Friday, January 27, 2017

Bernard Crowe: criminal charges and other alternative facts

Bernard Crowe was called as a witness by the prosecution in the penalty phase of the TLB trial.  The purpose was to show that Charles Manson was capable committing a violent act that could potentially result in the death of another.  In fact Manson did believe that he had killed Crowe at the time he shot him.

Vincent Bugliosi relates in his book Helter Skelter, Part 5 titled "Don't You Know Who You're Crucifying? March 1970" that it was by chance that Manson discovered that he had not actually killed Crowe when the two passed each other in a hallway at either the Hall of Justice or perhaps the LA County jail. 

Bugliosi says in the last paragraph that Crowe had been "jailed on a marijuana charge."  While doing further research into Crowe I discovered that he was not jailed for a marijuana charge but rather burglary and forgery charges.  He was involved with three other people in what was said to be a "$250,000 forgery and burglary ring."  To put it into perspective that amount of money in 1970 would be worth a whopping $1,555,109.54 today.  Crowe's forgery endeavors were no small potatoes and much more lucrative that what Crowe could have made dealing kilos of marijuana.





Cielodrive provided me with the trial transcripts of Crowe's testimony.  I wanted to see what, if anything, was said about the burglary and forgery charges against Crowe or if they had any bearing on his testimony in the penalty phase of the trial.  Bugliosi questioned Crowe first and nothing was said about the charges.  When it came time for Irving Kanarak, Manson's attorney, to question Crowe it is apparent that Kanarak knew about the charges but due to his ham handed style of lawyering he was not able to present questions to Crowe about the incident in a manner that satisfied the court or prosecutor Bugliosi.

Kanarak broached the subject by asking Crowe if in May of 1970 or earlier that year if he had been charged with forging the seal of the State of California.  Objections by Bugliosi ensued and counsel was asked to approach the bench so the matter could be discussed out of the jury's hearing.




This line of questions and objections goes on for pages.  What Kanarak seemed to be trying to get at was whether or not Crowe was going to be given leniency or perhaps dismissal of the charges pending against him for his testimony.  Bugliosi objected at every turn.  Crowe tried to invoke his fifth amendment rights a few times.  The judge has him answer a time or two but in the end I think the jury is left with the impression Crowe was arrested for something, they know not what except that it might have involved the Great Seal of the State of California, and he may or may not be relieved of those charges for his testimony.

The question for me was why, in his book, did Bugliosi misrepresent the charges that Crowe was facing when he had that chance meeting in the hallway with Manson?  The book came out about three years after all was said and done.  There had been testimony that Crowe was facing criminal charges though the jury never quite knew what those charges were.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I drafted all of the above in this post before this post by Dreath was published.  Comments made in that post had me rethink a couple of things.  Col Scott said that Bryn/Bryan Lukashevsky was present at the Crowe shooting.  I could not find any evidence of that in the court testimony where Crowe named the people who were present. 

I looked for and found an LA Times article that recounted the day's testimony to see what was reported.  I noticed that the person named Steve in the court transcripts of Crowe's testimony had quotes around his name in the newspaper article as if that was not his true name.  The person named Del in the transcripts did not have quotes in the newspaper, neither did Rosina or Manson.  However T.J. does have quotes around his name and we know T.J. was Thomas Walleman's nick name.

I contacted Dreath to ask if it was possible the court would allow the use of an alternate name in testimony and he told me it was highly unlikely.  It is done when minors are involved and if there was some legitimate reason to do so for an adult the name used would be "John Doe".

Manson took "Steve's" shirt after shooting Crowe.  I think if "Steve" were Bryn, Manson would have looked like he was wearing a dress if he wore the shirt.  Manson was 5'2" and Lukashevsky was 6'1".

Also, the reporter seems to think that the charges pending against Crowe were drug charges.  The jury likely had that impression, too.




There was no question that Manson shot Crowe, no one denied it, not even Charlie.  The point of Crowe's testifying was to show that Manson was capable of violence that could result in murder.  Why did Bugliosi write something that was definitely not true and in court suppress the true charges that Crowe was facing?

I am completely blown away that the date of the Crowe shooting was misrepresented in court, too.


141 comments:

starviego said...

If they were forging Social Security cards would that not have been a Federal crime? Was Crowe and company tried in state court or federal court?

Also, if Crowe was dealing in stolen credit cards it raises the possibility that he supplied the Family with their stolen cards(or even vice versa). It speaks to a possibly more extensive Family-Crowe relationship than we are made to believe existed.

DebS said...

I was not able to find that Crowe or his co-conspirators were tried in any court. There were no more newspaper articles about the incident. A reason for this could be that they all made plea deals so there was no trial. Charges could have been dropped against one or more of the co-conspirators, too. We know that the charges were still pending against Crowe because of what is in the trial testimony.

Oddly, or maybe not, I was not able to definitively locate any of those arrested with Crowe, not even Patricia Yellow who has a distinctive and uncommon name. Perhaps they gave false names at the time of their arrest???

I know that Sanders says in his book that Crowe supplied the Family with drugs implying that there was a relationship between Crowe and the Family for some time. However, Crowe states in court that he never knew anyone in the Family before the rip-off drug deal and Manson shooting him.

If Crowe was supplying the Family with drugs why would the roles be reversed for the marijuana buy by Crowe? Seems odd since there was a quantity involved. They are all criminals, well except Sanders, who are we to believe?

starviego said...

"..Crowe states in court that he never knew anyone in the Family before the rip-off drug deal and Manson shooting him."

I find that hard to believe. A golden rule in the drug trade is 'don't deal with anybody you don't know*.' I just don't see Crowe handing over all that money to somebody he didn't know, even if he thought he had insurance in the form of the unfortunate Rosina Kroner. He would only have fronted that much money if he had had a prior history with Tex and trusted him--or if a close associate of Crowe vouched for Tex.

*Based solely on what I've heard and read, y'understand...

DebS said...

Rosina was the person who set up the deal. She knew both Crowe and Tex, she was the connection. Read that LA Times article again, it was Rosina who called and threatened Manson, not Crowe, although after Rosina had threatened she handed the phone over to Crowe who spoke briefly to Manson but according to his testimony offered no threats. After the phone call was over Crowe left Rosina's apartment to get Steve. Jim and Del remained behind but Jim was gone before Crowe came back with Steve an hour or so later. I do not think that Rosina was held against her will. She was likely upset that she had put together a deal that fell through so badly and someone, Crowe, nearly died over it and she wanted to try to make it right.

Remember that Rosina didn't testify in the penalty phase, why? Also, Rosina will not talk to anyone about the incident to this day, that does not sound like a victim to me.

ziggyosterberg said...


"I am completely blown away that the date of the Crowe shooting was misrepresented in court, too."


Are we sure about that not being the date?

Wouldn't Kanarek have challenged him on it if the date stated in court was false? Would that be perjury to do so?

Kanarek seemed to know a lot of details about the transaction and what went down. Would he not know the date as well?

And wouldn't Bugliosi have interviewed Crowe before he testified, and verified the date of the shooting (talked to the cops who interviewed Crowe at the hospital, checked the hospital to see when he was admitted, etc.)?

DebS said...

Zig, I don't know about the date. Cielodrive is privy to a lot more documents than I. He's not usually wrong. I think it's pretty strange, too, that the date would be misrepresented, particularly in court. All of your questions are valid.

Dreath said...

Why Bugliosi fought so hard to keep it out of evidence? Because the judge, Bugliosi and Fitzgerald are correct. Bugliosi wants it out because Forgery is a crime involving dishonesty (impeachment) and the defense would have the right to have the jury be told that.

But in California in 1969 only a felony conviction could be used to impeach a witness. If Crowe had not been convicted when he testified, the question is inadmissible and Kanarek's effort to get into evidence facts he knows are inadmissible is unethical.

The weird part is Fitgerald tells him how to ask the question but apparently Kanarek was too dense to figure it out.

"Do you have charges pending against you in this county?"

"Have you been offered a deal on those charges for testifying here, today?"
__________
The date change is odd to me too.

It might be a mistake by Bugliosi and Crowe repeated it or visa-versa (I don't have the transcript to know who first brought it up) but then I noticed in the interview Crowe gave he repeats it:

"Reporter: When did this take place?
Crowe: August 1st, 1969 on Franklin Boulevard next to the Magic Castle Apartments."

I tried to figure out how moving the date to August 1 (if that's wrong and I assume it is from Cielo) changes the trial and can't think of anything. The Buntline was 'stolen' in March '69. Randy Starr gave it to Manson. 'When' might be interesting to know. Otherwise I can't see how the date change matters.

And Crowe also says this about knowing the Family before the shooting:

“Reporter: Tell me how long you knew Manson and Tex Watson?
Bernard Crowe: Um, not before… no comment. [attorney whispers into Crowe’s ear] Um, so I say that same night I met em— that same night. That same night.
Reporter: Were you introduced to them by... ah... a third party?
Crowe: “Yes, I was.”

That sounds like he didn’t know them before and was introduced by Rosina.

Suze said...

This is seriously good stuff!

DebS said...

I'd like to add that if Crowe knew Manson and company prior to the shooting why would Rosina even be in the picture? Crowe could of gone directly to Manson or Tex to get the weed for him and not used Rosina as a middleman. She no doubt would have gotten a cut for putting the deal together, so why pay out money or weed when it wasn't necessary?

Manson Mythos said...

Credit cards, plate stamps and burglaries. That hints there may have been some deeper involvement between The Family and Crowe. However, I do not believe that was.

The entire Crowe situation was a result of the initial motive: Watson's revenge on Rosina. They were in a relationship and dealing together. She had gone to Mexico to get an abortion, he wrecked her car and their relationship soured. He felt she had ripped him off of money during their time together, so he wanted to get back at her. Thus set up the deal. He didn't expect Crowe would be brought into the picture and find himself in a Cadillac with a big mean black guy.

That is at least Manson's version. Watson, as always, blames Charlie and said he put him up to it and implied the phone call to the ranch was all apart of the plan, that Manson. But I suspect the only discussion prior to that is that Charlie would simply cover for Watson by telling Rosina that he didn't live at the Ranch. But Charlie's swift reaction implies he did not expect to hear that a pissed off black guy was on the other end.

Charlie once said the other people in apartment was Mexican dope dealers. But who knows. Maybe Steve is a fake name or steve desper perhaps, but that is just speculation.

Dreath said...

Deb said: "If Crowe was supplying the Family with drugs why would the roles be reversed for the marijuana buy by Crowe? Seems odd since there was a quantity involved."

The 'Crowe the Dealer' scenario has always bothered me for precisely this reason.

If he is a dealer isn't it more logical he would have the dope end of the transaction and not the cash. 250k in cash? Sounds like he was the buyer not the seller. Now, $2500 in pot was likely a hefty amount (it's about three legal joints here ;-) but why, as a 'long time dealer' would Crowe throw that cash down on a guy he only has Rosina's word on?

Ah....why not pick up the phone and call your 'usual contact' and tell this clown to go take a leap?

St Circumstance said...

In his book Tex refers to her as "Luella"...

Most of you know this but for those who don't:


I got a lover. The first time I hitchhiked over to her apartment I ended up moving in. Luella was like a lot of good looking, hip (but not hippie) women living in Hollywood at that time. She didn't have a real job; she kept herself going by dealing a little grass and LSD among her friends — nothing big time but
enough to get by. She had an old Hollywood-Spanish apartment with eucalyptus trees all around and a patio that overlooked the driveway to an exclusive private club for professional magicians and entertainment stars. Sometimes we'd sunbathe on the deck, drinking beer and smoking grass while we
watched all the big limousines drive up for parties, dumping out beautiful people whom we could never quite recognize.It was an easy life that Luella and I fell into. Combining her contacts with mine, we found we could sell a lot more dope than she'd been doing on her own. We charged $15 a lid on grass that we bought from our vending-machine friend in $95 kilos (2.2 lbs.) and then broke up into 36 lids.


Sometime late in June, having failed to raise any funds for Helter Skelter by kidnapping piggies, Charlie decided I should ask Luella for money. I called her but she refused.That wasn't good enough for Charlie: I should figure out a way to get some cash out of her, he said. I thought awhile and came up with an idea. Since grass was particularly scarce at the time, I called Luella
back on July 1 and said that the Family had $100 and wanted to buy a kilo of grass, but our Mafia vending-machine connection would only sell 25 kilos at a throw, for a cool $2,500. I tried to be casual in planting the seed, certain that a chance to score two dozen kilos of grass at a time like this would be more than Luella could resist. I was right. She called back about half an hour later and told me that she knew somebody who was interested in buying the extra kilos, but she needed to make some money out of the deal as well.
Over the phone we worked out an arrangement where we'd pay my supposed connection $2,500 for the 25 kilos, but charge Luella's client $125 apiece. That way, I would get three kilos free, the client would get twenty-two kilos, and Luella would make herself a profit of a couple of hundred dollars.

Manson Mythos said...

Perhaps as a favor to Rosina. If she needed help to purchase the minimum amount the vendor sold (in this case, it most certainly was the partner of Joel Rostau, but I don't think or know if this money was ripped off to buy dope), why not help and get some new product to break up and resell? From what Greg Jacobson said of Crowe, he appeared to be a regular gangster with his hands in all kinds of illegal endevours. Slinging dope might have been one of many and didn't have much loyalty to a single wholesaler.

St Circumstance said...

Notice lying ass Tex once again contradicting himself in my above copy and paste which is why it is so hard to believe him about anything...

he at first says " Nothing big time- just enough to get by" about her dealing...

then later says- " I tried to be casual in planting the seed, certain that a chance to score two dozen kilos of grass at a time like this would be more than Luella could resist. I was right."



24 Kilos is big time enough for me...

Dreath said...

Sorry, Saint you can only have 8 oz and carry 1 oz on your person. Can't get 24 kilos here. Sorry.

St Circumstance said...

lol I am proud to say that today I received my California Medical Marijuana card and letter. I have a work trip coming in March and my 50'th in May... plus- I may now think about flying in to SF for the days the tour is there. I have only been to the Haight once and wouldn't mind going back to Hippy hill for the drum circle..

got great hash there and some dude gave it to me in trade for a lighter...

Dreath said...

Wait.... aren't you in Florida?

Dreath said...

Wait don't answer that.

St Circumstance said...

lol... I help Doctors for a living ... I have a few connections

St Circumstance said...

South Florida ;)

ziggyosterberg said...


For what it's worth, in the 1971 (1st edition) version of "The Family", Ed Sanders wrote that the Lotsapoppa shooting occurred on July 1st, 1969 and that Bernard Crowe was taken to USC Medical, and left the hospital on June 17 <---- That is not a typo (by me at least). He changed the date to July 17 in a later edition.

Sanders also wrote that the two men with Lotsapoppa were Dale Fimple and Bryn Lukashevsky.

We know who Bryn Lukashevsky was/is.

Where did Ed get the name Dale Fimple from? Quite frankly, it sounds made up.

DebS said...

I looked for Fimples in LA with any first name. There is not an abundance of Fimples but there are a few. (it does sound like a cartoon name) I did not find any named Dale or Del. The closest I found was Dennis Fimple. He was born in 1940. He was an actor. He has a Find A Grave page with a picture.
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=20378283

ziggyosterberg said...


I just looked at his IMDB page. He was on a hell of a lot of TV shows that I've seen.

Hey Deb, did you notice the UPI article from when Lotsapoppa testified? It was a lot less accurate about Lotsapoppa's testimony than the LA times one that you posted. This just adds to the confusion :


After Manson’s removal, Bugliosi questioned Bernard Crowe, a 28-year-old Negro
who said Manson shot him in July, 1969, a month before the Tate-LaBianca slayings.


Full story at the top of page 5 of this PDF file

UPI stories are syndicated nationally, and internationally, so that was some widespread misinformation right there.

As the LA times reported, Lotsapoppa testified that the drug burn with Tex began on the evening of July 31st, and the shooting occurred between 2 and 4 AM on the morning of August 1st. Not a month before the Tate-LaBianca slayings. Not even in July, according to Lotsapoppa.

DebS said...

Dennis Fimple had a lot of small roles dating back to 1968. He was in an episode of the Doris Day Show in 1968.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0277344/

This is getting into Degrees of Separation territory!

ziggyosterberg said...


That must be where he met Terry. (just kidding)

Maybe Ed got the name "Dale Fimple" from his PI, Larry Larsen. It could be a phonetic translation from whatever he heard the name of Lotsapoppa's associate "Del" was. The real name might be something like Del (Delvin) Femphill. Sounds like a character from "What's Happening!!".

Speaking of "What's Happening!!", Shirley Hemphill (if you remember her) looked like a female version of Lotsapoppa. (just throwing that in for St. C)

DebS said...

The LA Times story is pretty true to how the testimony reads. The dates of July 31 and August 1 were mentioned many times. Bugliosi's first question is to ask Crowe how old he is and his second question is "On the date, July 31, 1969, were you up in Hollywood?" Bugliosi went on to establish that Crowe was in his car in front of Rosina's apartment with the question "And at approximately 11:00 pm on July 31, 1969 were you inside of a car parked in front of the apartment house?" on the next page. Then there is establishing when Crowe got back to Rosina's which was after midnight making it Aug. 1. Kanarak went through a similar routine with the dates, too, when questioning Crowe. It's not like the date was just mentioned once, it was mentioned many times.

I received an email from Cielodrive and he it trying to get the hospital records to confirm the date.

ziggyosterberg said...


Cielo Drive is awesome. We're seriously blessed to have him. I can't tell you how many times I've visited his site over the years. It's the Smithsonian of Manson Family/Tate-LaBianca information.

Link to Cielo Drive.com


Mr. Humphrat said...

Can one of you legal people explain to me: I don't understand the legal mumbo jumbo going on between the judge, Kanarek and Bugliosi when it seems it should be easy/simple enough to ask Crowe whether he's trying to get leniency on his case by testifying? Thanks

Dreath said...

MrH

I tried up above. See if that helps. If not I'll take another shot.

St Circumstance said...

Rerun used to be featured dancing. It always used the same move. A clip followed by leg hip. The thought fat guy shaking his hips was funny...

It was.

My favorite episode was when Dwayne stood up the bully. I also liked the one where the little kid band sang " bubbling brown sugar" against Reruns dancing in a talent show

:)

St Circumstance said...

Leg kick sorry typing on my phone

Mr. Humphrat said...

OK thanks Dreath, I see where you mean. It's just the legal language is frustrating. And OK so he's a bad lawyer because he can't ask it the right way, so why didn't the judge step in and ask it? Because, it should be about getting at the truth.

Mr. Humphrat said...

ColScott said...

"Vera I am often wrong...." 2011

Mr. Humphrat said...

10:18 AM, April 14, 2011 Tate LaBianca Blogspot

DebS said...

Mr. H the way I see it, it is not the judges responsibility to ask the witness that question rather it's the defendant's attorney's responsibility, otherwise the judge might appear to be prejudicial in favor of the defendant.

Dreath said...

Deb is correct. In fact, the wrong question or a question asked the wrong way by the judge could lead to reversal on appeal or a mistrial if there is a jury. Bugliosi, of course, wouldn't want a mistrial so wouldn't make the motion. The judge could also get pulled in front of the Judicial Fitness Committee.

MrH said: "And OK so he's a bad lawyer because he can't ask it the right way, so why didn't the judge step in and ask it? Because, it should be about getting at the truth"

The people of California agreed with you and in 1982 the people passed Proposition 8- that amended the state constitution and included what was known as the Truth-in-Evidence Amendment. That effectively did away with Bugliosi's objection (although the proposition was passed for victims). The same law got rid of Van Houten's defense of diminished capacity and opened up parole hearings to victims.

Mr. Humphrat said...

thanks

ziggyosterberg said...


For Mario George Nitrini 111 :

Aerial view of De Soto Avenue and Nordhoff (looking west) in 1971

As you can see, there wasn't much on the north part of De Soto (right side of page) towards the railroad tracks.

The arrow points to the likely location of Manson's construction site (Fortress of Solitude).

Dreath said...

Ziggy,

Cool picture.

Is that a crop circle over on the right?

ziggyosterberg said...


Crop circles are actually alien helicopter landing pads. Don't you know that?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Ziggy.

I really wish I could remember what street I turned left on off DeSoto. I just can't.

But Charles Manson after the left turn, had me turn right. I just cant remember that street either.

DebS

This blog post of yours is excellent. I have been doing a lot of reading on this blog and ColScott's blog.
Incredibly great informative information by all blog posters.
There are some situations in this Charles Manson Saga I could comment on. But my main purpose for me commenting on this Manson Family Blog was to see if I could corroborate:
1. The Construction Site
2. The Fireside Inn
3. Manson's written contract to me.

Ziggy, thanks again......

Mario George Nitrini 111
---------
The OJ Simpson Case

DebS said...

Thank you MGN111!

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

You're welcome Ms. DebS

Just telling it like it is.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

St Circumstance said...

Mario that was a nice compliment and I agree. Deb knocks it out of the park every time.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Yes St. Circumstance,
DebS, just on this blog post alone, has weeded-out, with the help of other commentators, mis-information and put "things" into a reality perspective.
Incredibly GREAT Work......

Mario George Nitrini 111
-----
The OJ Simpson Case

Mr. Humphrat said...

Mario I have a question and a comment regarding the Manson fort under the construction site:
Q: I think you said it was under the foundation of the construction site. Was the area he occupied dug out or was it part of the construction itself, if you recall?

comment: I don't see how such a place could exist on an active construction site without being detected. Any thoughts on that?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Mr. H

1. No, it was not dug out. Manson must have adapted this "Fortress" to the construction itself.

2. I have wondered that myself for many, many years How could he not be detected in this "Fortress" of his?
But of course, I have no idea of his habits of being there and not being there.
When Manson brought me to this construction site in the evening, there was nobody there.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

DebS said...

I really don't want to derail my own post with this but.... Mario have you gone to the building permit department to see if you can search through the building permits by year? It sounds like you know the area well enough to be able to figure out locations. It also sounds like it must have been a commercial site so you could rule out the residential permits.

You can search for building permits in LA County online but they want an address or parcel number or an assessors number. The online database goes back to 1905 so there will be a record of a permit. The people at the desk can probably help you to narrow down the search.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

DebS

Sorry if I have in any way derailed your blog post. Not my intention.

Not sure if it was commercial. I thought it was houses or apartments, but it could have been commercial.

The big problem is I cannot pin-point the construction site. I have no address. And yes, I know this area and many parts of The San Fernando Valley real well.

Thanks DebS

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

ziggyosterberg said...


DebS said...

You can search for building permits in LA County online

Following Mario's directions - North on De Soto, Left between Nordhoff and Lassen, then a Right, half a block, park on east side of street, building on west side of street - the only building that it could possibly be 21012 Lassen Street. The side of the building is on Variel, a little more than half way up the block. It's the only one built in 1969. The rest are all built in either the 70s or 80s, the exception being the Hydraulics International on Independence Ave, which was built in 1958.

Here you go Mario :

Home Sweet Home - Charles Manson's Fortress of Solitude

Site Address 21012 LASSEN ST , LOS ANGELES CA 91311
Last Sale Date 07/15/1998
Year Built 1969
Land Value $1,215,722
Improvement Value $945,558
Square Feet 28738
Jurisdiction LOS ANGELES BSD
Rehab Road Maintenance District N/A

ziggyosterberg said...


Whopps, wrong Google Street View.

**Correction, the building backs onto Independence Ave. You can see the little market building attached to it where Charlie made his home away from home, like Mario said.**

This is the place that Charlie took Mario to

ziggyosterberg said...


Charles Manson news :

NY Post :

Charles Manson looks worse than ever after health scare

Daily Mail :

Back to his evil self: Mass murderer Charles Manson shows off his ghost-like skin and trademark gray beard in first pictures taken since his near-death health scare

Radar Online :

Exclusive End Days! See The Final Chilling Photo Of Monster Charles Manson

That last one looks like it's from the time when Charlie fell off his bunk and got two black eyes.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Ziggy for the hard work.

Mario George Nitrini 111
-------
The OJ Simpson Case

starviego said...

Dreath said...

Deb said: "If Crowe was supplying the Family with drugs why would the roles be reversed for the marijuana buy by Crowe? Seems odd since there was a quantity involved." .... Ah....why not pick up the phone and call your 'usual contact' and tell this clown to go take a leap?

There were occasional shortages in the marijuana market back then, for various reasons. If Crowe's usual contacts were out, he may have decided to take a risk on Tex.

----------------

Dreath said...

And Crowe also says this about knowing the Family before the shooting:
“Reporter: Tell me how long you knew Manson and Tex Watson?
Bernard Crowe: Um, not before… no comment. [attorney whispers into Crowe’s ear] Um, so I say that same night I met em— that same night. That same night.

Strange that Crowe would have to consult his attorney before answering such a simple question. Anyway, is it possible that Crowe knew others in the Family, or that he did busines with others in the Family? Didn't Crowe live up near where Mama Cass lived, who some of the girls allegedly had visited? Also, didn't one of the girls allegely say that 'Crowe was the black member of the Family' at some point?

orwhut said...

Dreath said...

Also, didn't one of the girls allegely say that 'Crowe was the black member of the Family' at some point?

Someone is supposed to have said it. I've read the claim too.

St Circumstance said...

page 147 of the Family- it was Diane Lake

St Circumstance said...

it also say the family bus was park next to where Crowe was living at one point, and that one "Former member of the family" called him- "Bernie" and that they stole a vehicle from a place next to where Crowe lived and that Charlie had Crowe under surveillance so to speak for awhile...


Its Sanders lol he says himself alot of it is heresay..

I think probably all of it is and doubt much of it.


DebS said...

Bravo Ziggy on finding the building for Mario! Maybe we can move on now.

Dreath said...

Orwhut said: "Dreath said...

Also, didn't one of the girls allegely say that 'Crowe was the black member of the Family' at some point?"

Actually Starveigo said that.

DebS said...

I think that more than one member of the Family would have said that Crowe was "the Black member of the Family" or something similar if that were true.

orwhut said...

Dreath and Starveigo,
My mistake, sorry.

orwhut said...

St Circumstance said... page 147 of the Family- it was Diane Lake.

Good work, St. I wish I could remember things that well.

St Circumstance said...

lol I couldn't remember either... I googled it :)

orwhut said...

It was still good work. I don't even know how to google up a source and page number for something like that.

St Circumstance said...

Thanks and it was my pleasure to help.

Manson Mythos said...

Crowe incident was July 1st and any document Bo finds will reveal that.

I'm confident enough to bet money on it. Crowe was NOT in August. It was July 1st.

DebS said...

That was Cielodrive's opinion as well, MM. The question is why it would be misrepresented in court, not only when Bugliosi was doing the questioning but Kanarak as well?

ziggyosterberg said...


It's certainly an oddity that the date in the court testimony differs from the date in the books written about the case. I can't figure out how the books would be right and the court testimony would be wrong. It's usually the other way around.

I take it that Cielo must have seen the hospital records while accessing the court records?

I don't know about you guys, but if the date in the hospital records turns out to be August 1st, my mind will be blown. I won't know what to believe anymore.

Manson Mythos said...

For me it's not an opinion, but a cold hard fact and not an alternative one either.

My best guess as to why Bugliosi time shifted:

1. To put Crowe after Hinman, would discredit the explanation that "Political Piggy" was left at the crime not as an attempt to kick start "Helter Skelter", but as a red haring to motivate the police crack down on the Black Panthers after the Crowe incident. Had the explanation was given, Bugliosi's house of cards would go down. To put Crowe after Hinman, validated his theory that such a move wasn't due to legit problems that were circumstantial rather than a premeditate plot. That would then cause the jury to question if the decor of the TLB crime scene was really for HS and not to connect it to Hinman as stated during the Penalty phase.

2. Moving Crowe closer to the Tate-LaBianca murders and Hinman as well, strengthen his case that this was all apart of a crime spree with the motive of raising money for such a fantasy. When put in the proper order, we see the spiral and escalation of what are dope deals gone sour.

3. Police reports indicate the cops knew about the incident and didn't act. If revealed the episode happened in July, it would reveal the paranoia at Spahn wasn't because of some silly idea like HS.

4. It would validate that Manson told the rest he didn't want to get involved and he told Tex to simply pay to Bobby what he owed him, because of Crowe. That situation makes little sense if you time shift Crowe and Hinman

5. It could also be that Crowe was a stupid burn out and Bugliosi didn't challenge the date given.


Manson Mythos said...

Also:

The argument could be made that Hinman was a result of getting money to flee Spahn out of fear of impending reprisal rather than to prepare for HS. Even though that isn't fully true either. If Crow happened after Hinman and it was revealed they had a cool amount of cash, any future argument that Hinman and TLB was connected to cash the Straight Satans would go out the window.

If they had cash after Crowe prior to TLB it rules out the possibility TLB was in part a way to raise money to pay back a really anger MC club.

If you see the uncut Diane Sawyer interview with Manson, he speaks in code and reveals the Satans were present the night of the murders when brainstorming about Beausoleil was taking place.

starviego said...

St Circumstance said...
page 147 of the Family- it was Diane Lake

Thanks for the info.

-----------

More stuff by Sanders on the Crowe shooting:

"Numerous times he(Crowe) had run afoul of the laws regarding sale of drugs. ...
The family also stole a red Toyota Land Cruiser for use in Helter Skelter which was owned by a person named Kemp who lived on Loyal Trail about a hundred feet from Crowe's house at 7008 Woodrow Wilson.
Greg Jacobson has claimed he heard Manson say he was going to shoot Crowe days before the act was accomplished. ....
Sometime in the evening of June 30, 1969, Manson arranged for Tex Watson to burn Bernard Crowe. Watson never made a move without Manson's "programming." All the dope dealers in the family, except Manson have stated that it was totally Manson's idea to burn Crowe."

IF Charlie was already planning to kill Crowe, than there must have been some other motive. And thus the 'drug-burn' scenario has no more validity in this case than it does in the Hinman and Tate murders.

Manson Mythos said...

All nonsense. If that was the big plan, why bring Rosina into it and have an outsider and possible snitch into the scenario? All credible testimony points to Crowe being an unexpected event that changed the atmosphere of the Ranch and if Charlie was the one who wanted to be the trigger man, why the need to "program" Watson into it?

St Circumstance said...

Any time :)

DebS said...

MM I only understand part of what you are saying.

Are you saying it was necessary to the prosecution for the jury to believe that the Crowe shooting was after Hinman because it would solidify Bugliosi's HS theory?

ziggyosterberg said...


grimtraveller - who has been hiding out in last weeks thread for some reason - says that the confusion in the testimony about the dates, might be the result of Bugliosi's fuck up when he started his questioning of Lotsapoppa on the stand, and said the incorrect date himself. I think that Cielo may have said something similar as well.

I don't get why Kanarek didn't take advantage such low hanging fruit. He would've at least been able to call into question the credibility of the witness. Maybe Irving was clueless about the date of the shooting? I have no idea what the rules for disclosure are during the penalty phase. Perhaps one of the legal experts (Dreath or Mario) could chime in and clarify.

starviego said...

"... why bring Rosina into it and have an outsider and possible snitch into the scenario?"

My theory:

Charlie wanted Crowe dead for various reasons(unknown to me). So he sends Tex down there to kill him, but with a scheme to get some money out of it as well. Tex was expecting a one-on-one, and is then surprised when Bernie brings backup, so forget the killing, but with quick thinking he still manages to get the money. But now there is additional motive for killing Crowe, and soon. But even then, he tried to get someone else to do it (you know Charlie), but TJ Walleman balked. As far as doing it in front of witnesses, with Helter Skelter coming on Charlie may have figured it soon wouldn't matter anyway, so he gets sloppy.


/

starviego said...


On Lt. Deemer's list of Family Associates
http://www.mansonsbackporch.com/-library.html

Crowe is listed, with the comments:

"Member of Black Panthers.
Shot by member(s) of the Family."

Of course Crowe was no BP, as far as anybody can tell. But he certainly may have been friends with one or more of them, or been friendly with them in the past. IF so, then he will be fourth victim to have possibly have been associated in some way with them.

Crowe -- May have had some link to Panthers.

Hinman -- Had connections to radical black elements at UCLA, possibly Panthers.

Folger -- May have known or been known to the radical elements down in the ghetto.

LaBianca -- May have had business down in the ghetto and thus a history there, and possibly came to the attention of the Panthers or Muslims.


What are the chances that all these victims had links to the Panthers? They have to be astronomical.

DebS said...

There is no solid evidence that Lotsapoppa knew anyone connected to The Family. It came out in Crowe's testimony that he did not even know Rosina. It was Del who knew Rosina and set Lotsapoppa with her that night.

Ziggy, I figured out who Del/Dale was and it will be the subject of an upcoming post!

ziggyosterberg said...


That's amazing, Deb! I was looking around the other night for info on that, and I couldn't find anything. Except one guy who was killed in a car accident with that name. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the guy.

You're doing great work, Deb. :-)


Dreath said...

Ziggy,

The rule regarding disclosure is the DA must make available to the defense everything they have. They do not have to tell them what it means- the blood evidence is a good example of a defense fumble- then again, they may have had money problems-I'm not sure yet, still reading pretrial motions. So the same witness summary, police report Bugliosi has, Kanarek has. So whatever Crowe info Bugliosi has, Kanarek has- and the rest by the way- and I assume no other attorney corrected it. That tells me their common record said August 1.

I haven't had a chance to read all the pretrial motions yet but recall in my first cursory go through there was a motion by the defense to gain access to actual witnesses and police notes (versus summaries) which was denied (don't quote me yet).

So one possible scenario is the detective got the date wrong. Both Bugliosi and Kanarek would base their examination off the same police reports and witness summaries. Even if Bugliosi interviewed Crowe the exact date might not have mattered in that interview or Crowe inadvertently confirmed the wrong date. I tend to believe Bugliosi's multiple interviews were very 'leading' from what I see. But picture this- Bugliosi in court looks down at his report sees the wrong date and asks the question. If Kanarek has the same document he has the same wrong date. And Crowe could have been nervous or forgetful.

There doesn't have to be a conspiracy.

In fact, I have a hard time seeing how changing the date helps anything Bugliosi was doing versus us looking back at it. Why does July 1 versus August 1 make any difference.....in the penalty phase?

Don't get me wrong- as a part of the history of this case it is intriguing and another thing that's wrong or unexplained (like the broken fence) but on the "Bugliosi Conspiracy Brilliant Creator of HS" spectrum- he already won. It's irrelevant. He doesn't need to shore up his case. His job is now to portray the defendants as unfeeling, violent monsters who should never get a chance to get out- there is no 'life without parole option in '69.

If he wants to show Manson as having a depraved heart he is better off with July 1. Remember part of the pitch is this man has no redeeming qualities. Bugliosi would like a violent act every month from 1967-1969 with plenty of time to reflect in between.

ziggyosterberg said...


I'm almost certain that Dreath is a Professor of Law somewhere.

Thank you, Dreath. You couldn't have explained it better.

I was thinking the same thing about there not really being any advantage to changing the shooting from July 1st to August 1st during the penalty phase (when Manson had already been convicted). If anything, it might be a disadvantage to lump all of that violence together the timeframe of one week and spread the blame around.

Manson, on his own, shooting someone, before Hinman, Tate, and LaBianca, would have been the better option for Bugliosi.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Definitely looking forward to Deb's coming post on Del/Dale and the connections there.

grimtraveller said...

ziggyosterberg said...

grimtraveller - who has been hiding out in last weeks thread for some reason

I've been affected by the timelessness of the Family ! Oh, that and life.
There were a few things I wanted to wrap up in that thread but for the purposes of this thread, this is what I replied to a question ziggy put in that one;

ziggyosterberg said...

"Crowe described how, on the night of July 1, 1969, Manson had shot him in the stomach and left him for dead."

We know that Crowe did not testify that it was July 1, 1969, but rather, August 1, 1969.

So why did Bugliosi/Gentry lie about Crowe's testimony?


I don't know and I don't know if it was a lie or if it was covering Bugliosi's trial mistake. In one of the first questions he asks Lotsapoppa {who, interestingly gives the spelling as Lotsopopo}, he gives a date as July 31st in asking what happened so he fixes the date of the shooting as August 1st. By the time he wrote the book, the error could be corrected. I don't see that there is any duplicity on Bugliosi's part there, for 2 reasons. Firstly, all over the transcript, Crowe demonstrates that he has no idea of dates. For example, he gets in a right muddle when he's asked by Kanarek about when he knew he'd have to testify:

Q: In December of 1970, Mr. Crowe, you knew that you were going to be a witness in this case, is that correct?
A: December what?
Q: December of 1970
A. I think so. I'm not sure on the date when I got the subpoena...I don't remember the date on the subpoena. Perhaps. I don't know.
Q: In December -
A: Yes, I think so, the 28th of December or something like that. I'm not sure.

A few minutes later when he's asked on which dates he spoke with Detectives Sartuche and Gutierrez, he says "I couldn't very well remember the dates, I cannot very well remember the dates." Later still, when asked what he, Rosina and his friends talked about when they returned after Tex's burn, he says "I cannot recall the conversation that was taken word for word, in the apartment after we came back. I mean, after all, it was a year and a half ago, possibly two." He gave his testimony in January '71. It was hardly two years. Basically, he was all over the place. He admits to giving Bugliosi certain times when interviewed 2 days before that he now denies on the stand and says maybe he made a mistake or maybe Bugliosi made a mistake or things were written down wrong.
So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he gave the wrong dates too. The date was less important than the shooting and the gun. By the time the book was written brevity was the order of the day. After all, there was no query about the date.
The 2nd reason was simply that it was already a matter of record in the trial that Charlie had spoken of shooting a Black guy to a Police officer called Samuel Olmstead on 28th July '69, a good 4 weeks after the burn and shooting. Why be duplicitous about the date when already in the record is evidence that the date must be wrong ?

grimtraveller said...

Props to ziggy for the nudge in the other thread and to DebS for this one.
I still think Lotsapoppa comes across as an embarrassment. I spent a couple of days going through his testimony and initially, I wondered if I'd been unfair on him because my first impressions were that he was a real drongo back then.
I haven't.
What is interesting is that he was reported as being a musician. In Zamora's book, he says he was trumpeter.
He didn't blow his own trumpet very well !

starviego said...


Sanders said:
"All the dope dealers in the family, except Manson have stated that it was totally Manson's idea to burn Crowe."



If you get some guy calling you and threatening to kick your Family's face because one of them had ripped the guy off, what do you do?

Do you go down there and shoot the guy? Or do you tell the one that ripped the guy off to go down there and give the guy his money back and apologize? Yup, that's what you do.

So why didn't Charlie do this? Because the ripoff was Charlie's idea to begin with. Was it his fault Tex didn't plug Lotsapappa when he had the chance? But one thing Charlie will NEVER do is admit he was wrong and give the money back.

And if it was Charlie's idea, then almost certainly he would have had to have known of Crowe and where he lived. So there WAS, logically, a prior history between them.



/

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

A golden rule in the drug trade is 'don't deal with anybody you don't know*.'

Not necessarily. There are different and shifting "rules" in all of organized crime. The only rule that unites all eras and divisions is "don't get caught."

He would only have fronted that much money if he had had a prior history with Tex and trusted him--or if a close associate of Crowe vouched for Tex

We don't know that and the chance to make money is a powerful intoxicant. All kinds of deals happen through intermediaries that are not known to all the parties involved. Sometimes, the intermediaries want it kept that way. In a roundabout second hand way, an associate of Crowe sort of vouched for Tex by trusting Rosina. And remember, she didn't know what Tex was going to do.

Dreath said...

The date change is odd to me too.
It might be a mistake by Bugliosi and Crowe repeated it or visa-versa (I don't have the transcript to know who first brought it up)


It was definitely Bugliosi. But I guess he was going off what Crowe told him and as we have seen, Crowe didn't know his dates from his figs.

Didn't Crowe live up near where Mama Cass lived, who some of the girls allegedly had visited?

St Circumstance said...

and that they stole a vehicle from a place next to where Crowe lived

I find it noteworthy, the way the most tenuous of connections is mined in this case for diamonds of significance. You know, in many locales, the world over, there are drug dealers that live close to known drug users and neither party has the slightest clue about the proclivities of the other.

starviego said...

Also, didn't one of the girls allegely say that 'Crowe was the black member of the Family' at some point?

The best answer to that from the period came from Charlie himself during his trial: "Yours is yours and I don't care what it is. Whatever you do is up to you and it's the same thing with anyone in my family. And anybody in my family is a white human being, because my family is of the white family.
There is the black family, a yellow family, the red family, a cow family and a mule family. There is all kinds of different families.
We have to find ourselves first, God second, and kind, k-i-n-d, come next."
People say all kinds of throwaway things that later on can be made to assume all manner of significance, such as Paul Watkins saying something to the effect that Lotsapoppa was killed because he was messing with White girls. Sometimes, there's significance, sometimes there isn't. Did Charlie really mean for Brooks Poston to go and kill the Sheriff of Shoshone ?

St Circumstance said...

page 147 of the Family- it was Diane Lake

It's page 167 in my edition.
Diane strikes me back then as a very good advert for children refraining from psychedelics, frequent sex and exposure to adult activity.

ziggyosterberg said...

I don't know about you guys, but if the date in the hospital records turns out to be August 1st, my mind will be blown. I won't know what to believe anymore

When I first read the Crowe testimony on Cats' old site, I was taken aback by the August 1st date and kept asking if anyone could verify it. I had this elaborate theory of the mental pressure Charlie would've been under, given the Hinman death, the Crowe "death," leading to him running off for a week then hearing about Bobby then Mary & Sandy and the close proximity to Cielo and Waverley. It more or less is that anyway, but I can't see an August 1st date with Samuel Olmstead's testimony. It would be earth shattering if the hospital records did say August 1st though.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

My best guess as to why Bugliosi time shifted

You are the conspiracy theorist's conspiracy theorist !

Police reports indicate the cops knew about the incident and didn't act

Can you link us to these ? I'd like to have a look at them. It's one thing to not investigate with any seriousness the shooting of a Black man; it's another thing altogether to know someone attempted murder and to just let it go ~ which is essentially what you seem to be suggesting.

starviego said...

IF Charlie was already planning to kill Crowe

I'd say that the very fact he had the gun hidden in his back belt and the idea that TJ was supposed to yank it out and use it at the very least indicates that Charlie was ready and willing to plug some Poppa that night. He admitted to Bugliosi when they were talking about violence that he could shoot someone without batting an eyelid.

If you get some guy calling you and threatening to kick your Family's face because one of them had ripped the guy off, what do you do?
Do you go down there and shoot the guy? Or do you tell the one that ripped the guy off to go down there and give the guy his money back and apologize? Yup, that's what you do.
So why didn't Charlie do this? Because the ripoff was Charlie's idea to begin with


I personally don't believe it but Charlie says that Tex had already spent the money. Quite how he could blow $2400 in the dead of night in a couple of hours is rather stretching it.

ColScott said...

Humpy you Ignorant Slut


First off minus two for invoking Vera


But more important how am I wrong? Mr Anal Sanders places Bryn AT the damn location. This is a man with a million dollar research file. #I'mwithhim

Mr. Humphrat said...

Col. LOL, I have not formed an opinion whether you're wrong on that subject, in fact I'm glad someone with your research background believes in Sanders because that makes me feel a little better that I like that book so much.

I was just googling around on the current subject and came to that bit in your blog and was so tickled to be able to copy and paste your out-of-context quote, addressing Vera no less, that I couldn't resist even though I knew it was very immature.

Kimchi said...

Deb S said:

Also, Rosina will not talk to anyone about the incident to this day

Yes she did... in person and in writing....

Lynn said...

Private club for magicians...are they talking about the magic castle?

Vera Dreiser said...

Don Murphy going to Sanders as a source? Now that's rich!

starviego said...


Grim said:
"...Paul Watkins saying something to the effect that Lotsapoppa was killed because he was messing with White girls."

Do you have a source for that?

ziggyosterberg said...


grimtraveller said...

The 2nd reason was simply that it was already a matter of record in the trial that Charlie had spoken of shooting a Black guy to a Police officer called Samuel Olmstead on 28th July '69, a good 4 weeks after the burn and shooting.


Did he say that he shot a black guy, or had "beaten up" a black guy? :


Manson told him and other officers that he believed the Panthers were about to raid the ranch because they had beaten up a Panther for making overtures to a white girl among the “family.”


I assume that he's referring to Lotsapoppa, but was smart enough not to admit to shooting someone to a police officer.

I could've sworn that there was a story about Manson getting in a fight with a black guy, because of some trouble that Sadie caused. Maybe it wasn't a black guy. Not sure.

DebS said...

Kimchi said...
Deb S said:

Also, Rosina will not talk to anyone about the incident to this day

Yes she did... in person and in writing....


Kimchi, I was unaware of it. Where and when?

DebS said...

Cielodrive has an article about Samuel Olmstead's testimony.

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/police-had-freed-manson-family/

grimtraveller said...

ziggyosterberg said...

Did he say that he shot a black guy, or had "beaten up" a black guy?

Actually, he didn't say either. He said they'd "gotten into a hassle" with them and put one of them in the hospital. This was said in the context of Charlie telling the Police they ought to join forces in order to wipe out the Panthers and also him telling them that guns were trained on them, out of sight and that they could be wiped out on his command. The two sources are Zamora's and Sanders' books.
The conversation with Olmstead and Grap centered around shooting and guns, so when he describes putting a Black guy in the hospital, it's a fair assumption that he's not talking about kicking the guy in the balls, that he's talking about a shooting. I don't know if the two cops took it seriously at all. I don't know if they took seriously that there were guns trained on them. But he wasn't arrested for it and he provided no name in relation to this "motherfucker" that he'd supposedly "put in the hospital." He'd hardly tell the cops he'd killed someone.

starviego said...

"Paul Watkins saying something to the effect that Lotsapoppa was killed because he was messing with White girls."
Do you have a source for that?


Yeah, Robert's book, "Death to pigs." Page 279, he says "Walked in his house an shot him, some Negro...just because he said he was fuckin' little white girls. He says, 'Don't fuck with the white women,' BAM ! He said he shot him with a 45 right through the heart."
I first heard it from Manson Mythos when he was Manson Family Archives. Funny thing was, I didn't know that I'd already read it some months earlier. Not everything registers when you first read it. I didn't even highlight it in my copy.

grimtraveller said...

Kimchi said...

Deb S said:
"Also, Rosina will not talk to anyone about the incident to this day."

Yes she did... in person and in writing....


Speak on ! What ? Where ? When ?
Don't do a Mario III on us !

DebS said...

The question for me was why, in his book, did Bugliosi misrepresent the charges that Crowe was facing when he had that chance meeting in the hallway with Manson? The book came out about three years after all was said and done

I'm wondering if while Bugliosi and Gentry were putting together the book, even though it was a few years later, Crowe's case hadn't been completely sorted out or if it had been sorted out and because of the outcome, they weren't allowed to mention in print what the charge was actually about. As it was known that Crowe was doing something illegal with marijuana, saying he was in jail on a marijuana charge, while not true, gave some explanation why he was in jail. The overall thrust of the entry is not what Crowe was in jail for, but that he was in jail and met a guy that had, up until that moment, assumed him to be dead and himself to be a murderer {although he was getting away with it up until then and ironically, was never charged for the one thing it is definitely known that he did with his own hand}.
It must have been one of the shittiest days of Charles Manson's life. It also says something about all of Charlie's pre~trial posturing, going on about how the press and the system was against him and burying him, thinking all the while "Ha ha, this lot don't know I've actually killed someone !"
As for Bugliosi and Gentry, I don't know why they just didn't write "on another charge." A bit like his timelines, it seems that Vincent T loved to provide context and detail, even if it was miniscule and a little misleading.

starviego said...


Grim said:
"Yeah, Robert's book, "Death to pigs." Page 279, he says "Walked in his house an shot him, some Negro...just because he said he was fuckin' little white girls"

Thanks for the source. Next question: What little white girls was he diddling? Some of Charlie's girls?

Or what that just another layer of deception, and the real reason was something entirely different? At this point, only Charlie knows.

ziggyosterberg said...


Charlie was using his "Charles Summers" alias :

"On August 1, 1969, your affiant received information from Deputy Samuel J. Olmstead, #2504, LASO, that at approximately 1:10 a.m. on July 28, 1969, he had received a call from LAPD Dispatcher reporting one of their units requests a Sheriff's unit on Topanga Canyon just north of Chatsworth Street regarding possible stolen vehicles. At approximately 2:30 a.m., Car 102 requested assistance from 100-5, 101, and CID units in the area. Unit arrived at location at approximately 3:15 a.m. and Deputy E.A. Loobey, #2585, advised that LAPD had run two vehicles at the Spahn Ranch, and both had come back as stolen.

At the location was a possible member of the "Satan Slaves" the name of Summers, who was acting as a look-out for the group of "Slaves" staying at Spahn Ranch. Summers advised Deputy Samuel J. Olmstead, #2504, that his group anticipated an attack by the "Black Panthers" and several of the people at the ranch are armed. Summers was allowed to accompany Olmstead to the location in order to help him round up the others in order to determine who the stolen vehicles belonged to. Unknown to Olmstead, there was a field telephone system at the location, and, as soon as the officers arrived, the alarm was sounded and the only persons found were those who were asleep and didn't wake up with the alarm.

A walk-thru check of the main buildings of the ranch disclosed 11 persons, as follows: Charles Summers, M/35; John Harold Swartz, M/27; Larry Eugene Craven, M/29; Jason Lee Daniels, M/22; Robert John Nelson, M/27; Lynn Alice Fromme, F/20; Ruth Ann Ecouvmaclburst, F/17; Jacquline Lee Knoll, F/26; George Harry Knoll, M/28; Arnold Edward Vitmak, M/20; and Jack Paul MacMillan, M/26. Of the above, suspect John H. Swartz was arrested for 4453 CVC, re: stolen plates on his vehicle at Spahn Ranch.

While checking the buildings, Olmstead and other officers came across one fully loaded .30 caliber carbine, one loaded 303 British in-field, and a .22 caliber rifle.

Olmstead asked one of the subjects where the rest of the group was, and he pointed in an easterly direction and stated, "over behind them rocks." Olmstead said, "Let's go wake them up," and he stated the only way to reach them is by dune buggy.

Olmstead and other officers checked a small residence northwest of the main buildings, on a dirt road approximately 3/4 mile away from the ranch house. The house was empty of furniture, but there was evidence that someone had been there just prior to Olmstead's arrival. On the floor was approximately 8 bed rolls. Around the door, stuck in the wall, were about 6 or 8 bayonets, and on the floor near the door was a box (200 rounds) of .32 caliber bullets. Also in this house was a military-type crank field phone, the same as those observed in the main building and house trailer just north of the main building.

After talking to the persons at the location, Olmstead was of the opinion that there is a fairly large number of people scattered throughout the ranch area and on surrounding ranches in old buildings.”

Dreath said...

Ziggy,

Affidavit in support of the August 16th raid warrant?

ziggyosterberg said...


Correct. I only copy/pasted the parts relevant to the July 28th "mini raid".

Dreath said...

Sure

Aren't we heading back toward a July 1 Crowe date with this if he was the 'UCLA dumped 'Panther' that set off some paranoia of a Panther attack?

I have never found a single reference to Manson in 'LA Black Panther' research. Nor a mention of Crowe or a Crowe-like or Manson-like character, nothing. So if Charlie thought they were coming- he didn't even register on their radar as in 'at all' even post murder. The closest I ever came was a hint- Franco Diggs sold guns to "some white hippies".

ziggyosterberg said...


I think it was Al Springer who said in his police interview that Clem or Manson had told him about shooting a black guy (not sure if he said a Black Panther), and his friends dumped his body in Griffith Park. Tex later wrote in his book about hearing on the news that a the body of a Black Panther had been dumped at UCLA. A university is certainly a strange place to dump a body.

Ed Sanders wrote in "The Family" that Danny De Carlo said that Manson said that the two witnesses had called him a couple of days later and told Manson that they had dumped the body in a park.

brownrice said...

Ziggy quoted: "Ruth Ann Ecouvmaclburst, F/17"

What a wonderful alias! On ya Ouisch! I really like the thought of the cops actually writing that down. :-)

Cielodrive.com said...

Ecouvmaclburst is the product of OCR text, not police work.

brownrice said...

Bummer... that was the best laugh I've had all day.

Cielodrive.com said...

Yeah, it's also a bummer that OCR has so much trouble reading half century old documents. If it could, it would save a lot of time. That should read Heuvulhurst, which in world that makes sense, would be Ruth Ann. But like all things with this case, nothing makes sense, and Ruth Ann Heuvulhurst during the Spahn Ranch raid was actually Sherry Cooper.

grimtraveller said...

ziggyosterberg said...


Ed Sanders wrote in "The Family" that Danny De Carlo said that Manson said that the two witnesses had called him a couple of days later and told Manson that they had dumped the body in a park

Like a number of things in the case, this has never gelled for me, on any level. Only Rosina would have had the number to Spahn. The other guys knew neither Charlie nor Tex. In any event, I'd be interested to know the reasoning behind such a call. "Oh Charlie, we're calling to let you know that you won't be done for Poppa's murder. We decided to become accessories by dumping his body in the park...."
I know lots of things make little rational sense in the overall saga but we're not talking Family here.
Incidentally, according to Sanders, Lotsapoppa sent a telegram from hospital to his sister in Philly. Unfortunately, he doesn't give the date.

ziggyosterberg said...

Tex later wrote in his book about hearing on the news that a the body of a Black Panther had been dumped at UCLA

I don't believe Tex about this. No such report has ever turned up. A number of people, including our own George and Dreath, have looked high and low for it over the decades. It's the Loch Ness Monster of TLB.

Dreath said...

Grim said: "No such report has ever turned up."

I can be more emphatic- there was no such report.

ziggyosterberg said...


grimtraveller said...

"In any event, I'd be interested to know the reasoning behind such a call. "Oh Charlie, we're calling to let you know that you won't be done for Poppa's murder. We decided to become accessories by dumping his body in the park...."


"...and by the way, can I have my shirt back?"

ziggyosterberg said...


"Of the above, suspect John H. Swartz was arrested for 4453 CVC, re: stolen plates on his vehicle at Spahn Ranch.”


Johnny Swartz : the *schlimazel of Spahn Ranch.


*A schlemiel is somebody who often spills his soup and a schlimazel is the person it lands on.


"Schlemiel! Schlimazel! Helter Skelter Incorporated!"

Matt said...

Mendel Mendel cachen fendel

(or was it the fridge?)

ziggyosterberg said...


Poo in the refrigerator?

Or Pooh in the refrigerator?

Both are possible.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Next question: What little white girls was he diddling? Some of Charlie's girls?

In "Five to die" the author reports that Charlie had been planning to "get" some Black guy that lived close to where the Family used to live on Gresham Street that had been apparently "trying to entice my young loves away, giving them dope and balling them." He was supposed to have said to Juan Flynn "help me get the bastard." This was supposedly June '69. Aside from the fact that this guy was only doing what Charlie did {he did it with Stephanie Schram and God knows how many others} if he was doing this, what Paul Watkins said needs to be taken with a pinch of salt because in the same set of conversations, Charlie also said they'd chopped Shorty's head off. And we know that to be untrue. The Family members in that '69~'71 period had a tendency to mix truth, desire, fantasy and lie, so you'd get Sandy talking about Charlie flying the bus over Death Valley or those stories of reattached genitalia or Brenda swearing that on both nights of TLB Charlie was at a particular place at Spahn, nowhere near the murders {when he himself admits to being there}, lots of throwaway statements to impress or dissuade or throw off the scent. Many of them had the opposite effect to the intended one and have played a none too small part in cementing the reputation Charlie has been lumbered with/enjoyed {take your fancy} for nearly half a century.
By the way Star, I think you're pushing snow in the midday desert trying to establish some prior connection between Lotspopo {his spelling} and any of the Family.

DebS said...

doing further research into Crowe I discovered that he was not jailed for a marijuana charge but rather burglary and forgery charges

This is really left field, but I wonder if it's at all comparable with the names in the book that aren't actually the names of the people mentioned. For example, Pic Dawson is represented as Jeffrey Pickett, nicknamed "Pic." Bugliosi & Gentry even go as far as to write "not unmindful of the similarity between 'Pic' and the bloody lettered PIG on the front door of the Tate residence...."
There is a footnote that tells us that everything in the book is based on fact but goes on to say that for legal reasons, some names have been changed. I wonder if the representation of Crowe's actual charge had to be changed for legal reasons ? He was already a marijuana dealer so it didn't really matter that he was cast as such to explain how he ran into Charlie in jail.
There again, that could just be a load of rubbish and they wrote it down wrong and just didn't check/proof read effectively that particular fact before going to print !

Dreath said...

Grim said: "I wonder if the representation of Crowe's actual charge had to be changed for legal reasons ?"

I thought that might be the case at first too but what's the difference if he used Crowe's name? If you get sued for saying forgery or sued for saying dope, especially if dope isn't the truth. Unless, there was deal on the forgery charge.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
By the way Star, I think you're pushing snow in the midday desert trying to establish some prior connection between Lotspopo {his spelling} and any of the Family.

OK, riddle me this: Why did Charlie, already just a hair's breath away from having his parole revoked and being sent back to the Can, shoot a man he allegedly didn't know--in front of witnesses, no less--and someone he didn't have a beef with, and then start bragging about it to witnesses? Why didn't he just order Tex back with the purloined money?

And where is the missing police report on this shooting?

No way do I buy into the official story--there are just too many hints that something is amiss.

St Circumstance said...

Is this new???

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latest-parole-recommended-charles-manson-follower-235027852.html

St Circumstance said...

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The Latest on the parole hearing for a follower of Charles Manson (all times local):

3:45 p.m.

A state panel has recommended paroling a former follower of cult leader Charles Manson after California governors blocked four previous recommendations for his release.

The 31st parole hearing for 74-year-old Bruce Davis was held Wednesday at the California Men's Colony at San Luis Obispo.

Gov. Jerry Brown will have the final say on whether Davis is released.

Davis is serving a life sentence for the 1969 slayings of musician Gary Hinman and stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea.

He was not involved in the more notorious killings of actress Sharon Tate and six others by the Manson "family."

Parole panels have decided before that Davis is no longer a public safety risk only to see governors — who have the final say on release — block his parole.

___

11:37 a.m.

A former follower of cult leader Charles Manson is seeking parole for the 31st time after California governors blocked four previous recommendations for his release.

A parole hearing for 74-year-old Bruce Davis was underway Wednesday at the California Men's Colony at San Luis Obispo.

Davis is serving a life sentence for the 1969 slayings of musician Gary Hinman and stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea.

He was not involved in the more notorious killings of actress Sharon Tate and six others by the Manson "family."

Parole panels have decided four times that Davis is no longer a public safety risk.

Gov. Jerry Brown rejected the most recent recommendation early last year. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also concluded that Davis remains too dangerous to be free.

DebS said...

Yes, Bruce had a hearing today. No word yet on the outcome. I expect he will be granted parole again by the board and then Governor Brown will veto it.

Dreath said...

Starviego said: "And where is the missing police report on this shooting?"

It is likely not 'missing'. He was interviewed at the hospital. What is missing is the information to close the gap: how did Bugliosi find Crowe from just a shot Black Panther? That could answer some questions.




ziggyosterberg said...


No idea, but it's possible that Bugliosi may not have known much about the "shot Black Panther" until Crowe's attorney, Ed Tolmas, contacted him. I take it that Crowe's attorney contacted Bugliosi when Crowe was up on forgery and burglary charges, to work out some sort of deal for his client.

Al Springer was also up on burglary charges when Venice PD contacted the LaBianca detectives to tell them that they had an informant with info on the suspects. Bugliosi didn't mention the burglary arrest in "Helter Skelter". Only that Venice PD were questioning Springer "on another charge".

Article from CieloDrive.com (Link) :

"Nov. 12 — A major break. Police in suburban Venice reported a suspected burglar in jail might have more information on the suspects. Informant interviewed the same day and provides name of another possible informant.

Nov. 12 — Second informant located and tells of overhearing talk that some members of band might be implicated in slayings.”


Al Springer would be the first informant, Danny De Carlo would be the second informant.

From CieloDrive.com's - Audio Archives :

Al Springer LAPD Parker Center Interviews, November, 1969 (Link)


Mr. Humphrat said...

I noticed in a Crowe interview his lawyers didn't want him to speculate on what type of gun was used to shoot him. Was that just in case Manson was prosecuted the state wouldn't be locked in on a statement?

Dreath said...

Ziggy, right but sometimes how you say something is as important as what you as as a witness. Bugliosi is the witness here.

"Our long search for Crowe ended when an old acquaintance of mine, Ed Tolmas, who was Crowe’s attorney, called me. He told me he had learned we were looking for his client and arranged for me to interview Crowe."

It's not 'hey my guy has some info you might want'. It's Tolmas acknowledging Bugliosi was looking for Crowe. And if Bugliosi only knew his as a 'Black Panther shot by Manson' how could he be looking for Crowe? Either this isn't what happened (the HS version) or Bugliosi had identified Crowe's by name as the man Manson shot.

Or this is a pretty strange coincidence......

Tolmas: "Hey Vince I hear you're looking for a Black Panther shot by Charles Manson. My guy is not a Black Panther but he was shot by a guy named 'Charlie' wanna talk to him?"

Dreath said...

Mr. H,

When I heard that I could not for the life of me figure out why he cut him off on that, especially when he ID's the gun when he testifies as 'It looks like the gun.' somewhat humorously after he asks Bugliosi to point it at him.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

OK, riddle me this: Why did Charlie, already just a hair's breath away from having his parole revoked and being sent back to the Can,

He had no way of knowing he was only a hairs breath away. Nothing of any consequence that he was arrested for ever stuck in that pre~Barker arrest period.

shoot a man he allegedly didn't know--in front of witnesses, no less

True, but none of them knew him. He seems to have assumed they were all involved in this marijuana deal and therefore unlikely to go to the Police. Although the Emmons book is flawed and suspect according to him, he said one very interesting thing about the atmosphere in the room and how it changed when he pulled the trigger the last time.
Whether Charlie was shooting in self defence, we'll never know. Let's just say he went prepared for trouble, which made sense. Would you go into a house of an angry guy you didn't know that had just been burned for over $2000 unarmed ?
That said, I've long wondered whether or not it runs through many criminals minds what it would be like to kill someone, especially those that are prepared to use or are not strangers to, violence.

and someone he didn't have a beef with, and then start bragging about it to witnesses?

But which witnesses did he actually brag about it to ? How many people apart from Paul Watkins and the other members of the Family in the know did he actually tell he had killed someone ?
As for beefs, he certainly developed a beef one way or the other, either from the view that he was keeping the money whatever happened or that Lotsapoppa threatened to wreak havoc on the people at the ranch.
Take your fancy.

Why didn't he just order Tex back with the purloined money?

He claims Tex had already spent the money. I don't see how he could have in the dead of night within a couple of hours.
They just weren't great and cleverly devious criminals. On the other hand, while thinking things through may not have been a strength, you've got to credit Charlie with balls, for going to Rosina's flat, even with a gun. He didn't know what he was going to find there and that is maybe the crux of the matter. It could be seen as one long psychedelic criminal improvisation, a bit like his music.

starviego said...

"He had no way of knowing he was only a hairs breath away. Nothing of any consequence that he was arrested for ever stuck in that pre~Barker arrest period."

Once again, a parolee does not have to be convicted of anything to be sent back to prison.


"He seems to have assumed they were all involved in this marijuana deal and therefore unlikely to go to the Police."

That's the thing about a shooting investigation. The police will eventually end up coming to you--no need to go to the police.


"How many people apart from Paul Watkins and the other members of the Family in the know did he actually tell he had killed someone?"

Even blabbing about it to the Family was incredibly stupid, and not something a criminally sophisticated person would do. The only reason for this reckless behavior, imo, was that Charlie knew somebody was protecting him.


Dreath said...

Starviego said: "Once again, a parolee does not have to be convicted of anything to be sent back to prison."

No but it has to be a violation of his release conditions and there has to be a hearing. And Manson was not 'on parole'. He was on 'mandatory (supervised) release' which is a bit more difficult to pull.

The police spoke to Crowe with the 'EMTs' at the apartment and in the hospital. He told them he didn't know who shot him and that he was alone at the time. What is there to investigate?

If Manson is going around saying he shot and killed a black panther the police if they caught wind would discover what I discovered: no such event occurred and Crowe isn't dead.

I think you are looking back on this and not at the time.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

That's the thing about a shooting investigation. The police will eventually end up coming to you--no need to go to the police

Yes and they did go to Crowe. He could hardly avoid them !
But what has this to do with Charles Manson ? If the Police have been told that the victim is in the dark, why in the world should Charles Manson come into their minds ?

Even blabbing about it to the Family was incredibly stupid, and not something a criminally sophisticated person would do

That's as maybe. However, I disagree with you on the last point. Human beings talk. Sophistication has nothing to do with it. There are a variety of situations and circumstances that can bring the talking out but people talk. Besides which, how could Charlie not talk about it at least to Tex to appraise him of what happened ?
We don't often say this about Charlie, it's usually ascribed to Susan Atkins, but having been kicked about for much of his life, Charlie seems to me to have loved attention and more importantly, affirmation. And those around him gave him this in droves. Yes, they had their own foibles and some of them came and went as they pleased and they didn't always do absolutely everything he said. But for the most part they did and even the rebels {like Zero} hung around and recognized him as the one who called the shots. And that affirmation helped to make him feel loved and wanted, genuinely, possibly for the only time in his life.

The only reason for this reckless behavior, imo, was that Charlie knew somebody was protecting him

It's an interesting theory. But it's full of holes. When did the protection stop and why ? How come he's been in prison since 1969 ? And I ask again, who did Charlie actually brag to ? Who outside the Family did he tell ?

Dreath said...

I think you are looking back on this and not at the time

I agree.
You know, if one person with insider knowledge had come out over the last 48 years and said that Manson was being protected {and I'm not talking Preston Gillory}, then at least the theory would have something on which to hang its hat. You'd have reasons, a certain logic etc, something that made some sense, even disagreeable sense.


starviego said...

Dreath said...

"Crowe ... told them he didn't know who shot him and that he was alone at the time. What is there to investigate?"

So the police probe into a shooting comes to a screeching halt because the victim doesn't want to talk? Not in my universe.


"If Manson is going around saying he shot and killed a black panther the police if they caught wind would discover .. no such event occurred and Crowe isn't dead."

The cops wouldn't have started on Manson's end. Charlie's name would have come up in any real investigation and the cops hearing about Charlie suddenly start boasting about shooting a black guy would have been icing on the cake.

---------------

grimtraveller said...

"...why in the world should Charles Manson come into their minds?"

The cops know where Crowe was picked up by the ambulance--Rosina's place. So they start with Rosina, who would have probably quickly cracked and given up the other names. The cops should have had it wrapped up in a week.


" And that affirmation helped to make him feel loved and wanted, genuinely, possibly for the only time in his life."

I'm gettin' all misty over here. Stop it.


"When did the protection stop and why?"

After TLB, because his usefulness was at an end.


"How come he's been in prison since 1969?"

Because what he knows makes him the most dangerous man alive. Thus he can never be allowed to tell his story.

Bobby said...

starviego said...

"How come he's been in prison since 1969?"

"Because what he knows makes him the most dangerous man alive. Thus he can never be allowed to tell his story."

Starviego, I'm not meaning to be a jerk when I ask this. He has talked a heck of a lot from prison to many people. What prevents him from telling his story ? Do you have an idea of what his story is ? Thanks.

Bob.

starviego said...



Bob said....

"He has talked a heck of a lot from prison to many people. What prevents him from telling his story? Do you have an idea of what his story is?"

His 'story' is that he was manipulated, encouraged, and/or coerced into the killings by people in the background, and that the true authors of this crime have never been named.
(though of course I am expressing an opinion here)

He can't tell the truth because if he did he would soon afterwards be transferred to the general population, where he wouldn't last a day before he gets shanked.



/

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

Well, that's a new style conspiracy theory, Star~V !

Bobby said...


starviego said...

His 'story' is that he was manipulated, encouraged, and/or coerced into the killings by people in the background, and that the true authors of this crime have never been named.
(though of course I am expressing an opinion here)

Thanks, Are you saying he was coerced to coerce the killers by another entity or the killers coerced him ? Please give more detail. Much appreciated.

grimtraveller said...

Bobby said...

Are you saying he was coerced to coerce the killers by another entity or the killers coerced him ? Please give more detail

If you really get into it, look at what Charlie supposedly told Nicholas Shreck, what he told George Stimson, what he told Nuel Emmons, what he told Vincent Bugliosi, what he told Ed George and all the various things that he has said over the last 4o+ years in interviews and letters to journalists, then it's hard to escape the conclusion that he's been as fanciful and changeable as Susan Atkins in his pronouncements. The more detail you find, the more convoluted the cases one can construct.
He's even better at throwing in red herrings to deflect the attention that he doesn't want than Manson Mythos.
For all that though, he's still fascinating.

starviego said...

Bobby said..

"Are you saying he was coerced to coerce the killers by another entity or the killers coerced him?"

Well the 'killers,' as we know, were Tex, Sadie, Krenny, etc. They certainly didn't coerce Charlie in any way. But there was someone else--his 'handler' if you will, that was telling him to do it. My first suspects are the Black Muslims he knew in prison, but they too were probably being manipulated in some way. So you've got many layers.

More details in this thread:

http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/Zebra%20murders

Bobby said...

star, I really enjoyed that post. Very interesting and made a lot of sense,Even with that though why can't Charlie expose the story ? I have trouble believing that it is fear of being put in the general line of prison. I think if he could bring something of that level to light he could become more un touchable. Anyway thank you for responding to my inquiry. Again I appreciated that Zebra post very much. I just think if Charlie knows anything he would have had an accidental death in prison a long time ago. Thanks again.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

He can't tell the truth because if he did he would soon afterwards be transferred to the general population, where he wouldn't last a day before he gets shanked

If Nicholas Shreck was telling the truth in his big book about what Manson actually told him, then all bets are off because by stating that Bugliosi double crossed him by not looking after his own, being an Italian, he says that the Mafia were not being protected which lays the responsibility at their door. If they had all the power he claims they do {an earthly power, identical with God} he'd be dead by now.
Of course, if they had nothing to do with anything, which is actually the case, then the mystical rantings of a small time crook wouldn't bother them now, would it ?

starviego said...


Another reference to the Crowe shooting being on Aug 1, not July 1.

Bugliosi, pg124, paperback edition
Interview with Straight Satan Al Springer:
" "Q: I want to ask about why they killed this colored--the Panther supposedly. When did this take place, do you know?"
Springer wasn't sure, but he thought it was about a week before he went up to the ranch."

Springer's first visit to the ranch had been on Aug 11 or 12 (see Bugliosi, pg 119).

Thus a week before would have been Aug 3 or 4. The point being this is more consistent with the Aug 1 date for the Crowe shooting.


/

grimtraveller said...

How would Springer, who at the time didn't even know any of the Family, have the slightest idea of times and dates of any of the things he suspected of happening ? He didn't even know the names of Hinman {'Henland, I believe'} and Beausoleil {'Bausley'}.