Monday, February 22, 2016

Gary Hinman's Bus -- Again

There are two basic versions of the events that led up the murder of Gary Hinman at his home on Old Topanga Canyon Road on July 25-27, 1969. The first version is that Charles Manson believed that Hinman had come into an inheritance and sent Bobby Beausoleil, Susan Atkins, and Mary Brunner over to Hinman's house to get that inheritance from him, by violent means if necessary.

The second version is that Hinman sold some mescaline to Beausoleil who in turn sold it to the Straight Satans Motorcycle Club. When the Satans claimed that the mescaline was bad and demanded their money back, Beausoleil went to Hinman's house to get a refund on the transaction and events escalated into his murder. 

It is worth looking at these two motive versions in some detail, but before we do this we should understand why discerning the correct motive is important.

Gary Hinman's house at 964 Old Topanga Canyon Road
(Photo courtesy of Cielodrive.com)


Why does it matter? 

If the first motive version (the strong-arm robbery gone bad scenario) is true, it reinforces the perception of Charles Manson and the people around him as being violently murderous sociopaths who would stop at nothing in order to further their own interests. If the second motive version (a drug deal gone bad) is true it reinforces an alternative perception of those same persons being caught up in unfortunate criminal circumstances that spiraled out of control and culminated in murder. 

The determination of motive is also important because if a preponderance of evidence supports the drug deal scenario it also reinforces that idea that Charles Manson was not the originating force behind the incident, which further reinforces  the viewpoint that Manson was not the impetus behind all of the illegal activity that emanated from Spahn's Movie Ranch in the summer of 1969.



Looking at the two versions --

The first motive version is the one presented by the prosecution at the various Hinman murder trials. It has also been reiterated in numerous books and media statements regarding the crime. The reason for this is obvious --  it was the only scenario that demonstrated any criminal intent for any of the defendants besides Bobby Beausoleil. But what real evidence is there that Hinman was killed during an attempt to obtain his money and belongings?

Several people (Bruce Davis at his parole hearings, and Kitty Lutesinger and Danny DeCarlo at Bobby Beausoleil's second murder trial) said that Beausoleil, Mary Brunner, and Susan Atkins were going to Hinman's "to get money." This "get money" reason has been advanced to show that the Hinman homicide was the result of a strong-arm robbery gone bad. Maybe so, but yet there is nothing in the general  contention that people went to Hinman's "to get money" that doesn't also jibe with the idea that people went to Hinman's "to get money" as a refund for the Satans on their dope deal. (There are variations in the amount of money people were supposed to "get." Danny DeCarlo has said both $20,000 and $10,000.  Mary Brunner was not sure, saying either $3,000 or $30,000. Susan Atkins, in her book Child of Satan, Child of God, said $12,000. Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson say that the amount was $1,000.) Also, although there has been much contention that Manson sent Beausoleil to Hinman's to get a supposed inheritance (or, as Ella Jo Bailey testified at Beausoleil's first trial (which ended with a hung jury) because it was thought that he owned his house and stocks and bonds) this aspect of "get money" was not introduced at Beausoleil's second trial where he was successfully convicted. Was it not mentioned because the prosecution knew that it was nebulous? Remember, trials are where contentions might have to be supported by actual evidence, as opposed to books, media statements, or even statements to police, where no rules of evidence are in effect.

There is no corroborating evidence that supports the "get Gary's inheritance" scenario. And this is not surprising, because there was no inheritance. As to the witness statements that allegedly support the inheritance theory, let's be serious: Any cop or prosecutor will tell you that eyewitness testimony, although sometimes effective on the stand, is actually the worst kind of evidence that you can take into a criminal proceeding. Why? Because there's simply too much opportunity for the witness to be mistaken, or to intentionally lie out of animus towards the defendant, or for other reasons such as being offered deals regarding charges pending against them (See DeCarlo, Ella Jo Bailey) in exchange for what the prosecution believes to be "truthful testimony" (i.e., testimony damaging to the defendant). And as we have seen, there was no introduction of the "get the inheritance" motive at the second and successful prosecution of Bobby Beausoleil. 

So, the only evidence that supports the "strong-arm robbery gone wrong" motive theory is eyewitness testimony from questionable witnesses. There is nothing else to corroborate it. 

To date, most of the "drug deal gone bad" motive has come from two of the persons convicted of murdering Hinman, Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson.  Beausoleil has given several versions of the crime at his various parole hearings, but for his past several sessions with the parole board he has stuck with one version, and it is worth going into some detail here. A good synopsis can be found in Beausoleil's 2003 parole hearing, where he explained the particulars of the drug deal scenario thusly: 

"Well, it was a couple of days before Gary was killed…. [The Straight Satans Motorcycle Club], I was looking up to these guys. I kind of – I was kind of romanticized that their lifestyle was something that I liked. I kind of thought they were cool. I was young, and these guys were 10 – 15 years older than me. And I wanted to impress them, and they were going to have a party at Venice Beach. I wanted them to invite me. I wanted to go along on the party. They said that they wanted to – it was like a ten-year anniversary party for the, you know, for their ten-year motorcycle club anniversary, or something like that. And they wanted to score something different, some psychedelics for their party. And I thought that I might be able to impress them to, you know, to kind of get in with them if I were to set up a deal for them. I knew someone in Topanga Canyon who made mescaline out of peyote cactus buds. That was Gary Hinman. I’d known Gary for a couple of years, and I saw an opportunity to sort of ingratiate myself in these – with these people. So I set up a deal. It was 1,000 tabs or capsules of homemade mescaline for 1,000 dollars. [But] the next day [after the mescaline was delivered to the club], [they] came back to the Spahn Ranch and essentially [they] kind of beat me up. You know. They hit me in the stomach and, you know, pushed me around and held a knife up to my throat and said they wanted the money back because I had sold them bunk. They said that they had gotten sick on the drugs, and they wanted their money back. So I told them I would do everything I could to get the money back."

Some people have decried the description of Gary Hinman as a "drug dealer" as a libel against a dead person unable to defend himself, but it is worth noting that the term "drug dealer" can be used to describe a wide variety of individuals, from the stereotypical image of the shady character peddling narcotics on the schoolyard to someone who is merely a friend who can get you drugs. Hinman likelier fit more into the latter category. (In the 2009 HIstory Channel "docudrama" Manson Tate-LaBianca prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi said that Hinman "furnished drugs to the Family." The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office referred to Hinman's involvement with illegal drugs in a letter mentioned at Bobby Beausoleil's 1985 parole hearing. And finally, from the August 22, 1969 police report on the investigation into HInman's murder comes this: "A home made scale was observed in a kitchen cupboard containing a white powder on one pan. The pan and powder was taken for examination…. The white material in the balance pan was negative for narcotics." 

Los Angeles County Sheriff's investigative report on the 
finding of a scale at Gary Hinman's residence


In 1969 there was no test in routine use by law enforcement agencies that would have identified a suspect substance as mescaline, which, when processed from peyote buds, is in the form of a white powder

Powdered mescaline processed from peyote buds


It has been asked why, if Gary Hinman was manufacturing mescaline at his house, no drug-making paraphernalia was found at his residence by law enforcement officers investigating his murder. The answer to that question is simple: Because one doesn't need specialized equipment to manufacture mescaline out of peyote. Everyday items such as pots and pans, a candy thermometer, and straining cloths do the job nicely (and could easily be missed by cops investigating a homicide and thus not necessarily looking for subtle evidence of drug brewing). The procedure is not particularly difficult, but it does require concentration, and there are numerous steps involved, any one of which if done incorrectly could result in a bad batch. (See http://www.clearwhitelight.org/hatter/extract.htm)

Of great interest to me regarding the Gary Hinman homicide has been the question of what became of Gary Hinman's 1958 VW bus? The answer to this seemingly ancillary query is actually quite important. Bobby Beausoleil claims that he took both of Hinman's vehicles in order to settle the debt he owed to the Straight Satans because of the botched mescaline deal. And if the bus was indeed given to the Satans that would be strong circumstantial evidence in support of Beausoleil's contention that the entire Hinman affair was an effort to satisfy a debt owed to the motorcycle club and not a general "get his money at any cost" scheme. According to Beausoleil and Manson, the bus was taken from Hinman's residence after his murder to give to the Straight Satans as payment for the money they had lost in the mescaline deal. As Beausoleil recalled at his 2003 parole hearing, "….[Hinman] had a couple of old cars, and he offered to sign these over to -- as something that I could take to the bike club that might be worth $1,000."

And that is exactly what seems to have happened to it. 

Let's look at these entries from police investigative reports into the Gary Hinman homicide that touch upon the fate of Hinman's bus after it was taken from his residence following his murder (reports courtesy of the excellent researchers and archivists at Cielodrive.com).

From the supplementary report to the Hinman murder investigation dated January 20, 1970: 

"MR. PUTTEK states that he purchased the 1958 Volkswagen van, that formerly belonged to GARY HINMAN from MARK AARONSON. He described MARK AARONSON as having his front teeth missing, wavy brown hair, 125-130 pounds, 29 years of age, the tattoo on one of his forearms approximately three inches in length. MR. PUTTEK states that he met MARK AARONSON through MARK ROTH…..

"MR. PUTTEK stated that he was told after his arrest on October 8, 1969 [Puttek was arrested and charged with murder after having been pulled over while driving a murder victim's vehicle.], that MARK AARONSON had been given the bus on the ranch by CHARLIE MANSON. He stated that he never worried about title to the bus because he was given the pink slip, and it was signed and dated by GARY HINMAN. He stated that he altered the date to avoid paying penalties to the Department of Motor Vehicles…. (Emphasis added)
"
MR. PUTTEK was asked if he recalled the names of any of the other people who might have been at the ranch or that he met who frequented the ranch. He stated that he remembers the name JOE SHOMMACHER. He describes JOE as 27 years of age, 6 feet 4 inches, brown wavy hair with a mustache and beard. He stated that JOE had a Chopper Harley Davidson Bike and frequently drove a dunebuggy…. He stated that JOE went with MARY ROMMICH two or three weeks after she and MR. PUTTEK broke up. 

"He was then asked to view pictures of people associated with the ranch and CHARLIE MANSON. He states that he saw a picture of HAROLD TRUE and thought possibly MARK ROTH had it. He states that the picture of THOMAS ALDEN [Walleman?] aka TJ appeared familiar. He identified the picture of MARK BLOODWORTH DAMIAN as the person he knew as MARK AARONSON,  and the individual who sold him the 1958 Volkswagen Van belonging to GARY HINMAN.  He stated that the picture of ELLA BAILEY seems familiar but he does not recall why…. He also indicated that the picture of BRUCE MC GREGAR DAVIS appeared familiar as did the picture of MARK WALTZ."

From the February 20, 1970 supplementary report to the Hinman murder investigation: 

"On 7-31-69, Gary A. Hinman was found at 964 Old Topanga Canyon Road, Topanga Canyon, the victim of a homicide. Investigation revealed that two or the victim's cars were taken from location and the victim was forced to sign the pink slips over.

"On 10-8-6, LOUIS JOHN PUHECK was arrested driving the victim's 1958 Volkswagen bus, [license number] PGE 388, Mr. Puheck was advised of his Constitutional rights, which he waived. He stated in the middle of August, 1969, he met a Mark Bloodworth (a.k.a MARK AARONSON) and paid him $350 in cash for the above vehicle. Mr. Puheck further related S/Aaronson gave him the pink slip signed by the victim and told him he hadn't changed the registration."

From the supplementary report to the Hinman murder investigation dated March 17, 1970: 

 "…. a week prior to the Hinman murder, in the late part of July, Charles Manson stated to [Danny] De Carlo, 'We're going to Gary's house and get $10,000 one way or another.'

"On 3-12-70 Mark Arneson, **** Hawthorne, was arrested by LAPD Officer [name deleted], #11951, Venice Division, at 83rd Street and Fordham in Los Angeles, pursuant to Division 64 Warrant #A059953 charging A96 PC. Arneson was subsequently transferred to West Hollywood Station and interviewed by Deputy Charles Guenther. 

"Arneson stated he went to the Spahn Ranch in July or August, 1969 and had a conversation with Charles Manson in the accompaniment of Robert Beausoleil in the salon [sic] building. He stated that Manson asked him if he would like to have a car and he replied 'Yes.' Manson and Beausoleil and himself got into a 1965 white station wagon with the engine sticking out of the front (Beausoleil driving) and went to the rear of Spahn Ranch where a 1956 Volkswagen Micro-bus, red and white in color, with a large eagle painted on the sides, which was parked among the trees. 
"Manson got out of the station wagon and showed Arneson how to hot-wire the car and started it. Manson started the vehicle and drove it back to the saloon building and gave Arneson the pink slip to the vehicle. Manson stated to Arneson, 'If you get stopped by the cops, tell them you bought the vehicle from Gary HInman, who is a Negro wearing a black beret and black jacket.'
"Arneson stated a few weeks later, he sold the vehicle to Louis Pubeck. The vehicle was subsequently recovered and the registered and legal owner is Gary Hinman."

What do all of these reports tell us other than the fact that LAPD and LASO officers had trouble recording the correct names of individuals they interviewed? (Misters Puttek, Puheck, and Pubeck are obviously the same person, as are Misters Aaronson and Arneson.) They tell us that Gary Hinman's VW bus was given to Mark Aaronson at Spahn's Ranch around the end of July or early August of 1969 by Charles Manson in the company of Bobby Beausoleil. And who is Mark Aaronson? According to the January 20, 1970 police report, he was an associate of  Joe Schumacher. Now although Joe Schumacher was not a member of the Straight Satans, his brother John was. And the description of Joe ("He describes JOE as 27 years of age, 6 feet 4 inches, brown wavy hair with a mustache and beard. He stated that JOE had a Chopper Harley Davidson Bike and frequently drove a dune buggy…. ") suggests that he at least had a passing familiarity with the biker lifestyle (as does the description of Mark Aaronson, "having his front teeth missing, wavy brown hair, 125-130 pounds, 29 years of age, the tattoo on one of his forearms approximately three inches in length.") And how well acquainted was Louis Puheck (his actual name) with the Joe Schumacher? He knew him well enough to know his correct age and well enough that his girlfriend Mary Rommich started going with Schumacher after she broke up with him. 

Joe Schumacher was well enough acquainted with Spahn's Ranch and the people who lived there that one of his addresses listed for him in Police Lieutenant Earl Deemer's list of "The Family" and related characters is that of the ranch. The list also notes that Schumacher was "FIR'd" (interviewed briefly for law enforcement for a field interrogation report) while he was associating with "Family members." (Mark Aaronson also had a lengthy familiarity with "the Family," having been arrested with them as early as April 21, 1968 during a bust in Oxnard, California.)

In sum, Gary Hinman's bus was given to a known close associate of the Straight Satans motorcycle club. 

That's Gary Hinman's bus behind the exhibit tag


Whenever there is a discrepancy in the testimonies of individuals a person can choose to believe whichever version fits the scenario they want to believe. Thus, people who want to believe that the Hinman murder was the fatal end result of a strong-arm robbery can believe the statements and testimonies of Danny DeCarlo, Ella Jo Bailey, etc. A person who wants to believe the drug deal scenario can believe the statements of Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson. To the extent that one relies on witness statement to bolster a case it seems here to be a classic "they said/they said" situation. But in this case the latter "they said" version is supported by the physical evidence of the fact that Gary Hinman's VW bus was indeed given to very close associates of the Straight Satans by Charles Manson and Bobby Beausoleil. There is no corroborating evidence for the strong-arm robbery theory. Gary Hinman had no inheritance, and in fact he had very little material possessions of any value at all. 

Conclusion --

To stick with the strong-arm robbery theory, one would have to be willing to believe that Charles Manson thought Gary Hinman had an inheritance and ordered Bobby Beausoleil to get it from him no matter what it took. When Hinman wouldn't turn over the money that he didn't have, things escalated to the point where he was injured and eventually killed. Manson, apparently desperate enough for Hinman's possessions that he was willing to order murder in order to obtain them, then gave away those possessions. Even assuming Charles Manson's alleged craziness, does that make sense? Why would anyone be so intent on gaining another person's property that he would commit murder to get it, only to give that property away? The answer to that question is the obvious one: He wouldn't. (You can't say that he wanted to get rid of the bus because he thought it was too hot after the murder, because if that was the case why not simply abandon it somewhere? Why give it to persons who could later testify that you had it? Or why take the vehicles at all? Why not just leave them at Hinman's house?)

Unless someone can come up with a credible and evidence-supported reason for the "strong-arm robbery gone wrong" theory to be correct, the only reasonable alternative reason for the murder is the one advanced by Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson -- that he was killed as the result of a drug deal gone wrong. And if Gary Hinman was killed as the result of a drug deal gone bad, that not only goes against the stereotype of Charles Manson being an orderer of murders, but it also supports the theory of the chain of events that led to the "get brother out of jail" motive that was the true reason for the Tate-LaBianca murders. 

What could turn the previously carefree and non-violent Bobby Beausoleil into someone who could bludgeon and stab another person to death? Ruling out a sudden and inexplicable metamorphosis into a sociopathic hit man, a likelier explanation is that he had recently had such violence visited upon himself -- as he recalled in his 2003 parole hearing, "[The Straight Satans] came back to the Spahn Ranch and essentially [they] kind of beat me up. You know. They hit me in the stomach and, you know, pushed me around and held a knife up to my throat and said they wanted the money back because I had sold them bunk."

So Beausoleil decided to take care of the problem himself, and he did it with ill advice from other persons. And that was a tragic mistake. Because the Straight Satans just wanted their money back.They didn't care if the money came from Hinman or from the man in the moon. If Bobby Beausoleil had called his mother and said, "Mom, I'm in a jam. Can you wire me $1,000" and she did, the Satans would have been satisfied with that money. And none of the murders that now so interest us would ever even have happened.






71 comments:

AustinAnn74 said...

That poor Gary Hinman can't catch a break from this blog. Whatever Gary Hinman did in life has nothing to do with those animals going inside of his house and murdering him. NOTHING! This drug dealer angle is straight out of BB's mouth, yet you never hear his fellow crime partners (living or dead) say anything remotely similar to his version of the crime. This reminds me of a quote from a true crime book I just got finished reading, in which the author talks about meeting killers. It reminds me so much of BB:

"Others may debate if evil exists in this world; I've looked it in the eye. In courtrooms, in prison interviews, killers describe how lives were taken. Sometimes there's sadness, the belated realization that wrong has been done, yet more often, years later, there's no empathy for the victim. Instead, even when a murder is admitted, I've witness an indignant righteousness, an entitled anger, a scowl as a killer describes a victim, one that implies the dead bear the blame. The victim was flawed, he/she caused the events that led to her/his death, or she/he was simply too accessible, not careful enough, and that led to her/his murder."

CarolMR said...

Does it really matter that much what the motive was? They were murderers, either way. They tortured that poor man (and Manson participated in that torture) before they killed him.

Manson Family Archives said...

As I wrote in my own essay, DeCarlo's name also came up when questioning Puhek.

St Circumstance said...

"reinforces that idea that Charles Manson was not the originating force behind the incident, which further reinforces the viewpoint that Manson was not the impetus behind all of the illegal activity that emanated from Spahn's Movie Ranch in the summer of 1969."


George isn't this really the point of your whole post? To try and put as much distance between Charlie and the crimes as possible?

Its a nice job of writing and your a strong advocate for your point. But you gave less evidence than I did and, all I am trying to convince people that we cant be sure.

In your own example Charlie asks the guy if he wants a car.

So again- why isn't Charlie or Bobby giving the car to them and saying 'this is for the money I owe you"? why ask him if he wants it without mentioning how and why they got it- if it was to placate one of them or someone they know? Why wasn't the stolen vehicle taken straight to the Straight Satan's if it was so important to pay them back? Why does the burn/payback part of any conversation never get recorded or testified to?

Charlie ( who had nothing to do with this you say)asks an associate of the SS if he wants a car, and that is proof it was taken to settle a score for Bobby burning the SS on a drug deal? That makes sense to you?

Bobby himself was talking about inheritance and robbery before he was talking about drug burn, so the fair thing to do is put up all Bobby's versions of the crime- compare them with the versions from the others who were there, look at what physical evidence exists to support any/all versions, and then let everyone draw their own conclusions.

But that isn't going to work for some people.Because there just isn't enough evidence of either to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt as it stands. At the time, all anyone could prove was that Gary was dead and Bobby was lying. That was good enough to put him away and its good enough for me.

St Circumstance said...

But big picture message...

To some Charlie had nothing to do with TLB. He had nothing to do with Gary. He was a guitar playing, peace loving, animal/environment protecting, groovy guy who did no wrong. Charlie was an older, experienced, street-wise con. Yet, some ask us to believe that a bunch of younger, less experienced kids, with no real criminal background prior to meeting charlie, caused all the trouble and Charlie just got caught up in it while trying to stay out of the way...

Charlie beat young girls- they wanted it /he was teaching a lesson

Charlie shot Crowe and left him for dead- it was self defense

Charlie gave drugs to 15 year old girls- it was the times everyone did it

Charlie raped people- nobody ever deals with this one lol

Charlie robbed and stole- he was taking care of his family- supporting his friends

TLB- Jay and Voytek dealt drugs- Sharon wasn't supposed to be there. Charlie never went to Cielo and Charlie really went next door when they went to Labianca.

Gary- Bobby got burned by drugs

TLB trial- Charlie didn't get a fair defense and wasn't allowed to represent himself indefinitely and in any manner he chose.


Come on Man. You want to be taken seriously-you have to be fair. People understand an agenda when every argument is so one sided. We get it. Some of you want Charlie out.

I fear for most of you though that you will spend much time and energy in vain.

Charlie is never going anywhere. He will die where he is. Alone and mumbling his nonsense to himself. The crimes and the victims were all a big joke and game to Charlie and the others when they occurred. Life has a way of not being so funny though in the long run.

So while I think its fair to try and argue Charlie's innocence in Hinman if you believe in it. And while I have no idea what the true reason they went over to torture Gary is...

trying to stain Gar's reputation, or insinuate he brought his own slaying upon himself in a useless attempt to protect the reputation of a career criminal who is NEVER leaving jail alive is kind of pointless as well as tasteless. Isn't that sort of self-defeating? It isn't going to help Charlie get out of jail at this point...

And most people will just get defensiveness when you attack the character of a man who was slain in his own home by people he had offered help and friendship to.

So if the point is to prove that Gary got burned by drugs to help Bobby get a date, because it makes him more sympathetic to the board- I sort of, at least, understand it. But if the point is to make another case that Charlie had nothing to do with anything, and should not be in jail....

I say the same thing about Charlies involvement in Hinman as I do to the true motive for Gary's death:

I am not really sure- but am glad that both Charlie and Bobby are where they belong for the terrible things they did and the people and families they hurt.

:)

George Stimson said...

First of all, replying quickly because I'm getting ready to go on the road for the day, I'm in no way implying that Gary HInman "asked" to be murdered. He was an unfortunate victim, no doubt.
St., all of your characterizations about what I'm saying are off the mark. For example, I have NEVER said that Charlie had nothing to do with TLB (and neither has he). Just wait until I get ahold of you in LA!
There was much more supporting evidence for the thrust of this article in its original version. That material was left out at my source's request. But eventually it will come out and it will support my theory 100%.

St Circumstance said...

I look forward to hearing about your source, and the SS video coming out shortly.

But mostly I look forward to hanging out in LA lol.

You are a smart and thoughtful guy George. People should listen to you because of that and because you have access to information most of us don't.

If you have facts to prove I am anxious to see and hear them.

However posts like this will draw the Charlie/ Bobby fanatics and that was who my comments are really directed at....

Those who are not interested in truth but just want to support the convicted because they are turned on by the darkness this case is surrounded in.

they are out there.

George Stimson said...

I'll be talking to you soon enough!

St Circumstance said...

Lol. Yes you will :)

starviego said...

Was there ever corroborating testimony from the Straight Satans to back up the "bad drugs" theory?

---------

I think mescaline as a street drug is more myth than reality. Most of what was sold as 'mescaline' was something else like strychnine, LSD, or PCP.

George Stimson said...

"Was there ever corroborating testimony from the Straight Satans to back up the "bad drugs" theory?"

Short answer, yes.

Robert Hendrickson said...

IN the previous POST I infer that Bernie Saunders is a Socialist / Communist and Jenn responds that Saunders is NOT a Communist. Isn't that kind'a the situation we have here with the HINMAN murder.

There are those WHO will actually investigate as to the similarities / differences between Socialists and Communists and there are those WHO will simply let their emotions / media be their guide.

IN the previous POST Penny Lane and I discuss the issue of the WACO massacre. AND again the matter turns on whether one "investigates" (like search out the Linda Thompson video tape) OR simply accept the "government's" version of events that claim David Korish was an EVIL Satanic character who brainwashed HIS followers to ALL commit suicide.

So IF you really want to intelligently discuss the Hinman murder, in a comprehensive manner, why NOT investigate the REAL motive for putting the "Black Panther" paw print on the wall. Cause , at the time, The F.B.I, all law enforcement and the media were obsessed with the Black Panther Party taking over America, to the extent, the F.B.I. and local law enforcement were conducting extreme covert operations in effort to destroy the PANTHERS.

NOE, how does Charles Manson figure in that scenario ?

BTW: Penny, Scalia was Brilliant and that's why NIXON grabbed HIM for HIS side of the law.

leary7 said...

Austin Ann and Carol rock as always, dead on comments, two great ladies.
The Saint and George will have their circle jerk out in LA, and hug it out.
Robert will link Gary's bus to the deception on Wall Street, and the Red Sox third base problems.
And 99.99999999% of people we walk and talk with will not give a flying turd about the words that flow here.
It's a weird thing because tragedy should always matter, but the TLB arguments seem beaten to the point of banality. Tom Robbins once wrote that "the only real question in life is how to make love stay". For me personally, the only real TLB question left is if Charlie is evil incarnate or just a court jester who took to many wrong turns. The former wins every time.

CarolMR said...

Hi, Leary, thanks!

Matt said...

Leary, email me when you get a moment.


Farflung said...

I can follow the logic, and assumptions, but I'm still a "hang fire" on this subject.

There's a few things which don't quite balance on Occam's razor.

1. Hinman owed $1000 and surrendered a VW and Fiat, along with $27. Why kill him? It was over "his" bad drugs, so go a little medieval on his ass, then leave a shaken, but living Gary for fiture extortions.

2. The VW needed to be hotwired. This is not a symptom of a person handing over a vehicle, nor a person receiving one.

3. Bobby transferred 1000 tabs and there wasn't any surcharge, tax, or evaporation? Really?? A personal sample would have caught the bad dope, before pissing off a bunch of bikers.

4. The propensity for crime, murder, and conspiracies. This is self evident, within Brunnrer's later actions. Rob a gun store, to get weapons, to hijack airlines, to get money and leverage, to release Family members. Seems implausible, except she tried this bat shit crazy scheme, with no regard for human life.

I'm so conflicted.

Farflung said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

The law of Occam's razor doesn't apply it seems to anything TLB-related, does it?!?

St Circumstance said...

Leary we need more than two people to form a circle, you should come out and join...

I hope your health is well :)

Cielodrive.com said...

"Manson Family Archives said...
As I wrote in my own essay, DeCarlo's name also came up when questioning Puhek."

Dennis, where are you getting that from?

The boy wonder said...

NAM MYOHO RENGE KYO.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Hey folks, IF the "motive" doesn't matter, what are YOU doing here?

IF YOU are sincere about YOUR caring for the "victims," WHY not visit the grave sites and lay some beautiful flowers, when the Mansonblog Tour gets underway in LA?

"Wall Street" is a con-GAME show, where once in while, we got a winner (like Bernie Madoff) who NEVER even bought (1) "stock." So where Charles Manson (who NEVER physically KILLED anyone) gets pegged as the "mastermind of murder" you gotta admit: Maybe there is a connection between Wall Street and Charles Manson. Especially where the original architect of the Wall Street investment system was a "con-man" who served time in an English prison.

Panamint Patty said...

Patty just doesn't understand why mescaline would make someone a bad person because it doesn't.

Panamint Patty said...

He was just trying to do a favor for a friend God rest his soul.

penny lane said...

I have worked in stock broking my entire life..and YES its a con-man.. insider trading is rampant...

orwhut said...

Robert Hendrickson said...
Especially where the original architect of the Wall Street investment system was a "con-man" who served time in an English prison.

Robert,
Who was this? If I ever knew, I forgot.

Robert Hendrickson said...

There is documentary on the history of the Stock market - I think it was on PBS. In short, the con-man got out of UK prison - went to Netherlands and saw how the Dutch were letting folks invest in businesses. So HE went to France and got the King to go in with him to create a stock market.

Of course, THEY made a fortune before the NEW market went BUST. Con men in America heard about the greatest scheme in the world and started the market here in US. There was a book written in 1922, 7 years before the 29 crash that describes in complete detail how the US Stock Market was an insiders "Ponzi" scheme.

Did YOU know that up until a few years ago certain members of Congress were actually allowed to do insider trading. Nancy Pelosi was one until a news crew discovered the Congressional Scheme.

The system is quite simple, but you need the King / President to be cut in on the deal.

Little guys fill the POT - Money guys empty the POT - and the government refills the POT with Little Guys tax dollars. So how do the Money guys get away with it. "Government" schools TRAIN little boys and girls to believe it's a great system. AND you thought "government" was YOUR friend. Money guys send THEIR kids to a "different" school.

BTW: The Manson Family started out with an aware CON-man teaching the young'ns about Mr. Money Guy and HIS "con." Frankly, I'm amazed THEY have let HIM live so long.

orwhut said...

Robert,
Thanks. If you remember his name, please let me know. I want to read up on him.

Fiddy 8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fiddy 8 said...

So, I'm watching the new American Crime Story episode tonight with the O.J. trial on FX channel. The setting is the D.A.'s office discussing whether or not to pursue death penalty prosecution for O.J.. Marcia Clark wants it - her staff rebuffs: "Nobody will vote to execute O.J. - we can't even execute Charlie Manson."

orwhut said...

Going back to the "Are you obsessed yet?" post: Our dog Sadie came to us by way of our son. I just realized, now he's got a dog named CHARLIE!

Fiddy 8 said...

St Circumstance: Consider that you wouldn't be able to present an evaluation of the various outlooks, admirable as it is, without the the various advocates expressing a personal point of view.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Couldn't Charlie have gotten nervous about having the van after a while and decided if he gave it to an associate of the Straight Satans focus in the murder might have centered on the bikers? The guy Charlie gave the van made it sound like Charlie was giving him the van with no apparent reason stated.

Robert Hendrickson said...

NOW: what are the chances an old VW RED with white trim bus like Gary's could be sitting in the driveway of my cross the street neighbor RIGHT NOW ?

I'm a little freaked -out AND I love these kind of coincidences.

Jenn said...

Robert wrote: "IN the previous POST I infer that Bernie Saunders is a Socialist / Communist and Jenn responds that Saunders is NOT a Communist. Isn't that kind'a the situation we have here with the HINMAN murder.

There are those WHO will actually investigate as to the similarities / differences between Socialists and Communists and there are those WHO will simply let their emotions / media be their guide."

So because you disagree with me, I am letting my emotions/ media be my guide? How little you know about me, yet how authoritatively you speak.

George Stimson said...

I wouldn't take an out of context remark as chronicled in a sloppy police report as a guaranteed accurate quote of whatever Manson said to the person he gave the bus to. The important point is that he gave the vehicle to a close associate of the SS.

St Circumstance said...

Fiddy you make a great point :)

Robert Hendrickson said...

JENN: I stand corrected, Bernie ONLY claims to be a "Socialist."
HE does NOT claim to be a Communist. That's exactly WHY I come here - to learn.

AND I really like Bernie - it's about time WE had a Socialist for a leader -
though I'm NOT sure how much power a U.S. President really has to LEAD.

As far as "knowing" YOU. That's the beauty of the internet - we are all just OBJECTS in cyberspace without any truthful identity.

hippie doll said...

I think the curtains hanging in the VW van above were made from sheets because I have sheets in the exact same pattern as them curtains.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Related but NOT connected:

A few might already KNOW, BUT there is a Heroin epidemic in America.

BUT Charles Manson forbade such HARD drugs in the Family, so WHO do WE blame for this ?

AND if Gary Hinman was providing the Family with drugs, as Bugliosi has apparently claimed, exactly
WHAT kind of drugs were they ?

Manson Family Archives said...

2:24 Bugliosi says Hinman supplied them with drugs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPqnUXf7KIc&list=PLf04IZrLPT4bw-6xguVmM8HX77NJ2ZE8T&index=5

Fiddy 8 said...

I think George has done an excellent job of proposing that meth was the most important drug factor for the individual choices in 1969 ,LSD not so much, and how does Charlie forbid any kind of drug exactly? Spahn drug tests?

orwhut said...

Are we to believe Bugliosi?

Fiddy 8 said...

In 1970, LSD was a lot more scarier than your mom's diet pills.

Fiddy 8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fiddy 8 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Hendrickson said...

To put EVERYTHING in perspective:

California is instituting and enforcing the MOST stringent "pollution" standards VIA a new and improved form of "Blackmail." IE: IF you don't sign a "LEGAL" agreement with the city of LA promising to "filter" rainwater from your roof, you will NOT be issued a "building permit" regarding any kind of remodeling. AND this is only the beginning of what is considered a "covenant" or encumberance against your property.

BUT when YOU combine collected data with property locations, the "government" can and already is establishing documented "troubled areas" as well as "desirable" areas. Off building permits they can already determine which neighbors are "progressing" and which are going downhill. Law enforcement already has 'troubled areas' carefully mapped out - to the extent, they can tell with almost certainty where the next "criminal" will be born.

The C.I.A already has a data bank of information that can determine with a high degree of certainty what the actual TRUTH is behind the Tate / LaBianca Massacre.

Such is ALL made possible with our new communications technology.

So welcome to a whole NEW world where maybe ignorance will no longer be BLISS.

BTW: The "government" is NOT interested in the Heroin epidemic OR Black Lives because eventually we all will be LOCATED in our respective applicable neighborHOODs.

OR vote for Bernie Sanders and we ALL can retire in Palm Springs with B. Obama as our next door neighbor.

ziggyosterberg said...


@orwhut - John Law is probably who Robert referring to.

grimtraveller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ballarat Babe said...

Gary had been planning a trip and the family knew he had money saved. Also, Charlie prodded Bobby by saying "you know what you gotta do, be a man and take care of it". He said this after he nearly sliced Gary's ear off with a long assed knife. Remember?

Manson Family Archives said...

The robbery motive started with Kitty Lutesinger. The only other account of what happened prior to her talking was from Atkins (Hinman died during a sex act with her). She implicated her God Charles Manson and Susan Atkins. Yet when you look at the 2nd LaBianca Homicide Report, the source of that story is "unknown". In other words, she wasn't scared enough to not implicate Charlie but kept her mouth closed about who told her that story.

Which is curious. Because Al Springer of the Straight Satans told Police:

""this other girl kitty, or Patty or something like that. She not only probably has talked to ya, but once she sees Danny, her on her own, from what he hears, she's going to let it all hang out too. Everything she knows right to a T, So I figured I'd get the ball rolling. because I don't want to see Danny get in trouble for something he didn't do"

So, they knew she talked to them and for clearly let's them know that SHE is going to corroborate what HE is saying and that she spoke to DeCarlo. He's confident this girl is going to back up what he and later Decarlo, is telling them.

Unless you're naive person, it's pretty clear to see that Kitty was either talked into or threatened into giving cops a story that absolves them of any wrong doing. THIS is how that motive started and the DA ran with it.

What makes it all the more funny, shorty before Kitty talked to them and brought up DeCarlo, they were already after him when his name came up when investigating the bus. I suspect word reached him and he put Kitty up to telling that bullshit story.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley,: "He had nothing to do with this car, as far as I know. In other words, I originally received information fourth hand that Daniel Decarlo had possibly been in possession of a Volkswagen bus at some time. Just about the time that I received this information, I was called to Independence, California, where I talked to other witnesses who told me that Daniel Decarlo had nothing to do with the car; that it was another person, and I just completely dropped him at that time"
THE COURT: But it subsequently revealed that he actually did have something to do with it?
Sgt. Paul Whiteley,:Yes.

RIGHT. After DeCarlo had Kitty tell a bullshit story he later corroborated. Not to mention DeCarlo was in bed with Bugliosi shortly after, giving a tour of the Ranch and helping him build his case.

grimtraveller said...

This is the third heavyweight "Gary Hinman" thread since July. You could loosely characterize George's and Dennis's as being more pro Charlie and St Circumstance's as being more "Bobby is guilty and there is more evidence from the various players of robbery than drug deal."
All three have something fascinating in common which has only just occurred to me. None of them speaks of the reason that we are actually given by the murderer himself, why Gary Hinman got murdered. And that reason is essentially Charles Manson. Bobby is crystal clear on this across a number of parole hearings, that the reason he killed Gary is because he wanted to go to hospital to get his face seen to and that would have brought in the police.
And why was his face needing to be seen to ?

As an aside, it's worth focusing for a moment on Hinman wanting to go to hospital. Susan Atkins, Mary Brunner, Charlie and Bobby have all rather underplayed the seriousness of the wound that Charlie dealt Gary. It's nonchalantly and flippantly referred to as a guy getting his ear cut off or cut in half. Charlie says he gave instructions for Gary's face to be taken care of, Bobby and Mary both say they sewed up his face, Susan speaks of going to get the necessary stuff to tend to his wounds and in court says she tried to sew the wound. Now, unbeknownst to them all, that wound would later be written up by the medical examiner as "possibly fatal" and he went on to explain that had the bleeding not been properly stemmed, Hinman could have died. It required a Doc who knew what they were doing, not a group of Spahn ranchers that had group trouble identifying when someone was dead {a la Crowe, LaBianca, Shea and Frykowski}. That wound went to a depth of an inch. Just as an experiment, measure off an inch and imagine that depth on your own face. Any inch deep wound is going to hurt. But on your face ? We are talking grade A agony here. And no pain relief. And it was 5 inches long. No wonder Gary wanted to get to the hospital. And don't forget, after that had happened, he'd tried to escape and "been prevented from doing so." Read into that what you will.
We all generally know our bodies, what causes us discomfort and when we can hold on and when we can't. Hinman was no mug. He knew he needed proper attention. It's one thing to deliver a couple of babies and sever the umbilical cord with a guitar string. It's another thing altogether to get a guy from a point where he could possibly die to survival. His pain is what drove him to want to go to hospital.
That ultimately is what got him killed.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

What could turn the previously carefree and non-violent Bobby Beausoleil into someone who could bludgeon and stab another person to death? Ruling out a sudden and inexplicable metamorphosis into a sociopathic hit man, a likelier explanation is that he had recently had such violence visited upon himself

The implication being there that he was afraid of the Satans after the vintage violence that they'd supposedly visited on his person.
But for me, that is one of the mighty chasms in your prognosis, indeed, it is where the entire "Gary died as a result of a drug deal gone wrong" falls down because Bobby Beausoleil has repeatedly said that he had sorted out the problem with Gary. He claims Gary had turned over the pink slips to him and so at that point, there is no longer any problem. No Satans to be shitting oneself about. No recurring nightmares of another Satans battering....or worse. It is done and dusted and it's a win~win for everyone. Gary refunds the money. Bobby doesn't get razored. The Satans get some money and a VW to carry their bikes in. Gary gets to go to Japan and chant. Mary & Susan no longer have to witness any violence {ironically, they both end up in jail because of it}. Bobby & Gary patch up their quarrel. There's no chance of the Satans deciding to pay Gary "a visit." The drug deal of a drug that isn't even illegal can no longer be said to be wrong at this point. It is no longer in the realm of "gone wrong" because all has been made well.
Enter Charlie. With sword.
Another point worth considering is this: even after Charlie has whacked Gary with the sword, as far as the Satans are concerned, all is well. Everything I stated earlier still applies. As you pointed out "the Straight Satans just wanted their money back. They didn't care if the money came from Hinman or from the man in the moon." Crazier still, even Gary's eventual death doesn't make it the realm of "a drug deal gone wrong." Because if Gary did give Bobby the pink slips, then the vehicles were legally his.
Another way of considering this matter is this; had Charlie not turned up, would Gary Hinman still have been killed ? If Bobby's story is true, then the answer to this can only be 'no, he would not.'

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

as Ella Jo Bailey testified at Beausoleil's first trial (which ended with a hung jury)

Did Ella Jo Bailey actually testify at any of Bobby's trials ? She certainly didn't at the first one. I don't know about the second {I look forward to reading the transcripts of that one day} but Dennis/MFA stated in his July Hinman article that she didn't even speak to police about the Hinman murders until March '71.


this aspect of "get money" was not introduced at Beausoleil's second trial where he was successfully convicted. Was it not mentioned because the prosecution knew that it was nebulous?

No. It was not mentioned at the second trial because the prosecution had Mary Brunner dropping bombs on Bobby. It's Mary's testimony that made the difference between a hung jury and death. In the first trial, none of the other defendants were there. Bobby didn't even have to speak. He doesn't, other than to say he hadn't slept well or something like that.
But in that trial, the "get money" angle isn't emphasized as such, it's used mainly as a raison d'etre to demonstrate that prior to the death, Bobby had told Kitty why he was going away for a few days to "get money from a rich faggot." But it's never definitively established that it's Hinman being spoken of. Danny DeCarlo mentions it in passing.
So Mary made the difference. Such a huge one, that she thought by recanting, it would get Bobby off Death Row. Susan thought the same thing about Charlie. Both were wrong.

Remember, trials are where contentions might have to be supported by actual evidence, as opposed to books, media statements, or even statements to police, where no rules of evidence are in effect

One could just as easily apply all this logic to Bobby and the mescaline story.
Fact is, both versions {get money or get money back} lack actual hardcore evidence. Giving a van to someone who knows a brother of a Straight Satan is hardly corroborating evidence. What does it corroborate ? It doesn't even begin to explain why Marcus Arneson was given the van, let alone how this has anything to do with the Satans getting their money back, which you emphasize is all they wanted and gave Bobby some good blaffs and showed him the blade to show their intent. To describe Arneson as "a known close associate of the Straight Satans motorcycle club" is one heck of a stretch. It's rather making the most of the most tenuous link imaginable.
It is inescapable that both versions of the happening are actually reliant, not upon actual evidence, but the word of people, some of it gossip, maybe some of it actual. Unreliable people, at that. People with ulterior motives. People who have demonstrated that that which is factual and reliably verifiable is not something they have counted as a high priority in their lives.
Ultimately, the evidence that can be relied on in the Hinman killing is circumstancial and that led to the right people for the crime, with Mary Brunner highly fortunate to have escaped at Bobby's expense.

grimtraveller said...

Bobby Beausoleil said....

It was 1,000 tabs or capsules of homemade mescaline for 1,000 dollars. [But] the next day [after the mescaline was delivered to the club], [they] came back to the Spahn Ranch and essentially [they] kind of beat me up. You know. They hit me in the stomach and, you know, pushed me around and held a knife up to my throat and said they wanted the money back because I had sold them bunk. They said that they had gotten sick on the drugs, and they wanted their money back. So I told them I would do everything I could to get the money back."

1000 tabs of mescaline.
Were there that many bikers trying to trip ? They didn't have a single tab left for Bobby to give to his supplier to test it out for it's bunkness ?
One of the big ????s against Bobby's tale for me is the timeline. If it was pot they had bought and Gary had just provided them with thyme and herbs {as happened to me and a mate once in our young days}, then all the bikers would have known within 30 minutes that they'd been sold a pup. Mescaline isn't like that. Peyote is that hallucinogen that used to turn tribal Indians mad as they were whisked off to lands unknown, back in time through "previous lives." Part of the onset of the drug was intense throwing up, especially for those not experienced in it. It was the sickness that intensified the early rush of the trip. But either way a trip would be anything from 8 to 14 hours and sometimes more than 20. The sick Satans would have had to travel a bit of a distance to come and knock Bobby about which calls into question whether they were sick. But Bobby said he picked up the drugs from Gary on Friday night so exactly when did the Satans come to Spahn for Bobby ? At what point were all these drugs distributed and how long did it take to determine that 1000 tabs had been ingested and every taker of them was sick ? Are you really in a condition to go fighting someone after you've been getting sick for goodness knows how many hours on a hallucinogenic drug ?
It's a really tight timeline. It's far more problematic than Cielo night.
But stranger things have happened.

George Stimson said...

Hey Grim, I emailed you.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

Hey Grim, I emailed you

Got it George !
Thanks.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

Some people have decried the description of Gary Hinman as a "drug dealer" as a libel against a dead person unable to defend himself, but it is worth noting that the term "drug dealer" can be used to describe a wide variety of individuals, from the stereotypical image of the shady character peddling narcotics on the schoolyard to someone who is merely a friend who can get you drugs. Hinman likelier fit more into the latter category

I think that part of the reason that many have had issues with Gary being described as a drug dealer is because the overwhelming majority of people do not pick up on the nuances of that phrase. We have this image of the drug dealer, that essentially comes from an amalgamation of movies, biographies, books on rock stars and news items, some good, some realistic, some awful, some totally nonsensical. But over a period of 70 years the image {whether shady, streetwise, drugged out or smart suited and booted} has built and stuck.
But lots of people "who know someone" have acquired drugs for their friends or friends of their friends. I used to do it myself and I never considered myself as a drug dealer anymore than if I was picking up a consignment of chocolate and passing some to friends would I have seen myself as a chocolate dealer !
With Gary it has become a thing because he's dead and no one outside the Family says they bought stuff from him {aside from this upcoming Straight Satan doc that MFA has told us about and as it's essentially supposedly corroborating Bobby, then we're in the same situation}. Whereas with Tex and Lotsapoppa, one is still alive and one was alive long enough for us to get a good sense of their drug dealing ways and they both get a bad press because a] Tex is a murderer and was a lousy individual in his drug dealing days and b] Lotsapoppa, if his TLB trial testimony is anything to go by, was hardly a boy scout. He was an embarrassment on just about every level.
Death, especially death by murder, seems to have a way of making people reassess the dead one and many of us become reluctant to ascribe heavily negative stuff to them, especially when the only noises being made about their dark sides are coming from people with even darker sides or ulterior motives and agendas.
That doesn't make the dark sides of the deceased untrue, though.
We're unlikely to ever discover the truth about Gary Hinman and drug sales. But even if we did, it still wouldn't make a great deal of difference as to why he was killed. The man who killed him has told us why he was killed and it wasn't because of drugs.

Cielodrive.com said...

Hey Grim, Ella testified at Manson's Hinman/Shea trial and Davis' trial. She did not testify at either of Bobby's trials

George Stimson said...


Thank you for the correction, Cielo.

Cielodrive.com said...

No problem George. I'm curious, does Sandy have any recollections of Gary dealing dope?

grimtraveller said...

Cielodrive.com said...

Ella testified at Manson's Hinman/Shea trial and Davis' trial.......I'm curious, does Sandy have any recollections of Gary dealing dope ?

I can't remember if it was Dennis/MFA that reprinted it but somewhere recently, I saw a part of Ella's trial testimony from, I think, Bruce's trial and Ella Jo was affirmative in her answers about mescaline being bought from Gary. That's another set of trial testimony I'd love to read.

George Stimson said...

Why does it matter?

If the first motive version (the strong-arm robbery gone bad scenario) is true, it reinforces the perception of Charles Manson and the people around him as being violently murderous sociopaths who would stop at nothing in order to further their own interests. If the second motive version (a drug deal gone bad) is true it reinforces an alternative perception of those same persons being caught up in unfortunate criminal circumstances that spiraled out of control and culminated in murder


Call me the proverbial double minded wishy washy man but I think both have elements that are true. Bobby's story seems to be presented in such a way as to challenge the hearer to "man up and pick a side" {ladies, my apologies ~ it's not my phrase} and Charlie has kind of picked up and run with this. But examining the various perspectives on this, I think that both really have true aspects to them. Because even in the first version, nowhere are we ever told that the initial intention was to kill Gary.
In a way, by being presented with the alternative, the person who comes out of this worst is Charlie. Because either scenario leaves him culpable but the alternative makes him much more directly so. One defence that the helter skeptics always utilize is that Charlie wasn't present at any of the TLB deaths and didn't kill anybody by his own hand. Fair comment. With Gary Hinman, that ME's autopsy sinks him bad and even without it, I can't escape the conclusion that Charlie's rather than the Satans part in matters is what did for Gary Hinman. It's a catch 22 lose~lose that he can't really escape from.

Cielodrive.com said...

Her transcripts are in the works

George Stimson said...

@ Cielodrive,

Dealing dope, no. Drugs in the house, yes.

Cielodrive.com said...

Thanks George. When Mary Brunner testified that Leslie and not herself was at Gary's house, Mary related what Susan had told her about happened. One thing she mentioned was there were dope dealers at the house and there was some kind of fight. I don't really know what to think about what she said because so much of it was fabricated. However, if there was a dope deal, I'd imagine there had to be a third party involved. I struggle greatly with Bobby saying Gary was dealing "lightweight" and then saying he sold him 1000 hits of mescaline for a grand. That's about $6500 today. I don't consider that a lightweight transaction. Mescaline might not be difficult to make, but what is the yield when producing it? Can one make 1000 hits fairly quickly or would that require several productions?

grimtraveller said...

Cielodrive.com said...

When Mary Brunner testified that Leslie and not herself was at Gary's house, Mary related what Susan had told her about happened. One thing she mentioned was there were dope dealers at the house and there was some kind of fight. I don't really know what to think about what she said because so much of it was fabricated

I find it almost impossible to believe Mary Brunner. She reckons all she said in the Beausoleil trial was prepared for her by the police. She emphasized that she said what she said about Gary's ear because the police told her what to say.
But she was there !
In Robert's book, when she talks, I find myself wondering if she really imagined back then that the entire world was composed of a planet of brainless asses that couldn't see through the newly found criminal superbrain of the wonder librarian from Wisconsin.
That all said, I did say I find her almost impossible to believe. Because she does actually say some things that are plausible. I don't believe the cops told her what to say but I do believe they leaned on her heavily and threatened her with taking away her son unless she testified. And they were pretty clear about what they needed testimony about. But I don't know what she was complaining about. She was involved in a murder in which a guy had had part of his ear hacked almost in half and as he was dying, nicked $27 out of his wallet. Then later on implicates Leslie in a murder that could bring the death penalty when everyone knows she wasn't there.
Classy.
In Robert's book she admits that she lived with Gary {though not as an item} which was later reiterated in two books by Susan Atkins and she also told Laurence Merrick that Gary was.............into dope dealing.

Martin Colter said...

Here's my take. I have read Bobby's story and it made much more sense to me that the "official" version. The thing is, I can see it happening that way. As to the drug dealing. I was attracted to the same kind of thing. Though I came from a family that would have been shocked at my activities, making something like mescaline has an attraction to some people like myself in my younger years. Maybe the same way growing pot attracts some people. It takes a little skill, research and scheming to pull it off. When I was in 8th grade, I collected together a crap load of marijuana resins and reasoning that it came from really high grade weed I figured I could make some kind of homemade hash from it and make money! All I did was compress resin into cubes and sold it. I didn't figure there'd be one guy that had the experience to know the difference in my little town to bust me with my scam but that's exactly what happened and there I was refunding his money. Gary may have been trying to work something like that out and didn't really know what he was doing. You can get mixed up with some pretty bad apples like a bike gang that way quickly and get in over your head.

grimtraveller said...

Martin Colter said...

Gary may have been trying to work something like that out and didn't really know what he was doing. You can get mixed up with some pretty bad apples like a bike gang that way quickly and get in over your head

I agree that sort of thing can happen. But not if Bobby's story is true. We are talking about 1000 hits of mescaline. Remember Bobby's words ¬> "And they wanted to score something different, some psychedelics for their party. And I thought that I might be able to impress them to, you know, to kind of get in with them if I were to set up a deal for them. I knew someone in Topanga Canyon who made mescaline out of peyote cactus buds. That was Gary Hinman. I'd known Gary for a couple of yearsand I saw an opportunity to sort of ingratiate myself in these ~ with these people. So I set up a deal."
If Bobby was happy to provide via Gary, then Gary must have known what he was doing. Bobby may not have been wise but he wasn't stupid.

fiona1933 said...

One good reason to disbelieve the drug deal theory is that according to Beausoleil, Hinman was killed because he was insisting on going to the police over his slashed ear. Does a dealer go to the cops? What's he going to say? If he grasses Bobby or Charlie, they can tell the cops the drug angle.

grimtraveller said...

Except that the drug Gary manufactured and sold wasn't illegal.

And Justice for All said...

Brilliant quote and a truthfully valid point. Well done Austin Ann. Really enjoyed that, nice work!!!