person that you don't agree with or who has objections to something you're happy with under the same banner. Different people have different objections, some of which can be grouped under similar headings.
A lot of people go on about truth but may have slightly different views if it came out publicly that their Dads or partners were paedophiles or one of their siblings was a murderer or something.

Manson Family Archives said...

Interestingly enough, nobody had a problem with Ed Sanders prior, when he wrote about Squeaky blowing dogs, the Family killing dogs, making snuff movies, etc. that's acceptable

I wonder how big a readership "The Family" had and how seriously it was really taken.

christopher butche said...

As far as I understand Sanders new book takes this one step further in that one of the Satanist groups made Manson their murderer for hire with regard to silencing Tate

An English Satanist group, to boot !
It wasn't Black Widow by any chance ?

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

Charlie and Sharon were once at the same party according to Michael Caine - in his 1992 autobiography he said he was invited to a party by Mama Cass and was introduced to Charlie. Sharon had been at the party earlier

That's a good example of trying to make the most of the least. I wouldn't be amazed to discover that they drove on the same road on the same day too. Maybe even within ten minutes of each other....

This doesn't quite have the same dramatic drum roll oo-ee-oo effect as the locking of eyes at Cielo

I must admit, I always thought that story was a bit of a damp squib. It was like promises and piecrust, promising much, delivering little.


Manson Family Archives said...

I love it when the "pro-Manson" "bad guys" are proven right

Pyrrhic victories can be like that.

christopher butche said...

Black Widow. Grim where do you find this stuff? I blame your interest in Pink Floyd, the gateway drug to prog-rock. (That said recently I've been getting into Gentle Giant's early stuff and Electric Storm by White Noise).

Apparently Hendrix was nearby renting property at the time of the murders. Imagine how small a group the pro-Manson would be if Tex had picked that house.

Hatami. For me his story is mostly for purely cinematic purposes. You can almost see an angry Manson grubby, unkempt and wild barely containing his murderous rage as he locks eyes with the beautiful sexy young blonde successful happy Tate. Her life is going from strength to strength whilst his is unravelling. The scene plays out as Hatami embarrasses Manson in front of Tate.

It sets a scene where Manson is humilated by a swarthy foreigner in front of someone who is entitled. There's a mini-motive at play. Revenge for being snubbed.how very dare you.

Much better than Melcher drove home whilst giving Manson a lift. No drama, no upset.

christopher butche said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dtpvowQa5Ey

Satanism with flutes, a naked woman and a sword. Black Widow live 1970. This is epic!

Kevin Marx said...

Hi Grim,

There is a huge difference between forgetting parts of an event (ie the order things happened etc – or even forgetting the event) and clearly recalling that such an event never took place and someone put pressure on you to lie under oath.

The person that this shines a spotlight on is Bug – showing the lengths he would go to enhance a minor part of the case to paint a picture, set the scene etc.

Kevin Marx said...

I agree that even important events can become very blurry as the years go by but you can't compare someones failure to recall the events on the day of their child's birth with Tex Watson's "failure" to recall events at Cielo.

1) No parents are asked by police for months just after the event to go thru every tiny detail.
2) Parents won't write a book about it.
3) Tex is a lying fucker anyway.

Whilst Hatami didn't write a book about it, you can be sure that he talked about this with his friends for a long time - especially the first few years after the "event". Therefore, unless he's had a serious head injury, in the interim, I think its safe to say that the event never took place.

Robert Hendrickson said...

GRIM: I love YOUR comments and most all are very intellectually stimulating, BUT something does NOT jive with "Charlie even told Bugliosi he'd been racing dune buggies down the hills THERE five or six times." Like -can YOU tell us where you read this?

IF Charlie TOLD Bugliosi HE "flew" dune buggies over the Beverly Hills, I would be inclined to accept that Charlie was pulling Mr."B"s chain, BUT if ANYONE actually "drove" dune buggies around the homes of the rich and famous, the cops would have been all over THEM.

ALSO. Charlie would have had to "DRIVE" on city streets to just get all the way from Spahn Ranch to Beverly Hills AND without the buggies being "licensed" HE would have been stopped by the cops.
It is well documented that the buggies were "trailered" to Death Valley - always. AND if HE wasn't worried about getting stopped by the police driving "stolen" vehicles, WHY such a fuss about Linda driving the Death Car, cause she had a valid driver's license.

I'm only making this point to illustrate how WE may ALL be witnessing the "collapse" of the entire "Helter Skelter" murder case.

AND it's NOT unusual for a guy being in Hatami's position to WAIT until Bugliosi is DEAD.

I'm sure MORE will be coming forward. The times are a changin'.

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

"Juan Flynn in a corridor of the Hall of Justice playing "hand love" with one of Manson's girl “followers" Is "hand love" the hand to hand ritual that TJ plays with Mary in Robert's latest movie?

Manson Family Archives said...

One of Sharon's friends who was rich had a Dune Buggy.

I can't remember where I read it, but there were supposedly eye witness accounts that said they saw a dune buggy or dune buggies in the area in the days leading up to the murders.

St Circumstance said...

I actually remember reading that as well. I am out watching football but even tried looking back from my phone. I did read somewhere they road Dune buggies in the Hills near Cielo.

grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

Black Widow. Grim where do you find this stuff?

To be honest, I was never into them. But Black Sabbath, now there's a different story !

christopher butche said...

That said recently I've been getting into Gentle Giant's early stuff

Some of their pre~Giant incarnation, Simon Dupree stuff is neat. Even though they hated "Kites" it's a good track with what sounds like Japanese in the middle and one of the earliest examples of significant mellotron on a record. And they did this hilarious track called "We are the moles" in disguise. It's awful but listenable. Loads of psychedelicatessens thought it was the Beatles until Syd Barrett spilled the beans !

christopher butche said...

Hatami. For me his story is mostly for purely cinematic purposes

I agree. My point was that with Rudy Altobelli being the one to connect Charlie to Cielo and Sharon that day with as positive an identification as one is likely to get, Hatami is merely the in flight entertainment, not the pilot.

Kevin Marx said...

There is a huge difference between forgetting parts of an event (ie the order things happened etc – or even forgetting the event) and clearly recalling that such an event never took place and someone put pressure on you to lie under oath

Of course. I wouldn't dispute that. However, the way you put it in your post was that Hatami had no memory of Manson while being interviewed for Ed's book which lends the impression that all these years later he doesn't remember Manson coming to Cielo, not that Manson didn't come to Cielo. I was talking with my older sister a couple of weeks back and I was reminding her of something that I clearly recalled from when we were younger and she said she had no memory of it.
Does Hatami actually say Manson never came to Cielo or he just doesn't remember him coming ?


Kevin Marx said...

The person that this shines a spotlight on is Bug – showing the lengths he would go to enhance a minor part of the case to paint a picture, set the scene etc

Well it does show that. Enhancing a minor part is something that not only all the lawyers did in that trial, we do it now, emphasizing aspects that stand out to us and flogging them for all they're worth. During the trial Aaron Stovitz got impatient with VB with all his build up stuff during LK's testimony and prodded him to cut to the chase and get to the two nights of murder. His view was that the fans want action, not waffle !

christopher butche said...

Family Archives, I expect this comes from one of the Tate reports "...Mr. Emmet Steele, 9951 Beverly Grove Drive maintains two trained hunting dogs at his residence. These dogs do not generally respond to ordinary traffic or house noises in the vicinity, but become highly excited and bark and howl when they hear gunshots. On 8-9-69, between 0200 and 0300, both dogs became highly excited, barking and howling. Mr. Steele went out and calmed the dogs, checked the area but could see nothing. Mr. Steele did not hear any gunshots himself but was concerned about a Lavender Volkswagen-type dune buggy, XSP 193, and a black foreign-type motorcycle, possibly a Triumph, that have been seen and reported driving about the area for the past six weeks in the late night and early morning hours. These two vehicles have not been connected with the incident at this time."

christopher butche said...

Grim, Black Sabbath were more a genuine death of the sixties event than TLB. What a band, who needed punk to happen to kill of hippies? That said as an Englishman the complicated whimsy of Gabriel era Genesis is my guilty pleasure.

Mr Hendrickson, I agree that now with the keeper of HS no longer around there may be a few more lips loosening with regard to unorthodox opions and recollections being revealed.

Perhaps one day Manson will be stripped of his super powers.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

I agree that even important events can become very blurry as the years go by but you can't compare someones failure to recall the events on the day of their child's birth with Tex Watson's "failure" to recall events at Cielo.

I can and I do.
My point is about memory. Especially in traumatic events, which both childbirth and committing murder are.
Some people have generally great memory recall and some people can't even remember the name of someone they met yesterday.

No parents are asked by police for months just after the event to go thru every tiny detail

No, but they are by family, friends and interested parties !

Parents won't write a book about it

Are you kidding ? Not only will they, many hope you'll buy it too ! When my wife was expecting our first child, this bossy old mate of hers came by our flat and plonked this bag on the floor and said 'these are for you !'
In the bag were 12 books on childbirth and new parenting, written by happy parents and 'experts.' Dutifully, I skimmed one and then recycled the lot as bonfire night wasn't for another 6 months !!

Tex is a lying fucker anyway

He certainly was at his trial.
But that aside, he's a murderer, not a live roving reporter and he didn't have the premier league benefit of cameras at every angle filming the handiwork of himself and his cohorts.

Whilst Hatami didn't write a book about it, you can be sure that he talked about this with his friends for a long time - especially the first few years after the "event". Therefore, unless he's had a serious head injury, in the interim, I think its safe to say that the event never took place

I can't be sure of what Hatami did with his friends. I can, at best, assume or suspect. Again, your last sentence is slightly ambiguous. It's not a definitive "it did not happen."


Robert Hendrickson said...

something does NOT jive with "Charlie even told Bugliosi he'd been racing dune buggies down the hills THERE five or six times." Like -can YOU tell us where you read this?

Yeah, in "Helter Skelter."
In the book, Bugliosi mentions a number of conversations he had with Charlie and comments on how unusual it was for the prosecutor and the accused {or one of them} to get together and chat informally during breaks in a trial {Steven Kay in the updated section of "Five to die" does the same thing in regard to a conversation with Leslie Van Houten}. There's a part where Bugliosi states that he learned from the best possible source that Manson had been to Cielo drive five or six times and then he goes on to state that his source was Charlie and that he told him that he and Tex used to race dune buggies down the hills. VB adds that he couldn't use it in the trial because Charlie was never informed of his constitutional rights before their conversations so the jury never got to hear it.

grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

Black Sabbath were more a genuine death of the sixties event than TLB

I don't even think of TLB as the death of the 60s, rather it was the dark side of the 60s. If you look at many of the moves that were afoot in the 60s, they did not die with TLB and the Manson Family and although it does sound poetically wonderful, "the man that killed the sixties" it has no credence. If it was true, then that would tell me as nothing else could that all those people in that decade that wanted change and looked to a better world that didn't involve world wars, nuclear bombs being dropped, Black, female, gay and young people as second class mats, environmental issues ignored, colonialism rampant and other things that were felt to be past their sell by date were just a bunch of shitheads. And most of them weren't. True, quite a bit during the 60s was lousy. But much that we reap the benefits of now came of age in a mass consciousness way then. Many things didn't have their genesis in the 60s but they gathered an almost unstoppable momentum then.
In the grand scheme of things, Charlie and the Family are a blip on that era. But a hugely significant blip, as most of the blips are. They played their part. I call them the dark side of the 60s mainly for the way they ended up but even that is ambiguous because many strands that made up that decade had the positive and negative charge. Just like them.
It's funny, when we think of the 60s, we tend to think of what was happening in the USA and UK but other places went through some heavy changes. In quite a bit of Africa there were the struggles of change like you wouldn't believe.

Black Sabbath, unlike Purple and Zeppelin, had their eyes on the decade approaching rather than the decade they were in. The Purps and Zep to some extent were partially trying to shape where they already lay in the timeline. 1968 when both bands started, was still the 60s. Although Geezer was an acid head hippy, his lyrics to their stuff reflected a very different kind of trip to the love and peace path ! I still love and listen to their first 6 albums. And I'm quite partial to some Genesis. I do dig that whimsical element of English rock and pop from the mid 60s on.

Kevin Marx said...

Grim:

Of course Hatami can't say that Manson wasn't at Cielo - he could have been there and not seen him. For the purposes of clarity I will include the paragraph from the book here - Ed, please don't sue me :)

(For his part, in an interview with Mr. Hatami while researching this book, Hatami told me he has no memory at all of Manson coming to the front door of Cielo Drive, but that the memory was suggested to him by an investigator named Reeve Whitson, who worked for both Colonel Paul Tate and the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Under this pressure, recalled Hatami, he went ahead and testified at the trial that Manson had in fact come to the front door that March day-something he continues not to recall.)

The fact that Hatami is not just saying that he can't remember something, but ALSO saying he can remember being told to testify to something which didn't happen lends credence to his story.

Memory is a hugely complex subject, and I am no expert, so I will not argue with you re: Tex chopping up 5 people vs child birth.

If there are any spree killing mothers in the audience perhaps they could settle this one? :)

But your memory argument does work both ways - in other words its possible that both Tex and Hatami could have excellent memories.

As for Hatami talking to his friends about it, which would only have strengthened the memory - what do you honestly think happened there? I think we can safely ASSUME that he may just have mentioned it a few times.

This event or rather non-event is by no means groundbreaking in and of itself, when it comes to the actual murders - but what it does show, is that something which people suspected for years did happen - people were pressurised to lie on the stand.

FrankM said...

I like Grim’s posts. Mainly because they make sense. He raised the issue of memory (and the concomitant issue of memory impairment). Clinicians and researchers have learned to be careful to differentiate between ‘normal age-related changes’ and indications of ‘serious cognitive impairment’, and given the drug-fuelled lifestyles of some of the players in our story the chance for impairment must necessarily be high.

The brain's capacity for general storage and retrieval peaks in one’s early 20s, and it’s all downhill from there. These changes in the structure of the brain are accompanied by changes in behavior; typically these include diminished verbal fluency or impaired lexical selection. This means that as we age we have to spend more effort on planning and organizing our activities and some of us are better able to do this effectively than others. Deterioration of the parietal cortex affects both motor skills (think hand-eye coordination) and the ability to forge new long-term memories, which in turn depends on the sound functioning of the medial temporal area.

As the brain changes, so does behavior. Concerned adults can work with mental techniques that can combat this kind of memory loss, but then again not all adults are concerned. It is unlikely that many of those who figure in the Manson saga are prime material for this kind of attempt to preserve memory.

What does this all mean? That we should not really expect people to have clear recollection of events that happened half a century ago, and that those who claim to have adequate recall may in fact be self-deceived, not through any wrong intentions but simply on account of the ravages of time on their mental apparatus.

Kevin Marx said...

Hi Frank, excellent post! :)

In your opinion, what is the likelihood that Hatami could have entirely forgotten what really happened and then formed a new memory which involved several people not part of the original "fact"?

Cielodrive.com said...

For the record, Hatami never testified that Manson came to the door.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

The fact that Hatami is not just saying that he can't remember something, but ALSO saying he can remember being told to testify to something which didn't happen lends credence to his story

I agree.
It's not quite that simple though. Ed writes that "the memory was suggested by Reeve Whitson" and "under this pressure...." It's a heck of a leap, for one thing. Now, that may just be the way Ed writes that paragraph but the entire episode gets somewhat confusing. If you read Bugliosi's version of events, nowhere does Hatami actually say he saw Manson. Nowhere does Hatami identify Manson. No photo is shown for him to look at and say "yes, that is the man I saw." Bugliosi says he interviewed Hatami and that Hatami remembered sending a man to the back house "once." The reality is that man could have been anyone. From what people like Winifred Chapman and William Garretson have said, it's not as though it was unusual for people not known to everyone to be around the premises. Even Susan Atkins pointed out that when she was in the house looking to see who was there, Abigail looked up at her and smiled. That kind of indicates that we're not talking about something out of the ordinary for strangers {to someone} to be around. Not that much different to hippy crash pads in a way. I mean, as an aside, look at the number of people that were at Cielo during 8th August.
So who did put the pressure on Hatami ? Whitson ? Col Tate ? Bugliosi ? Because Hatami does not state in the Bugliosi story that he saw Manson. I'd be interested to see whether or not in his court testimony he positively identifies Charlie.
What's interesting about the HS account is that it's Bugliosi who assumes it's Charlie and he assumes that because Rudi Altobelli says that Charlie came to the guest house and that conversation existed because Terry Melcher told Bugliosi that Rudi had told him about it. But Altobelli says Manson came in the evening and Hatami says he sent "someone" to the back house in the afternoon.
That's why I say it's not quite so simple.

Memory is a hugely complex subject, and I am no expert, so I will not argue with you re: Tex chopping up 5 people vs child birth

When I say there are parts of the events he has no memory of, I don't mean he can't recall killing people. If you read his accounts of the murders in his first book, they do not appear to have come from memory the way Susan Atkins' recollections do. They look like he has read accounts of what happened and tailored his accounts to those. It's just an impression I get. There's little independent detail.

But your memory argument does work both ways - in other words its possible that both Tex and Hatami could have excellent memories

True.

As for Hatami talking to his friends about it, which would only have strengthened the memory - what do you honestly think happened there?

I don't know. He may have kept it to himself out of fear. If he had been under pressure to testify, he may not have wanted it known that he had testified to something that he wasn't sure of, even to his friends. Maybe even particularly to his friends.


Robert Hendrickson said...

AND it's NOT unusual for a guy being in Hatami's position to WAIT until Bugliosi is DEAD

Seeing that he's only been dead, what six months or so, I wouldn't be surprised if that interview by Ed happened while he was still alive, given the length of time it takes to put a book together.


Kevin Marx said...

I looked for his court testimony online but couldn't find it - maybe someone who has it could post it?

I agree that his new statement to ES is not totally clear cut in terms of how it can be interpreted - but taking it at face value it seems he never saw Manson at Cielo that day.

When you add that to the following:

Hatami, in his original testimony said Manson came to the door, asking for someone, whose name, Hatami didn't recognise but didn't think was Melcher.
The bizarre testimony from Melcher saying the first time he heard Charlie play was at Spahn in May '69 - they never even bothered to keep the lies consistent.
And the small matter that Manson knew Melcher no longer lived there!

You get a muddled mess which stinks of Bulliosishit.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

I agree that his new statement to ES is not totally clear cut in terms of how it can be interpreted

And that's problematic. Once you can start interpreting things in different ways, you get holes. "I shot Santa !" can't mean anything else unless you're a psychedelic lyricist cryptically stating that you gave Saint some drugs in the vein.

but taking it at face value it seems he never saw Manson at Cielo that day

As stated earlier, he never said he did, at least in Bugliosi's book. That, I find really fascinating.

Hatami, in his original testimony said Manson came to the door, asking for someone, whose name, Hatami didn't recognize but didn't think was Melcher

CieloDrive.com says he never testified that Manson came to the door. Even in the HS account, Hatami supposedly says that he saw a man in the yard and he came out to meet him.

And the small matter that Manson knew Melcher no longer lived there!

But Bugliosi never hid this. He told Melcher they knew he no longer lived there. At the Grand Jury he questioned Susan Atkins about knowing Melcher no longer lived there. In her original blabbing, Atkins said they'd known the previous occupier, Melcher, clearly implying they knew he wasn't there anymore. That's why the whole "random picking" element could stand up as part of the tale.

Kevin Marx said...

Atkins was talking about the time of the murders. Manson knew Melcher wasn't living there at the time of the phantom visit in March.

Cielodrive.com said...

Just a few things to consider regarding Hatami. For starters, Hatami never ID'd Manson in court. Hatami's testimony was just about the confrontation with a man whose description more-or-less fit Manson. Initially, Vince wanted to have Manson brought into court so Hatami could ID him (Manson and the girls were not in the courtroom at the time). Kanarek objected to this and wanted to have a hearing on it. There was a bit of a compromise and it was agreed that Vince would just question Hatami would only describe the man and the confrontation and Rudi would be called on to ID Manson. In chambers the following morning, word had gotten back to Older that the clerk had overheard Manson say he wanted to confront Hatami even though Kanarek was against it. Despite, Kanarek's objections Older felt Manson had a right to confront Hatami. Manson and the girls were brought into chambers and Older explained to Manson that he could confront Hatami.

---

THE COURT: All right.

Now, I think the right to confront a witness is a fundamental right that you may exercise notwithstanding your counsel. However, you should recognize fully at this point that this witness has not identified you and has made no effort to identify you.

Now, if you confront this witness and he makes an identification, in effect you have brought in evidence against yourself that is not now before the jury.

Do you understand that?

DEFENDANT MANSON: Is is not before the jury now!

THE COURT: No, there is nothing before the jury now. This mans has not identified you or made an attempt to identify you.

DEFENDANT MANSON: What is he testifying for then?

THE COURT: Well, apparently the People attempt to connect up this evidence with some evidence from another witness, according to what Mr. Bugliosi said.

DEFENDANT MANSON: They are building the thought with this man, aren't they?

THE COURT: They are placing a man at the scene in March of 1969.

This man did not say anything connecting you with that man.

---

Manson then decided not to confront Hatami at that time, but left the possibility open when they put on their defense. Manson and the girls did not want to return to the courtroom, so Hatami never saw Manson when he testified.

Hatami said he, himself was around 5' 8" and the man he encountered came up to his chin.

Kevin Marx said...

Thanks Cielo, much appreciated. Do you have his actual testimony handy as well?

I thought he did say that either Manson came to the door or maybe even walked thru the door at the main house?

grimtraveller said...

So, with all that in mind, Hatami's statement to Ed Sanders is ultimately much ado about nothing. He wasn't forced to lie. He didn't lie of his own free will. The prosecution was trying to circumstantially connect Charles Manson as being this mystery geezer who turned up in the afternoon via the testimony of Rudi Altobelli. VB was simply being VB in trying to overdramatize circumstantial stuff to try to prove guilt. In retrospect, with the benefit of hindsight, he's damn fortunate that he didn't have Hatami try to make the ID. Imagine if Hatami had said "that is not the man I saw" which he very well could have said. Bugliosi had no idea if the man Hatami saw was Manson. He assumed he was and that assumption is so plain to see in his book. It's become an urban myth that it was Charlie. It's by no means certain.
In his book Bugliosi already highlights the problem he faced by mentioning the time discrepancy but as he already had positive testimony from Altobelli that Charlie a]had been on the premises and b]that Charlie said that the people at the house had sent him to the guest house, then that paragraph in Sanders' book is a redder herring than usual.
Even more significant to the overall thrust of the story is the conversation Altobelli apparently had on the plane to Rome with Sharon the next day. Which guy was she referring to as the "creepy looking guy" ? We know she saw the man Hatami confronted because he told Bugliosi this. We know someone sent Charlie to the guest house in the evening. But we don't know that it was Sharon. So when it comes down to it, it is by no means conclusive that she ever set eyes on Charles Manson, just like at the Mama Cass party Michael Caine describes when he arrived after she'd left, in his attempt to add more mystery and spice than actually was ever there.
This is more of a "phooey~oo" than an oo~ee~oo....

Kevin Marx said...

Manson knew Melcher wasn't living there at the time of the phantom visit in March

That may be so. Rudi Altobelli said Manson said he was looking for Melcher. It's ambiguous as to whether he meant Charlie was looking for him at the house, still believing him to be there or looking for him where he had moved to and as the house was the last known address, started his inquiries there. Either fits.

Kevin Marx said...

"That may be so. Rudi Altobelli said Manson said he was looking for Melcher. It's ambiguous as to whether he meant Charlie was looking for him at the house, still believing him to be there or looking for him where he had moved to and as the house was the last known address, started his inquiries there. Either fits."

Come on Grim man get off the fence, you'll get splinters in your ass! :) You also forgot the third possible scenario - Altobelli was lying and the whole thing was a crock of shit.

"We know she saw the man Hatami confronted because he told Bugliosi this"

"We know someone sent Charlie to the guest house in the evening"

How exactly do we KNOW these things?

At the end of the day like many details we will never KNOW for certain, what really happened, if anything, on March 23rd - but for me, I THINK it makes more sense that Charlie wasn't there and the event was created for dramatic effect and to build up a picture of an angry rejected Manson.


Sun King said...

Going back to Grim's post in regards to using Manson as the man to have killed the 60's I would agree that Manson was just a convenient scapegoat.. a la Yoko broke up the Beatles (but lets not go there lol!)

The whole hippie 60's phenomenon was fueled by media hype to begin with it actually took the good sense of the stoned out hippies to try and tell the world, the show was over already in '67 and staged "The Death of the Hippie" ceremony, which was held on October 6, 1967.

So the hippies actually killed the 60's before Manson had a chance to ;) I guess it really comes down to who has the largest megaphone?

Cielodrive.com said...

Yes, I do have it. It's not in queue at the moment but it will be posted eventually

Kevin Marx said...

Thanks cielodrive :) - and its great to hear that there is a queue!

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

Come on Grim man get off the fence, you'll get splinters in your ass !

I don't sit on the fence. But I do try to be fair and I try to look at the various sides of a point or argument because my life experience and observations have taught me that few things are either solely this or that. Life isn't so convenient.
I don't hide my thoughts on Tate/La Bianca. I think the right people were banged up for their various crimes. I think that those that escaped justice like Mary & Gypsy later got banged up because they didn't have the sense to appreciate the warning they received in not facing initial justice and just carried on in actions that eventually brought them their Waterloo.
I also think that aspects of the case against Family members were found wanting and warrant looking at ~ but that this does not change the overall result. My posts reflect that. I hope.


You also forgot the third possible scenario - Altobelli was lying and the whole thing was a crock of shit

I have nothing to lose by considering it. Earlier, I stated "but all that aside, the person such a statement being untrue would cast real shadows over would be Rudi Altobelli. Hatami only enters the picture because Altobelli placed him there. That whole March '69 scenario came into being only because Altobelli said that Charlie came to the guest house and said that he'd been sent back there by the people at the main house. When asked who had been at the house he said 4 of the 5 Cielo victims. He also said Sharon asked him on the plane to Europe the next day if the creepy looking guy came back.
So the real villain of the piece here would be Altobelli, if he was lying and the question has to be asked, why would he drag Hatami into what was obviously a lie, especially as Hatami then had to be located and asked about it
." I clearly throw in the possibility that Altobelli was lying and said if he was, that he was the real villain of the piece, to which you countered "the person that this shines a spotlight on is Bug – showing the lengths he would go to enhance a minor part of the case to paint a picture, set the scene etc" because you are determined to follow the line of "but what it does show, is that something which people suspected for years did happen - people were pressurised to lie on the stand."
If Cielodrive.com hadn't posted that trial transcript, your reasoning would still be seen by some to be valid. That transcript, at least in regard to anything about Hatami, ends that line of thinking.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

"We know she saw the man Hatami confronted because he told Bugliosi this"

"We know someone sent Charlie to the guest house in the evening"

How exactly do we KNOW these things?


How exactly do you know anything that occurred at a time or in a place you weren't there ?
At some point, you have to take on board things that a person says. If it is shown to be false, you disregard it, either at the time or whenever it's fakery comes to light. At the time, if someone challenges it, you weigh up the statement and the challenge and decide which you believe to be right by a vigorous process. Hatami's testimony is interesting because he never identifies Charlie, just some guy with long hair that needed a shave that he sent to the guest house "once." I already said, it could have been anyone. I would never stake my life on the fact it was Charlie because I don't know that.
When I use a term like "know" in relation to this case, you need to exercise a little leeway or there's no point in anyone talking about anything. I don't believe Hatami lied because as has been shown in retrospect, his testimony says nothing about Charles Manson. It does not place him at Cielo. Hatami doesn't appear to have been reluctant to say he sent a guy to the back house once. What he was reluctant to do was say he sent Charles Manson.
So he didn't.
It's ironic that both Charlie and Bugliosi wanted Hatami for their own reasons in court with regard to ID and both at the end of the day were pretty fortunate that neither got that. Neither man knew what Hatami was going to say and it could have damaged both men depending on what he would have said. If he had seen Charlie and said, "yeah, that's him" then CM is damaged {though not irreparably} and if he had said "no, I've never seen him before" then VB is damaged {but not irreparably}.
I initially thought that Charlie wanted him because he knew he'd not been the man Hatami spoke to {notwithstanding Family Archives' bit about the Iranian dealing drugs from Cielo} but he was pretty quick to withdraw wanting to see him when the Judge pointed out it could be worse for him if Hatami did ID him, which then makes one wonder.....

As for the guest house incident I can only go by what Altobelli said that Charlie told him. He is supposed to have said he was sent there by people at the main house. According to Bugliosi, he was scared and the first thing he wanted to know was if he had to testify. Knowing he would, would he go ahead and lie ?





grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

At the end of the day like many details we will never KNOW for certain, what really happened, if anything, on March 23rd

I agree with that. It's an irrelevant day. It was a Sunday. I remember that because it was exactly a month after I turned 6 and it used to fascinate me that all the days of March replicated those of February except in a leap year and my birthday was a sunday that year. I still vaguely remember the party I had because I had to share it with my younger sister {I'm not up to a year older than her} and it was the first one I'd ever had.


the event was created for dramatic effect and to build up a picture of an angry rejected Manson

I absolutely agree. Like I said earlier, the story was something of a damp squib. VB was eager for it to mean something, hence him saying "we now had evidence that Manson had seen one of the victims" when in actuality that cannot be established ~ and wasn't at the time.
According to the juror William Zamora in "Trial by your peers" Hatami was given a picture of Manson to ID and said it resembled the man he saw
that day. Obviously he could not and did not ID it so it rather blows the dramatic emphasis of what the prosecution was hoping for. If you look at the main photo of Paul McCartney on the white album photo sheet, it could've been him ! Lots of men of the period had that look.
Altobelli on the other hand was positive in his ID of Charlie because he'd met him before. Zamora says he and Irving Kanarek had a right verbal ding dong in court.

Cielodrive.com said...

Also, when Rudi testified, they brought Manson into court for Rudi to ID. Rudi identified Manson as the man that came to his door in March 69. During this, Manson didn't say a word. Manson certainly didn't have a problem speaking his mind throughout all of his trials. Yet, here he is silent. Seems odd that he would not challenge Rudi if what Rudi was saying was untrue.

Kevin Marx said...

Hi Grim,

My splinter remark was specifically directed at the comment you made at the time positing two theories for Manson being at the house but not saying which one you thought was likely. For clarity on my part, I agree the right people are locked up but the extent to which Charlie was either “directing traffic” or merely “walking the line” (re TLB), is what interests me most. I think, despite being “in the air” HS was not the motive and neither was revenge on TM – for me, I lean towards a drug burn as the most likely motive (I think at the time of the murders the Manson gang were more criminal than revolutionary).

Ultimately it’s almost certainly a futile pursuit to try and get to the truth, regarding motive – as demonstrated by our discussion in this very thread. In that, new information, only provokes more debate, rather than settling any issues.

I agree leeway has to be given when making any statements about this case, because at the end of the day once you go past the incontrovertible facts of who was killed, how, when and where then literally EVERYTHNG else surrounding it is up for debate. However, with all due respect, when you respond to posts you microscopically analyse every single word looking for inconsistencies, transgressions, ambiguity, etc.

So if you’re going to do that then surely you should hold yourself to the same exacting standards and not leave anything to chance and preface absolutely everything you say with all the various possibilities, qualifications etc. Personally, I am more than happy to to give leeway, and if I understand the general thrust of what someone is saying that is good enough. I think you may have missed your calling in life and you should have been a lawyer – are you sure you’re not related to Kanarek? Lol

As to the extent of the relevance of Hatami’s statement to ES (bearing in mind Cielodrive.com’s confirmation that he didn’t actually ID Manson) I think in the bigger scheme of things, the actual "events" on March 23rd, mean little, but it’s how those events were possibly manipulated, or the attempt at manipulation, that is relevant.
To be honest, I am unclear from what ES stated, as to whether this means that either a) Hatami said to VB/Whitson that someone called but it wasn’t Manson (and he was being pressured to say it was Manson) or b) no-one called at all (to the main house at least) and he was being pressured to say that someone did (the inference being it was Manson). I suspect the latter.

For me, I’m done on this topic in this particular thread so I’ll leave the last word to you. Right now I’m all hatamied out and am going to change gears and forums and discuss something much more important - how LFC can batter the Mancs this coming Sunday! :)

Matt, Debs, Patty and Ann – hope our long winded discussion of this event doesn’t detract from the post you’re doing to review the book – I didn’t think my response to Robert’s request for a comment was going to grow legs and run like it did!

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

change gears and forums and discuss something much more important - how LFC can batter the Mancs this coming Sunday!

With both sides coming off the back of 3-3 draws it should be interesting if nothing else. We're rather up and down at the moment {we have a -2 goal difference !} but UTD have been positively snore~worthy.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

I didn’t think my response to Robert’s request for a comment was going to grow legs and run like it did!

Sometimes the ones you think will get loads of responses and go on forever don't. Other times the seemingly obscure and "not very interesting" posts actually touch a nerve and get the mind working. I've thought more about Hatami in this last week than in the whole of the previous 38 years !

our long winded discussion of this event

Depending on the subject, obviously, but I find the long discussions to be generally fruitful. For me, the more that are involved or the more the subject at hand is looked into with a searingly bright light, the more chance of sealing loopholes and arriving at some kind of conclusion. At the very least, one has much to chew on. I'm not really into unsubstantiated pithy one liners that are every bit as lazy and assumptive as much of the stuff the media is often charged with fostering. Public blogs have their down sides, true, but the benefit of people that pose difficult questions and are thinking things through in ways that people never had a chance to really do circa '69~'71 greatly outweighs the chaff one has to put up with.

Right now I’m all hatamied out

That's a great one. I might start using that to describe when my brain is dull due to looking at a subject ad infinitum !

I think you may have missed your calling in life and you should have been a lawyer – are you sure you’re not related to Kanarek?

Law enforcement usually looks great and well exciting on telly or film, whether it's cops, lawyers or judges, but having sat in on various cases, either as a spectator or the accused, in real life they come across as monotonous and pretty boring. Like most things, you have to love it. Even the supposedly thrilling cases are full of boring and lengthy parts that would drive me to distraction. No wonder Bugliosi tried to make it living theatre.
By the way, I'm related to some people a lot more time consuming than Irving Kanarek !

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

My splinter remark was specifically directed at the comment you made at the time positing two theories for Manson being at the house but not saying which one you thought was likely

I was taking into account that what you said may be true, Charlie already knowing that Melcher had left. Of course, it would then pose the question as to why he was at Cielo in the first place. I think he was there.
Just out of interest, can you point to where you got the info that Manson already knew that Melcher had left by March '69 ?

the extent to which Charlie was either “directing traffic” or merely “walking the line” (re TLB), is what interests me most

Having read and watched interviews over the years of Charlie and absorbed "Goodbye Helter Skelter", as far as Spahn was concerned, he is not the kind of geezer to merely walk the line. He may have done so in jail where he was a tiny fish in a huge pond that knew how to survive, but not with that crowd of youngsters. Sorry mate, he was directing traffic far more efficiently and creatively than the entirety of mankind's methods for vehicle control ! Charles Watson's role in TLB was kind of like that of Herbie Hancock, Tony Williams or Joe Zawinul in the Miles Davies jazz outfits of the 60s. They wrote, they propelled, they helped shape, they were young and provided the necessary excitement and firepower...but it was Miles' band, everyone knew it and he dictated the direction, he left the spaces for improvisation, he decided whose songs got recorded and he curbed Hancock's propensity for overplaying and prevented him using too many notes in the chords....just like Charlie. He says words to that effect in parts of George's book. George's explanation {age and experience} goes a long way towards demonstrating how things turned out the way they did and it's an often overlooked part of the narrative but it shows that directing traffic was synonymous with Charlie, even though that's not the intention.

I think, despite being “in the air” HS was not the motive and neither was revenge on TM

I don't think revenge on Terry Melcher had anything to do with anything. Charlie had his fun with Terry by nicking his telescope at his new place.
Part of the reason I think HS was part of the motive is primarily because of Waverley, not Cielo. Had death stopped at Cielo, even with the weight of {circumstantial} evidence to suggest Charlie wanted to begin the countdown to "the shit coming down" that he'd been talking about since early '68, you could have argued that it would not be sufficient to demonstrate any commitment to furthering some kind of quasi biblical prediction.
Going out the next night smacks that squarely on the head.
In his closing argument, Bugliosi actually said HS was not the motive for the women. I agree with him, though not in the case of Leslie.

grimtraveller said...

Kevin Marx said...

Ultimately it’s almost certainly a futile pursuit to try and get to the truth, regarding motive

Au contraire Monsieur, it's a futile pursuit to try and demonstrate that what was presented was not the truth. The onus is on the detractor to do this and all these years later all we have are boxes of red herrings and the names of a wide range of people dragged through the mud.
Before the killers left Spahn, Charlie said to the women that they knew what to write, a sign, "something witchy" {I love that phrase}. He admits this openly to Diane Sawyer in 1994. At Cielo, Tex told Susan to write something in blood that would shock the world. Susan told her cellmate they wanted to do a crime that would shock the world. She told her lawyer in 1969

"There was a comment made that what had happened had served it’s purpose, that was to instill fear in man himself.

PAUL CARUSO: The establishment?

SUSAN ATKINS: The establishment. That’s what it was done for. To instill fear – to cause a paranoia. To also show black man how to go about taking over white man."
The Man was a phrase used to describe the establishment {or the police}. And that interview was not with police or prosecution or LE of any kind.
What they did on those two nights, like much of what they did, was in furtherance of their general goal of seeing a change come and sticking it to the man.

However, with all due respect, when you respond to posts you microscopically analyse every single word looking for inconsistencies, transgressions, ambiguity, etc.

I don't look for those things. But I sometimes find them. It's the nature of debate. Each of us should be able to explain what we say. Stifling that means that what one really wants is one way conversation. If I disagree with or feel to query something a person says, I'm not going to keep quiet just because it is thought I talk too much or pour into every comma, Kanarek style !

So if you’re going to do that then surely you should hold yourself to the same exacting standards

I do. If someone has something to say about what I've said, I'll answer it. I don't object to having my words, thoughts or ideas picked apart. Not since Lois Graessle got hold of me back in '88....

grimtraveller said...

christopher butche said...

Apparently Hendrix was nearby renting property at the time of the murders. Imagine how small a group the pro-Manson would be if Tex had picked that house

It probably would have been more effective in igniting HS though ! Look how there was rioting in at least 10 cities across the USA after Martin Luther King was shot dead just a year previously.

degenerati said...

Can anyone tell me the name / number of the chapter in The Family that includes the Process Church info ( that was excised from later printings )? My copy says ' first Avon printing May, 1972 '. In the chapter titled ' Sleazo Inputs' there is mention of The Church of the Final Judgement, leaving out the 'Process' - this leads me to think I have an excised copy. Not sure though...need some expert input ! A little help , please ?

DebS said...

You have a paperback edition of the book and the "forbidden" chapter was not in the paperbacks. Chapter 5, The Process, was removed as well as a portion of Chapter 6, The Spahn Movie Ranch, detailing the goings on with Father P and Pussycat. There were also places here and there where The Process was mention which were also removed.