Monday, January 23, 2017

When Did Dennis Wilson Finally Sever His Connection to the Family?

Would it surprise you if it was in July, 1969?


According to the accepted narrative: 

“In the late spring of 1968, Wilson had twice picked up the same pair of female hitchhikers while driving through Malibu. The second time he took the girls home with him. For Dennis, home was 14400 Sunset Boulevard, a palatial residence formerly owned by humorist Will Rogers. The girls— Ella Jo Bailey and Patricia Krenwinkel— stayed a couple of hours, Dennis said, mostly talking about this guy named Charlie. Wilson had a recording session that night and didn’t get home until 3 A.M. When he pulled into the driveway, a strange man stepped out of his back door. Wilson, frightened, asked, “Are you going to hurt  me?” The man said, “Do I look like I’m going to hurt you, brother?” He then dropped to his knees and kissed Wilson’s feet— obviously one of Charlie’s favorite routines. When Manson ushered Wilson into his own home, he discovered he had about a dozen uninvited house guests, nearly all of them girls. They stayed for several months, during which time the group more than doubled in number. (It was during Manson’s “Sunset Boulevard period” that Charles “Tex” Watson, Brooks Poston, and Paul Watkins became associated with the Family.)

The experience, Dennis later estimated, cost him about  $ 100,000. Besides Manson’s constantly hitting him for money, Clem demolished Wilson’s uninsured $ 21,000 Mercedes-Benz** by plowing it into a mountain on the approach to Spahn Ranch; the Family appropriated Wilson’s wardrobe, and just about everything else in sight; and several times Wilson found it necessary to take the whole Family to his Beverly Hills doctor for penicillin shots. “It was probably the largest gonorrhea bill in history,” Dennis admitted. Wilson even gave Manson nine or ten of the Beach Boys’ gold records and paid to have Sadie’s teeth fixed.

[** It actually was a 1966, Ferrari GTB/6C, silver grey, vin # 08501GT, California tag #VAM559, like the one pictured top, right. One site claims the second picture is the car after the wreck. I can't verify that.]

*****

However, in August 1968, three weeks before his lease was to expire, Dennis moved in with Gregg [Jakobson], leaving to his manager the task of evicting Charlie and the girls.

From Sunset Boulevard the Family moved to Spahn Ranch. Although Wilson apparently avoided the group for a time, he did see Manson occasionally.”

Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders. W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

I have even heard it explained that Wilson left his Sunset Boulevard residence because he was afraid of Manson. After they split company by the official accounts Wilson had very little contact with the Family except for three occasions when Bugliosi says either Wilson or Jakobson told him Wilson had been threatened.

But that may not be completely accurate…..

In the December 21, 1968 British publication The Record Mirror a story appeared about Dennis Wilson. It briefly mentions Manson and the Family, “Dennis Wilson: I Live With 17 Girls” by David Griffiths. It can be found, here.


One interesting aspect of the article is the quote attributed to Wilson that seems to suggest that he was having an ongoing relationship with Manson in December, 1968.

“I live in the woods in California near Death Valley with 17 girls.”

The Death Valley reference is at least interesting as that is far from Sunset Boulevard.

Wilson also appears to mention his lodgings with Greg Jakobson:

“Now I live in one small room with one candle and I’m happy, finding myself.”

Given the ‘present tense’ language used by Wilson (that he ‘is’ living with 17 girls) and given the official timeline the only time the interview logically should have taken place was sometime between say late May and early August 1968, the timeframe when Wilson was officially connected to the Family. Then the explanation for the use of present tense might be simply that the interview wasn’t published until December.

The problem is that during that timeframe Wilson was not in England. While the Beach Boys toured during the period they never left the United States. ‘Never Learn Not to Love’ was not recorded until September 11-18, again, after Wilson allegedly broke with Manson.

The Endless Summer Quarterly (ESQ) (http://esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs68.html)

From the same source (ESQ) Wilson et al were in England (and on the Continent) in December 1968. They were specifically in London on December 1st, 8th and 18th and were in England from December 1st to the 8th returning on the 18th. It appears, then, that at least the logical conclusion is that Wilson gave the interview during one of the December dates when he was in London in December 1968.

But then why use the present tense language if he split with Manson in August ’68?

It is arguable that the reference is misquoted. Wilson may have been talking of ‘back then’ and the author may have simply turned them to the present tense to sell the story, especially since the band was touring England.

But why did that happen three times?

The December ’68 story is not the only time after August '68 when Wilson proclaims his present tense friendship with Manson or that he is living with the Family.

Starting with ESQ (http://esquarterly.com/bellagio/gigs69.html) where was Wilson in the Spring and Summer of '69?

The Beach Boys started their 5th European Tour on May 30, 1969. They toured with Paul Revere and the Raiders and Joe Hicks from May 30th until June 22nd.

They were in London on May 31st and June 22nd. They were at other locations in England and Scotland June 6-9th.


In May 1969 this article appeared in Rave magazine, a London based pop magazine. 


The Beach Boys concert in Berlin, mentioned in the article occurred on May 14th which means this interview could have occurred when the Beach Boys were in London on either May 31st or June 22nd.

But that isn’t all. Lon Goddard for the Record Mirror (again) caught up with Wilson for an article that appeared July 5, 1969. 



Wilson in both articals from 1969 refers to his ongoing relationship with Manson and the Family and even suggests he is living with the Family at Spahn Ranch During May-June ‘69. The question is ‘why’?

I think one answer is that Wilson was still interacting with Manson in May-June 1969. From ESQ you can see that he didn’t have a lot of time between August ’68 and July ’69 to be in Los Angeles but that could have allowed him to live a day here and there in a room at Jakobson’s and at Spahn.

If that is the case then where did the official story come from?

I think it might have to do with some old-fashioned PR 'damage control'. While their career was ‘fading’ in 1969 the Beach Boys were still one of the top bands (mostly on reputation). They also had, even with the drugs, more of a ‘good boy’ persona. Having Dennis hanging around Spahn Ranch a month before the murders, it seems to me, would not have been very good PR. Remember, after the murders in late August or early September Manson went looking for Wilson to get money (the bullet visit) which may suggest at least Manson still thought there was a relationship there. Since he did ‘abandon his home’ in August ’68 it would be easy to say ‘at that point I split from them’.

It also provides an excuse to not testify. If Wilson was close to Manson in May-June ’69 I think Bugliosi would have been even more eager to interview him. Backing his exit up to August ’68 and refusing to testify drops Wilson down Bugliosi’s witness list to ‘unnecessary’. He had Jakobson and Melcher to fill all that in. Dennis is off the hook and the band is out of the headlines.

That also made me wonder what might have scared Wilson away shortly after the May- June '69 interviews.

[An old law school professor of mine used to have a saying about innacurate or false testimony: “you will find that with some witnesses misstatements or lies are as numerous as the grains of sand on a beach but remember there is always a grain of truth there somewhere.” ]

And that led me to the Mike Love story.

Wilson allegedly told Love: "I just saw Charlie take his M16 and blow this black cat [man] in half and stuff him down the well."

We know this never happened. But we also know that on August 1, 1969 Manson confronted and shot Bernard Crowe, a “black cat”. We also know Manson thought Crowe was dead. Could the Love statement be Dennis embelishing a story he heard while at Spahn? Or perhaps it was Mike Love embellishing a story Dennis embellished that also got garbled after 45 years.

Wouldn’t the delivery of a bullet to Jakobson for Wilson be a far more effective as a threat if Wilson knew that Manson had shot a ‘black cat’?

The timing, at least, is interesting.

There is a reference to the possibility Wilson was still entangled with Manson in Helter Skelter. While discussing the murder of Darwin Scott Bugliosi says this:

“On May 22, 1969, Manson telephoned his parole officer, Samuel Barrett, requesting permission to travel to Texas with the Beach Boys. Permission was withheld pending verification of Manson’s employment with the group. In a letter dated May 27, the same day as Scott’s murder, Manson said that the group had left without him and that he had moved from Death Valley back to Spahn Ranch. To categorize Barrett’s control over Manson as minimal would be an exaggeration. Barrett did not again talk to Manson until June 18.

Barrett did not note the postmark on the letter. He did note that he didn’t receive it until June 3, seven days after it was supposedly written. It is possible that Manson was using the letter as an alibi; it is also possible that he sent one of his killers to murder Scott. But both possibilities are strictly conjecture. The murder of Darwin Scott also remains unsolved.”

Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (pp. 568-569). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

However, a check of esquarterly.com reveals there was no tour of Texas in May 1969. There was a tour of Oklahoma and a couple appearances in nearby states earlier in May 1969 but these predate May 22nd. In fact the first tour date after May 22nd is the European tour.

This contact with Barrett is one of the small curiosities of this case. Barrett likely was referring to his file so his information would have been from that file. He might have noted the wrong location for the tour (Texas instead of Europe) but that seems like a strange mistake.


It could also mean Manson lied to Barrett claiming to have such a ‘gig’ and then dropped the request when Barrett asked for verification. Manson may have thought he could pull a fast one: get permission for Texas and just go to England. But Manson would need a passport and while a convicted felon can get a passport there is no evidence I have found that he had one and getting one on a few days’ notice is impossible. On the other hand he may have made up the story to get permission to go to Texas but why would Manson want to go to Texas in May, 1969.


Regardless, it does appear to me that Dennis Wilson didn’t sever his connection to Manson and the Family until early July 1969 (or perhaps even later since the 'bullet visit is late August or early September '69).







189 comments:

penny lane said...

Thanks Dreath...im off on a google frenzy cos i have no idea who Darwin Scott was ....and now I MUST know all..

SJ said...

Very interesting indeed.

cielodrivecom said...

Funny that Bugliosi neglected to mention that Manson sent the probation office a letter on May 27, 1969, telling them that he wasn't going to travel with The Beach Boys because they had left without him

FrankM said...

Interesting comment on the older post (UK Record Mirror) 21 December 1968) that quotes Dennis as saying "his [CM's] mother was a hooker, his father was a gangster". His parentage never has been resolved, has it?

FrankM said...

Addendum to previous post: By 'parentage' of course I was referring to his father - I think we're pretty clear about who his mother was.

St Circumstance said...

Great stuff!!

Dreath said...

The proposed trip to Texas intrigues me. Manson was not above at least toying with the idea of knocking off the parents of the Family to get their inheritance (Myer's Ranch)......and someone had family in Texas.

Matt said...

Same thought crossed my mind, Dreath.


Cielodrive.com said...

Who again was the source of the flat tire story?

ColScott said...

To be clear- this is not new research. I pointed out on the ONLY Official TLB Blog a decade ago that Bryn Lukashevski, a key member of Dennis' posse, was present at the Crowe shooting in July 69.

When BUG took over and started the lying he started spinning shit away from Melcher and Wilson et al. Protecting the celebrities.

Wilson was a seriously fucked up dude. Of course he loved Charlie.

DebS said...

Col I've heard you say before that Bryn Lukashevski was present when Crowe was shot. I've been reading Crowe's court testimony and the names Bryn/Bryan or Lukashevski is not mentioned by Crowe as being present either in the car while going to get the weed or later when they all went back to Rosina's apartment.

Crowe talks about Steve, Jim/Jimmy and Del being present as well as Rosina, Manson and TJ. So I'm wondering why you are so sure about Bryn being present.

Cielodrive.com said...

Deb, it's my understanding that Bryn has said that he wasn't there when that happened. In any event, if you listen to this, Gregg Jakobson tells Vince around the 6:30 mark that he heard about the Crowe shooting from Dennis and Bryn

St Circumstance said...

This is my favorite part of this community. Deb was nice enough to send me some very interesting stuff on Rosalina....

But here you lurkers and interested parties who don't want to get involved in the nonsense- get to learn real shit lol :)

The Heavyweights are laying it down now

ColScott said...

St Circumstance- her name is Rosina, respect people's names- She probably told you about the Vintage store near THE BIRDS schoolhouse. Travel there tomorrow and interview her and post it.

Deb/Drive- In the first paperback version of Sanders book BRYN is clearly noted as present. This was written very close to the crimes. So maybe that 1.5 million dollar archive is a waste of money then? Not sure why CD's first sentence says no then the second sentence links him.

Manson Mythos said...

I could be confused, but if I remember correctly: The Family were not evicted from Wilson's house. Tex Watson and Dean Moorehouse were.

Stories of threats made against Wilson from Charlie vary. Charlie has said it was Nick Grillo, The BB manager who he made threats against. I have it from one source, can't remember which, that Grillo did in fact have a background check done on Manson. Not sure what date.

I believe it was indeed after the Crowe incident that real friction started and suddenly interest in working with him dwindled. He did keep in touch with Wilson, because after the TLB murders went down, he and Stephanie Schramm went to met Wilson at his home.

St Circumstance said...

I was listening to Bruce Springsteen Col... Happy New Year and love you too...

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

to - night

Cielodrive.com said...

Col, I wasn't suggesting he was or wasn't there. I'm merely stating that he seems to deny it. Regardless if he was there or not, theres clearly a connection between Crowe and the Wilson crew.

Of course the archive is not worth it.

Cielodrive.com said...

DEPUTY PALMER: How about Dennis Wilson?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Yeah, I, yeah. Not well, he probably wouldn't, you know. We were over there a couple of times.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Was Dennis ever up at the desert?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Uh-huh.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Just at the Spahn Ranch?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: I never even saw him there but I was only there for awhile. He'd probably been there before though.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Did you ever go to Dennis' house? Who else was at Dennis' house?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Just me and Charlie went there.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Do you recall when that was?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Um, yeah, I think I could put it together. It was about a week after those two girls got picked up because he wanted some money to get them out of jail.
DEPUTY GLEASON: If was just before the raid then?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Yeah.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Just before the Spahn Ranch raid?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: No just after, I think, because I was staying at the ranch not down in the canyon.
DEPUTY GLEASON: Did Charlie think that Dennis would give him money?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Well, I guess he did a record a long time ago and he wanted to see if there were any royalties left on it or something; but he no, he didn't give him any.
DEPUTY GLEASON: But Dennis was home though?
STEPHANIE SCHRAM: Uh, huh.

Cielodrive.com said...

From the progress report... She[Stephanie Schram] stated that she had gone with Manson to the home of DENNIS WILSON at 14000 Sunset Boulevard, West Los Angeles. While at the Wilson residence, there was a conversation between Manson and Wilson regarding a man who died from a gunshot wound to the stomach. Dennis Wilson was interviewed by officers from an unknown police agency about this matter. During the conversation, Manson indicated that he had been the one that had killed the unknown person. This interview was tape recorded and will be retained for further examination.

Dreath said...

Cielo,

Isn't the timing off on the progress report? If this is a reference to Crowe.

Cielodrive.com said...

Why do you think the timing is off?

Dreath said...

MM,

Same question?

Dreath said...

Cielo,

14000 Sunset Blvd. if it is 14400 Sunset.....

Dreath said...

Isn't that the house Wilson ditched in August 1968?

Dreath said...

Of course from the above it could be LE who have the address wrong Schram doesn't ID an address in your bit there.

Cielodrive.com said...

Yeah, I'm not sure if the address is accurate. I doubt Schram gave them the address.

Not that it means anything, but when Beuasoleil was arrested on August 6, he listed his address as 14400 Sunset.

Dreath said...

Agree on the address.

That's interesting to me- BB using 14400-of course could be a dodge like all the fake names yet it is a Dennis address.

Col Scott,

I actually did go to your site and have because I remembered the Bryn posts. Do you know if there is any other corroboration of Bryn/Bryan Lukashevski being present other then the reference you mention above? It seems this fellow is or has been placed at locations where there is little to corroborate his being present- Spahn Raid for example?

DebS said...

I've been going over stuff and I don't believe that Lukashevsky was arrested at the Spahn Ranch raid mainly because of his LASO number. All of those arrested during the Spahn Ranch Raid had an LASO# that began with 859. The LASO number for Lukashevsky on Deemer's list begins with 305. I could be wrong, of course, and he had priors.

I went back over Crowe's testimony and Jim and Del were with Crowe when Crowe drove Rosina and Tex to an apartment house in El Monte to get the weed. When Tex did not come back the four of them waited for quite a while and then drove back to Rosina's apartment. Jim and Del went into the apartment with Rosina while Crowe left to go over to someone else's place to pick up his friend Steve. Crowe and Steve went back to Rosina's and by this time Jim had gone.

There were questions by Kanarak to Crowe about guns and who among his friends may have had one. Bugliosi objected a lot and it did come out that Jim sometimes had a gun but he was not there when the shooting occurred.

Before Manson left he took Steve's shirt and then kissed Del's feet according to Crowe's testimony. I seriously do not know if any of these people could have been Bryn, Crowe did not refer to anyone that had that name.

Matt said...

I agree with Deb. He was not present at the Spahn raid. Also, his name was BRYAN, not Bryn. The misspelling worked in his favor by keeping him a little more difficult to find.


Mr. Humphrat said...

Saint was listening to Candy's Room I'll bet with a few beverages in him.

Someone previously posted Rosina tells anyone who asks her about her connection to F off.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Great post thanks Dreath (and Col)

Dreath said...

I've suddenly become intrigued by the July1 and August 1 dates for the Crowe incident. When I wrote this, following the 'official narrative' I used July 1. Thanks to Deb for the correction.

One possibility might be Melcher et al got it wrong.

The Crowe to Hinman to TLB progression only seems to work with July 1- but Bugliosi wasn't using Crowe as the catalyst- perhaps because he knew it was after Hinman.

Then again perhaps the date became July 1 because Kasabian was not there on July 1. Bugliosi spent a good deal of time in small ways 'protecting' his key witness from impeachment.

Cielodrive.com said...

Dreath, despite what is said in that transcript, I have it on good authority, that records support that Crowe incident happening on July 1, not August.

Dreath said...

Thanks Cielo,

That's what I thought but was corrected...you experts can debate this one ;-)

Of course that just reverses my interest- then why change it to August 1st: mistake?

How many times was he asked the date?

What records/source if I might be so bold as to inquire? Curiosity.

cielodrivecom said...

I believe it was the hospital records. The date comes up a number of times

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

Yeah Hump just a few though lol

With people like Dreath, Matt and Deb and Cielo around- not to mention George nowadays as well-

Guys like me are becoming obsolete. I'm too lazy and buzzed to research into such detail these days, and not smart enough to pick up on most of this type of thing anyway. So, there are studied, professional people doing the homework, Col provides the hype and humor. Grim responds with long thoughtful comments.

I'm running out of shit to do lol

But the posts are getting much more interesting so I'll just enjoy with everyone else :)

Dreath said...

Thanks Cielo

Saint, don't put me in that group (A.) I don;'t belong there and (B.) I don't want the responsibility ;-)

St Circumstance said...

Apologies but you are that smart ...

Matt said...

Agreed, St. Dreath takes MansonBlog to a new level, so does George. This is the best team to date.


Manson Mythos said...

Who was the first to say August? Crowe? Crowe didn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the world.

If Bugliosi changed the date, it could of been to bring it closer to Hinman and TLB. As if to create a scenario they decided it was "time" to kick start the Helter Skelter fantasy.

cielodrivecom said...

It was Vince

DebS said...

I was under the impression that the Crowe incident happened July 1st until I read the court transcripts. Now I learn I can't trust those either. Thanks Cielo!

ColScott said...

Schramm was a very late addition. If she met Dennis then that proves what everyone is saying.


I think it is not arguable that

1- Dennis blew the Family off after hearing about the Crowe shooting from a first hand attendee perhaps also admitting he could not get Melcher's support
2- Charlie and Family DID NOT KNOW Melcher had moved out of Cielo Drive
3- Thought was kill Melcher and send Dennis a message to step up or else.

These people were not bright and were drugged up to the gills.

This or a close motivation always tracked for me with Tate.

But then if we accept this why the fuck do LaBianca?

cielodrivecom said...

I think they did know where Terry lived at the time. Listen at the 5:40 mark, Burton Katz(I believe) asks Ella Jo Bailey about Terry Melcher.

cindyfromphilly said...

You should stop putting yourself down, you contribute intelligent/interesting comments all the time. You do it alot, words matter.

penny lane said...

Totally agree Matt ...always something interesting on offer and as a bonus there very few of the usual blog wankers..!!..But I still miss Robert ...I like rereading his old posts..:(..its like hes still here.

Matt said...

Blog wankers! I love starting the day with a good laugh!


grimtraveller said...

penny lane said...

i have no idea who Darwin Scott was ....and now I MUST know all

He was the brother of Charlie's Dad, Colonel Scott.

ColScott said...

When BUG took over and started the lying

Ahhh....the Shreck line.
So Col, what were the lies that Bugliosi used to convict Manson ? Bear in mind that "lie" is to be used in its correct dictionary usage, not the more modern "internet"/politco way of using the word.

he started spinning shit away from Melcher and Wilson et al. Protecting the celebrities

Wilson refused to testify and Melcher did testify. How exactly was Bugliosi protecting the celebs ? What had whatever the celebs had been up to to do with the havoc that Watson, Krenwinkle and Atkins wreaked on the Cielo victims ? Of what relevance were these celebs to Tex's actions ?

Dreath said...

The Crowe to Hinman to TLB progression only seems to work with July 1 - but Bugliosi wasn't using Crowe as the catalyst - perhaps because he knew it was after Hinman

In my delivery job, every day for the past 20 years, people have had to date, time and sign for goods and I can count on two hands the number of people that have ever been able to name the date, even when they have a mobile or a computer in front of them. There are few reasons for many adults to know the date, much less remember one. And the Family famously had little concept of time.
When I read Lotsapoppa's testimony on Cats' site, I noticed the date thing and couldn't find any indication that it was August 1st. While it would make for nice theories about the proximity to Tate, Charlie's disappearing for a week and his slapping of Stephanie and a few other bits, for me, Charlie's words to Bobby about how to be a man while whacking Gary Hinman with a sword tell me that he already felt he had a notch on his belt and could say to the others "I can walk my talk."
It transpires that Bugliosi wasn't always totally accurate about Lotsapoppa.

St Circumstance said...

Guys like me are becoming obsolete

Not in terms of the essential aspect of the blog ~ questions and points that generate discussion.

Manson Mythos said...

Crowe didn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the world

I've come across brighter underground caves than Bernard Crowe !

If Bugliosi changed the date, it could of been to bring it closer to Hinman and TLB. As if to create a scenario they decided it was "time" to kick start the Helter Skelter fantasy

Except that he was never used that way. To Bugliosi, Bernard Crowe's only use was to show that Charlie was capable of killing and the bullet from the Buntline which stayed lodged inside him. It was actually a move that could have backfired because Lotsapoppa came over as such a drongo that much of his testimony puts the attention squarely on him and off Charlie.

starviego said...

If Dennis Wilson and crew knew Charlie had shot Crowe, and everybody at the Ranch knew that Charlie had shot Crowe, would not the police have known that Charlie had shot Crowe? Yes, they would have.

The question is, why didn't they do anything about it?

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

If Dennis Wilson and crew knew Charlie had shot Crowe, and everybody at the Ranch knew that Charlie had shot Crowe, would not the police have known that Charlie had shot Crowe? Yes, they would have

Why ?
How does that follow ?

penny lane said...

I do what I can :)

starviego said...

When someone shows up at the hospital with a bullet wound, the police are going to start an investigation, even if the victim doesn't cooperate. Allegedly Crowe was a longtime dealer, so the police probably had a file on him. Even if the cops didn't care much for a black drug dealer, they would have at least done a cursory investigation, meaning they would have probably performed a search of his residence, done a neighborhood canvas, sought to interview his known associates, maybe even put a tap on his phone.

And at the other end, police are hearing that Charlie just killed some black guy. So they put two and two together--they aren't stupid.

Has anyone ever come across any police documentation on the Crowe shooting?

Dreath said...

Starviego said: "And at the other end, police are hearing that Charlie just killed some black guy. So they put two and two together--they aren't stupid."

I don't know, a bunch of detectives sitting 30 feet apart didn't put Tate together with LaBianca. A cop called out to pick up a .22 handgun didn't put that together with the a police bulletin. I think we have the benefit of hindsight.

I also wonder if the police would care enough about Crowe to expend that kind of resources. Despite TV, phone taps are a pretty big deal. It is a search you have to have probable cause. So is a search of his house.

If all the associates and Crowe say 'I don't know who shot me and I can't remember where' it is sort of a dead end.

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

I see your point. I guess the question is, what kind of investigation was done? No one really seems interested in this question and why police didn't solve the crime at the time. There were three witnesses to the Crowe shooting, plus Tex and Rosina were involved. Plus Charlie was bragging about it. That's a lot of loose ends. We are not talking about master criminals here. I just don't get the feeling the detectives did any deep digging--or were warned off solving the crime. Like LASO Deputy Preston Guillory said, Charlie seemed to have an angel on his shoulder--a protector.

I speculate that someone didn't want Charlie busted at that time.

St Circumstance said...

I always wondered about some of that too. I don't buy conspiracy stuff but it's hard to understand how Charlie stayed free after so many parole violations and arrests. If it's true Spahn was being watched it just doesn't make sense they had no clue any of this was going on.

Matt said...

The police in 1969 also didn't have the benefit of criminal databases, electronically inputted police dispatch records, license plate reading technology and law enforcement software running simultaneously on Sequel Server. They had to rely on detectives' hunches and water cooler discussions.

We take that stuff for granted now.


Dreath said...

Right Matt. In fact, I don't even know if the hospitals were required to report gunshot wounds in 1969.

Saint,

Why doesn't it? No wire tap. No plant undercover. Can't get too close- have to be off the ranch. What do they see- some dope use and car theft activity? Guns?

St Circumstance said...

I understand the maybe no connection to TLB was obvious or detectable due to limitations.

I do.

But I don't understand how he stayed free and was not put back in after so many repeated violations. He kept getting caught and released.

Also my mind says Bobby was in jail at this point no? A known associate in jail for a murder which was a stabbing with writing in blood. How often was that happening in Beverly Hills that year that it wasn't even worth a look at his friends when TLB happened ?

cielodrivecom said...

Preston had an axe to grind. He's hardly objective

St Circumstance said...

Yeah I'm not really a conspiracy person but a of that aside.

It's strange to me he was allowed to keep doing whatever he wanted more or less while on parole. He never worked he was repeatedly arrested. He traveled at will. He drove with no license....

It's just amazing. he did what he wanted until someone finally died.

St Circumstance said...

I'm probably being dense about this but still..

As long as I follow this I will never understand for the life of me how they didn't even consider the connection between both TLB nights and Gary.

3 nights. 3 murders. 3 times victims stabbed multiple times. 3 times cryptic messages written in blood at scene.

Nothing made anyone notice these coincidences ? Again how often was that occurring.

And then add this. 3 times One guy goes with multiple girls. The law wouldn't have known that then but we do now.

The motives may have been different but they way they went about it is pretty consistent. How hard to determine that these crimes are all very similarly pulled off?

ColScott said...

Grim-

Lies? Well all of Helter Skelter was a lie. All of Charlie's mind control was a lie. He wanted to say that Tex etc killed on Manson's command but was a killer anyway. I mean come on man wake up or STFU.

And NEVER type here again ignorantly. Wilson REFUSED to testify? You cannot REFUSE to testify in a criminal proceeding. Aside from spouses. So Did Charlie and Denny tie the knot?

Pathetic

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

When someone shows up at the hospital with a bullet wound, the police are going to start an investigation, even if the victim doesn't cooperate

The victim did cooperate. He said he didn't know who had shot him or why. Then he was on the critical list for nearly 3 weeks and came close to dying.

Allegedly Crowe was a longtime dealer, so the police probably had a file on him

You're already starting to build a case on something that you aren't certain about. "Allegedly" and "probably" don't bode well for whatever you go on to say. Where you get the idea that Lotsapoppa was a long time dealer ?

Even if the cops didn't care much for a black drug dealer, they would have at least done a cursory investigation

Would they ? When Al Springer first brought it to LAPD's attention in November, they had no idea about it. By the time Danny DeCarlo spoke with them, they had done some checking and could find no record of the murder of a "panther."
It seems that you may be overlooking the fact that Charlie {and by extension Wilson, Jacobson & Melcher} thought that the guy was dead. But no record could be found of such a death. Why would the police have put Crowe and the dead "panther" together and concluded it was the same person ? Why would they have even connected the "two" "incidents ?"

meaning they would have probably performed a search of his residence, done a neighborhood canvas, sought to interview his known associates, maybe even put a tap on his phone

His friends dumped him in front of the hospital and legged it.

And at the other end, police are hearing that Charlie just killed some black guy. So they put two and two together--they aren't stupid

When Charlie bragged to the cops that he'd put a black guy in the hospital, it was the day after Gary Hinman died. This was nearly 4 weeks after he shot Crowe. It is interesting that he said what he said in the context of having the police join him in his fight against "the Blacks." It's also noteworthy that he didn't say he'd killed anyone. If he wasn't up for taking any responsibility for the murders that went on to happen, he was hardly going to tell the cops he'd killed someone. Remember, he wanted to stay out of jail, not face the gas chamber.

starviego said...

"The victim did cooperate. He said he didn't know who had shot him or why."

Lying about the shooting is the same as cooperating? Hmmmm....


"You're already starting to build a case on something that you aren't certain about. "Allegedly" and "probably" don't bode well for whatever you go on to say. Where you get the idea that Lotsapoppa was a long time dealer?"

What I'm not certain about is if the police ever did a good faith investigation into the Crowe shooting. It's not my job to 'build a case.' That's the cops' job. Did they do that in the Crowe shooting?

As for as him being a drug-dealer--did he have a legitimate job? If he's fronting $2000 at a time to get supply, does that not imply he is in the trade?


"Why would the police have put Crowe and the dead "panther" together and concluded it was the same person? Why would they have even connected the "two" "incidents?" "

See, that's what happens when you start investigating them. You start to make connections and find out stuff.


grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

Lies? Well all of Helter Skelter was a lie

With the number of witnesses that spoke of it either directly or alluded to aspects of it, some of those not even in the Family, if it was a lie, it has to be history's greatest example of morphic resonance. It certainly wasn't coined by Vincent Bugliosi. When Susan Atkins first spoke with her cellmates in Sybil Brand, she certainly connected the murders with Helter Skelter. Leslie Van Houten certainly connected the murders with Helter Skelter. Pat certainly connected the murders of the 2nd night {the night where there was malice aforethought} with Helter Skelter. You may not like Bugliosi, you may think HS is total horsehit but your statement is buried under the weight of that which points in its direction.

All of Charlie's mind control was a lie

Not when you've got him making statements like "I may have implied on several occasions to several different people that I may have been Jesus Christ," or "The power of suggestion is stronger than any conspiracy that you could ever enter into," or "when you take LSD enough times you reach a stage of nothing. You reach a stage of no thought" or getting the women to take the fall {and the death penalty} for him when he'd already told Al Springer that no matter what, the girls would always take the fall.
I do agree that the way the mind control thing is often presented is both lazy and sensationalist. It misses the nuances of what was actually happening ~ and the reality that it goes on in everyday life with every day people in everyday situations.

He wanted to say that Tex etc killed on Manson's command but was a killer anyway

If Tex's account is true, that would be borne out by what actually happened.
The term 'paradox' is in use because there exist occasions when two things that appear to be contradictions of each other are in fact both true. This case had its fair share of paradoxical elements and nuances that can't be tossed off with snappy one liners and digested in 30 seconds.

I mean come on man wake up or STFU

Boo hoo !

And NEVER type here again ignorantly

Yes Mom.

Wilson REFUSED to testify? You cannot REFUSE to testify in a criminal proceeding. Aside from spouses

Well he did refuse. Had what he had to say been vital to the case he would have been subpoenaed. He obviously had nothing to say that was so important that it threatened to derail the case.
Charles Melton is another example of someone that was due to testify then he just went off journeying and didn't.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Lying about the shooting is the same as cooperating? Hmmmm....

You're trying to box clever. My point was a direct response to your "even if the victim does not cooperate." He was asked who shot him. He said he did not know nor did he know why.

It's not my job to 'build a case.' That's the cops' job. Did they do that in the Crowe shooting?

Let's put it like this. Even when it came out what happened, Charlie was not even charged. I'm not at all sure he was even asked about the shooting. He's spoken to George Stimson about it. He spoke to Nuel Emmons about it. He spoke with Vincent Bugliosi about it. The whole world has access to the fact he shot Lotsapoppa.
Nothing was ever done about it.

As for as him being a drug-dealer--did he have a legitimate job? If he's fronting $2000 at a time to get supply, does that not imply he is in the trade?

Him being a drug dealer was never in dispute. Fronting $2700 for some ganja hardly makes him a toy salesman. You said he was "allegedly" a "longtime" dealer. I asked you how you ascertained that. I ask again, how do you know ? How do you even know it was alleged ?

See, that's what happens when you start investigating them. You start to make connections and find out stuff

True. But you seem to be missing my point. Crowe wasn't talking. His mates had skipped. Wilson, Lukashevsky and Jacobson weren't running to the Police saying Charlie had killed a guy. Neither was Rosina. The Police, if they were going to investigate, would be looking into what appeared to be a random shooting. Charlie thought he'd committed a killing. To all intents and purposes, in the minds of the police and involved parties, these would be two different episodes. So why would they connect them ? You say there were a lot of loose ends. Yes there were. And none of them led to one another.
Contrast that with the Tate/LaBianca situation. Even before Bugliosi was on the scene, the net was drawing around Charlie, with his parole officer Samuel Barrett, writing to revoke his parole and statements by Kitty Lutesinger, Al Springer and Danny DeCarlo. Then Atkins starts talking to Howard and Graham. Then Bugliosi starts digging. And within 2 months there's action and indictments. People just couldn't stop talking and all kinds of connections were made, information literally fell into the Police's laps, all kinds of loose ends met and the stories came out for years, to the extent that some people literally got away with murder. We probably know more about the Crowe shooting than was ever apparent to the Police back in July '69.

Dreath said...

Grim said: "Well he did refuse. Had what he had to say been vital to the case he would have been subpoenaed."

I know Bugliosi says that but on this one I have to agree with the Col (although not the tone and comments). Your second sentence is correct- if Bugliosi wanted him there he'd get him there. And if Wilson showed up and refused to testify he would have gone to jail (like the one reporter in this whose name I forget).

It is probably more factually accurate, regardless of what Bugliosi says, that he didn't want to and Bugliosi either didn't need him or thought he might do more harm then good or just no good- look at his comments in the articles. Then he shows up and says what- "Hey man Charlie is all about peace and love" or "I don't remember" neither would help much- but the first might hurt. The problem with subpoenaing a reluctant witness is you can't count on what they will say no matter what they told you last Tuesday.

The only reason you can legitimately refuse to testify is if what you are asked is subject to some privilege- such as the one the Col ID's.

starviego said...

"You said he was "allegedly" a "longtime" dealer. I asked you how you ascertained that. I ask again, how do you know ? How do you even know it was alleged ?"

Truth be told I don't know if anbody 'alleged' that at the time. But use some logic. Did he have any legitimate source of income? A guy who buys $2000 worth at a time probably knows what he is doing. And you need some experience to know what you are doing.


"Then Bugliosi starts digging."

My whole point is that there is very little evidence of ANY 'digging' in the Crowe case. And that may have been intentional.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

it's hard to understand how Charlie stayed free after so many parole violations and arrests

How many of those arrests stuck ? Then led to investigations ? Arrests in themselves prove nothing. William Garretson was arrested.
How many of those arrests were of such a nature that they warranted Charlie being returned to prison ? The Spahn raid. Being arrested for Hippie nudity. Arrests for possession of marijuana that turned out to be a damp squib.
By the time Samuel Barrett wrote his recommendation that Charlie be returned to jail, all the matters of which you speak had added up to a pattern that said "this guy is taking the piss !" and so requisite action was taken. For me it's no coincidence that Charlie's Barker arrest, his appearance on the LaBianca detectives suspect list and Barret's letter all came together in the October ~ around the same time.

Also my mind says Bobby was in jail at this point no? A known associate in jail for a murder which was a stabbing with writing in blood. How often was that happening in Beverly Hills that year that it wasn't even worth a look at his friends when TLB happened ?

Detectives Whiteley and Guenther made the connection a day after Cielo happened and told Jess Buckles and he poo~pooed it and said it was connected to drugs. Dick Rowe at Decca has been forever known {rather unfairly} as the man who turned down the Beatles but Jess Buckles never suffered the same fate in regard to the Cielo killings. He was never "the man who turned down the Cielo killers" or anything like that. I've never ever seen his name mentioned other than in that small segment of "Helter Skelter."

How often was that happening in Beverly Hills that year

George says in his book that it wasn't particularly unusual according to the Police. Apparently, lipsticked or bloody messages weren't something that got the cops reeling in shock. After all, it occurred to the Family....

cielodrivecom said...

Preston had an axe to grind. He's hardly objective

I found something kind of suspect about his stance.

St Circumstance said...

Grim. Charlie was on parole. It's not the same thing bud. As petty as the crimes seem to you- you really shouldn't be able to get arrested repeatedly while on parole or probation or what's the point?

Forget even TLB for a sec. people would not have been raped robbed and Crowe would not have been shot had Charlie been taken off streets.

No?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Dreath...
From my understanding of the law, couldn't Dennis Wilson have taken the 5th amendment if he had gotton a subpeona to testify in The Manson Case?
I know in The Grand Jury in The OJ Simpson Case, Kato Kaelin took the 5th, but then did testify with The Grand Jury in The OJ Simpson Case later.

I was hoping that Ben Gurecki had talked to Charles Manson, so Manson could corroborate the Constuction Site and The Fireside Inn. Oh well.

And to those who poked "fun" at me a few weeks ago on this
Manson Family Blog, no problem.
This Manson blog is definetly informative, and since i do have some people connections.....I will continue to follow and read.

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

Dreath said...

MGN3 said,

"From my understanding of the law, couldn't Dennis Wilson have taken the 5th amendment if he had gotton a subpeona to testify in The Manson Case?"

If you mean and not show up the answer is 'no'. If you mean in response to a question while on the stand the answer is yes IF he might incriminate himself. I have a hard time as I pondered this response thinking what would have been incriminating to Wilson.

Wilson never would have been successfully asked "Did X tell you Manson shot Crowe?" No one is on trial for shooting Crowe and unless Wilson saw it happen it is hearsay and inadmissible.

Dreath said...

Saint,

One problem with the parole revocation is the charges don't stick. Getting picked up on guns and stolen car charges at Spahn is likely not enough to revoke him when the charges get dropped- misdated warrant if I recall.

We'd really need to see his release agreement to see what the terms and conditions were. They would have been tied to his conviction offense plus some standard ones:

1. Associating with convicted felons- if they could prove it
2. Possession of a firearm- if they could prove it

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Dreath.

That Definitely clarifies it.
So, is it safe to say or not sage to say that Dennis Wilson did or didn't have something to contribute in The Manson case or any other cases connected....?

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

ColScott said...

Mario-

At least you ask questions unlike that ignorant cuntmentator Grim.

You can only take the Fifth if the answer tends to incriminate you. Once you take the fifth you must take the fifth on all answers.

Kato Kaelin never took the Fifth. He was rushed to the grand jury and when not granted a delay to prepare, his lawyer urged him to take the fifth. Fuhrman took the fifth since he had perjured himself, at least technically. So you don't "know" he took the fifth when he did not.

We deal in FACTS over here. We like spirited debate and we even allow wretched whores like Robin Olson and ignorant twats like Grim!

Suze said...

Col, I work in an office, a government office at that. Doing things like surfing your fav blogs is frowned upon. I very surreptitiously pulled up the blog to catch up. Then it happened... cuntmentator. I laughed so fucking hard that when I looked up everyone was staring at me. No fucking way am I going to try to explain!

Dreath said...

MGN3,

Based upon what is known I don't know what Wilson could have added that would not have been redundant. I think that's why Bugliosi let him off the hook. That and maybe he was a bit concerned what Wilson might actually say.

MHN said...

I just emerged briefly from my grave to see what was going on here.

Col Scott said...

unlike that ignorant cuntmentator Grim

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahhaaaaaaahahhahhahhhahhhahahahahhahahhhahaha!!!!

we even allow wretched whores like Robin Olson and ignorant twats like Grim!

Haaaaaaaaaaaaahhahhhahahhhahahahhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh! Holy shit I almost choked on my mistress. Col, I salute you. Jesus fucking Christ I salute you sir.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

ColScott

You're CORRECT. On Jack Walravens OJ Simpson Case transcripts, here's Kaelins answer to Marcia Clark's first question to him:

Kaelin: "On the advice from my attorney, I must respectfully decline to answer and assert my constitutional right to remain silent."

You are 100% CORRECT ColScott

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

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Dreath,

I completely agree with you on both items, and especially, what Dennis Wilson:

"might actually say"

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

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

people would not have been raped robbed and Crowe would not have been shot had Charlie been taken off streets.
No?


I wasn't arguing that. There's a lot of stuff that wouldn't have happened if he'd been taken off the streets, but did the things he was arrested for actually lead anywhere ? Getting arrested isn't getting found guilty of a crime. People get arrested all the time and nothing ever comes of it. But I'll say it again, Charlie's lawlessness eventually landed him in the shit and it's worth focusing on the fact that him getting hoisted came from three separate sources, none of which were knowledgeable about the other at the time.

ColScott said...

Mario-At least you ask questions unlike that ignorant cuntmentator Grim

Up to the point you made that statement, I'd asked 16 questions. Mario asked 2.
But of course, you deal in FACTS over here.


St Circumstance said...

As petty as the crimes seem to you...

I don't regard rape as a petty crime. I take it and child sexual abuse as seriously as murder.
However, a person can't just be put away because their name is associated with various offences.
Interesting anomaly on these pages consisting of one wing that implies Charlie should have been put away without due process and those that think he was railroaded and convicted without such.

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

I believe that you are right about the technicalities of the law....

But I feel that it is stinkaroney that someone who is under specific watch and restrictions for getting in trouble is allowed to keep getting in trouble

WAIT! I know....

He must have been on "Double Secret Probation"

Yeah... that must be it

:)

secret mutilator said...

Hey Mario George Nitri 111 i recently read in Paul Watkins book that the family was storing and sleeping around a construction site and taking a lot of hitchhiking around chatsworth and canoga off of lassen and near Mason ave, De Soto, so there is a reference by Paul, which adds to your story

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

I think it is not arguable that
2- Charlie and Family DID NOT KNOW Melcher had moved out of Cielo Drive
3- Thought was kill Melcher and send Dennis a message to step up or else.
This or a close motivation always tracked for me with Tate


Some interesting facts on the matter;
"Manson said he was looking for Terry Melcher. Altobelli said Terry had moved to Malibu. When Manson asked for his address, Altobelli said he did not know it."
{From "Helter Skelter", relating to 23rd March '69}.

"We didn't know who lived there but we were going to a house Tex had been in before ~ formerly the home of Terry Melcher."
{From "Child of Satan, child of God"}

"Again I assured him I would do whatever he asked me. He stopped and stared at me strangely, leaning against one of the cars parked around us.
'What I want . . . I want you to go to that house where Melcher used to live-[we knew that by now Terry had moved down to a beach house in Malibu] - I want you to take a couple of the girls I'll send with you and go down there . . . and totally destroy everyone in that house, as gruesome as you can.' "
{From "Will you die for me ?"}

MERRICK: Did they know who they were gonna kill ?
SANDY GOOD: No, it was a soul move, like, um, it was like a hole in the infinite...
{From "Death to Pigs"}

"It could just as easily been a mount for, say, a telescope {like the one Charles Manson took from Terry Melcher's Malibu house} ~ which Manson admitted to me during a prison [visit] that he did "just to fuck with him."
{From "Goodbye Helter Skelter"}

"Jacobson said that he and Melcher went to Spahn ranch twice to audition the hippie cult leader.
'As tactfully as possible, I tried to tell Charlie there was no interest.'
The witness proceeded by saying that Manson called him after the failure to arrange the recording contract and asked him if Terry Melcher had a green telescope on the porch of his Malibu beach house. The witness said 'I told him, `Yes he did.`' Manson then said, 'Well he doesn't now.'"
{From "Trial by your peers"}

Q: Did Tex tell you where you were going to go?
A: He told us that we were going to a house up on the hill that used to belong to Terry Melcher, and the only reason why we were going to that house was because Tex knew the outline of the house.
Q: Did Tex tell you while you were driving to the former residence of Terry Melcher, did he tell you that Terry Melcher no longer lived there?

A: Yes.
{Susan Atkins at the Grand jury, Dec '69}

"Now Tex explained to us the situation at the house because he had seen the house. He’d been up in the house. The house used to belong to Terry Melcher. We know Terry very well. The reason Charlie picked that house was to instill fear into Terry Melcher because Terry had given us his word on a few things and never came through with them. So Charlie wanted to put some fear into him, let him know that what Charlie said was the way it is...."
{From Susan Atkins Dec '69 interview with Richard Caballero}


Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

secret mutilator

Thank you so much for that information.
What else can I say, but thanks.

Do you by any chance have the title of Paul Watkins book handy?

That corroboration is VERY important to me. That reference by Paul Watkins is again, VERY important to me. I have been over and over in my head for years about that day I had my encounter with Charles Manson.

Thank you

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

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

secret mutilator

I must have pushed the comment button instead of the reply button. Sorry. My reply to you is, as of now, 2 comments below.

Thank you so much.

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

St Circumstance said...

It's called My Life with Charles Manson and I bet a few people are Che king that right now lol

St Circumstance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks St Circumstance.

I'll bet a few people are:
Che king right now....lol

For me, the more people that check-me-out, the better.

I'm going to google that book right now.

Thanks.

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

brownrice said...

Watkin's book is all on the Col's site...

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks brownrice.

I've been googling and i thought i found something in chapter 14 in Watkins' book about a construction site, but there were only excerpts.

I will check the Col's site.

Thanks

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

DebS said...

The book is expensive, if you can find it. There's a downloadable pdf of the book online now. I used the search on the pdf and the word "secret" came up once, the word "mutilator" did not come up at all.

http://www.stoneykins.com/Files/Paul_Watkins_My_Life_With_Charles_Manson.pdf

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

"secret mutilator

I must have pushed the comment button instead of the reply button."



Why do you keep doing that? Push the reply button next time. Don't you see it?

ColScott said...

Grim


I feel like I am talking to a retarded 9 year old when I address you.


I stated that he tried to take the 5th because of a need to be prepped. This was in the GRAND JURY. After a weekend delay he FULLY TESTIFIED.

You can read all about it here in detail https://books.google.com/books?id=TS_ZCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Kaelin:+On+the+advice+from+my+attorney,+I+must+respectfully+decline+to+answer+and+assert+my+constitutional+right+to+remain+silent.&source=bl&ots=94ZOHVHcn1&sig=nIq_UKRw_6WivC5oVHnOxb0Y49M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHhJL7j-HRAhVKh1QKHU2dDwMQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Kaelin%3A%20On%20the%20advice%20from%20my%20attorney%2C%20I%20must%20respectfully%20decline%20to%20answer%20and%20assert%20my%20constitutional%20right%20to%20remain%20silent.&f=false

Please do not address your betters again in such a way you passionately ignorant moose carcass

ColScott said...

Sorry


Mario is special needs Grim is just fucking stupid

ColScott said...

For those playing at home we respond to Grim's attempt to explain shit away- numbers refer to paragraphs

1-We have affirmed that BUG lied, so this genius starts by quoting BUG
2- When did Sadie learn that? Quote years after, proves nothing
3-Self serving religious tome. Proves nothing.
4-Response indicates NOTHING
5- so maybe he had multiple houses, rich pig
6-Ditto
7- Valid.
8- does not contradict my assertion


So yeah, one point and many contrary points

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Debs.

What i found on the Col's site was chapter 14 about 2by4's and slabs of plywood ripped off from a construction site.

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

starviego said...

Grim said:

"Getting arrested isn't getting found guilty of a crime."

A parole officer didn't need a guilty verdict to violate a parolee's parole. He could have sent Charlie back to prison based on suspicion alone.

-----------

Cielo said:

"Preston had an axe to grind. He's hardly objective."

Though that by itself does not mean his info was incorrect.


/

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ziggy

I figured it out....lol
Thanks

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

ziggyosterberg said...


You want a quote from "Helter Skelter"? I'll give ya a quote from "Helter Skelter" :

"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?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

secret mutilator.

Do you have a page # or Chapter in Watkins' book about:
"storing and sleeping around a construction site"?

Thanks

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

cielodrivecom said...

He had an axe to grind. He presented info out of context and on top of that he wasn't an authority on what he was speaking about.

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

"secret mutilator.

Do you have a page # or Chapter in Watkins' book about:
"storing and sleeping around a construction site"?"



I was just about to ask that same question.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Well Ziggy

ESP????.....lol
Or
2 Brains with the same......lol

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

secret mutilator said...

http://m.imgur.com/LkxKu8W Screenshot from The Col great but way too late site, forget which chapter. It merely mentions stealing plywood from a nearby construction site but it did open my eyes

starviego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks secret mutilator

On the Col's site, chapter 14,
Yes, stealing (ripped off) from the construction site:

2by4's and slabs of plywood.

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

starviego said...


Cielo said:

"He had an axe to grind. He presented info out of context and on top of that he wasn't an authority on what he was speaking about."

May I ask the source of your information?

Matt said...

ziggyosterberg said...

I was just about to ask that same question.


What a coincidence! I was too!!!


ziggyosterberg said...


That's eerie.

Things always happen in 3.

3 is a magic number

Do you guys have helicopters following you around too?

Cielodrive.com said...

Because it was Bugliosi's mistake. Whether it was intentional or not, Vince was sure not going to be the one to point it out.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Matt and Ziggy

No Helicopters so far....whew....lol

I was hoping the reference in Paul Watkins' book would have been full corroboration of the construction site I was at as with my encounter with Charles Manson. But for myself, I consider it partial corroboration and i thank secret mutilator. In a comment I made on the blog post with 220 comments thus far, I said on January 7th, 2017 at 10:12pm:

"the construction site was anything but abandoned, there was all kinds of fresh lumber, work vehicles, ect, ect. It was a construction site building, as I recall, houses or apartments"

So for stealing (ripped off) 2by4's and slabs of plywood from a construction site?
The construction site I was at with Manson,
There was definitely enough lumber for that.


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

Cielodrive.com said...

His testimony vs his interviews

Matt said...

We won't make a post out of it or anything, but there's a nude photo of a young Debra Tate on eBay. She was quite a looker in the early 70's...


ziggyosterberg said...


Matt said...

"there's a nude photo of a young Debra Tate on eBay."


Starting bid:

US $9.99

[ 0 bids ]


Pity bid from Jillian Barberie in 3 2 1

ziggyosterberg said...


I'm not sure about that, Mario.

The construction site that Manson took you to was on De Soto Avenue between Nordhoff and Lassen. That's a bit of a distance from the ranch. The one mentioned in Paul's book sounded like it was closer.

Besides that, I don't think that Manson would want any of those ragamuffins disturbing his Secret Lair/Fortress of Solitude that he took you to.


ziggyosterberg said...


Cielo,

I'm curious if you can recall, or have a general idea of where Crowe's hospital records were mentioned? The court testimony, police investigation reports, or somewhere else?

One could easily conclude that the Lotsapoppa drug burn was Plan B to pay back the bikers for Hinman's junk mescaline, after Bobby failed to get the money back from Gary, if the date of the shooting was August 1st, like Lotsapoppa said.

Add to that, Danny DeCarlo being the de facto weapons supplier for the first 3 incidents, DeCarlo and Springer's inside knowledge of the crimes, and them pointing the finger at everyone that wasn't a Straight Satan.


Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Yea Ziggy

My parents in 1965 bought a house in Porter Ranch, and there was an incredible amount of construction going on back then and many years after that in Northridge and Chatsworth.
Logically looking at it from your point of view, and especially the part about the:
Ragmuffins(Fortress of Solitude)
Manson Family Members had their pick of MANY on-going construction sites.

I never thought about it the way you explained the Ragmuffin part.
Excellent observation on your part.
Also, the underground
(Fortress of Solitude) space Charles Manson took me to was very small indeed.

Again, Excellent observations on your part.

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

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario, check out the CAPTHCA that came up to verify my last post :


What does this look like to you?


OO-ee-oo


I think they're on to us.

I hear another helicopter coming my way.

Pray for me, grimtraveller.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Oh Ziggy,

You're a funny guy
(Goodfellas----movie----1990)

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

ziggyosterberg said...


Goodfellas should have one the Oscar for best picture that year. Dances with Wolves was a piece of shit.

ziggyosterberg said...


should have won, not "one"


Now someone is messing with my words.

I feel just like Charlie did when the Beach Boys changed "Ceased to Exist" to "Cease and Desist".

Dreath said...

Ziggy,

Don't you have to shoot MGN3 now?

"What do you mean funny? Like a clown? Do I amuse you?! Huh??!!"

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Well i mean,

Ziggy,

You make people laugh
Henry Hill (aka Ray Liotta)

Dreath,
I thought Cease and Desist was a legal term.....lol

Ziggy, you're a funny guy.

Ps----I don't think I'm Spider
Don't shoot....lol

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

ziggyosterberg said...


Dreath said...

"Ziggy,

Don't you have to shoot MGN3 now?"



Yeah, I know. He's treating me like I'm a half a fag or something!


Go get your fuckin' shine-box, Mario!



Pretty girl

Pretty pretty girl

Cease and Desist

© 1968 Nickel Roller Music



Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Oh Ziggy,

This could go on for a long time.

So back to the Manson Saga.

In your opinion:

To your knowledge, are there any other books on Charles Manson and the Family that mention a construction site?

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

Dreath said...

MGN3,

You said: "The timing? I thought it was mid-January, but I just can't pin-point the date. Could've been the week of January 6th. Just not sure."

That is 1969. Instead of searching for construction sites you might want to search the location from the timeline. What do I mean?

I believe the Family was at the Yellow Submarine in early January '69- pretty sure but someone can correct me. That was at 21019 Gresham Street, Canoga Park, CA 91304. #2 here on this site- although it was a house back then.

http://la.curbed.com/maps/mapping-13-key-locations-in-the-1969-manson-family-murders

I would think if there is corroboration for your claim it would be a reference about a hideout a "Just In Case Place" like they built at Spahn but near the YS. I have Watkins' book on searchable PDF and aside form the place at Spahn I could find no reference to another hideout in LA.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Dreath.

The timing, I just can't recall.

A "Just In Case Place"?

Could've this construction site place been a hideout for just Manson and/or a few of his followers?
Interesting thought.
I never thought of that.

Thanks again

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

ziggyosterberg said...


21019 Gresham Street, Canoga Park!

That's just a few blocks from the intersection of Nordhoff and De Soto!

Which is also where Giamela's Lamplighter is!

Which is also where Mario met Steve Grogan many years later!

We've finally located the Canoga Park Triangle of Mario!

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Oh my gosh Ziggy......lol

A question for my "Funny" acquaintance "Friend" Ziggy:

If you know, approximately, how many Manson Family Followers were actually residing at the Gresham house in January of 1969?

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

Dreath said...

MGN3,

Once I stop laughing my ass off at Ziggy's comment for a moment.....ok....I'll try

Per Watkins: "Tex worked on that project for several days, using two-by-fours and slabs of plywood ripped off from a
nearby construction site in the valley. The shack he built was small (fifteen by twenty feet), yet well-designed, almost like a lean-to, with one side fronting on the slope of a ravine, with a small window facing the creek bead. In it we stocked
provisions, camping gear, dried foods, and several handguns. Charlie referred to it as “The Just-in-Case Place.”

ziggyosterberg said...


Approximately 111 Manson Family Followers were residing at the Gresham house in January of 1969.

Dreath said...

Is that 3 or one hundred and eleven?

ziggyosterberg said...


One hundred and eleven followers.

Which is also the reason why Manson had to build a "Fortress of Solitude" at a construction site.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Thanks Dreath.

You gotta admit, Ziggy is a
"Funny" guy. No, Wait, I take that back,
I'm NOT going down that path again.....lol

Well, I can only communicate to you and others from what I saw when Charles Manson took me to that construction site room of his. It was very small, and I couldn't even stand up straight.
My guess would be 5 feet high and about 12 feet long and about 6 feet below the building site foundation. And, it took a few minutes just to get through to the make-shift room.

And I will say this:
Manson and possibly others had it fixed up for sleeping quarters.

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

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

Sorry

Apology accepted, fellow with the Graham Chapman Avatar.

I feel like I am talking to a retarded 9 year old when I address you

Well, given that you frequently come over like a tired old pugilist often on the ropes, taking a pounding to the ribs and many merciless whaps to the head, that would be about the level that's left for you to address at.
Sometimes, you sound.....dizzy.

Please do not address your betters again in such a way

Squawk !!

you passionately ignorant moose carcass

When bar~B~cued, they taste as good as the detached, smart ones.

Mario is special needs Grim is just fucking stupid

That was curiously Trump~ette.

1-We have affirmed that BUG lied, so this genius starts by quoting BUG

You have proven no such thing. Continually stating stuff you can't prove does not magically make it so. Not even in cyberspace. The point of the first quote is that the story comes from Rudi Altobelli. On that alone, anyone trying to demonstrate that Manson didn't know Melcher was no longer at Cielo has been blown out of the waters before they've even set sail.
Man overboard !

2- When did Sadie learn that? Quote years after, proves nothing

You could possibly get away with that if that statement was presented on its own. However with the 2 1969 quotes you are ripped to shreds because Sadie was consistent about that from speaking to Caballero through the Grand jury, right up to her 2nd book, 8 years later.

3-Self serving religious tome. Proves nothing

A bit like your assertion ? You don't even offer evidence that can be described as self serving.

4-Response indicates NOTHING

Not to you. It speaks volumes to the open minded. In 1971 one of the few people who carried on the flame in the future where Charlie was concerned stated point blank that there was no particular target. And states that 'the soul,' the one that was that 'hole in the infinite' was the one making the move.
Next you'll be denying Graham Chapman is your avatar.

5- so maybe he had multiple houses, rich pig 6-Ditto

I sense desperation.
Even supposing he had multiple houses, so ? Cielo was no longer one of them. Altobelli knew Manson knew it after their conversation, Jacobson knew Manson knew it after their conversation and Manson knew it. Besides which, who rents a house like Cielo then goes off to live in one of the multiple houses they own while still renting ?

7- Valid

Why thank you. Even moose carcass have their place in the circle of life.

8- does not contradict my assertion

At the start of the year, you stated:
You know what reverberates for me? In his novel Helter Skelter, he tells Melcher (in order to get him to testify for him) that Charlie was not looking for him- that he knew he and Candy had moved away. There is substantial evidence that this is false.
Can you share this substantial evidence ?
It's going to have to be powerful mojo.
At the start of the year, you also said I am in the reality fucking camp.
Evidence suggests otherwise.

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

For those playing at home we respond to Grim's attempt to explain shit away- numbers refer to paragraphs

7- Valid


By the way, you do realize that by saying 7 is valid, you invalidate everything you stated about paragraph 2.
Reality indeed.

grimtraveller said...

ziggyosterberg said...

Pray for me, grimtraveller

But you're not Eric Idle !
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, elbow, elbow !

grimtraveller said...

MHN said...

briefly...grave...going...Bwaaaa...aahhhhh! ...shit...mistress...salute...sir

Well I'll be.....Bertie Blenkinsop, fabled artist of Mayfair rides again !
I hear your stuff has been compared to that of Mazursky, Merriwether and even M'Larkie...





Unfavourably.


St Circumstance said...

I will never understand for the life of me how they didn't even consider the connection between both TLB nights and Gary.
3 nights. 3 murders. 3 times victims stabbed multiple times. 3 times cryptic messages written in blood at scene.
Nothing made anyone notice these coincidences ?


That's not strictly true as we know that even before William Garrestson was polygraphed but while the Cielo autopsies were being conducted and as the LaBiancas lay dead but undiscovered, Detectives Whiteley and Guenther told Jess "I've escaped the flak even more effectively than Tex" Buckles about the Hinman case and the possible connections. He dismissed it. When the LaBianca detectives were given the same info 2 months later, they looked into it. Buckles' theories led nowhere but have done good trade on numerous blogs and across much of the TLB constituency in the modern age. The LaBianca detectives' willingness to embrace even weird sounding stuff ultimately led to the apprehension, trial, conviction and incarceration of the perps and has had tons of folk attempting to undo its basis since the late 60s.
Go figure.
It's clear that the LaBianca cops were a lot more on the ball. One of them even noticed that each of the bloody phrases at Waverley contained main words that came from Beatle songs on the White album. They also, without telling the Cielo detectives, believed there was a connection between the two because they highlighted looking closely at robber or murderer's modus operandi that involved cut phone lines and glasses worn, things that pertained to the Cielo case, not theirs.
It was a gradual realization for the Cielo cops, less so for the LaBianca team.
In a 1971 Playboy interview with Larry Dubois, Roman Polanski said that very early on in the investigation, Bob Helder told him about the "Hippies led by a guy they called Jesus Christ" living on a ranch that were suspected of being involved in the killing of some musician, where some note had been left on the body and they might be involved. He says he dismissed it, even though he'd told Earl Deemer to look for a far out motive that didn't fit the Police standard. He added that he'd told Helder that he {Helder} was prejudiced against Hippies.
ColScott did an interesting piece on his site once where he said something to the effect that if it was a current happening, the connection would be made straight away.
But it was made straight away.

MHN said...

Some explanation needed. Why is Debra Tate sniffing that girl's foot?

fiona1933 said...

Its not just the mention of the blind man and the old movie ranch. Its that every word could have come from Manson's mouth. The control over the women is appalling. "If I want to make love to a bunch of 15-year-old girls" indeed...more like, if I want to exploit confused teenagers and use their bodies for my own gratification...and all that 'go and get a woman'''go and get money...these are the words of a pimp and we know Manson was a pimp.

Its like Dennis has been pimped out himself. He's had Manson's words put in his mouth to use on the girls.

Still, that is startling. That article clearly says that Dennis was at Spahn a lot, deeply involved...if he was deep in enough to be giving directions to the girls, instructing them to recruit, implying he wont love them if they dont...then he must have been deep in...in fact, what this really reminds me of is Little Paul. Remember Paul said Manson had trouble picking up girls "He was too old, he frightened them"...he needed to connect surrounded by all the other young girls so they'd be reassured...then he could work his magic on them.

So Dennis is one of Manson's substitute pimps. I have never seen where a pimp had other men to do his recruiting so that's original. Handsome, young, sexy famous Dennis: couldnt be better.

And the stuff he was talking about, that could have come straight from the film. Hello, Mr Robert H: ever see Dennis there, or hear talk of him?

So if he suddenly dropped Manson, that would indeed imply something scared him. Remember a lot of people said it went bad very suddenly. One month before, Linda joined and it was still all sweet and love then.

I find it kind of hard to believe Dennis wouldnt have had at least some suspicion Manson had Tate done. He must have at least known about Hinman...maybe that was the key to him dropping out, or about Lotsapoppa or both.

And he must have suddenly realised his whole philosophy of 'do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" encompasses murder. Sandy: "If someone needs to be killed, there's no wrong. You do it, and you move on"...I can picture the girls starting to talk this stuff and Dennis "The Wizard scares me" Wilson getting a big dose of reality.

Dreath said...

Fiona,

Robert passed away.

http://www.mansonblog.com/2016/10/one-of-our-own-is-gone.html

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

that cuntmentator Grim

Well, it's kept my wife happy for 20 years !

His friends dumped him in front of the hospital and legged it

Correction: his friends called the ambulance and police and left him on the floor of Rosina's apartment ~ and legged it.

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...

ColScott said...

But then if we accept this why the fuck do LaBianca?

Why indeed ?
I've long felt that if the action had stopped at Cielo, Charles Manson couldn't really have been convicted of anything. In fact, even Helter Skelter could be more than reasonably consigned to the scrapheap. Actually, Helter Skelter probably wouldn't have found its way into proceedings at all because apart from the phrase "now is the time for Helter Skelter" that Charlie says he may well have uttered, there is arguably little to tie HS to Cielo ~ if Cielo had been the only murder event.
It's the addition of the LaBianca murder that ties the whole bundle together and makes it impossible for Charlie to squirm his way out of HS.
I found it fascinating that in George's book, there is no mention of this fabled black book of Leno's that other accounts claim Charlie went to get. And certainly for me, the rejection of Charlie's request to live in the house next door and his admission that he'd been in the LaBianca house during 1968 when it was empty become more than just passing snippets of interesting side issues. Charlie has long claimed not to operate like the people of straight society and to move in a completely different mode of thought. That's one reason among others, why, at least for me, HS was so real to him, despite what he's said since getting caught and called out.
That Charlie also lived in a drug {particularly psychedelics} fueled era where people entertained all kinds of visions and ideas that they thought were real tell me that HS wasn't particularly unusual. Killing to kick it off may have been ~ but that's really another issue.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ziggy

I don't want to interfere with DebS' fine blog post, so I will ask a question here regarding your post to me that you made on Debs' Crowe blog dated January 29, 2017 at 2:11am.

Ziggy, you said:

"The rest are all built either in the 70"s..........

So, if any were finished in the early 70's, to me, it seems very possible that construction could have started in late 1968 or early 1969, more likely in late 1968.

What do you think?

I will say, the address you gave,
21012 Lassen ave as where Charles Manson may have taken me,
is Very possible.

Just to be clear,
That's Chatsworth, California 91311

Everyone makes mistakes Ziggy.....lol.....even you.....lol

Thanks again Ziggy for your hard work.

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

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ziggy

I left a question and a comment for (regarding Charles Manson's Fortress of Solitude) you as of now at the bottom of this blog.

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

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario,

Most of the buildings in that area are single story industrial buildings that were constructed in the mid 70's to mid 80's. I doubt that it would take that long to construct one of those.

There aren't many candidates for what you described - a building between Nordhoff and Lassen, left turn off De Soto northbound, then a right turn, and half a block up stop - building on west side of street.

There's only 3 possible streets that you could have made a left onto. Knapp isn't possible because the building on Independence has been there since 1958.

Which leaves you with Plummer, Itasca, and Superior. The only right hand turn street off Plummer would lead you to an empty field on Variel. Itasca also only has one right hand turn, onto Variel again and it would lead you to two buildings, both constructed in the 80s, iirc. Superior is the only street left before Lassen, and the buildings on the right hand streets were all mid to late 70's-80's.

You can see from the aerial picture that Rancho San Antonio was still undeveloped in 1971, so that might give you an idea of how late the areas north of there were developed.

ziggyosterberg said...


Grim, that information, RE: Lotsapoppa, would be a lot more handy in the other thread.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ok, thanks Ziggy.

21012 Lassen most likely appears to be it.

I was hoping that someone would also corroborate Manson's
"Fortress of Solitude"
But some "things" that Charles Manson talked with me about, I would very highly doubt that will ever happen.

Thanks again Ziggy


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

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario, I'm looking at that 1971 aerial photo again, and I just realized that Plummer St and Itasca St aren't there. And if Superior St is there it doesn't go very far - not to Browns Canyon Wash like present day. Take a look :

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

I'm not seeing streets for you to make a left onto off De Soto past the railroad.

Was the street that you made a left onto with Manson a dirt road?

Dreath said...

Ziggy,

You are quite good. Great stuff.

PS: was the blue dumpster image lost on everyone except me?

ziggyosterberg said...


Dreath, I'm starting to think that you're the only one who "gets" me. ;)

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

You're right Ziggy, Plummer west off of DeSoto only went, as I remember, about a block and then stopped. Years later Plummer was extended.

Ziggy, I don't remember if it was a dirt road or paved road.
Not sure.

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

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

So Did Charlie and Denny tie the knot?

You might want to ask Nicholas Shreck about that !

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

But some "things" that Charles Manson talked with me about,

What sort of "things" did Charles Manson speak to you about ?
You can tell us. You wouldn't exactly be breaking any confidences.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

grimtraveller

At this time it's best for me with regards to "others" to NOT say anything about "things"
Charles Manson talked to me about.

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

Dreath said...

MGN3,

You have just stifled my curiosity.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Dreath

A little over a decade after my encounter with Charles Manson, I came into contact with a few people connections to The Charles Manson Saga.
I didn't go looking for it, it just happened. With my background, people contacts were made.
For me, some of these are VERY serious situations.

And it's possible, even through the 1970's and into the early 1980's, I may have had a contact with someone in
"The Family" or someone that had contact with someone in "The Family," and not know about it then.

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

ziggyosterberg said...


I think you mean Superior St, Mario. Plummer and Itasca weren't there in 1971, so they wouldn't have been there in 1969 either.

One question about the building : You went in and down six feet, and it was the evening. What was Manson using for light? You said that he wrote you a contract. He would need light to do that.

Did he have candles, a flashlight, or one of those Laura Ingalls type oil lamps?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Manson had a small flashlight

Ziggy, I could've sworn that Plummer crossed DeSoto going West for about a block. I could be wrong though.

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

ziggyosterberg said...


It's not there in the aerial photo from 1971. Plummer runs parallel to the houses at the bottom tip of where the railroad tracks meet Browns Canyon Wash. If you look at the aerial photo, you can see that there's no road there off De Soto.

Do you know Melrose Larry Green, Mario?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Yea Ziggy, I thought I remember Plummer running 1 block West of DeSoto.
Oh well.

Ziggy, you ask me:
Do I know Melrose Larry Green?
I've never heard of him.
Who is he?

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

ziggyosterberg said...


He covered the OJ Simpson trial for Howard Stern. He was at the courthouse every day, usually holding up a sign saying that "OJ is Guilty", etc.

There's a picture of you on Google wearing a black t-shirt with Howard Stern's face on it. What's up with that?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

That's not Howard Stern
That's Anthony Pellicano.

What's up with that?

Please google my name and Pellicano's name in the same search engine and read..........

Lot's involved, LOT'S Involved

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

ziggyosterberg said...


LOL. He looks like "Right Said Howie" from the Channel 9 show.

You've had a beef with this Pellicano guy for a long time, I see. I can't make out what the origin of your beef with him is. What did he do to you?

I see that you've been involved in some other high profile cases : Michael Jackson?

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario, according to your blog, these are the cases that you've been involved in :

"The OJ Simpson Case,

The Anthony Pellicano Federal Indictment Case,

The Robert Blake Case,

The Michael Jackson Case,

The Biggie Smalls Federal Lawsuit Case,

and The Mr. Bath Bear toy cover-up."



What is the Mr. Bath Bear toy cover-up?

And I read an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on someone named Cheryl Shuman? Is she an ex-girlfriend of yours or something?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ziggy,

It would take me a long, long time to explain The Anthony Pellicano situation. Bottom line, it has to do with The OJ Simpson Case.

The others cases have a people connection to The OJ Simpson Case.

Mr. Bath Bear long story

Cheryl Shuman is NOT an ex-girlfriend of mine. Long story also. Had to do with The OJ Simpson Case and The Anthony Pellicano Federal Indictment Case.
In your google search engine, put in:

bur ct v1

And watch the 3 minute YouTube video regarding Shuman and myself in a court of law.

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

ziggyosterberg said...


Is this the right YouTube video?

What type of conditioner do you use for your "long beautiful hair"? I've found that the longer mine gets, I have to use a ton of conditioner to keep it from looking frizzy. I buy the cheap stuff, because I use so much.

Should I buy more expensive conditioner, or is there some other product/s that I should be using to keep my hair looking beautiful like yours?

Did you have sexual relations with Cheryl Shuman, Mario?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

That's the right video Ziggy.

My hair?---You're still a "Funny" guy Ziggy.

NO, I DID NOT have sexual relations with Cheryl Shuman....
......Good Grief NO

Put this in the google search engine:

Cheryl Shuman Steven Seagal Mario Nitrini

And read my blog dated Oct.15 2007
Legal Justice for Me
It was Shuman who posted a YouTube video with the text. I was just lucky to copy and paste the text before she took it down within an hour. On YouTube Cheryl Shuman had Many, Many Sock Puppets...MANY....
Cheryl Shuman accused me of raping her on orders from Steven Seagal to Anthony Pellicano to me.....
.....in 1994.
....absolutely ridiculous lying Cheryl Shuman

I proved Cheryl Shuman a Big-Time LIAR. She was supposed to testify as a key witness in The Anthony Pellicano Federal Indictment Case Criminal Trial. The prosecution didn't have her testify because she's such a BIG-TIME LIAR.
There's a lot more to this situation.

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

ziggyosterberg said...


I'm actually serious about the hair questions. There's a lot more to that situation - split ends, frizziness, dryness, too much body, doesn't look cool like Johnny Depp's, etc. Some days I just wear a hat because I don't want to deal with it.

So Cheryl accused you of raping her in 1994. Was it before or after Nicole Brown was murdered?

How did you get involved with Cheryl, Anthony Pellicano, and Steven Seagal?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Head and Shoulders Ziggy

After the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. I believe the date was November 2, 1994

I didnt even know who
Cheryl Shuman was until 2005.

Anthony Pellicano in a roundabout way tried to have Bill Wasz sucker me and habe me call him (Pellicano) while he was in a Federal prison in Taft, Ca.

I was never involved with Steven Seagal until Shuman injected him into my life.

You got to read this deposition of Cheryl Shuman's. The Lies are aplenty.

In your google search engine, put in:

Luke ford cheryl Shuman mario nitrini

Then schroll down to
Here's a txt file of Shumans one day testimony

Especially page 39.
Shuman testifies she DOESN'T know who attacked her in the underground garage, but yet 5months earlier she said it wad me....what a liar Cheryl Shuman is.

Starting on page 51....well just read a while....unreal.

Then Shuman brings my name up.
Start reading from page 88.

Incredibly, Cheryl Shuman says she"s getting death threats daily from me. Ha, ha, ha.... My computer crashed on
September 26th, 2007. I blog about it on my blog post,
Legal Justice for Me titled:
Al-Quida-Spies-Oj Simpson.....
2nd half of the blog.

Now understand Ziggy, at that time I was at War with certain agencies of The Federal Govt,
The Los Angeles Police Department, The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and more......
At this time I am in a
Neutral Truce with all Law Enforcement, Federal and State.
You can read about it on an article on the Forbes website titled:

What an OJ Case Tipster Thinks of the People vs OJ Simpson


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

ziggyosterberg said...


I actually saw those already. I read the Forbes one, but the Luke Ford one was too long, and filled with too much legal mumbo jumbo for me to read.

Have you ever met any of those people : Cheryl, Pellicano, Seagal, OJ, Robert Blake, Biggie Smalls, Tupac, Michael Jackson?

If not, how do you find yourself involved in legal matters concerning/with them?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ziggy, In person, Cheryl Shuman in court.

On MN1 on August 1st, 2007 on the 4 day call-in interview with OJ Simpson, a call was set up for me to ask OJ Simpson a question. I asked him 2. One answer he had was:

"I don't know any Rocky Bateman"

You can hear Simpsons answer to me. It's on my Twitter account
(3rd tweet down as of now)

The rest of the people.......
......people connections

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

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Ziggy,

Back to The Charles Manson Saga

I follow the news pretty close. Back in February, 2013, I had read about
Tex Watson's attorney, Billy Boyd, having audio tapes where Watson claims that Charles Manson:
"had been involved in a number of other murders."

To your knowledge, have any of those audio tapes ever been made public?

And the reason that I ask, is that Manson, said "things" to me about that construction site, that to me, were Very, Very serious....and more....

Thanks

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

ziggyosterberg said...


The Tex tapes have never been made public.

Manson said things "about that construction site"? You mean like, bodies were buried there or something?

How do you have "people connections" to all of those famous people?

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Bodies? Maybe....and Maybe More....

We've covered Shuman, Pellicano and Seagal.

Biggie & Tupac...
George on my al-Quida blog
Russell Poole
I met with one of Violetta"s Wallace's Civil Case Attorney's---Bradley Gage
2 LAPD cops
And More......

Robert Blake Case
An LAPD RHD Detective
Others.....
The Michael Jackson Cases and Saga
Diane Dimond
Harvey Levin
Aphrodite Jones
And more.....
Oj Simpson....many, many people.


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

Dreath said...

Ziggy said: "Manson said things "about that construction site"? You mean like, bodies were buried there or something?"

This is like a driveway in Roseville, MI. The only difference is there actually is a driveway.

Since I just spent 10 hours in court and wanted to unwind with a beverage and a peek here and saw this I have very little patience right now: there is actually no valid reason MGN3 can't tell you what he knows. To be stopped there would have to be some legal privilege and none is identified or he made some promise to someone to keep it hush-hush which happens from time to time. But with him that would have to be Manson.

There are people here who know/knew Family members and people here who are asked by 'sources' not to share and they don't. And don't even say they were asked. The only person in that hole with MGN3 was Manson. There is no one to protect. There is no privilege and there is no promise and most importantly there is no 'legal issue'.

So MGN3 either decide you are going at add to the collective knowledge and quit playing silly games or be like the more circumspect contributors here and keep the hints to yourself.

Please look at the title of this post.

Done?

Does it say "MGN3's Personal Manson Saga Veiled Conspiracy"?

Now if you would like to post that submit it to the powers that be (and that is not me) and I am sure they would give it due consideration.

I for one get tired of this crap: "Bodies? Maybe....and Maybe More...."

ziggyosterberg said...


Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

"Bodies? Maybe....and Maybe More....”


Alien bodies?

ziggyosterberg said...


Dreath said...

"This is like a driveway in Roseville, MI. The only difference is there actually is a driveway.”

I agree with you there.

I find Mario somewhat amusing, and he has a history of injecting himself into high profile cases, for some reason only known to himself. I assume that's what he's doing here.

I think his Manson construction story is fake, and doesn't hold up to any critical examination. As I pointed out to him, almost all of the possible buildings in that area were constructed in the mid 70s-mid 80s and there weren't even streets for him to make a left hand turn onto. He should have picked an area further south, and given himself a wider berth than between Nordhoff and Lassen. The bone that I threw him - 21012 Lassen - doesn't fit his description. It's actually outside the range of where he said that Manson took him.

He blew this one. Maybe he'll move onto the Sherri Papini abduction case next.

Dreath said...

Ziggy,

I had a long day. I got a decent result but came back to the office, cracked a frosty and opened my e-mail to see that crap. I apologize to you if any offense.

My comments were not aimed at you at all. I hope you know that.

You are very good at this stuff (that '71 arial picture blew me away). Write a post.

And........ "Sherri Panini abduction case"... is again... priceless and another laugh.

Bravo, sir.

ziggyosterberg said...


Dreath said...

"Sherri Panini abduction case"


She abducted a sandwich? ;)

Fiddy 8 said...

After the sandwich was released, they all sang *A Mayonnaising Grace*.

ziggyosterberg said...


"It puts the butter on its bread, or else it gets the hose again"


"Lettuce out of here!!!"

StillGrooving said...

I'm with some others here when I see this information from Mario George Nitrini 111. If he has information, share it, else don't tease us with it. If you are fishing for a cash handout in exchange for information, well, I highly doubt that will happen here.