Monday, September 5, 2016

Bruce Davis answers to being the Zodiac Killer

Was Stephen Kay the Zodiac Killer?  Was Carl Wilson the Zodiac Killer?  Bruce Davis says he's NOT the Zodiac Killer! This is part of a letter that someone sent Bruce with a page summing up the accusations that were made about him by Bill Nelson and Howard Davis.  Bruce has underlined portions (a la Bill Nelson) and made notes in the margins and then sent the page back to the sender.

So much for Nelson and Howard Davis's claim that Bruce would not address the issue. This letter was written 10 years ago.








99 comments:

Sime's World said...

Thanks for sharing. On just one issue alone, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Bruce did visit Manchester sometime in 68-9.

Simon

Robert Hendrickson said...

I THINK the Bruce / Zodiac "connection" got started because Bruce is well known to be smart, intelligent, etc. and the COPS would have us believe that ONLY a "man" that can beat THEM at their own game must be SMART.

NOW here's one for DREATH:
IF Bruce's claims that HIS father abused HIM are true, HE may be entitled to a NEW trial. Back in the day Court's ruled that parental abuse evidence was NOT admissible, BUT now apparently even the Mendez Brothers may be entitled to a NEW trail.

Makes ME wonder IF "abuse" by others (guards, wardens, teachers, priests, etc.) may also be admissible NOW)

AND of course, BRUCE was SMART enough to hide-out with the MANSON Gang, instead of playing "Commie Killer" in the rice paddies of Vietnam. SO is ANYONE paying attention to the time frames 1965-1970 significant to the lives of young folks while this Vietnam WAR / Manson Family escapade developed?

starviego said...

Exactly how all those Manson men avoided/evaded the Draft is still a mystery. None of them were ever charged with draft evasion, as far as I know. Therefore I conclude they all received deferments of some kind.

Manson Mythos said...

I posted this somewhere awhile ago. People state it as if fact that Bruce was in England after the Tate-LaBianca murders, but I was always certain he was NOT there. There is no documented evidence of it at all and here we have Bruce himself saying he wasn't.

The whole account of Davis in England came from a fairly well known musician (I for who), who said he saw a guy that "looked like" Bruce there.

Interesting that the murder of Joel Pugh is one Stephen Kay liked to speculate the most about.

Manson Mythos said...

Oh, it was CP Lee of a band called Alberto y Lost Trios Paranoias who said he met a guy he thinks was Bruce Davis in Manchester. A guy who had a "mind control trip". The thing is he said he was "fairly certain" it was Bruce.

Dreath said...

RH: no new trials. The "abuse" defense is either best described by 'The Burning Bed" my victim abused me so it's self defense. Or as a mitigation defense: I did it but because of my history I either didn't think it was wrong ( I am nuts) or please show me mercy- convict me of manslaughter. Both would be 'in effective assistance of counsel'. The time has passed.

Sime's World said...

Can I just add that since the publication of my book, a couple of people have come forward with some further details of Bruce Davis in Manchester.

DebS said...

Simon, do you have that info posted on your blog? Just curious about dates etc. I have seen the CID letter "re: the death of Joel Pugh" and it's vague as to whether or not Davis entered the UK after leaving in April 1969. It does not rule out the possibility that he was there at a later date. But, in those days long haired hippies all looked alike to many people.

The logistics of Bruce having committed the last known Zodiac murder are extremely tight. Paul Stine the cab driver was killed in SF Oct. 11th 1969 at 10 PM. Bruce was arrested Oct. 12th at Barker Ranch. The composite of the Zodiac suspect shows him as having a crew cut. Bruce had long hair when arrested at Barker.

Sime's World said...

Hi Debs, because the blog is mainly re Bruce and Joel, I've resisted posting up some of the other Manchester stuff, but suffice to say he was noted by a few others in the Manchester area - including people connected to a co-operative called "On The Eight Day" (still here). Now you have asked, I *may* put this info into the piece, but in answer to your question, no - there are no dates - sadly.

While I am sure Bruce had a hand in the Zero killing, I don't imagine for a second he was the Zodiac - nor Joel Pugh's killer. I've yet to read Nikolas Schreck's account of Davis, but I hear it suggested that Bruce may have been on his way through Manchester to Northern Ireland. Again, I discounted it, but if you listen here at 26.20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vwhLXO7AF4) there's an interesting connection which Davis' never really qualifies. By the way, I do know N. Schreck's information regarding Bruce in the UK came from Bill Scanlon Murphy. For whatever reasons, Murphy abandoned his book project, and yet has been happy to supply Schreck with his research. If anyone has a further insight to this, I'd be happy to hear.

Regards

Simon

DebS said...

Thanks Simon, I will check it out.

Manson Mythos said...

I don't know if Murphy handed over all of his research to Nikolas.

I don't believe Davis made a second trip to England.

Robert Hendrickson said...

DREATH just mentioned the "secret word / phrase" - "assistance of counsel" that sets this MANSON case apart from most others.

There is NO question Charles Manson was denied a so-called RIGHT to represent himself at trial, BUT was he also denied HIS US Constitutional RIGHT to "assistance of counsel" at trial?

BTW: there was a time when "incompetants, women and US soldiers were denied THEIR right to vote.

St Circumstance said...

There is no question Charlie was too given the right to represent himself

Please stop saying that. It is not true at all

He was given the right then abused it and had it taken away. If not that trial may still be going on to this day lol

But being denied and having the right taken away when you abuse it are two different things. Stop making apologies for Charlie.

An intelligent persons such as yourself understands that Mr. H :)

Farflung said...

Bruce would have more logistic issues regarding the Zodiac's continued letter writing into 1970.

It's amazing how some of these theories get legs.

Zodiac had an arsenal of weapons, where Bruce used knives, pipe wrenches, or that POS Hi Standard .22.

Manson Mythos said...

Filing a motion is not abusing your right.

Dreath said...

Actually, in 1969, Manson had no right to represent himself. He only had a right to counsel.

I would agree with RH: these guys were not a 'dream team'.

Dreath said...

Here you go:

Only Manson contends on this appeal that he was erroneously denied the fundamental right to proceed pro se. However, all appellants early in the case applied to the trial court to so proceed. The ultimate decision of the lower court was that no appellant was capable of self representation. At the time counsel was appointed for each appellant, there "[was] no constitutional right to proceed pro se at trial." (People v. Sharp (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 448, 451 [103 Cal. Rptr. 233, 499 P.2d 489].)

While this appeal was pending, Sharp was invalidated by the United States Supreme Court. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 95 S. Ct. 2525].) However, our own Supreme Court has concluded that "the Faretta decision is not to be given retroactive application. ..." (People v. McDaniel (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 156, 163 [127 Cal. Rptr. 467, 545 P.2d 843].) Consequently, Faretta has no application to this appeal. No other error is attributable to the fact that no appellant was permitted to proceed pro se. Manson's contention that he was prejudiced by not being permitted to represent himself is not supported by the record.

People v. Manson, California Court of Appeals Opinion. Found here: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/61/102.html

You can also see many other complaints about the trial were raised on the appeal and also see Van Houten's successful argument.

I know many people want to argue Manson was denied a fair trial due to his right to represent himself. He was not. The 'right' you rely upon for your argument didn't exist in 1969, only in 1972.

Opinion: next time you vote for Presidents who appoint men like Antonin Scalia remember this. He is a strict constructionist- meaning the document says what it says and nothing more.

You can't argue Manson was denied a right that did not exist in 1969 and support judges who do not believe there are 'other rights' in the Constitution that are not directly stated. So 'legally' stop saying he was denied the right to represent himself. You have that right today because the 'liberal' justices recognized it in 1972. Manson did not have it in 1969.

Dreath said...

Excuse me, the right did not exist until '1975' not '1972'. I apologize for the error.

St Circumstance said...

Manson was allowed to defend himself. He had it taken away only after abusing it and proving he couldn't handle it in a responsible manner.

Those are the facts. Period.

St Circumstance said...

I am an opinion guy lol That is what I do here. I dont mind debating opinions. But facts are facts, and it is impossible to discuss this if people are going to re-write history....


December 24, 1969:

The Court- " it is this courts opinion, a sad and tragic mistake you are making by taking this course of action, but I cant talk you out of it. Mr. Manson you are your own lawyer".


That did happen....


March 6 1970 after filing more nonsensical motions such as requesting the DA be jailed under the same circumstances as himself, and that he be allowed to travel anywhere he wanted- ridiculous things such as this lol

"Mr. Manson, your status, at this time, of acting as your own attorney is vacated."



According to my math that means that Charlie had a couple of months to try and do it the right way, and he handled it the way he handled everything else. Show- off, look at me, I am the smartest guy in the room nonsense.

He never took any of it seriously, and he acted like a complete jackass, over and over again in the court room. They all mimicked him, and laughed and smiled there way through a murder trial while horrified family members of victims had to watch. Charlie's own wort enemy at that trial was Charlie. He has nobody to blame for spending the rest of his life behind bars. He made his own choices and decisions. Nobody denied him anything...

He made his bed, and he accepts it more or less. You should too...

Jean Harlow said...

Steviego I don't know about the others but Tex had a deferment because of his knee. He had an injury of some sort (football?)and had surgery etc hence the deferment.

St Circumstance said...

Final comment on this subject and others can have their say.


The Dream team wouldn't not have mattered at at all. Nothing was going to stop Charlie from undermining himself. Nothing. They all changed, and fired, multiple lawyers who wouldn't do what Charlie wanted. Charlie was not going to listen to anyone. A couple tried to do some smart things anyway, and their own clients fought them and dismissed them for doing so. Cant blame the lawyers either. Sorry.

Look when you are accused of what they were accused of, and act the way they acted, what do you think is going to happen? Carving X into your head? Shaving your hair off to look even more scary- when you know people are already scared shitless of what you did? Trying to jump at a judge?

Can we really blame the court or lawyers? Honestly? Those people put on a show in front of an incredulous court room and jury. They didn't want to be helped. They didn't want to listen. It was all fun and games and the Charlie Manson show.

So when its no longer fun sitting in a cage for the rest of your life like a trapped animal- you start to point fingers and blaming everyone else. Or even better, you have total strangers who only know you for being a notorious criminal, go out in the world and make the case for you. Which is fine with me, but please...

just be honest about the facts. we can all have opinions about the fairness of his loosing the ability to be his own lawyer.

BUT HE WAS NOT DENIED THE RIGHT TO BE HIS OWN LAWYER!!!!

So can we just finally put that to bed please? It is not true :)

St Circumstance said...

Jean he got in a car accident on Sunset Strip which is how he got the deferment and the lawyers who showed up in Texas after his arrest ;)

Robert Hendrickson said...

FIRST; let me thank DREATH for doing some LEGAL research on the issue of "assistance of counsel" versus the RIGHT to represent oneself" at trial. Of course, putting the matter in laymen's terms can present even a greater issue.

When a COP shoots and kills a BLACK man, has he TAKEN the life of a citizen or merely "cut a LIFE short" ? IF "under the color of authority" a COP kills a citizen, the matter can be considered a "violation" of a citizen's Constitutional RIGHT, but if reversed - the citizen kills the COP, it cannot be considered a violation of the COPS Constitutional RIGHT.

Here, we are dealing with LAWS and how they have been interpreted by men AND women who, for the most part, could NOT even be $ successful $ as lawyers, so they became judges.

AND that's WHY the common man (with the guidance of a six-pack) usually sounds like HE has a more
sensible "interpretation" of the LAW.

NOW DREATH has raised another issue that goes RIGHT to heart of ALL legal matters: "STRICT" interpretation versus "DEVELOPING" interpretation. And that says MORE about the interpreter than even the "interpretation."

I THINK that's WHY Jesus turned the water into wine - HE knew WE would needed a lot of HELP with "interpretations."

Dreath said...

Hmmm...RH I thought I did use laymen's terms.

Ineffective assistance of counsel= 'my lawyer sucked so bad I should get a new trial'

Manson's right to represent himself= didn't exist in 1969

RH said: IF "under the color of authority" a COP kills a citizen, the matter can be considered a "violation" of a citizen's Constitutional RIGHT, but if reversed - the citizen kills the COP, it cannot be considered a violation of the COPS Constitutional RIGHT.

Because the constitution restricts what the state can do, not the individual. The cop is an employee of the state. He can't deprive you of life without 'due process'- a trial.

Matt can ban anyone he wants from this blog and you have not been deprived of your freedom of speech. Matt is not the state.

RH said: NOW DREATH has raised another issue that goes RIGHT to heart of ALL legal matters: "STRICT" interpretation versus "DEVELOPING" interpretation. And that says MORE about the interpreter than even the "interpretation."

You are absolutely correct.

Farflung said...

Interpretation is a bit of a shield to hide behind.

"All men are created equal."

Questions? The layman probably has a good grasp on that. Equality is a binary condition, and can't have qualifiers.

All men are created equal, except blacks, who can be enslaved. That's some prime duplicity there. And who upheld, or tolerated the institution of slavery? Took a lot of lawyers, and judges to keep that industry huffing along until the industrial revolution.

Slavery and equality needed interpretation? Hard to imagine.

In spite of the Thirteenth Amendment, those "lawmakers" still manage to instill slavery into society. Invisiblle to most, and practiced under a noble banner, but still has people working for others, without any chance of compensation.

It's called employer sponsored healthcare. Employee A is married, with one child (3 policies), Employee B is married, with two children (4 policies), Employee C is single (1 policy). This is a total of 8 policies, for 3 employees (same job), or 2.66 policies each.

So the married employees who recieve 3 or 4 policies, get a discount by paying for 2.66. The single employee is forced to pay a penalty of 166 percent to get the same coverage. Or $129,480, over a ten year period ($650 premium expense monthly).

So who designed the employer sponsored healthcare system? My money is on lawyers, married lawyers, with children. But I'm one of those "six pack" laymen.

St Circumstance said...

Zodiackiller dot com has a whole page devoted to Nelson and Davis. Some interesting stuff to read if your into the who Manson Zodiac connection. Here is a sample:


This email and a second message provided the details concerning the inner workings of the alleged conspiracy in the District Attorney’s Office.

In 1974 we had a very small family get together … My sharp as a tack brother in law was there. He was Assistant DA for the LA DA's Office and helped prosecute Manson and others … I clearly remember every detail of our conversation in 1974. He and I were at my dining table chatting and since I was from the N. Bay Area I asked him 'why he thought Zodiac stopped killing and writing letters, etc. or so it seemed to me as I knew very little about the case. He leaned slightly over towards me and in his usual still and very serious manner told me casually "because he is in prison!'" I said, "how can you know that as the authorities are all looking for him." He then told me that if I wouldn't "tell anyone"(while he was with the DA) he would tell me how he knew this 'secret' information. I assented. He said that as they 'were going through the personal effects' of a "male member of the Manson Family "they found the Zodiac hood, knife and other evidence. He would not go into the other evidence. In short, they had a meeting in which a legal expert on county law and in other legal matters (he was very experienced) told them in a report he had prepared that he estimated it cost "about two million" to send the suspect to N. CA to be tried as "Zodiac." They had spent just under one million which was a world record for a trial on CM and his group. The funds were not there. the Expert told them they could possibly lose him on the two 187's they already, but barely got him on, in '71/2 and he could possibly get off in such a liberal climate … as was found in the Bay Area. He mentioned jurisdictional disputes and many other reasons concerning the Z evidence at that time. After this and other discussions they decided to suppress what they had found and knew. They took the Expert's advice into conservation too. DA Younger knew of these matters. Bugliosi, Stovitz and others knew nothing of this, but in conversation B has come to believe that a CM/BD connection to Z is possible. He has written wishing me luck in uncovering the Z case. My brother in law then told me that "We have it set so that he can never get out." He also indicated that girlfriends and wives were very tired of the CM case in that their men were all working very long hours and they were all burned out and to think of going through an experience such as was given would be even more difficult. This was the last consideration. They felt they had this guy in for good now and that any penalty would be the same or life in prison so they did what they did. I did not and do not agree, but it was them not me that did it. I had the impression that they didn't really care for the N CA authorities either. That was MY impression based on the way he spoke of them. I am cutting out a lot to make this terse as possible, but this is the essence of the discussion we had. We were always able to get along … I have always been very willing to take a lie detector test as to what I have recounted. It is the truth. At my request my ex wife asked him just before he left the DOJ about Zodiac and our talk in '74. He denied he even knew who Z was or anything about the case. Of course, she knew that he was familiar with the Z case. As she was walking away he said in a fairly firm voice,' Kris, "I know" all the other suspects- except the one he gave me- are not Zodiac or "fake."

St Circumstance said...

Sorry- that came from Zodiackillerfacts dot com and important distinction because those two sites don't like each other it seems lol The first one supported Davis and Nelson and the one I took this expert from debunked them.


Low and behold look who is mentioned later on this post :)


Howard Davis stepped to the front of the theater and addressed the audience. He began by mentioning his work with an amateur code-breaker.

“Anyway, um, today, um, I met her for the first time, Deborah(Our Deb), she’s been doing work on, um, the Zodiac codes, and, in my view, at this time, I feel it’s quite stellar. And, uh, experts are being consulted, and so on. Uh, she’s done a marvelous work, and no axes to grind, and no prejudices on both sides. So, um, in the weeks to come, our website – the Zodiac/Manson connection, the name has changed, dot com – uh, Jim Nelson, the webmaster, is here, he’s got some books, some Zodiac/Manson Connection books, you want to read that. Once again, this our viewpoint, our opinion, and I encourage you to talk to others, and examine other websites that have other suspects. There are people that have no suspects, and that’s fine. We’re all interested in the case, so that is our, um, our medium.”

starviego said...

"St Circumstance said...
Jean he got in a car accident on Sunset Strip which is how he got the deferment"

Charles "Tex" Watson turned 18 in 1963. He went to college for a while and then dropped out and went to work for Braniff airlines. He should have been drafted then, but wasn't. A couple of years later he moved to LA and re-enrolled in college, but never attended any classes. At some point he banged up his knee in that accident, but that doesn't account for all the time before then. The issue is not settled.

Manson Mythos said...

The right of a party to a legal action to represent his or her own cause has long been recognized in the United States, and even predates the ratification of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court noted that "[i]n the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. Section 35 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 92, enacted by the First Congress and signed by President Washington one day before the Sixth Amendment was proposed, provided that 'in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel.'"[5]

Even if I am wrong, the idea he had a right to defend himself is a joke. With the amount of pre-trial publicity and shady dealings of Atkins attorneys, it's like telling a one legged man he can defend himself in an ass kicking contest.

Bugliosi told Manson he would convict him after he got a "fair trial". This was after he was already found guilty by the media.
____________________________________________________

The Zodiac/Manson Connection is easily one of the worst books, if not thee worst book written in connection with the case along with The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten. The former is at least humourous though.

Farflung said...

Watson's draft number was 328.

The highest number called was 195.

Tex would not have been drafted.

St Circumstance said...

When Tex first got to California after dropping out- he enrolled in school at Cal State for awhile as well... then he had the accident which he says caused the deferment..

Again- I sont know for sure- but I always will take their own latter day explanation for basic facts over rumors sparked by strangers :)

His page is down for some reason, but I have copy and pasted this before. It is on this blog somewhere..

Tex says in his online book that he enrolled in school to keep a promise to his parents when he moved out to California, and he tells of the car accident and says it had two consequences: Keeping him from being drafted, and involving him with the two attorneys who would later show up in Texas trying to cash in on there relationship...

When an adult Tex explains in his own words about a fact of his life that has nothing to do with the crimes- It is resolved enough for me :)

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

Here's the chronological life of Tex for 72 hours:

30 Nov 69, Arrested in Texas.

1 Dec 69, First draft for Vietnam.

2 Dec 69, Tex turns 24, in jail, for murder.

Draft becomes moot point.

Dreath said...

MM you are not 'wrong' you are on the parallel track. The key to your quote are these two parts:

"[i]n the federal courts" and "'in all the courts of the United States"

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the federal court system: "the courts of the United States. States". Each state of course has their own courts. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution (the Bill of Rights) originally applied only to the Federal government. The 14th Amendment extended them to the states.

Until 1975 California did not recognize a right of self representation.

Faretta v. California was the case where the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.

____________________________________

The draft had existed since 1940. The 1969 lottery simply made it a random process. Draftees by year:

1964 112,386
1965 230,991
1966 382,010
1967 228,263
1968 296,406

Matt said...

Manson Mythos said...
The Zodiac/Manson Connection is easily one of the worst books, if not thee worst book written in connection with the case along with The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten. The former is at least humourous though.


No, the absolute worst (and funniest) was Nikolas Schreck's comedy novel.

St Circumstance said...


I think Tex's site may have finally gone off site? Anyway- it was Laurel Canyon Blvd, not Sunset Strip.

This is what Cielo Drive has on that site:

In California, Watson signed up for classes at Cal State, and got a job as a wig salesman in Beverly Hills. He lived in a few different places; first there was an apartment in Silverlake, and then he moved to Laurel Canyon. He messed up his knee in a car accident in the Canyon, which kept him out of the Army. After dropping out of school, he moved to Malibu and opened a wig shop with his roommate. The store was called Love Locs, and it turned out to be a disaster, closing after only a few months. To pay the rent, Watson began dealing pot full time.

Farflung said...

Dreath,

We may be missing a lil sumpin sumpin.

There may have been a "registration" for selective service during those years, but there was no "draft" or, involuntary conscription.

That MAY have happened on 1 Dec 69, when the lottery was held, which determined who would be drafted (inducted) for those with numbers from 1 to 195.

The draft if for those called, for others, they simply register.

I was in the military. Even did some combat. When I separated, due to my age, I had to register with the selective service again.

I was never drafted. I believe Robert was.

Manson Mythos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Manson Mythos said...

You seriously think Howard Davis' book is a notch above Schreck?

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

Different subject matter. I'm referring to TLB specific books only. It was obvious to us that Schreck followed leads that were intriguing, but when they didn't pan out he crammed them into the box anyway. The differences in cities, crime families and spellings of last names were huge red flags that once investigated proved bogus. Can't wait for the next edition!

Dreath said...

Farflung,

I am pretty sure there was a draft (conscription) before 1969. Check this out: https://www.sss.gov/About/History-And-Records/Induction-Statistics

I believe it was handled by local draft boards until the lottery.

Maybe Robert can help here but if he wasn't drafted until December 1969- the lottery- he wouldn't have been filming at Spahn.

starviego said...

"I am pretty sure there was a draft (conscription) before 1969"

Of course there was. Do you think they staffed their units in Vietnam with volunteers? Hell, even Elvis got drafted, and that was in the '50s.

Farflung said...

The '69 lottery included those born from 1944 to 1950. With subsequent drafts being for birth years of 1951, 1952, etc.

With the six year inclusion, followed by annual? Why did I register and NOT be included in a lottery, after my honorable service?

They (code for the gubbermint) didn't need us.

If Tex was draft dodging before the lottery, he would be in jail for that instead of murder.

Watson's very existence, and lack of charges, indicates he wasn't on the Selective Service's radar.

I know no one appreciates the irony of a combat veteran registering for the selective service, so I'll leave it at that. Believe what you will.

Farflung said...

Of course there was a draft before 1969.

My own father was one of the lucky 19,000 to be drafted in 1940.

The next year there were hundreds of thousands, most pissed off at what occured in Pearl Harbor.

My uncles joined via that same pissed spirit. The same zeal was demonstrated by those much younger after 9-11. True patriots and no draft. See the difference?

You can rely on the kindness of strangers, or draft Tex Watson.

Farflung said...

How many were drafted in 1946, 47, 48 ? That's right, millions and millions were mustered out , and joined the 52-20 club.

You know, the veterans who were paid $20 a week for 52 weeks. Most bought Harleys or Indians (for around $300), because they sounded like B-17s, but were safer without German fighters. They gathered at locations like Sturgis, for reasons long lost to history. Cuz we can rewrite that stuff.

Farflung said...

The draft "lottery" has been used since, at least (at least), WWI.

Where do these historical inaccuracies germinate?

That's NOT a rhetorical question.

Dreath said...

Yes, there was a draft prior to 1969- I am aware, two of my cousins were drafted before 1969.

Just a thought: perhaps Tex was registered for the draft in Texas. Per the selective service website (history) there was a good deal of favoritism in that process. Tex had some relatives who could stall his return to California. Perhaps he had one who also kept his name from coming up.

Farflung said...

Good thought Dreath.

Farflung said...

Regarding the draft, be it before 1969, or whenever.

The notice for induction would be sent a la Elvis, to include Tex. He received no such notice, sooo Tex had nothing to worry about, until 1 Dec 69, when he was in jail for murder.

Farflung said...

Can anyone attribute Watson's draft eligibility, with a date, or other qualifier?

(insert looong cricket chirps)

ColScott said...

Everyone here reporting on Nelson was not around in the early pioneer days of TLB. I was. It is simple- if Nelson wrote it it was unmitigated bullshit. His stench destroyed everything he touched. His family felt a release of pressure the day he died. He is like Rabia Chaudry is today- making money off murder victims with no morals whatsoever

Cielodrive.com said...

David Neale testimony

A: Yes, sir.
Q: How long did Charles stay with you?
A: He was there -- he was in Highland Park up until the time I was drafted, which was December 2nd.
Q: December 2nd, 1968?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And did Charles, himself, report for induction, if you know?
A: Yes, sir, he did.
Q: And do you know what the result of the physical was?
A: Yes, sir; as a result of the knee injury that he suffered, I think he was given a 1-Y classification. He wasn't inducted.


----
Watson testimony

Q: Now, you have used the December date as a frame of reference about working on the house and in leaving.
What happened in December?
A: I had to take an Army physical the first part of December there, so I was at a telephone, I remember, at a friend's house, at a friend of the family's house, in Topanga Canyon and I called up Dave and this is when I called Dave and told him that I was kind of losing myself.
Q: Dave Neale?

starviego said...

Farflung said...
If Tex was draft dodging before the lottery, he would be in jail for that instead of murder. Watson's very existence, and lack of charges, indicates he wasn't on the Selective Service's radar.


Tex wasn't the only one. By my research the following male Family members/associates should have been drafted:

Larry Bailey 18 in 1970 Did arrest record prevent him from being drafted?

Bobby Beausoleil 18 in 1965 Would a reform school record have prevented him from being eligible?

Bruce Davis 18 in 1960

Steve Grogan 18 in 1964

John "Zero" Haught 18 in 1965

Brooks Posten ?

Paul Watkins 18 in 1968

Charles "Tex" Watson turned 18 in 1963



I wonder if the boys got a "pass" by someone up high, just like Charlie himself got a "pass" from the law for the two years he was free. This whole thing is an unexplored area for researchers.

Farflung said...

I was eligible for the draft AFTER serving in the military!

Get it?

How did those guys dodge? You tell me!

How did YOU avoid the draft?

Too young?

There never was one for you?

You skipped to Canada?

I have no problem with any answer, I just want to know how you evaded such a requirement.

Perhaps we could understand how Tex avoided "the calling".

Farflung said...

Paul Watkins was draft number 52, and should have been inducted.

Why wasn't he ... I Don't know.

The reason why anyone with a number of 196, or higher, is because they "won" and didn't have to serve.

Farflung said...

So the question should be about...

Those of age, whose draft number is 195, or less, for the 1 Dec 69, lottery for "military" (excludes Navy, and Air Force) induction.

Farflung said...

This may explain why the FBI has a 10 most wanted... It's a flawed system, with people slipping through.

How about deadbeat dads, child molesters, or grand theft criminals? All caught, or most living free?

Draft dogers are the Mother Teresas of the criminal world.

Cuz ya know, Manson never actually killed anyone.

starviego said...

"How did those guys dodge? You tell me!"

I don't know. That's why I was asking. I just think it's a relevant topic and I'm surprised the subject never came up before.


"How did YOU avoid the draft?"

There never was one for me.


"Paul Watkins... should have been inducted.
Why wasn't he ... I Don't know."


He had this story, but I am not buying it:

http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/07/my-life-with-charles-manson-chapter_21.html
My Life With Charles Manson Chapter 20 Sept 1969?
"I attended my physical in L.A. on a Monday morning and before noon was classified as unfit for military service. A well-thought-out spiel on the virtues of drugs in expanding consciousness (plus my police record*) was enough apparently to make me “undesirable.” "
*two arrests for possession


"It's a flawed system, with people slipping through."

Sure some draft dodgers slipped through the system, but all the Manson men were under intense police scrutiny in late '69 and '70. I don't remember anybody being charged with that crime.

DebS said...

John Phillip Haught was in the Navy and served in Vietnam. Here's his Find A Grave page-

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=7429077&ref=acom

DebS said...

Steve Grogan was born July 13, 1951 so was 18 in 1969. It's often said that Leslie was the youngest Family member to be convicted of murder but it was actually Grogan who was the youngest.

DebS said...

Most of those guys you mentioned Starveigo moved around so much that the draft board couldn't catch up with them, assuming they even registered for the draft. It's doubtful that they ever registered. Once the arrests were made and the trials began they were either on trial or witnesses who were needed so deferments were made.

St Circumstance said...

Ya know... The Zodiac forums are sort of similar to the TLB blogs. Not as much participation and conversation maybe, but the people who are into it- are really into it lol :


“Cryptography can be addictive, as can be drugs, sex, sports, work, or anything else,” says Geoff L. “I get a natural high from using my brain to work on the 340, but there are also times when I feel extreme lows. It can be exasperating, and I need to take a mental break. Some of my coworkers tease me, and when the subject of hobbies have been brought up in job interviews, I’ve gotten some blank stares.”

And so, sometimes, the amateur sleuths need to close their programs, slam shut their coding books, and leave their online compatriots behind. Sometimes, when their manic hunts to unlock the cipher turn up only gibberish, they need to take a step back and reevaluate their lives. Sometimes, a cipher hunter like Jarl Van Eycke needs to quit the forums and focus on IRL.

For a little while, at least.

While Van Eycke claimed to put all things Zodiac behind him in early 2016, the self-imposed exile lasted all of a few months. He returned to the forums in part because he wants to be there when the code’s broken. “The 340 will be solved upon the foundations of all the people that ever worked on it,” he says. “I estimate it will be solved by 2026.”

In the meantime, the Zodiac cipher creeps toward four decades of going unsolved. Yet for the dedicated amateurs—obsessives, some—who are trying to solve it, the problem remains, well, fun. “It’s better than playing Candy Crush,” says Mr. Lowe. “If I change my mind or I need to move on, I’ll go and improve my golf or something.”

St Circumstance said...

Hear that... maybe we should all stop worrying about Why Tex didn't get drafted and go play golf.

I want MR. H in my foursome :) Ill bring the Coors-lights!

starviego said...

"John Phillip Haught was in the Navy and served in Vietnam."

Thank you, Deb. Next question: What exactly were Juan Flynn, John Haught, and TJ Walleman doing while they were in Vietnam or the service? What units were they in?


"Once the arrests were made and the trials began they were either on trial or witnesses who were needed so deferments were made."

Sounds logical, but do you have a source for that?

starviego said...

"What exactly were Juan Flynn, John Haught, and TJ Walleman doing while they were in Vietnam or the service?"

Why is that relevant? It probably means nothing, but what if they were in special forces -type units or in psychological warfare units? Then it might be very relevant.

DebS said...

I have no idea what units Flynn, Walleman or Haught were in during their military service. The Military records at the National Archives do not list much about the people who served in Vietnam except those who died, were wounded or received commendations. You can try to find the people you are interested in here-

https://aad.archives.gov/aad/series-list.jsp?cat=GP23

I believe that Juan Flynn's legal name was John.

Haught's headstone denotes that he was an SA in the Navy, that is an abbreviation for Seaman Apprentice and his pay grade would have been an E-2. An E-2 is not very far up on the ladder.

No I do not have a source for the deferments, I can't remember where I saw that discussed. It could have been TOTLB forum which is no longer online.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Obviously, the military DRAFT situation was as significant to the Manson Family males as making babies was to the females. BUT local police had NO subject matter 'jurisdiction' over draft dodging, just as THEY have NO subject matter 'jurisdiction' over aliens because they entered America without Federal permission. In fact, back in the day, males were begging to get on any police force in order to 'avoid' the rice paddies of Vietnam.

I was drafted into LBJ's 1965 "get them Commie Gooks campaign" in order to save America from them evil heathens who didn't love Jesus enough. Of course, I didn't go to Vietnam - NOT Black, Brown or undereducated WHITEY.

I have Brooks Poston on tape explaining how HE was SAVED from Federal Prison for testifying against Manson.

BUT hey, can you blame ANY of these young'uns for avoiding the short-cut to HELL. Back in the day, the ONLY difference between Charles Manson and Lyndon Johnson was: Even the dip-shits KNEW LBJ was a psycho KILLER, where Manson apparently had most folks fooled for awhile.

ASK "yourself" IF I could avoid spilling MY blood in the rice paddies of Vietnam by simply JOINING the Manson Family - would I do it?

OH, and IF enough blood did NOT leak from YOUR bullet riddled body to sink it, IT would float until the GOOKS riddled it some more with Pungi sticks.

Robert C said...

Actually the drafty topic was discussed briefly earlier in the year, but you can get your fill by Googling the US selective service system and get all the facts as they see it but ...

> the draft went from random selection by name to random selection by number based on birthday in November '69.
> throughout only a small percentage of all males of military age were ever drafted.
> of that number only a small percentage went to Nam - the rest to staff the military bases around the world like Korea and Germany.
> 'draft dodging' back then was considered to only apply to those who took a hike or disappeared.
> 'draft dodging' back then was considered a good thing by most (of all ages) by the late 60's due to Nam discontent.
> if you got drafted for 2 years service you had the option of joining the Navy/Air Force/Marines for four years.
> my draft number was 261.
> as I remembered it, very few actually got drafted with a number higher than 100 although different draft boards had different quotas at different times.
> as it's related to the Mansonite males born between '51-'53 inclusive (I think only one or two ?)> , if you know their birthdays you could find their number here: http://www.landscaper.net/draft70-72.htm
> prior to late '69 it's more difficult to nail down why some were drafted or not except it was a random name process so perhaps those Manson men simply were not called up.
> or they didn't sign up on the SSA.

Robert C said...

Also add there were many, many with numbers under 100 who were never drafted. It all depended on the 'quota call' from month to month at different draft boards.

starviego said...

Deb,

"Steve Grogan was born July 13, 1951 so was 18 in 1969."

Are you sure about that? Other sources list his d.o.b. as 05/24/46.

Anyway here's some more about Watkins' own attempts to avoid the draft in '69:

http://www.lsb3.com/search?q=Steve+Grogan+
In an effort to discredit Watkins, she(Brenda McCann) claimed he boasted that he was avoiding the draft by feigning mental instability, epilepsy, and seizures. Further, she said that Watkins claimed he had learned to mock up cancer in his lungs so that an X ray would reveal a black spot! she also added that he claimed to be a homosexual.

Cielodrive.com said...

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, it kind of came around like this. About this time when I first got back from Europe was with the family. Now the -- now the scenario had changed to peace and love to Helter Skelter. I was gone from the family from June '68 until probably April or, I guess April, March, April of '69. Okay? The scenario had changed so when I got back it was about we've got to get -- we've got to be armed and there's going to be a race war, et cetera. And so I wanted to be like the rest of the guys and so I bought a pistol.

orwhut said...

Did being expert enough to demonstrate how to blow Charlie qualify Little Paul as homosexual in the eyes of the draft board?

Robert Hendrickson said...

Here's a bizarre THOUGHT regarding the American society in the 1960,s:

Because all it took for a young male to be excused from military service in Vietnam was a CLAIM to be homosexual, you would THINK that MOST boys would jump on that "better SAFE than SORRY" band wagon. BUT just the opposite - because being GAY was regarded as having such an awful STIGMA for life, actually ONLY a few went for it. In fact, most GAY men DENIED being GAY and were consequently DRAFTED, rather than be scarred for life by the government. Maybe not today, but back then, that "Gay" code mark on your military record, could ban you from future employment FOREVER.

That said, committing certain small CRIMES could provide you with a SAFE out and you could still maintain a reasonably CLEAN record for future employment. IE: if you were a gang member and had a few arrests, but NO felony convictions YOU were in a GREAT position to DECIDE whether you would DIE in a rice paddy or live the American dream. It simply boiled down to how YOU wanted to play YOUR cards. BUT if you ever KILLED someone - even in self-defense, you would most likely be excluded from military service. GO figure !

Ironically, Charles Manson PROVIDED the Manson Gang boys with a "safe harbor" much like the DMCA provides Internet Service Providers with a "safe harbor."

I bet this MANSON case provides MORE relevant back stories from which to learn about REAL Life than even the Holy Bible does.

Seems a shame that MOST folks are actually AFRAID to "learn" about LIFE and those that USE this incredible Manson Case Story to LEARN have to be ashamed to reveal THEY "Love to Learn."

DebS said...

Starveigo check your email, I've sent you proof of Grogan's birthdate.

starviego said...

Thanks Deb!

orwhut said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

BUT if you ever KILLED someone - even in self-defense, you would most likely be excluded from military service. GO figure !

I guess the story a friend told me is true, then. He said he told someone in authority, I think, at the induction center, that he wanted to go to Viet Nam. When asked why he said because he wanted to kill some of the people who'd been killing our soldiers. He was assigned to duty elsewhere.

Robert Hendrickson said...

As I have said before, sometimes the most significant clues are related to what is NOT said.

Bugliosi NEVER mentions the Black Muslims or the Zodiac Killer. Why NOT ?

Manson Mythos said...

@RH

Throw us a bone.

Why didn't Bugliosi mention the Black Muslims? Was he afraid the Nation of Islam would appear at the trial and accuse Bugliosi as being another honkey trying to blame blackie?

Robert Hendrickson said...

ORWHUT: YES and the only thing I can think is it's likely about CONTROL. The Army needs to have its soldiers "Obey" its commanders, without question. It cannot have its men THINKING about WHO and WHY they are going to KILL.

Likewise, IF Charles Manson really did ORDER his soldiers to KILL without question, that may actually ANSWER question(s) we seek HERE.

AND that kind'a goes along with WHY didn't Bugliosi even mention the Black Muslims, the Zodiac Killer or VIETNAM. Maybe HE did NOT want anyone or especially the jury "distracted" by the THOUGHT of those 3 relevant clues. HE wanted complete CONTROL over what the Jury should THINK.

MM: NO bone, this question haunts ME and IF anyone thinks they have an answer, I'd really love to hear it.

Trilby said...

The information about Davis' second trip to England originated with Scotland Yard.

grimtraveller said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

sometimes the most significant clues are related to what is NOT said

They may be related but when push comes to shove, one can only reach conclusions based on what one has at hand.

Bugliosi NEVER mentions the Black Muslims or the Zodiac Killer. Why NOT ?

Maybe it was because they were totally irrelevant to the matter of who was involved in the murders of 7 people and an as yet unborn person on those two nights in August.

AND that kind'a goes along with WHY didn't Bugliosi even mention the Black Muslims, the Zodiac Killer or VIETNAM

In his book however, Bugliosi does mention the Black Muslims. He mentions them in relation to Charlie's thoughts and subsequent identification of who the true Black race were and mentions them along with the Black Panthers.
Ultimately, the question of whom these Blacks were in Manson's scheme of things is not anywhere near as important as you often imply. And it was interesting for me reading "Goodbye Helter Skelter" that Charlie speaks of "Blacks" when on the topic of race. Even Paul Watkins, whom you say made a distinction when it came the Black Muslims, when he was describing who the Blacks were that would kick off and be the major players in HS was not always specific. He noted that it would start with "some spades from Watts..." which could mean any Black guys.

Maybe HE did NOT want anyone or especially the jury "distracted" by the THOUGHT of those 3 relevant clues. HE wanted complete CONTROL over what the Jury should THINK

You say they were relevant clues but relevant clues regarding what exactly ? As for distractions, these were matters outside his hands. Even God doesn't get complete control over what people should and do think !

this question haunts ME and IF anyone thinks they have an answer, I'd really love to hear it

Sometimes, the simplest answer really is the right one. It just feels like it should all be more complex.

Trilby said...

The information about Davis' second trip to England originated with Scotland Yard

Yeah, but they never got beyond a "belief." They had no evidence that Davis was in England a second time in Dec '69. They never brought anyone forth that said "yeah, we hung with Bruce the American back then." Has there ever been anything remotely concrete with dates to establish Bruce Davis out of the USA in Nov/Dec '69 ? Until such a moment, speculation is a waste of time and points to an unerring bent in the direction of the conspiracy theorist.
I'm kind of surprised that the Police here made noises about Bruce being in the UK at the end of '69 because if there's one thing UK officials excel in, it's being officious and recording entries into the country, even back then ! Exits may be another matter, as can be seen in how people have often lost themselves here after their entry was recorded or how people on the run have managed to escape. But it seems a stretch too far to think that two such organized countries such as the UK and USA should both make exactly the same error 4 times {arriving and departing} between them regarding Bruce Davis. And if he had been here on a fake passport, then why has no one ever mentioned that name and why would it be even linked to Bruce ?
In my opinion, it's evidence that California LE, having started off poo poo~ing any Family connection with murder were by the time of the Atkins statement, throwing caution to the wind and looking to pin almost any murderous misdemeanour on Charlie and the Family.

Dreath said...

Grim,

You make a lot of very good points here.

Black Muslims:

I do believe it is highly probable that Manson was influenced by what would have appeared to him, at the time, 64-67, to have been a fairly sudden upsurge of a 'black muslim' presence in his world (prison) and I think given the rhetoric of the times from that group the vision of an 'apocalyptic race war- a black revolution' could easily have formed in his head. Once released the events of the time almost could serve to confirm what he heard.

You are absolutely correct there is no reason Bugliosi would mention either black muslims or the Zodiac in the TLB trial. He doesn't really 'need' a motive and his goal is to convict the murderers of seven people. HS simply served to frame the conspiracy he had between those who murdered and those who participated in the conspiracy.

What Buglioli wanted was to offer a reason for the conspiracy. He could prove one existed but juries, from my past experience, like to know 'why' something exists. Manson's vision of an inevitable apocalyptic black-led revolution provided the answer and Manson's belief in the inevitability of that event and his 'direct action' in a revolutionary's sense was the spark.

Aside:

Cielodrive said: INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, it kind of came around like this. About this time when I first got back from Europe was with the family. Now the -- now the scenario had changed to peace and love to Helter Skelter. I was gone from the family from June '68 until probably April or, I guess April, March, April of '69. Okay? The scenario had changed so when I got back it was about we've got to get -- we've got to be armed and there's going to be a race war, et cetera. And so I wanted to be like the rest of the guys and so I bought a pistol.

Doesn't Davis' statement that when he returned from Europe in March-April 1969 HS was in full bloom tend to contradict the notion this all suddenly came crashing down when Bernard Crowe was shot in June?

starviego said...

"Bugliosi NEVER mentions the Black Muslims ..... Why NOT ?"

Because certain three-letter Federal Agencies did not want the connection made. More on that later.


"Doesn't Davis' statement that when he returned from Europe in March-April 1969 HS was in full bloom tend to contradict the notion this all suddenly came crashing down when Bernard Crowe was shot in June?"

It sho' does. So something else must have put the fear into Charlie, something that happened before he shot LotsaPoppa on July 1st 1969. What was it?

Dreath said...

Starving I: why do we assume something 'scared' Manson? Maybe like many 'revolutionaries' ( in quotes on purpose) he got tired of waiting .... As some evidence suggests?

Dreath said...

Oops auto correct: Starviego

starviego said...

Putting armed guards around the ranch and preparing to move everybody to the desert is not the profile of a 'revolutionary.' It's the picture of somebody who's runnin'.

Robert Hendrickson said...

DREATH has a great point about whether the "Crowe" incident really had anything to do with setting the Helter Skelter chu-chu train in motion. BUT, as with MOST major events in a person's life, Law Enforcement ONLY looks for the most recent event that "connects" the subject CRIME to a primary "triggering" incident.

The actual "motivation" may spring from an incident that took place as far back as in one's early childhood. AND there are usually (3) incidents in one's life that make for a complete "trigger."

In other words, the primary 'trigger' may be the icing on the donut, BUT there can be a whole back-story behind the making of the "dry" donut. In fact, the sad truth is most ALL of the world's inhabitants are just "dry" do-nuts waiting for THEIR turn to be iced. AND that's WHY "waiting" can really be BORING.

grimtraveller said...

Dreath said...

I do believe it is highly probable that Manson was influenced by what would have appeared to him, at the time, 64-67, to have been a fairly sudden upsurge of a 'black muslim' presence in his world (prison) and I think given the rhetoric of the times from that group the vision of an 'apocalyptic race war- a black revolution' could easily have formed in his head. Once released the events of the time almost could serve to confirm what he heard

I personally believe this is precisely what happened. Some statements he made during his trial {when the jury was removed} bear part of this out. I've said from time to time that many different influences coalesced within Charlie's being over his life up to that point and acid served as that catalyst to bring them out in the way that they came out.
I have no doubt that the rhetoric of those Black guys that had converted to the Nation of Islam {distinct an different to actual Islam, though there were obvious overlaps} were an influence on Charles Manson. It just seems to me that Robert sometimes throws the Black Muslims into the mix without coming clearly out with what he feels their overarching significance is. I don't as yet see what their importance is beyond being an influence and one can't hold them responsible for that.

HS simply served to frame the conspiracy he had between those who murdered and those who participated in the conspiracy

True and that would be the case even if the copycat were true and not HS. Which then makes it all the more interesting why so many people are so keen for HS not to be one of the motives.

Doesn't Davis' statement that when he returned from Europe in April 1969 HS was in full bloom tend to contradict the notion this all suddenly came crashing down when Bernard Crowe was shot in June?

Not necessarily. HS became a named and viable concern from the start of '69, {well, the end of '68 according to Tex} but prior to that it was known as 'the shit is coming down,' something Charlie seemed to talk about quite a bit according to Gregg Jacobson. When he heard the White album, according to Catherine Share, the Beatles' lyrics simply confirmed what he'd been saying and HS started to become more 'prophetic,' pointed and specific. As the year went on, at some point it appears that Charlie felt that he was going to have to kick things off for "Blackie" and had been saying so to a few people {eg Watkins, Lake, Flynn} for a couple of months.
What the Crowe incident did was to be the catalyst that sped up proceedings. It's almost like it increased the pressure on Charlie and also served as an example that he was willing to go the whole hog for the Family if necessary. If anything, that may well have added more grist to the mill where HS was concerned insofar as it showed them how serious his pronouncements were. In other words, his words were backed up by the requisite actions. So Crowe is the kick off point for all that had been leading up to the start of HS ~ even though it wasn't apparent at the time.
Well done, Tex.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Putting armed guards around the ranch and preparing to move everybody to the desert is not the profile of a 'revolutionary.' It's the picture of somebody who's runnin'.

It could easily be both. The plan to relocate to the desert wasn't something that came about in September of '69. It had been on the agenda way back in '68, before HS was ever named and laid out in it's stages. There had been people left behind in the desert for a good 6 months. Family members came and went. Paul Crockett comes into the story via the desert.
The armed guards don't strike me as the picture of someone running. Someone worried about some kind of reprisals, yes.
Is there a profile of a revolutionary ? Isn't that term one that can be applied to pretty much any opposition ? So it follows that different revolutionaries will 'revolutionize' in a vast array of ways.
He who fights and runs away
Lives to fight another day.

Robert Hendrickson said...

with MOST major events in a person's life, Law Enforcement ONLY looks for the most recent event that "connects" the subject CRIME to a primary "triggering" incident.
The actual "motivation" may spring from an incident that took place as far back as in one's early childhood


Absolutely !
That's why biographies and autobiographies are so interesting to me. One often can see so much in the early years that has gone a long way towards helping the person in question be whatever it is they turn out to be or do whatever it is they turn out to do. That's one of the reasons I do not go with the idea of Charles Manson as this paragon of evil. He's a bloke whose early life fed very much into his adulthood. That he is without excuse should not overshadow the reality that he didn't suddenly appear in a vacuum.

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

On response to starviego (@ 10:53), Charlie was going off the deep end before Crowe. The acute fear was likely exacerbated by that incident, though. Little Paul Watkins was gone from the Family by May largely because he was worried by all the violent talk.
Furthermore, I think the talk about escaping to Death Valley may be rubbishy. Between Crowe and Charles Melton, the Family had stolen $7500 in the space of 5 days. That's a lot of jack in 1969. How much money did Charlie really feel they needed to make the move? Makes you wonder about their real intentions.

starviego said...


People normally say the shooting of Crowe set off the paranoia, but I think it was more likely a symptom of the paranoia.

The Family, pg147 by Ed Sanders
"Something freaked Manson out in early 1969 enough for him to prepare for the end of Western Civilization."

This is the incident we are searching for, a kind of missing link to Helter Skelter.

Dreath said...

Nixon

Robert Hendrickson said...

I THINK we are getting close to the heart of the Helter Skelter "ISSUE," but remember the matter will always be an ISSUE until the "right" movie is MADE. And by "right" I mean the one "reasonable" THINKING folks actually buy into. The perfect example is the "Ben Laden DEATH story." And another is the "Moon Landing Story." There is NOT one fragment of physical EVIDENCE that has been displayed to the public proving that Ben Laden is DEAD nor is there ANY EVIDENCE that a REAL moon landing actually occurred - other than audio visual material "produced by" a "government" with little to NO credibility in such matters.

In the old Wild West days of the late 1800s when an infamous OUTLAW was killed HIS body was paraded around so as to PROVE that HE was actually DEAD. Hangings were conducted as a "public" event and such "ISSUES" could be permanently CLOSED.

BUT now, WE as a people seem to accept WHATEVER our official "establishment" tells us - WITHOUT any actual EVIDENCE. This AFTER it has become undisputed KNOWLEDGE that the Vietnam WAR was predicated upon an absolute LIE / FRAUD that American warships in the Gulf of Tonkin were FIRED upon by the North Vietnamese.

THUS, eventually the "right" movie will come along, but IF there are NO longer any "reasonable" minds left to buy into it, then WHAT ??????????

dr howard davis said...

I hope to answer this letter in parts. I have read this letter. Where in it does Bruce overtly or even deny in any way he was NOT the Zodiac which is the most important 'accusation' or suspicion here? I think anyone professing faith and is holding a chapel position would want to be more definitive in saying, 'I was not involved in the Zodiac murders or case.'

He writes a very clear "not" when it says he was 'fired from his job'(he was-there are those who were there in the 60's that post,etc.about those times) at Scientology headquarters in the UK for 'drug use'; yet he is 'Coke lite' with the Z accusations!

He asks 'which office' or agency as to unsolved murders, but not about Zodiac!He does not outright as he should deny being involved in any of those murders,etc.

He will evade,and distort with a halting stammer during parole hearings even feign ignorance,etc,whicxh are found in his parole reports going back to the first one in 1978; then in subsequent hearings tell the truth or a part of it.
I have read them any times.So we know he engages in these kind of word games and memory failure.

The real view is that Davis was either Zodiac or involved in this scenario in some way. If he wasn't then good.I keep find information that shows its possible he was involved,but others have Z suspects and they feel the same about there suspect so this is how it should be. At the least if a Z suspect(or in any cold case) can be eliminated then this is of importance too.Everyone thetheir right to research as they see fit.It's their time and money! And everyone can simply disagree and move on.
The reason for thebeginningh begining in 1987 along with a lot of hours and money spent was to either confirm or deny there was no way for BD to be Z or that he was involved. I would rather have not wanted to research CM and his crew for sure! My tip/info was 'a male member of the Manson Family.' So later on when I read The Zodiac in 1987 for various reasons focused on that theme.But,I researched I looked into other suspects looked into new ones too.
My time to do just Z research has been extremely limited as well as funds have bdevelopingo devloping my business.Another reason I had for Z research was and is to bring any new facts about the case to light (which all serious Z researchers have tried to do)since 1987

BD saying "By which office?"(see how he handles that serious charge of 'unsolved murders') is or could be considered deceptive as I know from his parole hearing reports as given he can be quite evasive with stuttering and stammering halting speech failing to recall this or that then in the next hearing changing this account adding another so called fact then changing parts or all of his accounts later! Very frustrating. Quite different from say, his interview with Bill Murphy. No overt stammering shady answers ,but good recall. I will try and post it here.
I will still stand by my claim that Bruce has not been vocal and direct in denying any involvement in the Zodiac case.

dr howard davis said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vwhLXO7AF4

Bruce Davis interview with Bill Murphy.

dr howard davis said...

I have several letters from Bruce Davis in response to questions I had asked him.
He wrote that he had 'lived' in Anaheim,CA(1964-66 Sanders' PI found that Davis left this area "Nov.'66" and became a "transient undergrounder") as well as Buena Park,CA.But he mentioned that he 'spent time'-not 'lived' as the letter mistakenly says,in Costa Mesa and Newport Beach,CA. I knew that Cheri Jo Bates a possible Z vic spent time in these two areas mainly going to the beach. The latter two cities surprised me when I read the letter from Davis as I knew that Bates used to go to those two city beaches;so BD saying on his own he used to hang out there affords a possible connection.
In the letter cited and posted Davis denies he ever lived in Riverside. But,his counselor a Minister at the Men's Colony said that in conversation Bruce replied he had 'lived in Riverside' when the counselor had told Bruce he was a'school teacher in Riverside in the 1960s.' I wrote this minister and he told me that Bruce didn't want any more information given. All that was given was that Bruce 'had lived in Riverside!'
A friend and Z researcher found Bruce lived in Riverside in '66. The street has had some new buildings erected since that time and his old apartment was relaced with a building also.It was close to the RSPD and fairly close to Bates' home.
The killer wrote an all upper case typed letter 11/29/66 and this is when we have BD leaving the area as given.I was finally able to locate the PI in 1990 from work who found this info;but he told me that was all he could find out about Davis during this time period.

Anaheim where Davis says he lived 64-66 -was about a 30 minute or less drive to Riverside where Bates was murdered 10/31/66.

A Z poster wrote me years back that he had contacted an old friend of Cheri Jo's.She said that the construction men who were working on a big project at the college '65-7 where they attended used to shout out at Cheri a former cheerleader who was quite striking. She recalled a welder as was Davis belonging to a union headquartered in TN. that had a "moustache"(one LAPD wanted poster shows BD with a moustache this was 1969/70 period though) that used to yell out to her making comments.The Confession letter writer said that Bates was killed because she gave the writer "...making her pay for the brushoffs she had given me in the years prior."
She recalled his first name was Bruce. Those were the three things she remembered about him a first name and moustache and a welder. Davis was a welder(never a long shoreman that letter was in error- Bruce denied "mechanic" which was never his profession -like pipefitter and welder his two primary professions per se as per the letter;but it was Lynette Fromme who wrote me -not knowing who I was- saying Bruce was a 'good mechanic and funny.'BD would work on the dune buggies at times as would Tex and others in one capacity or another).
I next found Davis working as a Road Surveyor Dept.of Commerce AZ.in 1967 for a few months.
He had worked at Pipe and Fab Supply Co.-Santa Fe springs and Royal Pipeline and Construction in Elmonte both in CA.

dr howard davis said...

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/local/bruce-davis-went-from-clean-cut-youth-in-roane-county-to-murderer-member-of-manson-clan-ep-408312423-358692481.html

It will be noted here that BD grew up in a home that was conducive to pent up emotions of rahe or anger,etc.BD was extremely resentful of his father.
Many serial killers grew up in a similar environment. Even the mother against the father over Bruce -a scenario where one is passive say, the mother in this case and one aggressive his father Bert- can have a deep effect on a future killers mind. He was raped twice by two adults (at least one he trusted so a sense of betrayal no doubt )while a teen.This no doubt had a profound effect on him. He said when he went to CA he was filled with rage,and confusion. I have all of his 70's Tracy prison records.

Just some FYI is all as per our Z subject.I look at backgrounds.

Davis was "Editor in Chief" - I have a copy of the year book- of his HS year book.

Zodiac wrote the "Dear Editor" in his letters most of the time.
Z did engage in some paste up work in a few(in his Halloween card is the most recognized one 10/27/70)of his missives and as Editor he would do that. Also as per the article BD had artistic talent and drew,etc.

I note that Bert kicked Bruce and his siter at time with his "engineering boots." Z was seen as pobbibly wearing "engineering boots." Davis did go back to TN. in '68 with CM on one occasion. But,the second time around July or August? he came to collect his inheritance and he took some things possibly those boots?I just look at such things in case they mean something later -if not then not!

Some have thought Z had some education beyond HS,but very 'little. Well his college experience was dismal. I have those records as well as his HS records. But that he was 'bright' and 'advanced' as per this TN. news article in his thinking as was Davis. His prison records say "bright to normal."

Davis could be articulate as was Z in a rare moment as given by a victim that survived. It was almost methodical 'mechanical' as another vicitm told me who escaped from Zodiac(I believe it to be him others do not-it is just one of many contraversies like the old Ripper case that exists).

BD's lcassmates saw him as neat and clean. The vic Kathleen Johns (3/22/70)told me the man(Z?) who picked her up was 'neat in appearance,' but his car interior was not.

One thing Sandy Gibbons that former LA reporter now with the LADA's Office (I have a letter from her)reporter said when Davis surrendered(12/2/70) he had "long hair." Incorrect. I have photos his hair was short.

As to Bill Nelson. I have read posts connecting me to him,but they didn't realize there are two Nelsons. Jim Nelson was m webmaster and worked with me on the research over time.
How I met Bill Nelson was seeing him on a TV show about CM and the Family around 1989/90 or so.
I was researching Zi since 1987 and was trying to get any info I could on BD and any possible Z connections,etc.This was soley based on my tip I gotfrom my then BIL who was with the LA DA's Office in 1974 at my home. My now ex (and late) wife was there as was his wife. It was he that told me that Zodiac was a "male member of the Manson family"as given in the marked Bill Nelson typed letter.See letter.

When I met Bill he was polite,gracious and always willing to share his info and was very generous with others.He had his fsukts as we all do of course,but he was easy to get along with and willing to help.