Monday, March 6, 2017

Bernard Crowe: those present at the shooting

Little by little we are dissecting the Bernard Crowe incident.  Nailing down who was present has been difficult due to no one being sure that the names given are true names.  We do know that Luella in Tex's version is Rosina Kroner.  Ed Sanders has proffered some names but with pretty much no sourcing.

The court testimony gives us the names Jim, Del and Steve who are associates of Crowe.  But who are Jim, Del and Steve?

Here is an excerpt from Ed Sanders The Family that gives us a clue who a couple of the people might be.  2002 PB edition pages 148-9



Next are pages of court testimony where Lotsapoppa is discussing Del beginning at the very bottom of the first page.









According to the testimony it was Del who set up Lottsapoppa with Rosina, Lottsapoppa had not previously known Rosina.  



When I first read the testimony I thought to myself that Lottsapoppa was probably saying that Del was dead because he didn't want to involve him any further.  Turns out I was wrong.

Ziggyosterberg and I kidded around, in the last Crowe post, that Dale Fimple in Sanders narrative did not sound like a real person.  Turns out Sanders was right this time!

This is what I found.


What's in this article is essentially what Crowe stated in his testimony, down to the girl named Chris who Crowe says was in the accident where "Del" was killed.  I do not believe that Chris was Fimple's wife even though she gave her last name as Fimple to the hospital.

A little more on Dale Fimple.



Where Sanders got the information about what Dale said about Charlie's "ritualistic dance" and the description of how the shooting went down is anybody's guess.  Dale was dead at by November 23rd 1969, before the public learned that Charlie was involved.  He could not have learned it from Dale directly.


You may have noticed the last name of Scorpi in the above testimony, it's mentioned twice.  I was a bit mystified until Dreath pointed me to the page in the testimony where that last name was connected to a first name.  Steve apparently is Steve Scorpi.



Unfortunately I have not been able to find anyone named Steve Scorpi.  When searching for simply the last name Scorpi at Ancestry there are a meager 20 hits in the entire US including men and women and none are young enough to be our guy.  I am leaning towards Scorpi  being misspelled by the court reporter as Crowe himself did not know how the name was spelled.  I believe that Crowe was probably saying Dale in his testimony but the court reporter mis-heard him, maybe due to Crowe's manner of speaking.  Dale and Del sound very much alike when spoken.

Previous Bernard Crow post.


95 comments:

starviego said...

Could 'Steve Scorpi' have been an alias used by Bryn Lukashevsky?

St Circumstance said...

Great post Deb!!

The sleuths will tackle the details and solve the mystery of who was there that day..

I will point out the two Macro ideas I take away from the Crowe incident while others pick apart the micro details.

1- TJ demonstrates that they were all not willing to cross the ultimate line. Some of them did have boundaries.

2- Charles Manson was willing and able to kill.

I know the self defense argument is coming so I'll leave it to the lawyers who come here to determine if you can go to find a person while being armed - then shoot that person and leave them for dead - and claim you had no choice?

You were not attacked or backed into a corner- you took a gun and went and found them and used it.

That is what I take away from the Crowe incident. It proves for once and all
Charlie was a killer

Lapinot said...

St Circumstance...

I agree, but I'd add a third: how strong Manson's hold was. TJ wouldn't kill for him and fled (reportedly in fear for his life) but returned and became one of Manson's most loyal supporters.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks Deb! This is terrific. You may have seen this also on Ancestry:

Obituary from: Omaha World Herald, Omaha, Nebraska, Tuesday, November 25, 1969, page 30

FIMPLE--Dale W., 27 years, passed away San Francisco, Calif. Survivrd by wife, Peggy; daughter, Charlotte; parents, Mr. and Mrs. Dale Fimple, Omaha, Neb.; 3 sisters, Mrs. Susan Jones, Mrs. Charlotte Mander and Nancy Fimple, all Omaha.

Kremer Funeral Home Service

If it's too much info on loved ones sorry you can take it down.

Mr. Humphrat said...

and excerpt from another one:
Dale W. Fimple Jr., a Benson High School graduate, had been working as a laborer in San Francisco, his father said. He had been in California about two years.

DebS said...

Thanks Mr. Humphrat! I did not see that. So Christine Fimple was not really Christine Fimple. Not surprising. I doubt that Dale's estranged wife would have any knowledge about what exactly Dale was doing in California. The obits both mention San Francisco but Dale was killed in Marin County and lived in Sonoma County. It sounds like his family really was not clear about where he was living and what he was doing.

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Lap...

It could be that TJ just went back after he felt it was safe because he liked the others. Watch him and Mary rub and play with each other's hands in the late great Mr. H doc. TJ might not have went back to the family after Charlie got busted as much for live of Charlie as he did love for free ass after he know he was safe to get it..

I think lol

simon davis said...

This may sound naiive, but why didn't Charlie just pay the money back to Crowe? Wouldn't that have been the best solution? We all have debts, but few of us deal with them by trying to kill the creditor.

DebS said...

You are not the first person to wonder about that, Simon. Certainly that would have been the reasonable thing to do. I could speculate but honestly I do not know the answer. I guess the money was more important than a life.

Dreath said...

I have no evidence to support this idea- at all.

It has always intrigued me that it is Kanarek trying to get the names and addresses of the 'other participants'. From personal experience that might suggest Kanarek had heard a different story from his client and was trying to get someone there to verify it. Now, I'm not suggesting that Crowe had a weapon or that the attempted murder was in any way justified but I wonder if something wasn't said, when combined with the phone call, that led Manson to think he had to eliminate Crowe. Perhaps something like: "This isn't over by a long shot. Get me the money or the dope or I will come out there."

Then again....it was offered in the penalty phase to show Manson could be a cold blooded murderer- which might be exactly what it was all about.

simon davis said...

I think it was something to that effect that was said over the phone by Crowe, wan't it? And CM said something like "Calm down, I'll come over and let's talk about it". Charlie goes over, but he is armed with a gun. That's always been my general take on it. So, as Manson said to VB during a "rap" at TLB trial - "well it was kinda self defence, he was coming over to get us so I had to do something to prevent that".

starviego said...

As I have said before, the question that sits there like an 800lb elephant in the middle of the room is why didn't the police quickly wrap this one up? First thing they would have done is make a beeline for Rosina Kroner, who would have given it all up within minutes.

simon davis said...

PS - what's "the late great Mr H doc" to which St Circ refers?

Dreath said...

"Manson"- 'doc'umentary by ROBERT Hendrickson

simon davis said...

I haven't been able to get my hands on that doco. I have the book Death to Pigs, purchased over the net in 2016 and supplied to me bearing a signature purporting to be Hendrickson's signature, which seems odd given the man died some years ago (2011?).

Anyway, am I missing anything by not seeing the movie?

Talking about docos and Oscars, just saw "OJ:Made in America". Very good I thought. Like Charlie, OJ was having a very bad day in the 24 hrs leading up to the alleged slaying of his victims. I think we tend to underestimate this in assessing motive in some murder enquiries. For example, Charlie was moody, capricious, impulsive, and having a very bad day on Fri 8 August 1969, after quite a run of outs - record deal gone bad, Esalen rejection, Watkins' defection. Then Mary/Sandy arrested. I have misgivings about Emmons' book, but it is conveyed in that book that Mary/Sandy was the last straw and he erupted. Arguably, this was the real motive.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I find it interesting the Dale Fimple lived in Sonoma county and Steve Scorpi lived in Brooklyn. So I wonder how long they were in L.A. for and were they there for business involving Crowe.

I was also thinking about Rosina having lived in the Sonoma county area for so long now and wonder if that's where she may have met Dale.

And I think about Rosina's apt. and she being there with Dale and Steve while Crowe was out for a while. So maybe Steve was the one making sure she didn't run away while Dale was the one who introduced her to Crowe and was probably feeling stressed out and worried that he would be in trouble too.

Also, it occurs to me, Dale is a white guy and I don't know what Steve was, but they are hanging out with Crowe and what would give Charlie the idea Crowe was a black panther if he's hanging out with a white guy. I had previously pictured Crowe and his associates were all black.

And Deb. that is a very interesting observation that Sanders relates that Dale said Charlie did a ceremonial dance when Dale was already deceased by the time Manson was connected to TLB. So either Sanders got it from a police report which as I recall people can't find, or someone related Dale's story second hand.

Again, Deb. it's exciting to me to see new information on this come in from you and be able to see a photo of Dale and some information on him.

St Circumstance said...

Simon if you want to watch " home movies" of life at Spahn Ranch the two Documentaries by Robert Hendrickson are the closest thing you will find.

cielodrivecom said...

Simon, Robert died last year

St Circumstance said...

I have heard many say that Crowe was the instigator and first step. Never that Mary / Sandy arrest was the catalyst ..

But I never read that book. It's one of just a few that I determined was going to be not credible and a waste of time.

But who knows.

Only Charlie really knows why these things really happened. I don't think he has any interest in taking any personal
Responsibility for any of it.

DebS said...

If you read the 2nd article in my first post about Crowe, link to that post is at the bottom of this post, it says that Rosina was the person who initiated the threats against Manson and those at the ranch saying the Crowe was "going to destroy everyone connected with Tex". Crowe pretty much paints himself as a choir boy in testimony saying he never would have said something like that, he was a peaceful guy. At this point we only have his word for that.

Remember too that Crowe was a forger and likely made a lot more money from that endeavor than he would have from dealing pot. He lived in an upper class neighborhood and drove a Cadillac. Not many pot dealers were big enough to be able to that, most usually smoked up their profits. Crowe was buying pot from Tex, not selling it to Tex.

DebS said...

Simon, for a little more background on Nuel Emmons please read my post on him. As with most people connected to this case there is a back story on him. I'm not certain what his motives were for writing about Manson but I have my suspicions that he may have been put up to it, or perhaps been allowed to do it, by law enforcement who wanted to try to get info out of Manson by using someone Manson thought he could trust.

Here's the post-

http://www.mansonblog.com/2015/10/nuel-emmons.html

simon davis said...

Thank you everyone for all that info and especially DebS for illuminating post about Crowe. When I referred to Mary/Sandy, that was in connection with Tate/LaBianca, not Crowe.

St Circumstance said...

Me too. I never heard of Sandy/Mary being the spark that caused real motive for TLB

Doesn't mean it isn't so ;)

St Circumstance said...

But I have heard/ read Crowe was...

Doesn't make that so either lol

simon davis said...

Saint, I have to correct you. You HAVE heard about Sandy/Mary being the spark that caused TLB - from me! but you'll have to buy my book to read more about it (and yes I'm a soft touch beneath it all, everyone on this blog will of course get a sizeable discount - hey I owe you all for what I'm learning, and your friendship!). But let's get back to the enigmatic Nuel Emmons and/or Mr Lotsapoppa, or was it Mr Lotsa, or Mr Poppa ? (I seem to recall Irv spent quite some time xx'ing Bernie Crowe about how he should address him.) I'm off to read the earlier post about this episode - most interesting and well written, if I may say so.

grimtraveller said...

Lapinot said...

how strong Manson's hold was. TJ wouldn't kill for him and fled (reportedly in fear for his life) but returned and became one of Manson's most loyal supporters

You know, that's a really astute observation.
So often, either supporters of Charlie or detractors of Bugliosi that want to poo~poo any notions of Charlie's hold on the various members of the Family {which was fundamental to Bugliosi's case because HS, he stressed, was Charlie's bag, not the killers' on Cielo night} cite the likes of Tex, Barbara Hoyt, Susan, Bruce and others that went away for periods of time without being stopped. But in doing so, they unwittingly demonstrate the strength of Charlie's hold. After all, they all came back.
Charlie Manson was a smart man, he really was, in certain avenues. Like some of those rock and pop hangers on and managers/minders who kept certain band members under control by plying them with various drugs and indulging their egos, Charlie discovered that there are far more effective ways of keeping people where you want them than force. I think he used a combination of things, including peer pressure, drugs, his own experience, putting down, a fairly sedate lifestyle etc and when those looked like being less effective, threats {Gypsy}, lies {Shorty was cut up in 9 pieces} and good old fashioned violence {smashing Stephanie in the face with a rifle butt when she said she wanted to go home}. It's rarely just one thing that establishes a hold and even rarer that just one thing maintains it. Which partly explains why there were those that found themselves gravitating back if they did move away or a while.

St Circumstance said...

Charlie was street smart. That is it.

These were not very bright people. Let's be honest. Look at all the stupid thoughtless things Charlie and the others did...

Because he was able to impress a bunch of drop out throwaways half his age - he was a smart man?

I bet if you gave Charlie any standardized test or intelligence exam he would score very poorly.

He picked up bits and pieces of other people's philosophies and spouted them to a bunch of drugged out kids. He was a shit-talker....

Nothing more.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Charlie was street smart. That is it

He did not need to be anything other than street smart. Street smart was a hugely impressive commodity to an interestingly wide variety of people not only in the 60s, but well beyond it. Rubbishing the value of street smart goes some way towards explaining why you have the president you currently have and why the UK is still reeling in many quarters over Brexit. Guys like Trump and Putin don't ignore the thinking of the street smart.
In a number of Western countries, because some in charge {of various govt depts, schools, local councils etc} perceive that many children and teens are either out of or are on the way to being out of control, they turn to the street smart to get involved in showing the young a better way.

These were not very bright people. Let's be honest

I think that's a myth that really needs to be exposed. There was a mixed bag in terms of ability and intelligence but whether or not they were all geniuses is missing the point. An inner revolution in which submission and pulling for one another is central requires an intelligence that many "intelligent" and bright people just don't get.

Look at all the stupid thoughtless things Charlie and the others did...

Look at all the stupid and thoughtless things many world leaders or important or revered people do.

Because he was able to impress a bunch of drop out throwaways half his age - he was a smart man?

And get them to do some of the things they did between '67 and '71 ? Yes. Remember, this era in particular was characterized by young people wilfully going the opposite way of their "elders and betters."
Some of Charlie's observations, realizations and conclusions show that he was a smart guy ~ in certain avenues.

I bet if you gave Charlie any standardized test or intelligence exam he would score very poorly

I bet if you gave many high IQ people a group of mid to late teen and young 20 somethings and said find out what makes all of these people tick and fashion them into a cohesive group that will love you unreservedly, they'd also be found wanting.

He picked up bits and pieces of other people's philosophies and spouted them to a bunch of drugged out kids

That statement could really easily apply to the Beatles. That is the story of much of the 1960s in the UK and USA.
Not everyone took on board what either party said which indicates that actually, there was some thought processes being engaged.

He was a shit-talker....Nothing more

Whom we, almost half a century later, gather together regularly to debate, discuss and argue about. We pour over his words, we try to analyze his actions, we puzzle over his motivations.
Not bad for a shit talker.

grimtraveller said...

Or even a shit taker.

grimtraveller said...

simon davis said...

This may sound naive, but why didn't Charlie just pay the money back to Crowe?

In his account in George Stimson's book, Charlie claims that he told Tex to just give the money back but Tex had already spent it buying a dune buggy. I think he's once again lying his blaggers off. For starters, TJ is the guy that drove Tex away from the burn. Secondly, this deal happened late at night and when Lotsapoppa found he'd been burned, he got Rosina to call Tex at Spahn. Just when did Tex have time to spend $2400 or whatever it was ? Thirdly, why, if Lotsapoppa {according to Charlie} had actually agreed to give Charlie time to sort things out, would he not only go round to see him with a gun, but a gun in the back of his belt with the idea being that TJ would be the one duplicitously yank it out and use it ?
The entire Crowe story is full of holes that one could drive a bus through. Charlie did tell Bugliosi he shot Mr Poppa in "kinda self defence." But he also told Bugliosi that he didn't "give a fuck" about Leslie, Pat and Susan ~ something that he has not kept up in all the years he has moaned about brotherhood.
Dreath has recently pointed out in some enthralling posts his contention that Linda and Susan minimize their involvement but if they do, they learned from King Minimize himself. The strangest thing is that Crowe, an embarrassment of a crook, actually seems to be the one with some actual corroboration on his side that has remained solid and it's interesting that it comes from non~Family sources {Jacobson and what Deb S has uncovered}.

St Circumstance said...

Grim I suggest we talk about him all these years later due to the savage things he did way more than his great intellect.

You made a lot of good points in comparing Charlie to others but I'm only addressing one statement you made about Charlie directly.

I'm ny opinion Charles Manson is not a very bright person by any means. A conniving con man is all. More sneaky than smart.

But maybe he could solve a rubix cube in under a minute...

Clem ended up being a lot smarter than I would have given him credit for so who knows??

simon davis said...

That's a heavy discussion about whether Charlie was "intelligent". Intelligent is an elusive concept. It depends on your definition and I suspect there are lots of different definitions of intelligence. He sure was a consumate con-man - he could turn things on and off like a tap - sense of humour, charm, flattery, threats, speaking the right lingo for the audience etc etc. He didn't only con his gormless young disciples. People like Paul Fitzgerald fell under his spell completely. Fitz said on TV many years later that Charlie was a really nice, thoughtful guy with a lot of cares. Charlie was, and still is, an absolutely master at charming and conning people when he wants to. I suggest he was a master con-man with some severe personality disorders e.g. extreme impulsiveness. I think it is Jeff Guinn's book in 2013 (?) where Charlie's early life is documented extensively, you see just how many times in the 1950's Charlie was about to be paroled and can't help himself from committing some stupid impulsive act which prevents his parole happening.

St Circumstance said...

I can live with that explanation :)

Robert C said...

I don't think Manson qualifies for Mensa membership but he certainly had a lifelong jailhouse skill set that primarily focused on survival plus a certain leadership personality sufficient to influence his flock of throw-away youth in an era of social/cultural upheaval.

I don't think Manson went to meet with Crowe with the intention of murder but his skill set prepared him for all possibilities of which violence was an option. I think when Manson shot Crowe it was a spontaneous decision based on how the conversation went and Manson's *fear* of Crowe literally following through with any threats on the Family. I don't think that fear was based on Crowe himself but rather who Crowe could enlist to come to Spahn and do an ambush job at an opportune time (like 10 or 15 armed friends). I suspect Manson, with his skill set, imagined this possibility and short of working things out, felt he needed to nip this in the bud.

As an aside I never felt Crowe intended to carry out his threats the way Manson envisioned but could see Crowe retaliating if there was a future opportunity. That is, I sense Crowe had other fish to fry and the issue with Manson was down his list a bit. Crowe wasn't going to lead a military style siege on Spahn but if he randomly encountered Manson again there could be a scuffle.

I also feel Manson was aware that by reaching to this level of violence there was always the danger the police could eventually trace it back to him but that the risk was worth pulling the trigger. I don't know if Charlie really felt he had murdered versus wounded Crowe but I'm sure he was trying to make a statement to both Crowe, should he survive, and Crowe's friends that he and his family were not to be messed with.

Regarding simpler to just give the money back versus shooting, I really don't know other than to guess there were other mitigating circumstances like perhaps they no longer had the money or they were in desperate need of cash or they even felt they were in the 'right' by stealing from a thief. Any number of things. But this also would get back to Manson's skill set regarding survival -- it wasn't easy living the lifestyle they were living and sustaining an as-needed cash flow. And as the ad hoc leader, which I'm sure he was aware, he needed to keep his core group together and further whatever his goals were and that required, at times, money.

St Circumstance said...

Think about it though lol sorry to belabor the point...

Charlie was on parole and he shot a guy in front of others. He didn't kill the others he let them walk away. He didn't try to hide the body or destroy evidence. He just walked away. Either he doesn't seem to understand consequences - or just doesn't get it period.

It's not a really smart thing to do. It's also just one example of Charlie not seeming to have much common sense.

I do agree though he was shady, manipulative and sneaky. If there is intelligence in those qualities - I stand corrected.

Robert C said...

In prison there is definitely a 'code' that you don't 'rat' on anyone, even for a violent act. There can be retaliation but taking the matter to the 'authorities' was out of the question. I think Charlie was thinking this way with Crowe and his cronies when he shot Crowe -- no one was going to run to the cops and point fingers among that criminal element and they all understood 'statements'. This is viewing it all not from polite society but how the 'underground' works. In the underground what happens in the garage stays in the garage and is dealt with accordingly. You run to the authorities and your life may not be worth a dried cracker afterward and I mean from all sides. To Charlie the lowest of the low were those that testified against him.

St Circumstance said...

I guess. I don't know a lot about prison or the underground.

But I think most criminals are at least smart enough to TRY at least to hide their crimes if they don't want to back to jail.

Also it seems like a pretty trusting credo among criminals lol.

But Robert - you may well be right

simon davis said...

Could someone help me with this? The newspaper article in debS's first Crowe blog refers to Crowe testifying that the incident happened on 1 August. But Tex seems adamant in his book it happened on 1 July. Don't know what turns on it yet, but that's a big discrepancy. Tex seems to place his date on it by referring to Kasabian's arrival at Spahn "3 days later", and I think it is clear she did arrive on 4 July, which tends to support Tex's date. Anyone have a view on this?

Robert C said...

St. C.-- what I referred to is among the prison crowd within which Manson spent most of his life and became part of his creed. I also suspect he wanted Crowe's cronies to be aware of what he did as opposed to covering up as a warning. There are many other types of criminals on different levels who, depending on the nature of the crime and risk would prefer to cover it up. But even in crime organizations like the Mafia you never take matters to the authorities.

Dreath said...

Simon I think that is discussed in the comments on that thread and someone was going to look for the police report.....Cielo maybe???

simon davis said...

Oh yes I've seen the comments now for debs first post. Police report would help, but it all seems to point to 1 July.

For the life of me I cannot find my Lotsapoppa transcript in my collection. Don't know about you dreath, but it looks like a simple mistake by VB in leading Lotsa to 31 July/1 August in one of the early questions. Lotsa looks like the sort of witness who needed to be led (out of court he had to be told by an attorney how to answer a reporter's question). Nobody objects or seeks any clarification. Judge may have noticed but doesn't really have any place interrupting. So it all rolls on in court with the wrong date. Unusual, but it happens.

The other possibility is court reporter simply wrote it down wrongly. Lots of mistakes in old days in court transcripts (here in Aus at least - before they started tape recording everything). There was a practice here until, say, 1985-ish where each morning the parties and judge would spend up to 15 minutes merely correcting the previous day's transcript mistakes.

Anyway, thanks for all of that.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Think about it though...Charlie was on parole and he shot a guy in front of others. He didn't kill the others he let them walk away. He didn't try to hide the body or destroy evidence. He just walked away. Either he doesn't seem to understand consequences - or just doesn't get it period.
It's not a really smart thing to do. It's also just one example of Charlie not seeming to have much common sense


Was he ever questioned about it ? Was he ever charged ? Was he tried ? Was he convicted ? Has he not spoken freely about it over the years ?
Fact is, he got away with attempted murder. There were no consequences as regards that incident.

I suggest we talk about him all these years later due to the savage things he did way more than his great intellect

I didn't say he had a great intellect. I said he was smart, just like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Alexander the great, Bin Laden, Mugabe and a host of other people that did nasty, wicked things and strode on the wrong side of their victims were smart.
One can be simultaneously smart and misuse one's abilities.

I'm only addressing one statement you made about Charlie directly.
I'm my opinion Charles Manson is not a very bright person by any means. A conniving con man is all. More sneaky than smart


Fair enough. But smart people get conned all day long. For me, the two are not mutually exclusive.


Dreath said...

It has always intrigued me that it is Kanarek trying to get the names and addresses of the 'other participants'. From personal experience that might suggest Kanarek had heard a different story from his client and was trying to get someone there to verify it

I think Kanarek heard a few things from his client that can be filed under 'nah' such as Harold True being Linda Kasabian's drug dealer. The Crowe incident is one of those sagas that has a few different tellings depending on whether it's Tex, TJ, Charlie, Atkins, Emmons, Jacobson, DeCarlo, Watkins, or AC Fisher Aldag reporting the facts. What's interesting is that most of them come from Charlie. AC Fisher Aldag's version even goes as far as to say Rosina was not Rosina but some "white woman" dragged off the streets by Crowe and co and raped and is adamant that there were 4 Black men present that were going for Charlie. She's equally adamant that Tex was present and even more adamant that Charlie told her this to her face. It seems that even his supporters, who get their "verbatim" from Charlie contradict each other. So it shouldn't be surprising to find slightly divergent accounts of the various actual murder situations from the killers in question.
Even the smartest get their eventual comeuppance.

grimtraveller said...

simon davis said...

Could someone help me with this? The newspaper article in debS's first Crowe blog refers to Crowe testifying that the incident happened on 1 August. But Tex seems adamant in his book it happened on 1 July. Don't know what turns on it yet, but that's a big discrepancy. Anyone have a view on this?

Ed Sanders wrote in his book that Crowe remained in hospital until July 17th but that's Ed Sanders. He says Crowe sent a telegram to his sister in Philly to tell her he was about to be operated on but helpfully, gives no date.
I think it is July 1st rather than August 1st. Although if it was August, one could concoct a rather interesting theory about Charlie's state of mind that first week.
I'm often highly dubious of Tex's recollections of details and dates because he seems to always put things in a way that echoes something that has already been written somewhere. And a few months back, he said the players in the Crowe incident that were with Lotsapoppa were Black, but Crowe testified otherwise.

Dreath said...

Simon,

I agree with you. There are so many accidental ways that date could be wrong- all the ones you note and I'd add one- Bugliosi has the date wrong in his notes because Crowe told him the wrong date in his interview, Bugliosi doesn't check the police report, looks down before he asks the question and we have August 1.

Robert,

I think what happened here illustrates your point. As I understand the events Manson shoots Crowe. Crowe plays dead. Manson leaves and Crowe tells those present to call an ambulance and leave. He tells the cops he doesn't know who shot him and doesn't ID anyone involved. Honor among thieves.

Grim,

My point was not that Manson's version was any way accurate. My point was it is highly unlikely- unless he is a worse attorney than I think he is and I for one think he's a step above terrible- that Kanarek would want to bring in Scorpi or Frimple to corroborate Crowe's story and confirm for the jury that Manson could kill in cold blood. So he must have believed they would somehow refute Crowe's story. Remember he trips over himself trying to get in the possible deal Crowe made for his testimony. If there was such a deal that does make Crowe's story suspect as it should have with Kasabian had they just shut up. And that would lead him to want to talk to the others that were there regardless of Manson's story.

simon davis said...

Grim makes a good point about Tex echoing things. Gee I think he even confesses that he does that in his book. In any event, it is clear upon analysis of his book that he does. Atkins does too. If these two had from day one stuck to what they themselves truthfully knew and saw there would be less confusion about these murders. That is why, in my view, by far the most reliable accounts by these two are the accounts they first gave to their lawyers in 1969. Beyond that, memory is unreliable, as it is with most people. I believe dreath has spoken about this, and I will say things in my book along similar lines about memory research here in Aus. All of that said, nor should everything they say be automatically rejected. The law's approach is the best - where a witness lacks credibility or reliability, by all means treat his/her evidence with caution, but if there is independent corroboration of what they say then it is permissible to accept it. Questions of degree and judgment are obviously required.

St Circumstance said...

I have to disagree slightly... I think that the memory of what happened those nights will be forever etched in the minds of those who did it, as well as exactly why.

They have had their entire lives to go over and over it...

But as they get older, wiser and more mature- I believe their accounts a little more.

They all told several versions at the time and changed them at Charlies whim. But as they have aged they have all started to tell the same consistent story.

I do agree that over time some small details will blur. But not the important details.

And again- some will use those small discrepancies as a justification to question much more important factors.

Not me

cielodrivecom said...

Don't get hung up on fine details within Tex's book. He didn't write it

St Circumstance said...

I was just going to say...

Simon you seem a fine fellow and beers are on me anytime.

But the sources and references you use are not really the greatest...

I hope your book is of higher caliber than that

DebS said...

There is a YouTube of Crowe being interviewed by a reporter. In the interview Crowe does say that he was shot August 1st. But hospital records indicate that he was admitted July 1st. We are trying to locate confirmation of those records. I do believe that the shooting happened July 1st despite Crowe's recollection.

Crowe does not come off sounding like he's the brightest bulb in the pack. He actually looks a bit scared to be talking to a reporter. At the very end he loosens up a bit.

https://youtu.be/DNSVaU2hHbg

At the beginning of this interview is a clip that has been added by Michael Channels and it's a recording of what Charlie had to say about the shooting. As usual it's difficult to understand and you might have to rewind a few times to understand all of what he says.

Dreath said...

Unrelated: I assume everyone saw this before me.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/charles-manson-and-infamous-‘family’-are-focus-of-new-abc-documentary/ar-AAnTMNp

Saint,

I hate to disagree with you but studies of eyewitness memories fairly well establish exactly the opposite- the passage of time makes them less reliable and not just because time passes and people forget.

One factor is the fact we humans fill in missing pieces of our memories from what others say about the event in question. The passage of time allows for more of that to happen and in this case that process is compounded by the parole issue- deviating from the official narrative is seen as avoiding responsibility. Put another way and part of the reason Simon is saying what he is saying is that as soon as Atkins' description of the events became common knowledge that disclosure (with no evil intent involved) can very easily 'create' memories for the others.

If you combine that- memory conformity- with what happens to people's memory in high stress situations it can be argued that why you see the stories as more uniform today is because they borrowed from each other's memories.

Stress/traumatic events play havoc with memories. Here are two examples. Atkins testifying that she saw a dog at the window= eyewitnesses in such situations frequently remember irrelevant details not directly related to the events. They also become 'weapon focused' able to ID the gun and not the person holding the gun and at times can provide extraordinary detail about the weapon but only from their viewpoint= Crowe is asked to ID the .22. His response: "Why don't you point it at me. Then I could tell".

Until 1985 the official narrative said the Titanic sank in one piece. 750 potential witnesses saw the Titanic sink, over 100 testified at various inquiries in the US and Great Britain only one described it as breaking in two. His testimony was ignored.

simon davis said...

Saint, my memory will never forget your comment about the beer, how could I ever forget something so important !

But I think you'll find independent research in all common law countries of which I am aware has debunked the theory that because something was traumatic or important your memory about it is necessarily vivid. And going over and over the story tends to have the opposite of the result you are saying.

In terms of sources, if you mean Atkins and Watson, well yes of course they are sources. They have to be sources because they were eye-witnesses to the murders and fairly central members of the Manson Family. Does that mean I simply reproduce what they say? No, I try to separate what is reliable from what is not reliable. Because they obviously have form for being untruthful, I look to other circumstances that might help evaluate whether they are being truthful on individual issues - for example is it an admission against interest (usually a powerful indicator of truthfulness - not always, but usually), was it something said confidentially to a lawyer - usually, but not always a powerful indicator of truthfulness, is it otherwise inherently plausible?, is it corroborated by other independent evidence?

Hundreds of years of development of the common law, again around the world, establishes that you can't simply say "that person is a bad liar and therefore everything he says is to be dismissed". If it was as easy as that, people like Dreath and I would be out of jobs.

Anyway, I've made a note of the beer you've offered and I'll hold you to it. And I consider you a fine person too !!

Oh yes, before I go, someone (Cielo maybe?) mentioned Tex didn't write his book. Is that a reference to the role of Father Ray (or whatever his name was) ? or is there something else that I'm unaware of? And, amongst other things, what do we make of the fact that Tex has repeatedly adopted the contents of the book in explaining things at parole hearings?

cielodrivecom said...

You are more likely to have trouble finding your car in a parking lot you frequently visit than one that you don't. This is because your brain has several memories of where you parked and thus you struggle to recall which of those memories to choose from. This is no different for those involved with these crimes. These crimes have been told and retold so many times - most often by people that were not present - that one should have little faith that these people could tell the difference between something they've heard and something they actually witnessed. Just another reason that the Tex tapes need to be released

Dreath said...

Cielo said: "Just another reason that the Tex tapes need to be released"

Here! Here!

starviego said...

Dreath said...

Crowe... tells the cops he doesn't know who shot him and doesn't ID anyone involved.


Forget what Crowe said. What did Rosina say?

Dreath said...

Starviego, what should I look at? My understanding is Rosina has never spoken on the subject.

St Circumstance said...

Ok so maybe I'm wrong. It's ok.

I stand corrected :)

grimtraveller said...

cielodrivecom said...

Don't get hung up on fine details within Tex's book. He didn't write it

But he did write the answers to the questions in his other book "Right hand man speaks out." And it's very much the same in parts, repeating old stories/rumours/suppositions, some of which have never been definitively confirmed {such as "it's believed that Manson was at the house looking for Terry [Melcher] the night before the murders and was offended by the new occupants" or "I also believe that Manson & another Family member went to the house afterward and disturbed the crime scene."}

simon davis said...

Saint,....I think you'll find independent research in all common law countries of which I am aware has debunked the theory that because something was traumatic or important your memory about it is necessarily vivid. And going over and over the story tends to have the opposite of the result you are saying

I don't think the memories themselves get stronger with time. I think how we reflect on what happened {if we do} takes on a different dimension.
Memories are funny things. Even a memory of something you saw yesterday often needs propping up. Although sometimes, I've remembered something a long time after {sometimes years} about an incident that I had never recalled closer to the time.
Going back to Tex, if you're in a way of life that is geared towards emptying yourself of ego, the past and much associated with it, memories aren't always going to be an important thing. I think he's like John Lennon when Lennon tries to recall much that happened in the 60s. He simply can't. Acid and the ego death that came with it rendered the need for memories as pretty moot.

cielodrivecom said...

These crimes have been told and retold so many times - most often by people that were not present - that one should have little faith that these people could tell the difference between something they've heard and something they actually witnessed

I think there's a lot of truth in that, particularly where Tex is concerned. Sometimes we do that when we think of our childhood and can't recall if we are actually remembering something or whether we're filling in with someone else's tales of what happened.

Dreath said...

My point was not that Manson's version was any way accurate

I know. I just used the quote as a good jumping off point to illustrate Charlie's penchant for telling different people different things about the same incident. It's one of the things about him that has been pretty consistent. That he did it with people that were supposedly on his side also speaks volumes. I'm beginning to see him as more like Susan Atkins than Susan sometimes !

starviego said...

Dreath said...
Starviego, what should I look at? My understanding is Rosina has never spoken on the subject.


That's kinda my whole point. Why don't we know what Rosina told police investigators?

Dreath said...

Starviego,

Has anyone ever seen a police report?

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

That's kinda my whole point. Why don't we know what Rosina told police investigators?

i Because we don't ?
ii Because she said nothing ?
iii Because they never spoke to her ?
iv Because Crowe never mentioned her ?

starviego said...



Dreath said...
Has anyone ever seen a police report?


Not that I can see. Bugliosi never brought the subject up in his book. We don't even know the names of the detectives that would have been assigned this case.


grimtraveller said...
ii Because she said nothing?


I doubt Rosina would have stonewalled any detectives. Why would she have? Tex and Charlie just screwed her big time. I doubt a couple of hardened homicide detectives would have had any trouble from her in that regard.


iii Because they never spoke to her?

The ambulance people responded to HER address. You can bet she would have been the very FIRST one the cops went to. Realistically, they probably would have shown up at her door within a couple of hours of Crowe being picked up at 4:15am by the ambulance.


iv Because Crowe never mentioned her?

They didn't need Crowe's cooperation--not with all the witnesses they had.

DebS said...

I understand that there is a police interview with Rosina although it's never been released. To be honest I'm not sure when the interview was done but most likely it was done in relation to the Tate LaBianca case and trial not at the time Crowe was shot.

Getting the interview is in the works but that doesn't mean it will be released. As far as I know at this point they have not said yea or nay about the release. It's a waiting game right now.

As everyone is aware the LA DA and other authorities have been very selective about what official reports and interviews they will allow to become public. I am not sure if the Rosina interview will ever be released. One thing is sure, she did not testify in any capacity at the trial. One could speculate that her testimony could have bolstered Crowe's halting and sometimes evasive testimony in the penalty phase but she wasn't called and I have to wonder why.

simon davis said...

DebS , thanks for all of this stuff, it has deepened my understanding of the incident.

I suppose we have to be cautious about wondering why something did NOT happen. She may not have been called precisely because her story tallied with Crowe's story (so she is, on one view of it, superfluous), or she may have been unable to be got to court, or . . . .

Inferences can be drawn from negatives, such as why isn't a particular question asked, or why isn't a witness called, but caution is required. I don't think you are the sort of person who ever suggests anything but caution in the way you assess things, but there is sometimes a tendency on these blogs (not just this one) to take negatives and run with them perhaps more than is desirable.

I will tell a story against myself. Once in closing arguments I was banging on about my opponent's failure to call certain witnesses. I was loving the sound of my own voice, as I am apt to do, but I noticed the judge seemed to be getting sleepy. Suddenly, he sat bolt upright, fearing no doubt he was about to drift off into a deep sleep. He looked at me and in his very pompous faux English accent said this: "Mr Davis, I do not want to hear about witnesses that were not called or things that did not happen, I want to hear about the witnesses that were called and what did happen". OUCH !

cielodrivecom said...

Rosina was interviewed by LAPD on March 6, 1970

DebS said...

So true Simon, we cannot assume because Rosina did not testify that there was a negative reason for it not happening. But I still want to know why, dammit!

Thank you Cielo for the date of that interview!

starviego said...

cielodrivecom said...
Rosina was interviewed by LAPD on March 6, 1970


Thanks. Do you have a source? Was she interviewed as part of the TLB murder investigation or as part of the Crowe shooting?

cielodrivecom said...

The interview was turned over during discovery. It was conducted in relation to the Tate investigation

simon davis said...

Is there a record of the interview?

cielodrivecom said...

Still trying to locate it. At best a few more months.

simon davis said...

You're a champion, a true-blue dinky-di cobber, the beer that Saint says he'll buy for me, I'll pass it to you (wait did he say that ? ummmmmmmm. . . .)

DebS said...

Cielo, here's a cheat sheet for deciphering Simon's post!

http://raindael.tripod.com/australian/slang/strine.html

You're all right Simon, I don't care what anyone says. :)

simon davis said...

Ha ha !!!! Brilliant, love it ! I've often imagined Charlie Manson taking on Crocodile Dundee - "call that a knife? - this is a knife".

Mr. Humphrat said...

Cielo I'm looking forward to the Rosina interview

Dreath said...

Cielo,

Are you sure Rosina's statement was offered to the defense in discovery?

Why I ask:

I was looking at Crowe's testimony. Before he testifies Kanarek moves to continue the hearing. He complains Bugliosi just dropped Crowe's statement on him and Bugliosi responds saying we just interviewed him and adds that the defense has had Walleman's statement for some time and it is the most accurate description of the events.

Kanerek then says: There is a witness named Rosina who is supposedly female.

Kay: 'Where is she?'

Bugliosi: I don't know where she is.

Kanarek: We would like some time to locate her.

Later during cross Kanarek asks Crowe for her address and when he doesn't get it spends quite some time trying to get Crowe to tell him where the apartment was (two blocks from X, is it near Y type of thing).

Then later Kanarek asks for her physical description, race and age.

A couple of things struck me from this. Why didn't Bugliosi just say 'Rosina's statement has been in the tubs for months.' Instead he says Walleman's was. Also why would Kanarek not know her last name, address, etc. if her statement was 'in the tubs'?

This all sounded to me like she wasn't disclosed. Then again, its Kanarek but the conversation is away from the jury and no other attorney points it out to Kanarek and Shin joins in the motion.

___________
Kanarek also spends a good deal of time trying to establish (1.) Crowe had a gun (2.) Scorpi had a gun (3.) Del had a gun or (4.) there was a gun in the apartment. Crowe denies all of the above but that may be a clue as to what Manson told his lawyer.

ColScott said...

It is a strain for me to check in here as scholars zero in on micro alternative facts that seem to add details for a potential TV show but nothing as far as facts that can lead to a motive.

Wasn't I mocked recently when I insisted Dale Fimple was at Crowe's? If it is a simple FACT Sanders was Mister Fucking Index Card. His FACTS are always correct. His conclusions and inferences are almost always drug addled and bogus.

The narrative tension always was

Crowe threatens CHARLIE thinking it was CHARLES Tex that he was coming to the ranch and raping all his women
Charlie shoots Crowe thinks he has killed him
Black Panther or no Charlie is freaking out because he shot somebody. He wants money to head to the desert
Bobby is sent to Hinman with the girls. Inheritance or Drug money aside, it is all about cash. Hinman is killed.
Charlie goes to Big Sur for a wander
With nothing left to lose TLB begins

And again, I will repeat for the upteenth time to see if we can get a REAL fucking discussion going- what the fuck is up with one of Crowe's henchman being part of Dennis Wilson's entourage?

Dreath said...

Col Scott,

So I can go looking is Del, Jim or Steve the Wilson connection, Brian what's his name? Thanks

ColScott said...

Dreath,

Try again this time with coherence.

Dreath said...

Ok, let me try again I was on my phone but I think now that I'm back at the office I know the answer.

Back in 2011 you said this:

"Charlie shoots Crowe and rescues Kroner. TJ and the others with him supported this. He takes the leather strap off of Bryn."

and this:

"According to the only information that we have, Bryn was a bodyguard to the drugdealing Bernard Crowe and tight with Dennis Wilson. Supposedly he was also picked up in the Spahn raid, although there are people who shout me down over this."

I admit I didn't look at every post on your old site but I did run through the titles to find Brian/Bryn references and read those awhile ago. I didn't find anything that corroborates the statements, although I certainly could have missed something. As you pointed out back then other people have noted some possible errors here like his presence at the Spahn raid. If I recall the mug shot is the wrong police department. And I'm not sure who 'the others' with TJ were that corroborated the Rosina rescue. If you know, that would help, too.

"Bryn" is Bryan Lukashevsky who has also used the alias 'Bryan Lukas'. He lives in Hawaii and appears to be/has been a surfer. His hobby is the closest connection I have found to Dennis Wilson (they both once surfed), so far.

From your comments there you seem to take the position Bryan is 'Steve Scorpi'. As Deb noted, aside from being from or being in Brooklyn in 1971 per Crowe, Scorpi is a dead end, so far. So anything you could help with there would be appreciated too.

My question was (which I think I answered for myself): which one of those present- Jim, Del or Steve Scorpi do you believe is actually Bryan Lukashevsky or are you saying there was a fourth white male involved?

Since Del died in 1969 that really leaves Jim, Scorpi or 'unnamed #4' given the picture you once posted.

Thanks.

starviego said...

From Sanders, pg205, 1971 hardcover edition:

"Gregg Jakobson has claimed Manson say he was going to shoot Crowe days before the act was accomplished."

Does anybody know where this quote came from? If true, this would change the whole dynamic of what we think of as motive in the shooting of Crowe.

cielodrivecom said...

Dreath, I don't have any way of confirming whether the kroner interview was in fact turned over. However, there is a letter addressed to Judge Keene, dated 3/26/70 that lists 32 items they were turning over to the court in compliance with a discovery order. Kroner's interview is on that list

Mr. Humphrat said...

To me the older guy online in a couple of photos who is into surfing looks very much like he could be the guy in the booking photo listed as Bryn Lesue Lukashevsky

There is a birth record for a
Bryan Leslie Lukashevsky
Birth: 28 Jan 1948 - Los Angeles, California
"Bryn Lesue" could be "Bryan Leslie"

A divorce record for what it's worth
Bryan L Lukashevsky
Spouse: Alice B Colman
Divorce: Jun 1974 - Los Angeles

And the person in Hawaii has almost the same date of birth listed
Name: Bryan Lukashevsky
Birth: 1 Jan 1948
Residence: 1996 - Honolulu, HI

Dreath said...

Mr. Humphrey,

Well done. I agree that is likely him.

Dreath said...

Phone autocorrects

DebS said...

Yes, that is Bryan. I do not believe he was arrested at Spahn. His physical description that is on Deemer's list does not match the description of any of the men arrested at Spahn. Bryan is described as being 6'1", 160 lbs., blond with blue eyes.

His LASO# on Deemer's list is 305 329. Those arrested in the Spahn Ranch raid have LASO booking numbers beginning with 892.

simon davis said...

I hate to ask this, but I don't suppose somebody could summarise in 4 or 5 or so bullet points where we are up to in terms of a consensus as to what happened in this incident? I thought I kinda had it down, admittedly only drawing on what Watson and Crowe have said, but now I'm lost with who is who, and what it all means. I think I had a version which more or less corresponded with Col Scott's version which is up above many comments ago. I appreciate we don't yet have Kroner's version, and everything is subject to that. I also appreciate the theory that reverses the roles of Crowe and Watson. But what, in a nutshell, does it all add up to? Sorry to be a pest, just finding it hard to follow it all. Please understand there is no sub-text to what I am saying, no ulterior motive, no trying to put s..t on anyone, just genuinely confused (yes maybe dumb too).

Trilby said...

Two things that have always leapt out to me re: Bryn/Bryan: on the "Associates" list, his address is given as in Topanga. Second: the surfing, subsequent move to Hawaii & future "business endeavors" (import/export) have made me question for a long time whether he had any connection to the Brotherhood of Eternal Love (BEL).
More thoughts on the subject/motive; but 5a non-coffeed coherence isn't my strong point, so for now I'll just throw the above two thoughts into the mix.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I just listened to a March 25, 2012 Brian Davis radio podcast in which he relates talking the day before to Bryan Lukashevsky-he wouldn't be interviewed on the air but said Davis could relate to the audience their conversation.
He said he was a very good friend of Dennis Wilson and that Wilson knew things about the motive(s) for the murders that he was someday going to relate. And Lukashevsky said someday he (Bryan) would maybe write a book or relate things he knows.
He said he wasn't present at the Spahn Ranch raids. He said he met Manson once at Dennis Wilson's house and that was all the contact he ever had with him, and he was a little "bleep bleep" and meeting him once was enough. He said the emphasis of people picking apart the case should be on the psychological impact it had on people like Wilson.
Brian Davis didn't say whether he asked him about any connection to Crowe.
Anyway, probably a lot of people already know this, but some don't.

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

It is a strain for me to check in here as scholars zero in on micro alternative facts that seem to add details for a potential TV show but nothing as far as facts that can lead to a motive

Well, you could continue with your blog that after 10 years and 890 entries and thousands of comments, posts, arguments, harranguings, observations, opinions and whatever else brought you no closer to where you are right now.
"Don't strain yerself, 'arry !"

Wasn't I mocked recently when I insisted Dale Fimple was at Crowe's? If it is a simple FACT Sanders was Mister Fucking Index Card. His FACTS are always correct. His conclusions and inferences are almost always drug addled and bogus

No, you weren't mocked. Mr Humphrat was having a laugh and Vera Dreiser had a pop, stating that it was rich that you were using Ed Sanders as a source. But you never said Dale Fimple was at Crowe's, you said:

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

Mr. Humphrat said...

I celebrate Col's entire catalogue

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

I celebrate Col's entire catalogue

I've never hidden the fact that I think it's a really good resource with lots of vital stuff difficult to find elsewhere, fantastic discussions, fascinating characters with a tremendous scope of ideas and a lot more besides. It's like a library.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

I doubt Rosina would have stonewalled any detectives. Why would she have? Tex and Charlie just screwed her big time. I doubt a couple of hardened homicide detectives would have had any trouble from her in that regard

Yeah, but though she'd been screwed by Tex {over the drugs !} she was only diddled by him because she was involved. She didn't lose any of her own money so would she implicate herself in drug dealing ? I mean, she might have, but as yet we don't know this.

The ambulance people responded to HER address. You can bet she would have been the very FIRST one the cops went to. Realistically, they probably would have shown up at her door within a couple of hours of Crowe being picked up at 4:15am by the ambulance

Yeah, good point. I thought of that and wondered how initially Lotsapoppa explained his presence in Rosina's apartment.

They didn't need Crowe's cooperation--not with all the witnesses they had

Aside from Rosina, which other witnesses ? Didn't they all split and disappear into the wind ?
That said, I'm looking forward to whenever that Rosina interview turns up. Should be interesting.
However, in that other recent Crowe thread, back on January 30th, when Deb S had said that Rosina had never spoken of the incident, Kimchi replied "Yes she did... in person and in writing...." Although she was asked by a couple of people for the when and where, she's not contributed to these pages since.

simon davis said...

Grim Traveller, I like reading your posts, are you Nth London ? Do you support Spurs or Arsenal ? My parents were Londoners, I was first in a massive family to ever be born outside London. Its OK you don't have to respond to my interrogation. I just like chatting ("chewing the fat" is the Aus expression). And if you follow rugby or tennis or most any sport, I forgive your country for making us look foolish in most sports (terribly embarrassing if you're an Australian - sport was all we had.)

A friend of my wife was actually a pen friend of Lynnette Alice Fromme, before the murders I think.

DebS said...

Mr. Humphrat, reading between the lines of what you've written about the "off the record interview" with Lukashevsky, Bryan does not say that he'd never been to Spahn, just that he was not arrested in the raid. I tend to believe he was not at the raid for the simple reason that his physical description does not match any of the descriptions of the men arrested that morning. Some of the men did use aliases when they were arrested.

However there has to be a reason why he showed up on Deemer's List as a member of the Family. Deemer wouldn't have included Lukashevsky simply because he met Manson once at Dennis Wilson's house. I'm sure there were potentially many who met Manson once at Dennis's home.

It is not clear whether or not the one meeting took place at Wilson's Sunset Blvd. house or perhaps another house Dennis had later.

The reason for Lukashevsky showing up on the list could be something as simple as Lukashevsky having taken Wilson to the ranch, particularly around the time the ranch was under surveillance before the raid. His license plate was noted and checked. It doesn't necessarily mean that he personally saw Manson at any time. In other words Lukashevsky could be telling the absolute truth but leaving out details that would make the situation easier to understand. Sometimes noting what is NOT said is just as important as what is said.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Hi Deb, good thoughts. I don't really know about Deemer's list and wonder how to see it, who he is, and how he compiled the list.
Another note on what Brian Davis said of his conversation with Lukashevsky; since Lukashevsky said he only met Manson once, Davis decided he couldn't have been there when Charlie shot Crowe, but he may not have thought about the possibility he could have been in the car during the drug burn, when Charlie wasn't there.
Yes, so much that wasn't said or perhaps even asked, but Davis is out there doing the work, getting the interviews.

grimtraveller said...

simon davis said...

are you Nth London ? Do you support Spurs or Arsenal ?

That's pretty perceptive, although I've lived in West and East London and spent voluminous amounts of time in the South, most of my life has been lived in North London. When I first moved to London from Birmingham {a week after Shorty met his demise}, we lived right in the middle of Arsenal country. I actually tried to support them for a day, then I came to my senses and have detested them since early '71. As for Spurs, while I've never disliked them, I've given up on them ever winning the big prize. They are football's great capitulators. I'm a Liverpool fan, have been for 46 years.

St Circumstance said...

TJ demonstrates that they were all not willing to cross the ultimate line. Some of them did have boundaries

What was interesting about TJ as opposed to Tex and Pat was that like them, he had little preparation time when it came to the killing stakes and was not going to go through with it although it seems to have been a real possibility that he would be called on to do it, what with the plan to take the gun out of Charlie's trousers. Mind you, as far as we know, no killing had happened by July 1st so TJ would have been among the first of the Family killers.
But even TJ is an enigma because the way he told the story in future years, Charlie had no choice and was rescuing Rosina. Yet that is not what he was saying when he quit the Family the day after the Crowe shooting. I can't help wondering why he would have fled if the shooting was not only self defence but part of a courageous rescue.

Charles Manson was willing and able to kill

Having known many criminals and having seen three of them go on to kill, I've pondered for a while whether or not most criminals themselves wonder about killing and if they could get away with it. Especially the ones that become no strangers to robbery, drug dealing and crimes involving violence.

Mr. Humphrat said...

He said he was a very good friend of Dennis Wilson and that Wilson knew things about the motive(s) for the murders that he was someday going to relate

I don't believe Dennis Wilson honestly had anything of value to relate regarding the motive{s} for the murders. Although having said that, Mike Love seemed to think that he'd seen Charlie gun a man down.
Mind you, if Dennis Wilson did have valuable info, one has to ask oneself a couple of questions. Was Dennis' silence affirmation of Charlie's guilt ? Or, turning it around, if Charlie was innocent, why did he not come forward or put something in the public domain ?