Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Manson 2 Night Special on Dateline


The first face in the video is Jeff Guinn, so I don't have high hopes for this. We'll see. Thursday and Friday Night at 8:00 EDT. Watch video on the Dateline site.






58 comments:

Manson Mythos said...

It's supposed to be focused on additional motives or, "the truth". Schreck was asked to appear, but turned them down. My gut tells me they're going to explore even more outlandish motives, like the involvement of The Process. Though whatever is featured, Debra Tate isn't happy about it at all.

George Stimson said...

They acted like they wanted to talk to me about my book and the copycat motive but finally decided against it because I "wasn't there" in 1969.

I guess Jeff Guinn was....

Manson Mythos said...

Guinn has become the new official mouth piece since Bugliosi died. Shame, because the guy is an idiot.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Dateline "updated" THEIR older MANSON program to coincide with promoting the NEW "Aquarious" show.''

Matt said...

George Stimson said...

They acted like they wanted to talk to me about my book and the copycat motive but finally decided against it because I "wasn't there" in 1969.


Guinn was. His Family name was Storyteller.


Panamint Patty said...

Five bucks says this is going to suck ass.

Robert C said...

It's NBC and Dateline ..... expect the worst and hope for the better.

Looks like a lot of re-enactments .... I'm not a big fan of that .... the actors never look 'right'.

Matt said...

Copycat isn't provocative enough I guess. Not provocative enough to help promote Aquarius. RH, I think you're spot on. I bet the Aquarius promo runs several times during this rehash. Disappointing. Somebody needs to produce the ultimate Manson movie. Do we know anyone???

Panamint Patty said...

Yes. Yes, we do.

Manson Mythos said...

What the world neeeds is a properly produced documentary in the vein of Paradise Lost, Making of a Murder, etc. with people like Schreck and Stimson. Even though both put forth different motives (though Schreck believes the copycat motive DOES play a part in it), it should include all realistic alternative motives and expose the nonsense that went on with the case. From Atkins' attorneys, use of witnesses who cut deals, etc.

Unfortunatly Manson not being able to do video interviews would hurt such a production.

starship said...

Wow, so I guess we'll be all done with Orlando by tomorrow at 8pm so alrighty then.

Sime's World said...

I emailed Mr. Guinn a few times in regards of his outlandish and unfounded assertions regarding Joel Pugh - he has yet to reply!

Cielodrive.com said...

I'm not sure there's a paradise lost in this case

DebS said...


I don't have high hopes for this either but I have set it to be recorded. I think I have to do something more important at the time it's on, like wash my hair or alphabetize my spices.

Simon.... you did such great work on Joel Pugh and it's disheartening that an author with a big publisher like Simon and Schuster doesn't want to get it right.

ziggyosterberg said...


Porky Guinn : "Charlie symbolizes the horror possible in this world"

Translation : Charlie symbolizes that it's possible for a man to live on less than 50,000 calories a day.

Matt said...

That HG website brings back memories of when a lot of sites looked like that (back in the stone age).


Sime's World said...

Debs,

You are right it is disheartening. The book and the subsequent blog on Joel and any possible Manson connection is there for future journalists, writers and scholars of the case to utilise for their own work. Obviously, Guinn saw it, and chose to ignore the facts for his own conclusions. As I have always maintained, if anyone has any additional material, corrections and/or opinions on the Joel/Manson saga, please let me know and I will update the site

. http://joelpughcharlesmanson.blogspot.co.uk/

The below quote from ‘The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence" sums it up rather well.

Ransom Stoddard: ‘You’re not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?’
Maxwell Scott: ‘No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.’


Matt said...

Years ago, a friendly acquaintance of mine went on trial for the murder of his wife. I was better friends with his previous spouse and knew ALL of the details of the case. It was a media sensation and was featured on Dateline. When the Dateline piece aired I was floored by what they concentrated on and more importantly by what they completely left out.

I don't know about other news magazine shows, but Dateline is more interested in ratings than the truth, which was far more interesting than the way they presented it.

George Stimson said...

That's what I told the Dateline guy, Matt -- that the truth about the TLB murders was at least as interesting -- and compelling -- as the same old same old story.

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

When the Dateline piece aired I was floored by what they concentrated on and more importantly by what they completely left out.

I don't know about other news magazine shows


Some years ago, I found an article in one newspaper {I think it was the Standard but it could have been the Mail or some other paper} about my sister and PMT. It was about some revolutionary wheat free diet and she was waxing eloquent in the article but most of the quotes didn't sound anything like how she speaks. It ended with her saying that she now felt free for the first time since her periods started and that she had broken up with so many boyfriends because of PMT. I raised a quizzical eyebrow and I asked her if she said that and a number of other things in the article and she laughed and said no, that the journalist had made most of it up although she did think the diet was good.
Ho hum....

Robert Hendrickson said...

Don't be so HARD on certain TV programs - they are constrained by very tight budgets.

Geraldo Rivera had a girl who took a "rights clearance" class and SHE invited HIM right into the Hendrickson vs Rivera LEGAL domain. Of course, HIS "Investigative News Group" (for which HE claimed little to NO responsibility) repeated "infringing activity." AND the Court found that Rivera was little more than an actor reading off a script, hired by HIS "Investigative News Group."

Another GREAT example of journalist excellence is the recent Laurence Merrick ARTICLE where HE seems to be the soul "MANSON" filmmaker. Wanna SEE what the Judge / Court had to say regarding HIS fraudulent activities ?

I could NEVER understand WHY nobody stood-up for HIM at trial as a "good" character witness (I had witnesses WHO he screwed over), BUT not even HIS friend Bugliosi showed up to testify in HIS behalf.

Panamint Patty said...

Just read that Barbara Hoyt and Debra Tate will be on

Suze said...

Well Matt, what happened to your friend? Guilty, or not guilty?

BTW if I don't say it enough, thank you, Matt, Deb, Patty, Austin Ann, George and (God help me) even ColScott for the jobs that you do. I love coming here and reading and learning!

Matt said...

Suze, he chose to represent himself in court and signed away the right to appeal a decision based on that choice. The verdict was guilty and he's now doing life without parole at Central Prison in Raleigh.

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client"
- Abraham Lincoln

Thank you for the kind words about the blog. It is appreciated.


Robert Hendrickson said...

I agree: YOU are a fool to represent yourself in Court - IF YOU are only somewhat educated in the LAW - and the Court is prejudice in favor of the "other" side.

NOW, ask the Manson Case defendants what "professional" lawyers did for THEM.

IF your friend "signed away" HIS right to appeal because the Court would ONLY grant HIM the "RIGHT" to defend himself, IF he did - HE did NOT even know the FIRST issue in American LAW: Is the Defendant Black, Mexican, or poor White trash ?

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

The verdict was guilty and he's now doing life without parole at Central Prison in Raleigh

As far as you know, was he actually guilty ? Did he actually do it ?

Manson Mythos said...

Big pile of shit...so far. It's the same program NBC has been making for the last few years. Same faces, same names, saying the same things.

Logan said...

I think that a Manson doc in the vein of "making of a murderer" and "paradise lost" would be impossible as well...i think with all of the information that's been made available by this blog, Cielodrive.com etc, there could be a really compelling work put together, but I think it would have to be lacking in interviews with key people speaking in retrospect, as so many either are dead or, understandably, aren't wiling to talk publicly about a terrible time in their lives.
It's A shame that Schreck wouldn't do the new documentary...CM Superstar & the Manson File were some of the first works about the case to gain my attention, and the updated Manson file, while lacking footnotes, is chocked full of fascinating historical anecdotes and documents/commentary. Although I doubt he (or anyone else who deviated from the media-approved party line on Manson) would be fairly represented on network TV.
I feel like a TLB documentary that goes deeper than the re-hashed Bugliosi/Gentry stuff wouldn't make it onto network TV, unless, as you guys point out, they're talking about Sanders-type devil worship and Processean human sacrifice.

ziggyosterberg said...


I missed the first 15 minutes, and I was watching baseball at the same time (rare occasion when the Mets score runs), but yeah, they left out a whole lot of stuff, but it was nice hearing Porky Guinn and the Hispanic vocal fry chick giving viewers the Cliffs Notes version of Bugliosi's book.

Did they show enough ads for 'Aquarius" during the show? I thought that they could have shoehorned a few more in there.

I also liked how they tried to trick viewers into watching that shitfest by not doing a proper ending of Dateline and immediately going to 'Aquarius'. That trick almost worked on me. I was like "WTF is this? Oh wait - it's 'Shitquarius'. Back to beisbol".

Matt said...

Yes, Bartolo Colon is much more entertaining. He should consider running for office.


Matt said...

Yes Grim, he did it for sure.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I mentioned on this blog a while back that the "historian" spokesman (like J. Guinn portrayed on last night's DATELINE) would become the future way "low budget" documentaries would be made. BUT reaching down to actual "related" victims (like Debra Tate) for entertainment value really only appeals to the 98 1/2 percenters.

What I would like to SEE is some "special" make-up effects applied (like used on UNDERCOVER BOSS).
I think THEN Guinn could have also stood-in for Ms "H" and saved NBC some $$$.

I mean - using a mortician make-up person on "Virginia Grahamn" when SHE actually did the FAMOUS Frank Sinatra - I can't even listen to HIS singing NOW. AND why didn't DATELINE at least mention that Ms "G" and Ronnie Howard were in the LOVE business together and BOTH did Frankie "S". Because the COPS wacked poor Ronnie, SHE doesn't even rate honorable mention NOW ? You'd THINK a show like DATELINE would SEE a real story in Ms Howard's murder. Of course, they were kind'a busy "lifting" MY photos off the internet.

I wonder IF tonight's episode will include Charlie and Universal / NBC / brass / famous actors advancing the GAY agenda ?

Manson Mythos said...

They do mention she was in the "love business". But in keeping up with mainstream media white washing and the alternative universe of absolute evil (manson) and absolute good (everyone else), she is now referred to as a "Hollywood Matchmaker".

Tex was mentioned get this....a total of ONE time. I can't even recall Kasabian's name coming up.

Howard look like a stereotypical mafia moll even to this day. A career criminal herself, once would imagine she too is well versed in sticking to the criminal code of silence. That two Italian attorneys were behind Atkins before this woman who brushes shoulders and most likely a lot more with the Rat Pack and who was at the Cielo house and met Sebring....why is that not a red flag?

Oh, I know why. Because drug addled nubile teen girls committing acts of murder for their fiery eyed guru is more titillating for the masses who live their mundane lives and get off on cheap thrills.

Manson Mythos said...

According to Tate/LaBianca version 2.0 (I.E. Jeff Guinn's revaped take), Charlie sent the girls out to find somebody to make him a star and they found Dennis Wilson. According to the official narrative, that was a chance encounter (WOW, what are the chances).

Bill Murphy said Wilson told him directly he met Manson at Gary Hinman's house.

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

the FAMOUS Frank Sinatra - I can't even listen to HIS singing NOW

I do still like "Strangers in the night" and "Something stupid" but I never really was a Frank aficionado.

Abraham Lincoln said...

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client"

Every lawyer says that !


Matt said...

He chose to represent himself in court and signed away the right to appeal a decision based on that choice

I don't like the sound of that. Does that mean that the quid pro quo for representing himself was signing away his right of appeal if it came to that ? Is that built into the US constitution ? I thought it was one's inalienable right to represent oneself. All the way to Deth Row if necessary.

Robert Hendrickson said...

I agree: YOU are a fool to represent yourself in Court - IF YOU are only somewhat educated in the LAW - and the Court is prejudice in favor of the "other" side

Well, if the Judge is prejudiced you could argue that you're stuffed anyway.
But I understand why Charles Manson wanted to represent himself and I don't blame him in the slightest.
I've been in situations where I've had a lawyer and still got shacked and I've reached the conclusion like him that frankly, no one else can speak for me, even if it means that I get hurt. For some people, having a say in their own destiny is more important to their well being and principles than the actual destiny that results from the outcome.
Of course, if I was facing life imprisonment {with or without parole} or death, that might cause me to not be so romantic about defending myself !

NOW, ask the Manson Case defendants what "professional" lawyers did for THEM

In the ultimate analysis though, the freedom to represent themselves would have been, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, given that they weren't "exactly innocent."
Marvin Part and Ira "I did it for the publicity" Reiner appear to have been truly conscientious on behalf of Leslie, yet she sacked them, Paul Fitzgerald seems to have gone out of his way to understand the women and truly be a voice for Pat and remained it seems, on fairly good terms with some of the Family women for years afterwards but some of their antics behind the scenes tied his hands and despite the shenanigans that Daye Shinn reportedly got up to and that Richard Caballero was suspected of, in two books that Susan Atkins wrote, she doesn't appear to have any anger or bitterness towards them or feel that she was cheated {she reserves that for Bugliosi, Kasabian and Manson}. As for Irving K, he seems to have genuinely believed in Charlie's innocence but I'm still somewhat wide eyed that his reason for not putting on a defence was that he thought the prosecution's case was so rubbish that it amounted to no case at all and the jury would see through it.....
Maybe the thing where the unqualified person with an interest in the law represents themselves and wins only happens in dramas like "LA Law."

Sunshine69 said...

I recorded it on my DVR. Just finished watching it. Nothing but a repeat of the usual tripe.

Cielodrive.com said...

Tonight's DATELINE will not be Manson related

ziggyosterberg said...


@Robert Hendrickson - I forgot about Virginia Graham. For my money, there's nothing hotter than a 90-something year old woman showing cleavage. And it was nice of her to give Charlie top billing over Frank in her book "Manson, Sinatra and Me". Does that mean that Charlie is a bigger star/more famous than Frank?

@Manson Mythos - I actually looked at the clock when Tex's name was mentioned and it was 8:56, right near the end of the show. I thought maybe they had mentioned him earlier and I missed it, but I guess they didn't. I think Keith said something like "Tex Watson, the one actually did all of the killing", which must be some new kind of bait and switch-murder mystery-deliberately mislead the audience-style of journalism where you reveal the actual killer at the end of the show.

@Matt - Bartolo appears to be using the same personal fitness trainer that Sid Fernandez used in the 90's.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

A career criminal herself, once would imagine she too is well versed in sticking to the criminal code of silence

Criminal code of silence ? Get real mate ! Walk into any well stocked bookshop and head for the true crime section !
I have seen and heard so many criminals interviewed that I for one just cannot buy that red herring anymore. Criminals are like everyone else ¬> they blab. What they don't do so much is land themselves in prosecutable situations when there's no need or unless there's a deal in the offing.

That two Italian attorneys were behind Atkins before this woman who brushes shoulders and most likely a lot more with the Rat Pack and who was at the Cielo house and met Sebring....why is that not a red flag?

You so remind me of Dennis LaCalandra/MFA/Pheonix Rising. Are you he ?
I love the way you throw in your own bits of sensationalism.....that turn out to be rather damp squibs when examined. "This woman" met Jay Sebring at a party once, six years before he was murdered. Or was it seven ? And she was in the Cielo house years before anything murderous happened there. Once. To look at it as a possible place to rent with her former husband.
Would those details have made the documentary if you were making it ? Would I be good for a complimentary copy ? {I promise I won't upload it onto YT}.

Oh, I know why. Because drug addled nubile teen girls committing acts of murder for their fiery eyed guru is more titillating for the masses who live their mundane lives and get off on cheap thrills

Even George is on record as saying Charlie "told" the killers to "do something" to get Bobby out of prison. Even if they totally misinterpreted that, you can't get away from the fact that they committed murder for their fiery eyed guru {if only in their minds}. And Charlie had seriously fiery eyes back then. He was a good looking guy with very distinctive expressions.
Then making statements like "my total sellout to LSD, marijuana, and hashish, and to sex with virtually any attractive man, landed me in the hospital for four months. I was half dead from gonorrhea and a complete physical breakdown” coupled with Susan's well documented nubility and Leslie's looks takes care of the nubile sex and drugs bit. And Leslie did commit murder as a teen.
So what are you saying ? That people would rather be titillated by......the truth ?
That's a bit daring !
And not a word from Vincent T in sight......☺☺

Robert Hendrickson said...

SUSHINE 69:

DON'T erase YOUR DVD of the Dateline show. IF you send it to my TOBANN address, I'll send you a signed copy of MANSON or Inside the MANSON Gang. IF you record the second night and send it to me also. YOU get both DVDS.

Let me KNOW if you will, so I know I have it coming. Can't believe THEY used some of my stuff, especially because I told the producer beforehand it's $25,000 a running minute.

OH well, if I sue Dateline I might as well file Federal Lawsuits against ALL the infringers - going back 3 years !!!!!

Matt said...

Grim, Americans do have the right to act as their own counsel in court, but usually at the court's discretion. You can be denied that right if say the judge thinks you aren't mentally competent to do so.

My friendly acquaintance wasn't denied the right to be his own attorney. He just forfeited the right to appeal his conviction on the grounds that he had poor representation. That's reasonable to me.


MamaPoohBear said...

Did anyone watch Part One and think, "Wow, I can' wait for Part Two?" Yeah, me neither. What a piece of garbage. Is fact-checking considered extraneous when presenting a "documentary" about one of the most famous murders in America? 98% of it was just superficial blather...the one 1% presented featured Debra Tate presenting her own fictitious version of events, such as Debra's boyfriend at the time callings Mrs. Tate the morning after the murders and informing her of a fire at Sharon's house the night before. The last 1% was just errors and overlooked facts...leading viewers to believe that Susan Atkins was present at both the Tate and the LaBianca murders..she was not at the LaBianca murders. Also, they showed the LaBianca refrigerator about 4 times, and never pointed out the erroneous spelling of "Helter" as "Healter", the same way Krennie spelled "Healter" while doodling during the trial.

Matt said...

ziggyosterberg said...

@Matt - Bartolo appears to be using the same personal fitness trainer that Sid Fernandez used in the 90's.


I think Matt Harvey has also hired the same personal fitness trainer, he just hasn't worked hard enough yet.


Manson Mythos said...

What books for example? What criminals do you refer to? The Iceman who "blabbed" about total bullshit? Henry Hill, who cut a deal and had to live underneath witness protection for most of the remainder of his life? If Virginia Graham knowingly went into the prison to gain information from Atkins on behalf of anyone, she sure as hell won't say it. Especially since she can showboat as a hero and sell a book which NBC was kind enough to promote. I'm not saying that is the case, but there is certainly something absolutely fishy about that woman and the circumstances of this case. Her being as Cielo is no major "clue", but simply a small example of what a small world Los Angeles was in 1969. Blabbering about your own crimes is one thing, blabbering about the roles of other especially when it's detrimental to you and co-defendants isn't, unless one has something to gain. In the case of all those directly or indirectly involved in this case, there are none.

I am D. LaCalandra. No conspiracy there. I changed Google name to something more appropriate for my YouTube channel.

When I speak about the girls and the attraction of the case, I am speaking about it within a certain hyper reality context. The B-movie variety that people tent to see this case in and I personally do not think of most of the girls as being killers.

No I don't think people would be titillated by the truth. What I think is people would rather be titillated than even care for it.

mrgroove said...

I watched about twenty minutes of Dateline last night. It was breathtakingly craptacular but that's what I expected. Then I watched episode one of season one of Aquarius on Netflix. I was equally impressed.

Good to see fellow Mets fans here. I'm a long suffering one.

Matt said...

Hey Groove. I became a Mets fan in July of 1969 when the miracle hysteria was going on. I was 7. I've suffered most of the last 47 years but right now is a pretty good time. I'm really enjoying this team.



mrgroove said...

Hey Matt. My Mets fan days started in the early 70's when I was very young. I was born in Brooklyn, as were my parents. They had been Brooklyn Dodger fans and later Met nuts when Mr. Seaver arrived. These days, ironically, I'm a Mets fan living in the heart off Dodger-land. 1986 was, and still is, the top of the heat as I wasn't around for 1969. I was deliriously happy last year and hopeful that injuries won't wreck our chances this year. I like this team. Thor is a beast.

william marshall said...

Manson Mythos actually a lot of what the Ice man told about the murders he committed were well proven as fact
Robert I was hoping you caught the Dateline special were they used fotage from your documentary do I hear lawsuit

orwhut said...

William,
I've been skeptical as to whether Kuklinski actually sprayed cyanide in his victim's face while on a dance floor. Has that murder been confirmed?

Robert Hendrickson said...

RIGHT on Point here is Debra Tate NOW calling for a "boycott" of the NBC "Aquarius" TV show - the one SHE just helped promote. Of course, SHE didn't KNOW at the time that DATELINE was going to be used to "BOOST" Aquarius ratings. NOR did SHE know Aquarius would be "IN-sensitive to her sister's bloodied body (like when Charlie Manson, the actor, steps over it.)

BUT apparently SHE has NO problem with the made-up scene of Charlie being at HER sister's house right after the massacre. (IE: Bad C. Manson)

Time to realize Debby - TV show - NOT your friend and YOU have invited YOURSELF right into its world. Kind'a like your sister invited HERSELF right into Hollywood's "bottomless PIT."

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

My friendly acquaintance wasn't denied the right to be his own attorney. He just forfeited the right to appeal his conviction on the grounds that he had poor representation. That's reasonable to me

Put like that, I have to agree. What I get from that then is that if there were other appeal grounds he would have been able to appeal.

Manson Mythos said...

What books for example? What criminals do you refer to?

Mad Frankie Fraser {2}, Charlie Richardson, Fred Foreman, Reg and Ron Kray, Bruce Reynolds, Gordon Goody, Ronald Biggs and the remaining left alive of the "great" train robbers.......
There are tons of criminals that blab. Much police work, undercover work and intelligence couldn't be done were it not for the fact that criminals blab. So the grand idea of this wondrous code of silence among the underworld is not perhaps quite as glam as it first appears. I'm not saying that no criminals adhere to it, just that it's not the all pervading honour matter that it's presented as. Is it not somewhat ironic that every one of Charlie's murdering partners in crime eventually "broke the code" ?
I'd never really thought about criminals not snitching until I saw a documentary once where this armed robber called Mickey Kehoe was revealed as a police stoolie. When they went around asking various criminals about Kehoe, they were all saying no, no, there's no way Mickey was a snitch but though it was never proven, some underworld figures believed it and still do.

No I don't think people would be titillated by the truth. What I think is people would rather be titillated than even care for it.

Well, I agree with you there. But in reality, truth is quite heavy and not necessarily entertaining and many people when working out what they are going to watch will go for what entertains them. The Tate/LaBianca case has lots of entertaining aspects to it which are lesser parts but unfortunately are the bits that seem to get endlessly re~hashed at the expense of balance.

I am D. LaCalandra. No conspiracy there

You've got a really distinctive style. Even where I don't agree with what you've written, I generally enjoy your posts. Actually, you've pointed me in the direction of a number of interesting parts of the overall saga that I hadn't ever focused on.

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

I don't believe Bartolo can run at all.

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

-Guinn was. His Family name was Storyteller.-

Guinn is the now the official Mansonographer. Alisa Statman is a Tate family spokesman.
Sorry, just give me White Rabbit. At least he is entertaining.

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

-Just read that Barbara Hoyt and Debra Tate will be on.-

I'd like a re-enactment of the Honolulu Hamburger episode. Debra can play the part of Ouisch.

Sunshine69 said...

Hey sorry I didn't catch your comment until today. I have a link to the full special if you'd like to check it out! I don't know if links work on here so how can I reach you?

Sunshine69 said...

Did anyone else see that when they kept talking about Debra they were showing pictures of a young Patti?

ziggyosterberg said...


YouTube link of Dateline - Charles Manson


Dailymotion link of Dateline - Charles Manson

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

So I belatedly took the time to watch the Dateline show. Learned nothing. Manson For Dummies.