Monday, June 5, 2017

Witold K.

Sometimes you just can’t get away from it.

Recently I was at a large organized estate sale held to benefit the Music Academy of the West in Santa Barbara, California. Among the offerings in the Art section was a print by an artist named Witold K. The name rang a bell, of course, and examination of K’s Wikipedia entry printed and attached to the print confirmed the reason why, because a highlight of the short entry was “In 1969 he relocated to California and briefly occupied the home of Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski (both later murdered at 10050 Cielo Drive by the followers of Charles Manson), and opened his first studio/gallery in Beverly Hills.”

The print on sale at the estate sale

The name Witold K should be familiar to any serious student of TLB. He was, in fact, Witold Kaczanowski, a Polish artist who moved in the Cielo Drive circle in the summer before the murders there, and he appears in the case literature not only in books about the case but also in the official law enforcement files.

In the earliest stages of the police investigation into the homicides committed at the Roman Polanski residence officers were checking all possibilities, including whether the killers might have been among Polanski’s social and business circles. One possibly relevant incident within those circles was an altercation that occurred at 10050 Cielo Drive just before spring of 1969. According to the First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report:

“In mid March of this year, the Polanskis had a large catered party which included over 100 invited guests. The persons invited included actors, actresses, film directors and producers, business agents for the above-described people, and the Polanskis’ attorneys. Most of the people invited came to the party along with several people who were uninvited. The list of uninvited guests included William Doyle, Thomas Harrigan, and Harrison Pickens Dawson. They came to the party accompanied by an uninvited guest, Ben Carruthers and an uninvited male.

“During the party, a verbal altercation ensued involving William Tennant, Roman Polanski’s business agent, and William Doyle. Doyle apparently stepped on Tennant’s foot during this altercation. Dawson and Harrigan joined in the verbal altercation, siding with Doyle. Roman Polanski became very irritated and ordered Doyle, Harrigan, and Dawson ejected from the party. Ben Caruthers and the unidentified male that had accompanied him to the party escorted the three men from the property.”  (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, page 8)

Vincent Bugliosi recalled this party incident in Helter Skelter (using pseudonyms for some of the individuals involved; thus does the real life Harrison Pickens Dawson become “Jeffrey Pickett”), and this is where Witold K. enters the picture:

“From William Tennant, Roman Polanski’s business manager, LAPD learned that in mid-March the Polanskis had given a catered party at Cielo with over a hundred guests. As at any large Hollywood gathering, there were crashers, among them Herb Wilson, Larry Madigan, and Jeffrey Pickett, nicknamed “Pic.” The trio, all in their late twenties, were reputedly dope dealers. During the party Wilson apparently stepped on Tennant’s foot. An argument ensued, Madigan and Pickett taking Wilson’s side. Irritated, Roman Polanski had the three men evicted.

“It was a minor incident, in and of itself hardly cause for five savage murders, but Tennant had heard something else: ‘Pic’ had once threatened to kill [Voytek] Frykowski. This information had come to him through a friend of Voytek’s, Witold Kaczanowski, an artist professionally known as Witold K.

“Not unmindful or the similarity between ‘Pic’ and the bloody-lettered PIG on the front door of the Tate residence, detectives interviewed Witold K. From him they learned that after the Polanskis had left for Europe, Wilson, Pickett, Madigan, and a fourth man, Gerald Jones [pseudonym], were frequent visitors to the Cielo residence, Wilson and Madigan, according to Witold, supplying Voytek and Gibby [Abigail Folger] with most of their drugs, including the MDA they had taken before they died. As for Jeffrey Pickett, when Gibby and Voytek took over Cielo, he moved into their Woodstock residence. Witold was staying there also. Once, during an argument, Pickett tried to strangle the artist. When Voytek learned of this, he told Pickett to get out. Enraged, Pic swore, ‘I’ll kill them all and Voytek will be the first.’”  (Helter Skelter, pages 65-66, Bantam paperback edition)

A bit more information about Witold K. can be found in Ed Sanders’ The Family:

“A Polish artist named Witold Kaczanowski aka Witold K. had been brought to the United States through the kindness of Roman Polanski. He naturally came to live in Los Angeles where he cultivated the Polanski’s circle of friends. He was staying, during the summer of murder, at the Woodstock Road home of Abigail Folger and Wojtek Frykowski. He was a frequent house guest at 10050 Cielo Drive during the spring and summer of 1969.” (The Family, revised and updated edition, page 200)

Witold K. on August 27, 1969

The “First Tate Homicide Investigation Report” further elaborated on K. and his relationship to the Cielo Drive circle: “When Frykowski and Folger moved into the Polanski home, they invited Witold Kaczanowski to live at their house on Woodstock Road. Kaczanowski accepted their invitation as he was an artist and at that time was unemployed. Kaczanowski was a friend of Frykowski. They had met in New York some years prior.

“During April, May, June and the first part of July, Frykowski and Folger had many impromptu parties. And open invitation policy existed at the house. Drug use was prevalent. They used hashish, marijuana, mescaline, cocaine, and MDA.

“William Doyle, Tom Harrigan, Pic Dawson, John Deturo, Charles Tacot, Ben Caruthers, Cass Elliot, Witold Kaczanowski, along with several other narcotics users, were frequent visitors and party goers at the Polanski residence.”  (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, page 9)

A later investigative report also included some information from Harrison Pickens “Pic” Dawson as to his recollections of his experiences in the summer of 1969:



“Dawson admitted drug use since a teenager and stated that his worst experience with drugs was during the period he spent in Los Angeles. At that time he was on heroin and “was out of it” most of the time. He indicated that this was the reason he was unable to recall some incidents. Dawson stated the Cielo address was always full with people who were under the influence of narcotics. He gave a videotape to investigators, indicating the tape pictured Abigail Folger, Witold Kaczanowski, Wojiciech Frykowski and an unknown female under the influence of narcotics. (This tape was reviewed at Scientific Investigation Division and does in fact show the above-mentioned people smoking marijuana. The tape is in Evidence, item No. 74).” (Second Tate Homicide Investigation Report, page 14)

(And as an aside, isn’t it interesting how many different ways there are to render the first name of the male Polish victim of the Cielo Drive homicides?)

More information from the official police investigation:

“Kaczanowski was present at the Polanski home in the early part of July and overheard Doyle and Harrigan tell Frykowski they were going to get him the drug known as MDA. Kaczanowski did not see Doyle and Harrington after this meeting.” (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, page 10)

The following official summary of Voytek Frykowski’s activities on the afternoon of the day he was murdered shows just how tightly Witold K. was entwined with the Cielo crowd:

“Investigation disclosed that when Frykowski departed from the Polanski residence at approximately 1505 [on August 8, 1969] he drove directly to the Jay Sebring residence. At that location he picked up Miss Suzan Peterson, who had been Sebring’s companion for the preceding night. Frykowski drove Suzan to the art gallery operated by Kaczanowski at 9406 Wilshire Boulevard. The purpose of this trip was to obtain a key for the Woodstock house; Abigail Folger had Frykowski’s key at the time.

“At the gallery there was a short conversation between Frykowski and Kaczanowski and Kaczanowski was invited by Frykowski to come up to the Polanski residence that night. It was ascertained that Kaczanowski did not have the key to the Woodstock house in his immediate possession, but the key was at his girl friend’s, Christina Lerewska’s, house.

“While Frykowski and Kaczanowski were conversing at the gallery, Suzan Peterson was browsing in a dress shop adjacent to and connected with the gallery…. [Then] Kaczanowski and Suzan were driven to Christina’s house by Frykowski. The key to the Woodstock house was obtained from Christina and Kaczanowski was returned to the gallery.

"[At the Woodstock house] Frykowski [explained] to Suzan that Kaczanowski was an artist but not a businessman and there were some disparaging statements made by Frykowski as to the key to the house not being readily available….

“At a time (estimated about midnight) Friday night, Frykowski called, presumably from the Polanski residence, to Kaczanowski’s art gallery and asked Kaczanowski why he was not up to the house. Frykowski in the conversation admonished Kaczanowski that he was spending too much time at the gallery, working too hard, etc. Kaczanowski declined the second invitation and stayed on at the gallery.  He returned to the Woodstock house at approximately 0300 hours, 8-9-69.” (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, pages 13-14)

Many people have claimed that they were planning to be at the Polanski house on the night of the murders there, but Witold Kaczanowski might be one person whose claim was actually grounded in more than just a desire to bask in a macabre limelight. As such, he became involved in the case after the murders as both a potential target for further violence and as an assistant to the police. Again, from The Family:

“Around this time [just after the murders], artist Witold K., speaking nervously in Polish, called a friend in New York from a phone booth in Los Angeles. He claimed that he knew who the killers were and that he was afraid.

“Friends in New York then called a New York Times reporter in Los Angeles and related the development. The reporter thereupon called the Los Angeles police.

“Since Witold K. expressed fear for his life, the police promised him twenty-four hour protection if he would talk. Then his friends called Witold K. back at the phone booth where he was waiting and he agreed to the guard. Three police cars picked up Witold K. and took him to the apartment at Paramount Studios where Roman Polanski was in seclusion.

“Witold K. told police that Frykowski was offered an exclusive dealership to sell the drug MDA, evidently in the Los Angeles area. Subsequent friction developed, he claimed, and one of the suppliers threatened Frykowski’s life. Witold K. claimed not to know the names of the possible killers but to know them by face only. And that they were Canadian. One close friend claims that Witold K. went around, escorted by police, to many prestigious addresses in Frykowski’s notebooks to try to locate the killer — always leaving behind his business card. Witold K. claimed that the identity of the killers was contained perhaps in these notes and diaries but he seems to have said that ‘it would take two weeks’ for him to decipher the killers’ identities from Frykowski’s notebooks….

“Witold K.’s painting career was enhanced by his revelation. One newspaper account showed a picture of Witold K. posing with several of his paintings on the Polanski front lawn. A friend has claimed that Witold K. even sold a couple of his paintings to two policemen investigating the case.” (The Family, pages 288-289)

From the Los Angeles Times, August 28, 1969

During this tour of duty K. volunteered some evidence he believed might be relevant to the case:

"Officers were working a security detail for homicide division at 2774 Woodstock Lane for Kaczanowski, Witold, who lived at the residence. At approximately 1300 hours 8-15-69, Kaczanowski walked into the living room and handed officer Newell [badge number]11529 the below described brown bag and narco. Kaczanowski stated he found the the bag behind a dresser in the right rear (s/w) bedroom of the house. Kaczanowski further stated that he had never seen the bag before and he did not know who owned it or put it there.
"The bedroom in which the narco was found was formerly occupied by Miss Folger, Abigail, who was a victim of a 187 P.C. under DR# 69-059-593.
"There is an additional property report under the same DR# 69-059-593.
1 Bag, paper, brown, containing item # 2
2 Bag, clear plastic, containing a brn/grn leafy substance resembling marijuana.
Above items were marked “R.D. N. 11529” for ID.”

The police report wherein Witold surrenders a pot stash

Of course none of the information provided by K. was any help in determining the identities of the Cielo Drive killers. Still, it is interesting to examine this aspect of the police investigation into the homicides if for nothing else than that it gives the student of the case a more thorough view of the comings and goings at 10050 Cielo Drive in the months preceding the murders there.

After his exciting brush with “Manson Family” fame Witold K. closed his Beverly Hills gallery and moved to New Mexico where he settled in the Santa Fe area and kept working on his art. Eventually he relocated again to Denver, Colorado where he resides today.

Witold K. in 2013

Back at the estate sale, just as it was closing up I took a friend over the the Art section to show her the print. The price had been reduced by over half, into the affordable range, so I got it. And why not? It was for a good cause. And it was also a good reminder to have of the infinitely layered and complex nature of TLB, a case that is so intertwined with the American experience that even today you can find some kind of link to it just about anywhere.

Signed print, # 46 out of 60, Witold K. 1973, Tesuque, New Mexico 

Witold K.’s web site is here.

Witold K.’s Wikipedia entry is here.

In a 2012 interview K. did not mention his TLB connection.

335 comments:

1 – 200 of 335   Newer›   Newest»
CarolMR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Logan said...

Fascinating post.
I didn't know that Voyteck's midnight call to Witold was actually substantiated by the homicide report. In schreck's revised Manson file, I recall reading about Voyteck's last phone conversation with witold (in schreck's version, the content & motive of the phone call are different from what're mentioned in the homicide report), but I didn't know what evidence there was for such a call. It's enlightening to read what the original police report says regarding the incident.
Do yall remember/know of any other books/primary (or 2ndary or tertiary) sources related to TLB that mention Frykowski's last phone call? It's been such a long time since I've read any version of the family or helter Skelter that I don't remember if they come up in those particular books or not.

On another note, that is a rather Processean-looking swastika design on the 1969 photo of Kaczanowski standing by his work...maybe that's something to look into...(kidding) ;)

Matt said...

Thank you George for this thoughtful post. It's been quite a while since I've thought about WK. Like Saladin Nader, he dodged a bullet.


Bourne Beauty said...

I've been to his gallery in Cherry Creek (Denver neighborhood) a few times, but never seen or met him personally. The gallery is literally two blocks from my work. Witold does have a good reputation in the Denver community and has been a huge supporter of the Cherry Creek Arts festival, a huge annual event. Now I'm motivated to stop by again, this was illuminating information.

ColScott said...

Great article George Man. It is a nice painting in and of itself. Of course, any effort on your part to somehow still paint this as a drug deal gone sour fails on an epic level. But sure, Abby had drugs. They all did. And then Tex and his friends butchered them because they are psychotic assholes.

If you take a nice picture of the painting without the tags and send it to me I can have Canvas world make a copy for Patty to put with her other talismans and grave rubbings.

George Stimson said...

No Colonel, no drug deal gone sour here. The only drug deal gone sour that has any bearing on this case is the one the happened at 964 Old Topanga Road.

ColScott said...

You mean the one that Bobby started claiming happened several years after the actual events?

I tend to believe it was a drug deal gone wrong, yes, but Bobby sure made certain that he stayed locked up for life

George Stimson said...

Oh, and the one that happened at Crowe's.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

no drug deal gone sour here. The only drug deal gone sour that has any bearing on this case is the one the happened at 964 Old Topanga Road


ColScott said...

You mean the one that Bobby started claiming happened several years after the actual events?
I tend to believe it was a drug deal gone wrong, yes, but Bobby sure made certain that he stayed locked up for life


Over the last few weeks, I've been extensively going through Bobby's lengthy interview with Michael Moynihan, some of the Q&A sessions on his old site and his parole hearings from '78, 2003, 05, 08, 10 and 16 and all I can say is that if there is any person responsible for Bobby Beausoleil still being in prison, notwithstanding Commissioner Anderson's outrageous 2010 adjudication {almost a meisterwork in the art of bias}, it's Bobby himself. Even having Supposedly "come clean" with all that happened and why Gary was killed, his story changes and subtly alters over the years, details emerge then are left out again then added in new fashion and he makes himself completely unbelieveable, which is a %**&^^£! if perchance he happened to be telling the truth although he states things demonstrably untrue. And then on top of that, the only person in the known universe who could even partially corroborate his story, Charles Manson, tells a story so vastly different from that of Bobby that if you believe one of them, you simply cannot believe the other and they end up cancelling each other out. Their Topanga duet makes the Cielo quartet look like a well drilled group of synchronized swimmers when it comes to stories lining up.
It is interesting that he completely dismisses the copycat motive in the strongest possible terms and this as far back as '98. One could argue that he does this to minimize his association with the Family as he continually states he was never a member or anything approaching that, but nevertheless....

George Stimson said...

I doubt Bobby wants people thinking that freeing him was the cause behind one of the most infamous mass murders in history....

ColScott said...

Grim


That's what I said, isn't it?

I disagree that it was a copycat. And notice George now takes BOTH positions.

But the fact is Bobby is full of shit. I talked to him on and off for two years and offer him employment- I think it would be fine to have him released. But he has lied for so long I mean fuck it

George Stimson said...

Where am I taking both positions?

Mr. Humphrat said...

Looks like he was a very good artist. I'm guessing that's a lithograph, but not sure. Time for MHN to add his expertise :)

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

Grim


That's what I said, isn't it?


Yeah. I was using your quote as my jumping off point about Bobby. And you're right, he lies. But he's not a good or convincing liar and in the past when he's been called out on it, it's been wincingly painful to read.

George Stimson said...

I doubt Bobby wants people thinking that freeing him was the cause behind one of the most infamous mass murders in history....

But if it had nothing to do with Bobby, what possible difference would it make ? If the copycat were true, it wouldn't have had anything to do with him. He wouldn't be responsible or culpable for what others may have chosen to do.

Manson Mythos said...

Bobby has in fact rejected the copycat motive for the Tate-LaBianca murders. He said it's a "crock" and that he never demanded such loyalty from "those people". This is what he told Bill Scanlan Murphy. You can hear the conversation on my YouTube Channel.

People are often confused as to why I endorse both Goodbye Helter Skelter and Schreck's book. As George's book does such an excellent job of, there is too much smoke for there to not be a fire when it comes to the copycat motive. But given other circumstances and the secrecy among many of those involved and the conduct of the legal establishment, I still feel there might be more to it. While the motivation to commit the crimes were primarily an attempt to try and get Bobby off the hook, I think it is more than possible the victims weren't as random as it may seem and some involved had their own incentives.

It certainly appears that things on the Ranch were conducted on a "need to know" basis and not everyone was privy to what was going on, or at the very least, different people were told different stories depend on what their "trip" was so to speak.

One thing I've observed about Manson is that he clearly doesn't confirm or deny anything, unless others have. He never brought up what went on with Hinman until Bobby did. Nor the copycat motive until Tex and the girls did. When he told Murphy to "ask Tex", when pressed harder about why the murders happened, Murphy told him that Tex isn't "talking" and Manson's reply was "well, there you go". If Manson knows that Tex is keeping silent about any drug disputes or motive in regards to that and is sticking to the statement of facts, then it should go without saying that he isn't going to snitch.


As for Hinman. Based upon years of conjuncture and recent comments made, I think it's possible that in addition to a drug deal gone sour, the reason why robbery was mentioned is because that might have played a factor in it. But it was NOT Manson who egged it on, but Danny DeCarlo. He had knowledge of Charlie Melton and I think he confused him with Hinman and pressured Bobby to rob him in revenge for the bad dope. Wither or not it was really bad or the SS were lying doesn't matter. The bad dope could have been used as an excuse to get his hands on that imaginary inheritance. This would explain why a 1% biker club would run to the cops like snitches (something that costed them the 1% tag) and establish a story that absolves them of any guilt and as I wrote, Bugliosi left it out of HS that DeCarlo was a suspect in Hinman.

starviego said...

Charlie was already trying to get Ella Jo Bailey and Bill Vance, and Susan Atkins, to go and kill Hinman before he sent BB down there. Not drugs, not inheritance. Rather because Gary was a Political Piggy.

Manson Mythos said...

Your critical thinking skills are astounding, starviego.

The boy wonder said...

Is it me or does WK look like Hugh Jackman in the first photo then morph into Polanski in the second?

Matt said...

Boy Wonder, he was a handsome devil as a younger man. Now he sees Polanski when he shaves. It's really not fair.


ColScott said...

starviego= did you pull this out of your anal cavity or what?

starviego said...

Sanders, pg343
"On Thursday, July 24, Manson sent Ella Jo Bailey aka Ella Sinder, over to Gary Hinman's house to get the money and then to kill him. ... Although she was a long-time Manson follower, she was not willing to snuff anybody for him. Bill Vance, who loved Ella, tried to intercede with Charlie but Charlie was furious. So Ella and Bill Vance left the ranch together... "

starviego said...


Atkins, in her 1977 autobiography*, wrote that Manson directly told Beausoleil, Brunner, and her to go to Hinman's and get the supposed inheritance—$21,000. She said Manson had told her privately, two days earlier, that, if she wanted to "do something important", she could kill Hinman and get his money.

*Atkins, Susan, with Slosser, Bob (1977). Child of Satan, Child of God Plainfield, NJ: Logos International. pp. 94–120

CarolMR said...

Witold looks pretty good for an 85-year-old man.

ColScott said...

Atkins is not reliable

For the most part Sanders is

I wonder how I missed that and who his source is


Very good anus on you

David said...

Although it is very hard to hear EJB, this interview suggests to me that Sanders' version at least does not originate with her.

http://www.cielodrive.com/updates/audio-archives-ella-jo-bailey/

She doesn't mention being asked or sent to kill Hinman. She does feel responsible because she seemed to be rather close to him and did ask 'what happened'.

I have found a couple of sources (not particularly reliable) that suggest Hinman had access to or dealt mescaline (to friends) but that is a pretty 'buyer beware' drug from my experience so I'm not sure how that could lead to a 'drug deal gone wrong'.

Copy cat: my problem with this theory is Jay Sebring. This is the one place where someone did, in fact, stage the crime scene- although no one admits it. If you don't believe me look at the crime scene photos- the rope is over the towel which is wrapped around his head- or read the testimony- every police witness describes the scene consistent with the images= rope over the towel, over/around the head.

Instead it looks like someone tried to 'hang' Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring after the fact, which makes some sense as they were originally found in a position suggesting some familiarity. And that isn't 'copy cat' at all. But it is consistent with hanging 'Pigs' from the rafters' and HS.

For those who will respond: Manson came back- google the type of eye glasses that can be used to start fires. It's not these.

___________

Good stuff, George, WK has always intrigued me. His 'freak out' after the murders certainly suggests there was something more to Frykowski even if his details were wrong. It's also interesting how the LAPD bought into it, looking for a drug connection, and thought for a time he was a material witness.

Jenn said...


Here's a picture that I took about a month ago of Voytec and Abigail's house. I was on Woodstock Rd to find Cass Elliot's house, where a bunch of rock music history happened. I found it and took some pics, then it flashed to me that something Manson related was on Woodstock. I Googled it and found that this house was right across the street.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37596214/IMG_1139.jpg

starviego said...



Another take on the Ella Jo issue from court documents:

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/71/1.html
In July of 1969 Manson talked to several members of the family about the need to get money and names were discussed of various persons from whom they could get money. Hinman's name was discussed and the fact that he owned a house and stocks and bonds. On July 26, 1969, Manson told Bailey and Bill Vance that he wanted them to go to Hinman's house and persuade him to join the "family" or sign over all of his property and automobiles. Vance said he had better things to do and walked away.

Matt said...

Funny, THIS is trending today...


George Stimson said...

Thanks for the pic of the Woodstock house, Jenn. I had considered using the Google Maps view with the article.

Manson Mythos said...

People who cite Ella Jo are usually those who blow a gasket when the subject of Hinman being a dope dealer comes up. But Ella Jo was asked during cross examination if Hinman was a source of drugs to the family and her answer was YES. She was asked if he manufactured drugs, but she wasn't sure.

Those who defend the official narrative often say no mention of drugs came up in the early stages of investigation, but clearly those handling the case knew something. In her interview with law enforcement, she didn't say they were going off to rob or kill Gary Hinman, but that Susan told her they were going to "get drugs tonight".

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

People are often confused as to why I endorse both Goodbye Helter Skelter and Schreck's book

You endorse pretty much anything that runs counter to Bugliosi ! ☺ ☺
Personally, I think both are truly indispensable books even though I think their major conclusions are full of holes. For me, it's still fascinating that two people who had Charlie's ear for so many years should write books that present such different conclusions about the motives for the murders. Throw in AC Fisher Aldag for a third and it looks positively a case of history repeating itself {the original killers....}

there is too much smoke for there to not be a fire when it comes to the copycat motive

Now I understand why certain men on the run would set forests alight in order to help with their escape....

David said...

I have found a couple of sources (not particularly reliable) that suggest Hinman had access to or dealt mescaline (to friends) but that is a pretty 'buyer beware' drug from my experience so I'm not sure how that could lead to a 'drug deal gone wrong'

Ed Sanders is a source in his book. He even claims that a husband and wife team were his partners in making mescaline and names the husband as 'Eric.'
One of a number of marks against Bobby's tale is the notion of a drug deal gone wrong. In 1969 mescaline was not illegal. To the Native American Indian church, peyote still isn't.

Copy cat: my problem with this theory is Jay Sebring

I think there are quite a few things wrong with the copycat motive.

CarolMR said...

Witold looks pretty good for an 85-year-old man

I'm not so sure I'd want to go beyond his face to put that to the test !
He does look pretty vibrant and photograph well though.

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

Very interesting George and great pics!

Unknown said...

Dont know how this post got diverted off into Bobby B land but ive always believed Schrecks assertion that Voyteks call to Witold was for backup to help deal with a pissed off Tex, ive always believed the phone lines were cut on the way out

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Saint,

Why did you delete a great comment? I hope your interest doesn't wane. I love your posts and comments. If the deleted post was directed at me please understand from my point of view a buddy having a connection is not a 'dealer'....he's a friend. There is no solid evidence that says Gary Hinman was a drug dealer, just unreliable sources.

'Dave 1971',

The evidence overwhelmingly says that HS was the motive- where is Simon when I need him- because about 20+/- witnesses say it was, including Manson. It just upsets you to think these people were butchered' because a bunch of dope rattled sociopaths actually believed....... a fairly tale...and murdered people because they believed in a hole in the desert. That is why there is any discussion about other motives: We believe 'that can't be why these people were killed'. By contrast the belief Bugliosi coached all those witnesses to lie is utterly absurd.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

So Dave1971,

Bugliosi didn't get anyone to lie he....."threatened, coerced, bullied and generally used the girls crazy behavoir to get a conviction" and so .....

Kasabian, Jakobson, Poston, Watkins, etc., etc. were coerced, bullied and 'generally used' to what? Lie? Where did all that testimony come from? The Outer Limits? Where did Manson's own comments come from?

And, by the way, the moment...that split second when Manson climbed into the car on night #2....he walked himself into the gas chamber. It didn't matter if it was Bugliosi or Joe Schmo.

Nothing else mattered to his case- not denial of his right to represent himself, not Kasabian's inaccurate drama, not his politics, not drug burns or copycat motives- nothing put him precisely where he is today and where he should remain except the moment when he walked his ass out of the saloon and climbed into that car on August 9, 1969.

And that singular event proves everything else.

David said...

Why else would he go?

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Manson Mythos said...

Grim - Mescaline might have been legal. But do you think you could simply go to LE and report a burn? Was there a bill of sales? Cops in '69 were not your friends if you were in the counter culture and needless to say, if you were involved with a 1% biker gang and others, all dealing dope...you would seek legal help? You would put everyone on the radar of LE?

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cielodrivecom said...

"Thats why Rosemary was found with a dress on OVER her nightgown and the car was found on the street with the boat stll attached, Leno never would have left the car in the street no matter how late and tired, he would have at least pulled into the driveway, Tex took Rosemary somewhere and killed ger when they got back"

And Bugliosi is the one telling fairy tales?

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

What in what i said besides the Tex leaving with Rosemary part is wrong or not factual?

"That's why..."
Your "that's why" makes what you said back there a whole different ball game.

you have absolutely no way of knowing what Charlies motives were in going along in the car on the second night

Based on that logic we have no way of knowing anything outside of our own minds.
However, human societies don't function that way because we have shared meanings through thoughts, pictures, words, sounds and actions so actually you can often reach a conclusion about why a person embarked on a particular course of action or what they mean by something that to others is rather cryptic. Leslie Van Houten, Susan Atkins, Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian all made the point that Charlie was the one that decided they were going out again on the second night, they all said he said that he was going to show them how to do it as they'd made a mess of it the night before. And would you believe, in a Rolling Stone interview in 2013 he was still saying that they'd made a mess of that night at Cielo. In an eloquent soliloquy, he intones "The second night went better, because I had a hand in it. In the situation, not the murders. No, man, I wasn't there for that. But, oh, they made a mess of it the first night. If I'd been there, it would have been a much better scene. I feel I should have did it. I'd have did it right. There's no doubt in my mind."
I've long felt and still do, that if events had stopped at Cielo, he'd have some case for decrying HS but LaBianca night sinks him good and proper. If you put together all the evidence that actually convicted him and put it together with what so many have subsequently said, including Charlie in 1970, then you will always have a hard job distancing him from HS and as such, can only resort to calling it bullshit. I hear a lot of folk say it's bullshit. No one that says it ever examines it and says precisely why it's bullshit. Charlie's friends knew how to interpret Charliespeak.


unlike Cielo no testimony has ever been given that Charlie instructed anyone to kill anybody at Waverly

And I'll say it again, Charlie's friends knew how to interpret Charliespeak. When Charlie said to Bobby "You know what to do" he knew Charlie well enough to interpret that as "Hinman can't be allowed to go to the cops and there's only one way on earth to guarantee that." When Charlie told the women to go with Tex and do whatever he said, and Tex told them they were going to kill, they interpreted that as "this is from Charlie" as he knew they would. And so on and so forth. So explicit instructions weren't necessary, same way when I want my son to do his chores and clean the toilet, I might say something like "Sooner or later, someone will invent the self cleaning loo...." He knows exactly what I mean and off he goes to clean it. I don't have to say it explicitly.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

Mescaline might have been legal. But do you think you could simply go to LE and report a burn?

It's not a matter of "might have been legal." It was as legal as beer or wine or cigarettes or snuff. No one would describe selling 1000 aspirin to the Straight Satans as "a drug deal." Bobby's house falls down, or let's be generous and say "is severely weakened" at this first hurdle. Much of his raison d'etre is built on the foundation of a drug deal, which by the very nature of the term denotes illegality. All of Bobby's explanations of his actions are couched in his desire to have us acknowledge that his hands were tied because he was involved in an illegal transaction.
But he wasn't.
That somewhat changes the backdrop because it causes one to think that he's come up with this story, assuming that that we all, like him when he came up with it, will assume that mescaline was illegal. The funky thing is that it was illegal when he came up with the story but not during the time the story is set.

David said...

Congratulations Dave 1971 you are the proud recipient of the first Brothers Grimm (Traveler) Award and are now eligible to advance to the bonus round and a chance to earn 10,000 points. Here is the bonus round question:

Since Buglioli created the Helter Skelter motive and first presented that fairytale at trial to wrongfully convict Manson to protect Hollywood's elite how was he able to convince Leslie Van Houten before the trial started that the motive for the murders was Helter Skelter? (Cue the Final Jeopardy music)

PS: Bugliosi submitted felony murder to the jury through the jury instructions.

St Circumstance said...

Dave I have no issues ever with anything you say or write. I meant more that I'm waning on interest in defending the memories of the dead than the subject itself.

Plus I don't want to take away from George's post by arguing with anyone.

I just don't think it's fair to keep accusing someone of something with no real
Proof who is no longer around to defend himself. Maybe it's just me.

Bobby and the others viciously snuffed the life out of a guy who gave them friendship and help. It is what it is.

To me it's shameless to try to put any blame on Gary or try to make excuses for what they did to him.

But I really don't care that much any more. I can't change anyone's mind any more than anyone is going to change mine.

What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. All we can do is chose which side of the line we want to be on...

😉

Matt said...

Saint, I can't speak for anyone else but my interest in Hinman (or any victim) is in no way to convince anyone that he shares in the blame for his own demise. My interest centers around trying to understand why it happened.

As an example, in the police reports there are facts about victims (like the LaBiancas)that are less than flattering. However the police were merely collecting facts that might shed light on who might have wanted to kill them. It's what the police do. It's also what we do as investigative bloggers.


David said...

Saint said,

"I just don't think it's fair to keep accusing someone of something with no real Proof who is no longer around to defend himself. Maybe it's just me."

It's not just you.

St Circumstance said...

My last thought on the subject would be that in the years I have been reading , watching, listening, I have never seen any actual
Proof that Gary dealt drugs. It never came up at trial at all even though they asked his friends about every other potential rumor including his sexuality. But nothing about drugs.

So to use rumors at second hand stories to find any reason it was ok he got killed is unfair.

Also. Would it really matter anyway??

He was a friend to them and had helped them. They went to his house and tortured him.

It is plain and simple. People will find any reason to excuse certain peoples actions. Nothing is off limits. No memory of any person is safe in the attempt to justify anything this group of troublemaking convicts did.

I am so unsure of the motives for TLB. I'm absolutely positive that it will never be proven that Gary sold drugs.

Wasn't there going to be a SS video we were told about with an interview that would prove the drug thing? Whatever happened to that? Not even on their website last time I looked.

Just my opinions but Gary deserves better than to have his life written off as unimportant because he did something nobody can show for sure he did.

In my opinion when people bring up the drug thing with Gary it is to make the crime a little less bad because in some way he wasn't as solid a person.

To me that's dirty baseball.

Thanks for the chance to express myself. I'm traveling today and out.

Peace

cielodrivecom said...

"What in what i said besides the Tex leaving with Rosemary part is wrong or not factual?"

Tex leaving with Rosemary is the only thing that matters there. You don't see it an issue to conflate a few facts and then create an elaborate narrative off of it?

Manson Mythos said...

Drugs came up during Bruce Davis' trial:

GEORGE DENNY: They got some of their mescaline from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I believe so, yes
GEORGE DENNY: And you got some of it for the Family from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't recall ever --Gary Hinman turning over any mescaline to me.
GEORGE DENNY: But you used that which had been gotten from him; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: Yes.
GEORGE DENNY: He manufactured it for the Family and others; isn't that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't know if he manufactured it.

Bugliosi said in 2009 that Hinman was a source of drugs for The Family and no, I'm not blindly cherry picking facts, which I know somebody will claim since I don't believe most of what Bugliosi said. But him to say anything that reflects poorly on a victim (not that I think wheeling a dealing a little dope in '69 is "bad"), means he had to know something deeper than hearsay.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
St Circumstance said...

Mythos those quotes are exactly what I'm talking about. She doesn't know. She's spreading second hand rumors.

How do you trash a murdered persons reputation over info such as what you just posted??

Dave. I'm in DC. Visiting White House tomorow. I'll find my notes on an old post I did about Gary and make sure you see the trial testimony I used. I had never Deb it either. They question two guys who knew him pretty well. Lots of questions about lots of stuff. Nobody asked if he sold drugs.

I got my Ex here lol gotta go. I'll be back over weekend when I get home.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
St Circumstance said...

I don't know

I don't recall

I believe so.

That's good enough to say he sold drugs ??

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Manson Mythos said...

Sir Circumstance:

You leave her saying "Yes" and I believe so and the "Yes" again when asked if she used drugs obtained by him. Why would she not just say NO or "not that I know of?" Supposedly, she "knew Gary better than anyone".

You should get a job for CNN.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
St Circumstance said...

I should. I just grilled General Mike Flynn.

I BS you not.

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

But that has nothing to do with the fact your own post says nothing but innuendo.

I gotta go. I'm trying to win ex back and she hates this lol

Manson Mythos said...

Innuendo? Much like what you base everything you think on. You've quoted Ella Jo before when her version of events supported the one you want. But like Maddow, you'll twist the word "yes" in connection to the issue of drug dealing.

The Russians are coming! Silly news stories about Clinton being apart of the Luciferian Order created by Igor had such a major impact on our election. Far more than the endless funds of Clinton backing her, every MSM outlet shilling for her and the support of every drug adled A-list propagandist in Hollywood dancing on stage telling everyone to vote for her. Not to mention every progressive imbecile pulling up dirt on her because Bernie was their boy. Then they had to convince the public to go for her after months of smearing her.



cielodrivecom said...

Dave, I'm not sure everything needs to be explained or even make sense. Regarding Rosemary not being tied up. They did mention that she went and got them a small box of change. Seems a likely time for her to be untied. But who knows? I have no idea about the dress. Remind me, what's the significance of the car/boat parked on the street?

grimtraveller said...

On the 31-7-69 autopsy report are written the following words:
Decedent was a known user of LSD, Mescaline and piote [peyote]. He joined a society to help him kick the drug habit.

George Stimson was asked last year to ask Sandra Good if she could shed any light on Gary Hinman and drugs and he reported back that she remembered dope smoking going on in his house but never saw him selling or manufacturing or words to that effect.
That he may have manufactured mescaline is one of those matters for which there is no proof. You'd think that one person would have been found that said yes, this guy did sell and I bought from him. And I mean one person outside of the Family, who, let's face it, had a vested interest in labelling Gary the way they did. As a side note, it's only as the copycat motive gained legs among the family that the support structure of Gary and the mescaline deal emerges, hence the stuff from Bruce's trial. Make of that what you will.
The cops weren't looking to bust users when it came to this case. The known sellers and users that came to light during the Cielo investigation weren't being hounded for their proclivities. Earl Deemer specifically told one of the drug dealing suspects that he wasn't interested in doing that otherwise half of Hollywood would be in jail or words to that effect.
Yes Bugliosi stated in 2009 that Gary used to furnish the Family with drugs. But equally significantly made absolutely no connection between that and his death. He mentioned it to establish the link with the Family as it was the first murder {I don't think Crowe is mentioned in the doc} and Gary Hinman, liked Steven Parent, wasn't and still isn't exactly a household name.
It can't be stressed highly enough that while LSD had been made illegal in 1966, the same was not true of mescaline and it was legal at the time of Hinman's death. So even if he made and sold it, it's not really any different to him making and selling wine.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

Gary Hinman, liked Steven Parent,

That should be "like Steven Parent."

Dave1971 said...

Ive always wondered why some people into the TLB case think that just because you mention true proven facts about the victims that don't portray them as saints is trashing their reputations

Because in many instances, it is. It's often thrown in by those that want to defend the drug deal motive. Irving Kanarek did that during the trial, more or less stating that these murders wouldn't have happened had some of the victims not been involved in some sort of narcotic activity, while totally ignoring the LaBiancas who had nothing to do with drugs. But then Shreck comes along and presents Rosemary LaBianca as the acid queen.
Yes, each of the victims engaged in, at the very least, questionable behaviour. As do you and President Trump and Paul McCartney and Sheila Ferguson and Michael Jackson and Reggie Cuz and every member of the human race at some point. If the papers wanted to smear even a clean living nun, they could because none of us are that way 24/7. It's a given.
So then, why mention it in a case where there is this bizarre desire to deflect attention away from murderers and more importantly, conspirators ?
In any case, none of the victims reputations have been trashed in an upfront way. It's more often been subtle, unpicking by the back door. A little word here, a little doubt sown there. But nearly 50 years on, we see the results of it.
However, I'm in agreement with Matt when he says
"My interest in Hinman (or any victim) is in no way to convince anyone that he shares in the blame for his own demise. My interest centers around trying to understand why it happened.

As an example, in the police reports there are facts about victims (like the LaBiancas)that are less than flattering. However the police were merely collecting facts that might shed light on who might have wanted to kill them. It's what the police do. It's also what we do as investigative bloggers."

It's not so much what is written about the victims, which is often factual, it's the context into which the facts are put and the subsequent spin that acts as the trasher.

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

If your saying there's no proof of Gary having a lab which personally i don't believe he did but if you're saying that the hearsay of family members isn't enough proof of his lab then why do you accept other hearsay statements from family members about the murders?

Primarily because of when various statements occurred and the situation that existed when they occurred.
I don't state Gary Hinman didn't make mescaline and sell a bit. We know from information from his friends on his autopsy that he was both a user of psychedelics and was trying to get off them. Remember, this was a week before Bobby had even run off, much less been arrested and charged with murder. There's just no proof that he did make and sell. But I don't discount the possibility at all. Particularly because he wasn't doing anything against the law in doing so if he was doing so. Same way Owsley wasn't doing anything illegal when he first started manufacturing acid tabs before LSD was made illegal.
Look at when the Family members first mention the copycat motive. It's into the penalty phase of the trial when they've been found guilty ! Aaron Stovitz has already had it in print for months. But no one from the Family comes forward with it. Atkins & Van Houten had already copped to the killings and implicated everyone else involved so they had nothing to lose by saying it was the copycat. But what do they say ? HS. That alone casts doubt on the copycat.
The timing of the Hinman story is similar. When does it first come out ? Not in 2 Beausoleil trials. Even Decarlo doesn't mention it. It appears after the copycat and the copycat was originally put forth by the Family to put the hat on Linda Kasabian as the mastermind of the murders. The entire Hinman saga sounds like a jazz improvisation, made up as they went along. But it's a weak improvisation and as such, can't dislodge the drug angle, which, if the copycat were solid, would have done so.
Don't ignore this; when Bobby first mentions the tale, mescaline was illegal. But he doesn't come up with this in 1969 when it wasn't.

starviego said...

"Dave1971 said...
Which edition? The 2002 edition pg 343 talks about Bobbys second trial"

1971 First Edition

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


On the "Bad Drugs" theory re the Hinman murder:


No mescaline found. No $1000 found.

No Straight Satans ever confirmed that 'bad mescaline' was at their party.

Atkins and Brunner never heard any talk of any bad drugs during their two days on site.

No attempt by Beausoleil to give the Satans the two vehicles stolen from Hinman.


Conclusion: The 'bad drugs' theory is kaput!

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

No Straight Satans ever confirmed that 'bad mescaline' was at their party

Bobby says that he took delivery of the drugs on Friday evening and spent only 24 or so hours at Gary's after the deal went wrong. Which means he would have been there by Saturday evening. Some immediate questions come to mind. Firstly, when was the Satan's party ? When did the Satans realize the stuff was bad ? Given that mescaline trips are anything from 8 to 16 hours, when did they come up to Spahn to rough Bobby up and how sick could they have been if they were fit enough to come and threaten him ? And how, between Friday and Saturday night could Gary spend $1000 because Bobby said he checked Gary's checkbook and could see he had no money which is how he claims they decided on the signing over of the 2 vehicles {even though Gary had sold the VW bus to Glen Krell and had received about $200 for it out of the $700 he asked for it}.
The police had a pretty thorough rundown on Gary's finances {such as having to borrow $1000+ from his Dad}.
The more one examines Bobby's story, the more holes one may find.

starviego said...


grimtraveller said...
Firstly, when was the Satan's party?

I doubt there was ever any 'party.'

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

"No attempt by Beausoleil to give the Satans the two vehicles stolen from Hinman."

What would the Straight Satan's reaction had been when they found the two vehicles given over to them belonged to a murder victim, resulting in severe police harassment of the entire club? Bobby's whole story is ridiculous on the surface.

Chris Till said...

As much as I'd prefer to comment on the fine Witold K. post, can any California lawyers confirm the California state legal status of mescaline in 1969? Googling seems to confirm that the Feds did not ban it until 1970, but state law may well have been different, especially considering the 20th century persecution of the Native American Church's use of peyote (mescaline's parent cactus) by western states. Consulting my 1969 edition of Dr. Weston La Barre's classic "The Peyote Cult," page 224 confirms California's banning of peyote as of at least 1957 "under a California law which classes peyote with heroin and marijuana as a banned drug." Page 236 of same book states that California's Fourth Appellate District, circa 1964, affirmed state ban on peyote as "threat to public safety" and as safeguard against access to the medicine by ""that segment of our society whose conduct persistently reflects the bizarre.""

David said...

Chris Till,

I can't specifically answer your question and I'm not a 'California' lawyer but a little research makes this whole thing, to me, extremely questionable.

Peyote is the name of the cactus (Lophophora williams ii). The hallucinogen, mescaline (3, 4, 5-trimethoxyphenethylamine) is the principal active ingredient in peyote.

That would lead me to conclude 'mescaline' was illegal in 1969 as the place to 'get' it is peyote.

Now, other cacti do also contain mescaline and it can be created in a lab 'from scratch' but that would require a pretty extensive lab set up and is not cost effective- from what I have read.

In fact, the whole 'concept' that Gary Hinman was a 'mescaline dealer' is sort of 'illogical' on its face. It would be far more logical that he would have 'dealt' peyote if he was a drug dealer at all, which there is no proof he was. From what I have read why bother even extracting the mescaline from the peyote- it would be adding unnecessary time, effort and expense- you eat peyote and 30 minutes later 'boom'.

It also doesn't make sense to me that a group of bikers could get upset if they received 'bad mescaline'. Peyote is a natural 'emetic' meaning it can cause severe vomiting- according to sources. It seems that makes it sort of 'buyer beware'.

Now apparently a lot of unscrupulous dealers did try to pass off other drugs as 'mescaline' because the 'high/trip' from mescaline was preferred by some and viewed as 'natural' but from what I saw you would have to be a dim-wit to fall for the 'fake' and not just say- 'ah, give me the shrooms'.

starviego said...

"It also doesn't make sense to me that a group of bikers could get upset if they received 'bad mescaline'."

I tried it once. It was a rough ride. Like sticking my fingers in an electrical socket for hour hours. Ouch.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Manson Mythos said...

Bobby said the party was the 10th Anniversary of the club and 1969 was in fact their 10th anniversary. A fact very few people knew till recently.

DeCarlo and the SS were suspects in Hinman murder in early October. Before any of them talked to the cops. After they found Hinman's Microbus, DeCarlo was named as a suspect and the police set out to find him before Kitty appeared on the scene (oddly, as we learned from Al Springer he already knew she was going to do that). Which leads me to believe they knew the heat was coming on her and had her establish a bunk story they would corroborate.

Bugliosi never mentioned it in HS that DeCarlo was a suspect in Hinman.

During Beausoleil's first trial, Sgt. Paul Whiteley, head of the Hinman investigation said on the stand:

THE WITNESS: "He had nothing to do with this car, as far as I know. In other words, I originally received information fourth hand that Daniel Decarlo had possibly been in possession of a Volkswagen bus at some time. Just about the time that I received this information, I was called to Independence, California, where I talked to other witnesses who told me that Daniel Decarlo had nothing to do with the car; that it was another person, and I just completely dropped him at that time"
THE COURT: But it subsequently revealed that he actually did have something to do with it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

But I guess DeCarlo's name coming up in connection to the Bus is simply nothing, right?

Mary Brunner placed Bill Vance at the scene of the Hinman murder and her original take was Hinman didn't want to join Manson's pop band.....so many different stories were given for Hinman. SHE put Charlie at the heart of the motive, so obviously that nonsense wasn't an attempt to reveal him of guilt or cover up some plot of his to rob Hinman. So many different motives given means one thing: the real motive was something nobody wanted to be known.

I was also told that a picture of the Straight Satans partying in front of Hinman's bus has been discovered and will be revealed sometime in the near future.

starviego said...

"DeCarlo and the SS were suspects in Hinman murder in early October. Before any of them talked to the cops."

Source? All Sgt. Paul Whiteley said was that DeCarlo had perhaps been seen with 'a' VW microbus. That's a long way from making him a suspect.

starviego said...

"Mary Brunner placed Bill Vance at the scene of the Hinman murder.."

Source? I thought Vance and Ella Jo had left the ranch soon after the Hinman murder.

Manson Mythos said...

In her police interview she said it was Bill Vance, not Bruce Davis who showed up to the Hinman residence with Charlie. It's possible for all we know, that he DID. But since he was never charged, everyone has kept his name out of it.

This would also explain why Ella Jo Baily the term "The lady doth protest too much" when it comes to how squeaky clean Bill Vance was. As if she had a double agenda of absolving him of any guilt, even if he didn't have anything to do with it.

But Bill wasn't the type to shun the idea of going on on "capers", because the guy was a kleptomaniac with a wrap sheet a mile long, more fake names than anyone and it's known he was pulling off robberies with Charlie and played perhaps a bigger role than he in the auto theft ring.

That is why I fully believe he was involved with Shorty Shea thing.

Chris Till said...

David,
Thank you for your comments.
Regarding your statement, "From what I have read why bother even extracting the mescaline from the peyote- it would be adding unnecessary time, effort and expense- you eat peyote and 30 minutes later 'boom'."
My understanding from talking to two peyote eaters is that, first, peyote tastes very bad. Second, one must eat a lot of it to get super high. Third, it is bulky. Fourth, it can easily make one vomit. On the other hand, manufactured mescaline is in a pill; does not taste bad; and is tiny. Just like synthesized LSD (by pill or liquid) is more popular than eating a large pile of Heavenly Blue morning glory seeds. And taking synthesized DMT (by pill or powder) is more popular than drinking a foul-tasting ayahuasca brew.
As far as it being economically advantageous to deal peyote rather than mescaline, first, again, peyote is bulky. Dealing it involves transporting bulky suitcases of cactus heads. Plus, though it grows wild on the south bank of the Rio Grande, it's a hassle, and folks down there are protective of their magic peyote. On the other hand, mescaline, again, is small, easy to transport, much more profitable per weight and size. Dealing it involves small baggies. (A late family friend once got out of dealing cannabis, as it was so darn bulky and stinky, for the ease of cc, as it is small and relatively scentless. Much more profitable per weight/volume and easier to transport.)
I'd have to consult the Erowid vaults to remind myself on how complex mescaline manufacture is.
Peace

David said...

Chris,

I did about 30 minutes of research on line this morning because I had some recollection from my youth that the two were somewhat interchangeable. If you have first hand information from 'peyote eaters' you are light years ahead of me.

starviego said...

Does anybody know if Bill Vance was even interviewed? I have come across no interview anywhere.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Matt said...

Very Strange. When I woke up this morning there was an article on CNN about Samantha Geimer going to court to ask a judge to drop the case against Polanski. It was a big headline at the top with a photo. Now it's not only not there but I cannot find it on cnn.com at all.


cielodrivecom said...

This one? Roman Polanski's victim asks judge to drop case

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shorty's pistols said...

Bill Vance? A actual live for real criminal.

Apparently his TN was William Rex Cole. Another alias used by him was David Lee Hamic. He used as many psuedonyms as he had convictions. Duane, Bill, & Buck, Vance is another.
William Joseph Vansickle
Also
Billy Schwarm

Cole would use many phony names and change the surnames, interchanging things. Cole apparently served time under some of his aliases

I doubt Cole was the boxing champ at Brushy Mountain Prison. But he did box at some point. That is a boxer's nose if there ever was one.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grimtraveller said...

Chris Till said...

Googling seems to confirm that the Feds did not ban it until 1970, but state law may well have been different

It would appear that I've been wrong about this. Sometime last year, I did find some stuff { I think I linked to it in a post but I can't recall where} that stated that mescaline didn't become illegal until 1970.
At the time, I wasn't actually thinking about legality as I assumed that it was illegal. I was actually looking for information on whether mescaline could go 'bad' {and how} as Bobby claimed or whether it could be cut with strychnine as he also claimed the Satans told him it was {although how they'd know is beyond me}. As you do, when you're researching, you come across all kinds of information that you weren't necessarily looking for but which is nonetheless pertinent.

Unknown said...

i've always believed Schrecks assertion that Voyteks call to Witold was for backup to help deal with a pissed off Tex

How would that work ? How would he have got to the phone ? And said all these things with Tex standing there ?

i've always believed the phone lines were cut on the way out

If everyone was dead, what would be the point of that ? And wouldn't there have been blood on the pole ?

Dave1971 said...

Anything counter to Bugliosi's bullshit HS motive is better than that fairy tale

Anything ?
Even if it's demonstrably untrue ?

grimtraveller said...


Dave1971 said...

It always makes me laugh when people scoff at the drug angle of TLB

It depends what you mean by the drug angle. There is an obvious and very prevalent drug angle in the same way that there is a drug angle in the Beatles songs from "She's a woman" onwards yet the argument is a lot more nuanced than that.
The doped up killers drugginess was connected with the mindset that brought them to the tipping point. But that doesn't make the murders "about drugs," despite Paul Fitzgerald's observation that these were the first of the LSD murders.

you've got doped up killers, doped up victims, drugs in the house, drugs in the cars, drugs in the toxicity reports, official homicide report statements of Harrigan meeting with Voytek the day before the murders for 2 hours to discuss MDA delivery, reports of Voytek on " a 10 day mescaline experiment"

Was it not an MDA experiment ?
In any event, all of that is true of Cielo. But what of Waverly where none of that applied ?

Joel Rostau delivering drugs the night of the murders

Which, when questioned about it, admitted it wasn't true and that he was trying to impress his woman.

yet somehow its about the hole in the desert lol, ok Vince

Charlie at his own trial spoke about the hole in the desert. As far as he was concerned, it was real. And when you have someone like Gregg Jacobson saying "He used to say he needed money to go to the desert, he needed supplies, he wanted ropes to go down into these holes in the desert. He really believed there was an underground people living out there. That was Charlie's dream – to go underground, really live underground, to wait for the revolution.
He believed there would be an open revolution in the streets, the black man against the white man. He said the only people who survive will be the ones who get out of here and go into the desert. He said the black man doesn't want to go out in the desert in the hot sun; that's where he's been all of his life. He wants to be in the shade, in the city. He believed he would be continuing the race out there, because most of the race would die, as in Revelations 9.
And he believed that the Beatles were the spokesmen; Helter Skelter became a symbol. He believed they were singing about the same thing he already knew about. He believed they were all tuned in together."
then you simply can't pin it all on Vincent.

Manson Mythos said...

@Joel Rostau delivering drugs the night of the murders

Which, when questioned about it, admitted it wasn't true and that he was trying to impress his woman.

Because a dope dealer with prior convictions and a pending trial would totally be honest about being at the site of a bloodbath hours before it happened.

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

i think he threatened, coerced, bullied and generally used the girls crazy behavoir to get a conviction

How in the world can you say he used the girls behaviour to get a conviction ? He really didn't have to ! As for bullying, threatening and coercing, the choice was simple. Certain people had information necessary to form a case that a jury could judge. How many people have come forward since then and said "actually, I lied and said what Bugliosi told me to" ?

Vince's objective wasn't to find the truth but to convince 12 people to convict Charlie and the gang and it worked

Although Simon Davis disagrees to some extent,I can't see that it was a foregone conclusion by any means. The original 4 defendants all pled not guilty. So a case had to be put in order to counter that. Few doubters seem to focus on the fact that the defendants themselves were the ones lying, both in word and deed.
Also, with Bugliosi, much of the reason he kept going on about it being the crime of the century was precisely because the truth of why it happened was so important and central to his case. As David has articulated it so well, the importance of HS is less as motive and more as the conspiracy.

With the exception of Charlie he got the right people but he also let a key contributor go scot free for her testimony

With the exception of Charlie he got the right people yet those right people in the days when they were all for him all fingered him as being the wheel on which those murders turned.
Tate/LaBianca is a cornucopia of circumstantial evidence pointing in one direction.

my contention has always been that TLB isnt a Whodunnit but a Whydunnit

Actually, in many ways, it's both.
I remember years ago seeing Paul Fitzgerald calling it a whydunnit. I thought that was pretty catchy.

Manson Mythos said...

Just listen to what Harold True said of Bugliosi.

starviego said...

"Manson Mythos said...
Just listen to what Harold True said of Bugliosi."

What did True say of Bugs?

Manson Mythos said...

That he was the scum of the earth who told him he knew he was "in on it" and had him thrown in jail.

Shorty's pistols said...

Geez, MM. What happened to that knockout, thrilling game changer... The SS documentary. You know, all that many years old testimony from old bikers that stands this case (and Helter Skelter) on it's ear?

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

Because a dope dealer with prior convictions and a pending trial would totally be honest about being at the site of a bloodbath hours before it happened

Who can tell ? But the clue is in your last sentence ~ "hours before it happened." He had an alibi for the times of the murders so what had he to lose ? He wasn't incriminating himself in murder if he had been there and admitted it. According to the Tate Police report it was his girlfriend that told the Police he'd been there. She could afford to do that because she knew he wasn't there at the time of the murders.
What it all goes to demonstrate is that in the early days of the investigation, Police thought it was a directly drug related crime and went full tilt boogie down that avenue.
Thinking about it, there was quite a bit of interaction with drug dealers during the investigation ~ how many were ever brought to book for anything they revealed to the Police about their drug dealing ? Like Deemer said, they weren't interested in that.

Dave1971 said...

You honestly believe he didn't use Linda's kid against her?

Yeah, I honestly believe he didn't. He didn't have to. Had Linda gone down for murder, she had her mum to look after her kid[s]. Mary's child had already been in the system, and this long before the murders, and was safe with her mum in Wisconsin. Susan had no one to look after her son. Her dad didn't want to know, her older brother whom she says sexually abused her was in the Navy and her younger brother was only 16 or 17 and couldn't.
If anyone used the women's kids against them, it was Charlie.

Have you read the stories about Vinces behavoir in general?

Yes. Most of them during the investigation are vague, unelaborate and unsubstantiated. Harold True said that Bugliosi threatened him with a conspiracy charge even though it was Aaron Stovitz that interviewed him. Unfortunately, he never really elaborated on this other than to say he had a good lawyer when, 20 years later he was asked how he extricated himself from this threat.

Jakobsen had people in the business to protect by getting Charlie put away

Such as ? And how did he get Charlie put away ? How could he have guaranteed such a happening ?

Dennis Wilson has been quoted as saying he knew Charlie was innocent and the "family" bullshit was wrong

Dennis Wilson was something of a trainwreck. How could he know the exactitudes of Charlie's guilt or innocence and why, if did know this, did he not come out to bat for innocent Charlie during his trial ?
Also interesting is that the Family was referred to as a family back in that group marriage study that Dr Smith did did back in 1968.

Dennis Hopper put it perfectly when he said that Cielo was known as a place where a lot of weird shit went down whether it be sex or drugs

He reminds me of the Polish countess that said she was meant to be at Cielo that night.
When he said there was a lot of weird shit going down, exactly who was the host to the shit ? Did he mean Wojiciech ? Roman & Sharon weren't there a long time at all.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

Just listen to what Harold True said of Bugliosi

You yourself have admitted on these very pages that Harold True played something of a double dealing game when it came to Charlie. If there are more, then let me know but I'm aware of two on the record statements of Harold. One is the interview with Aaron Stovitz. The other is that infamous phone interview where he criticizes Bugliosi....and the Family and Charlie {he ascribes the murders to Charlie though he says in general that Charlie was no killer}. He criticizes pretty much everyone he talks about in it. It's actually quite a funny interview.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Manson Mythos said...

First of all...the idea Rostau said he was at the house that not to "impress his GF" is groundless. In fact, he simply denied, according to the homicide report that he was there and no, no alibi. In fact this lead was continued to be looked into.

Rostau denied knowing Sebring and mentioned only meeting him. But Rostau was a dope dealing, Sebring was a user and dealer and his GF working at Sebring International means, they did know each other.

...and even if he wasn't there, for him to say he was with it being no surprise or shock to her, means....he was there before.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

You know, Dave 1971, reducing your arguments to simply insulting others who disagree with you only demonstrates your intellectual shortcomings.

And referring to a woman by the "C" word, regardless of her involvement in these murders and bragging about your abusive behavior towards women has no place here.

I don’t need to read this:

“****she was was crazier than a shit house rat, you cant believe a word that dizzy cunt said about anything” 

Or this:

“Wow, Manson grabbed Pats hair after she laughed at him!!! He must be a mass murderer! Lol man ive launched into the most vicious hurtful verbal attacks on women who have even looked at me the wrong way, does that make me capable of murder?”


No, it makes you an uneducated ass.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
Harold True said that Bugliosi threatened him with a conspiracy charge even though it was Aaron Stovitz that interviewed him.

Was True perhaps involved in some kind of criminal activity with the Family(other than the drug use)?

Chris Till said...

GT: "At the time, I wasn't actually thinking about legality as I assumed that it was illegal. I was actually looking for information on whether mescaline could go 'bad' {and how} as Bobby claimed or whether it could be cut with strychnine as he also claimed the Satans told him it was {although how they'd know is beyond me}."

In that era, there were likely a fair number of amateur would-be chemists who attempted to brew LSD/DMT/psilocybin/mescaline/STP in their bathroom sinks and, in the end, created poison. (Or, in the post-Woodstock parlance: "Don't take the brown acid!") It's also likely that there were only a very few amateur chemists in that era who had the patience, skill and equipment to properly brew such medicines. Besides the celebrated Owsley, other skilled American psychedelic chemists of that era whose names have become public are Nick Sand and Tim Scully. As far as a specific poison batch of mescaline circa July 1969, I have no idea, but it is not unreasonable to assume that there was a fair amount of very poorly manufactured psychedelics in that era.

(By the way, It's my understanding that PCP, which I am told is relatively easy to synthesize, used to be sold as LSD/DMIT/STP/mescaline/psilocybin by unscrupulous dealers. Back then, there was not the extensive literature that there is today on the difference between all the various psychedelics and disassociatives.)

Chris Till said...

misspelling *DMT

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

He clearly says in the interview "oh man Charlies no killer, hes institutionalized, hes five feet two, his mind is a product of the US penal institutions"

He clearly says in the interview some 20 years later "Charlie Manson, where did he go to do the killings ? He went to the 2 places he knew in LA, and 2 places only; He went to my house and he went to Melcher's house because we told him he couldn't live in our house and Terry Melcher told him he couldn't make shit with.....a record album."
So over the years he espoused two different views of Charlie in that dept.

starviego said...

Was True perhaps involved in some kind of criminal activity with the Family /

I've never come across any evidence or even rumours of it. I wouldn't include tripping and getting stoned as criminal activity even though legally it was. Irving Kanarek did say in an interview that Catscradle77 did with him that Harold was Linda Kasabian's drug dealer but I think that's nonsense. He said a number of things in that interview that were factually and demonstrably untrue.

Dave1971 said...

Voyteks near midnight call to Witold was verified by police

I don't dispute it. In fact I believe they spoke around that time. Witold may have been the last person outside of that house that Wojiciech ever spoke to. Doesn't mean he was calling for back up.

Helter Skelter is demonstrably untrue

Well, ♫♪♫ boogie on, ♫♫ ♫♫reggae woman ♫♪♪♪ and lay it♪♪ out♫ ♫ for us.

Ask police on the phone lines, it was one of their theories

Yes it was. They had a number of theories as you'd expect in the immediate aftermath of a crime, especially one like this of such savagery, where a pregnant woman was among the slain and drugs of more than one description had been found.
Come to think of it, purely as a story, one of the fascinating things about the entire saga is that it never lets up. There are no slow or boring moments, at least, not for me. Almost every aspect is rife with some twist or action and part of what makes it so fascinating is just how wrong the police were in the beginning yet at the same time, just how close they were yet threw out major clues such as Bobby Beausoleil and the idea from the cop who recognized the Beatle lyrics from the White album.

You try to read shit into everything everyone in this case said, are you a psychiatrist?

Would you like me to be ?
My rates are pretty reasonable.

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

i think you just like hearing yourself babble bullshit

I certainly don't dislike it !

You try to read shit into everything everyone in this case said, are you a psychiatrist? A homicide investigator?

"Lieutenant Grimm" sounds too much like an unconvincing character from some hack novel from the 50s by James Hadley Chase.
But saying I read things into what people say is a little like saying that rain is wet. Of course I do. That, believe it or not, is what human beings do and last time I barked, I wasn't a giraffe.
Some of what people in this case said can be taken at face value. Some of it must be deciphered. And some of it, if I think it's bull or lies, needs to be placed in its appropriate place. If you don't like my style there's nothing I wish to do about that.
My view is that many of your arguments {such as they are} are weak at best. You litter the road with predictable anti Bugliosi statements rather than try to inform us why those arguments carry strength. It seems to me that you have not yet reached that point of maturity where you can have a passionate discussion/debate/argument with someone that you vehemently disagree with without descending into calling names and snoresville zzzzzz..... Many of my favourite people in TLB land are those I disagree with in huge and major ways. This particular blog is crammed end to end with such folk and because I dig this subject, I look forward to what people have to say.

Stop trying to fuckin play amateur detective and take what these people say at face value

Does that mean "stop trying to play amateur detective and stop taking what these people say at face value" or does that mean "just take what these people say at face value and stop trying to play amateur detective" because you're slightly ambiguous there.
But whatever your answer, mine is simply no.
I happen to enjoy the debate, the discussion, learning new things about the case, modifying what I already think, hearing what different contributors have to say and understanding the different places they're coming from.
It's impossible in any case, for me to take any kind of orders from somebody whose name ends with 9, 7 and 1.

youre the most self important over analyzing person on here

I can't deny that I'm important to myself.
Some regard what I do as over analysing. I prefer to think of it as exploring all the angles with depth in order to see what emerges.

grimtraveller said...

Chris Till said...

In that era, there were likely a fair number of amateur would-be chemists who attempted to brew LSD/DMT/psilocybin/mescaline/STP in their bathroom sinks and, in the end, created poison

Granted. The way Bobby puts it though, is that Gary used to do this regularly enough to know what he was doing. I tend to think that if Gary was making mescaline and he did have these partners, Eric and his wife, that would suggest an outfit unlikely to be making bunk. Not guarantee it, but indicate it. Bobby would have been taking an almighty risk with $1000 of the Satan's money and as he'd known Gary for a couple of years, must have had some inkling into whether Gary could produce decent stuff if he was indeed producing.
I'm thinking out loud here but I'd really love to come across some kind of verification that Gary had some kind of science degree. At Bobby's first trial, Gary's boss said that he hadn't completed his political science degree at UCLA when asked whether he had gone to school. Nothing was said about any actual science degree. Scully and Owsley had at least gone down scientific paths at some stage.

Dave1971 said...

You remind me of that little lap dog who barks in agreement with the bigger dog

♪♪Woof ♪♪♪woofle dee♪dee ♪♪ !

too bad you werent around to fetch Vinces coffee for him

I did love the smell of coffee in those days. Later, I made up for not fetching Vince's coffee for him by fetching my own and then reading his book.
That's conflation !

i think he threatened, coerced, bullied and generally used the girls crazy behavoir

Wouldn't you ?
If you had been told that someone in prison had admitted to being part of the Cielo and Waverly murders and that they had volunteered details that could only be known to one of the killers or someone present there and then you later learned from the same source that this person admitted tasting one of the victim's blood, had been fellating her son and thought it was a great thing to have killed these people, wouldn't you do whatever it took on the right side of the law, if perhaps morally questionable, to get that person, if possible, to testify and get some murderers off the streets for a long time if not ever ?
Perhaps you wouldn't. You wouldn't be alone, either way.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AstroCreep said...

I think Dave1971 is just the Colonel making retarded comments and laughing at the rise he's getting. Brilliant!

The bottom line is this- a jury found these people guilty and they're in jail and will likely remain in jail until their deaths.

The burden of proof for other motives isn't on Helter Skelter. That was proven (whether you like it or not) beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Dave1971- you call Grimm Bugliosi's lap dog. Who's bitch are you?

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AstroCreep said...

So the world according to Dave1971- only 12 jurors bought Bugliosi's Helter Skelter motive that he was selling? Seems to me that the entire world watched the trial events unfold and most, not everyone, seemed completely content with Helter Skelter being the motive. Partially, because the nitwits on the street corner outside of the courthouse helped sell the motive. Americans didn't take to the streets to right the unjust, bully, sociopath DA who framed the poor hippie family living peacefully on some derelict ranch outside of Los Angeles. 48 years later, nobody has come forward with any compelling information. Why? Because it doesn't exist. They're still behind bars.

Your comment about discussing the case here on the blog is about as articulate and thought provoking as your arguments supporting other motives- about 5th grade level at best.

simon davis said...

Hi David, I read that you needed me ! I'm so glad to hear it. And did I hear someone say Helter Skelter ?

It was 32 people, by the end of 1972, from both outside and inside the Family, who spoke or heard things consistent with Manson's prophecy of Helter Skelter being a motive (even if not THE motive) for Helter Skelter. As far as I can tell, everyone that Charlie met from, say, 1 Aug. '69 heard from Charlie about HS coming down. Tex too - he was telling everyone, and the girls were too. People from all walks of life got earfuls of HS from the Family - journos, academics, Grand Jurors, police, fellow inmates, lawyers, ex-girlfriends, doctors etc. It is beyond all doubt that HS was a motive, albeit probably in a limited sense in that it was Charlie's means of working up his acolytes into a lather of violence. I doubt that Charlie himself actually believed in it, or all of it. This is partly borrowed from things VB has said over the years, but I have come to the same view independently of him.

Hi Grim, you remembered my name too, therefore I'm a happy little Vegemite. L/pool recently here and predictably thrashed out best team ! But if you like L/pool, then I like L/pool !

Book soon ! Have opened a public facebook page - www.facebook.com/Simondavisauthor. Nothing much to talk about yet I suppose. Anyway I was told I should open a FB page and I always do what I am told.

The jury - 12 morons ? - but what about the judge and the appeal judges. They were clever weren't they ?

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

Bobby didnt know Hinman for a couple of years, he was living in San Francisco in 67

From Bobby's 2010 parole hearing:

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: Well, how did you know Hinman?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I knew him casually for a couple of years. He was part of the group that, you know, socialized together. He had been, you know, part of, you know, Charlie's commune for a little time, a little while. He was living in his own home at the time that he was murdered. But he was known in that area, in the Topanga Canyon area, and I had lived there for a time.


From John Gilmour's "The Garbage People" from 1971: "Next stop for Bobby was the offered sanctuary of the basement of Gary Hinman's house in Topanga canyon....A week or so of freeloading at Hinman's and then Bobby bummed his way down the canyon and wound up at a house in Malibu." Later on the page Bobby says "three, maybe four days or so, and a few of these girls came around with this little guy who's Charlie Manson. One of the girls with this Manson is a girl I was sleeping with up at Hinman's.....the girls had told him about Gary Hinman kicking me out and Charlie wanted me to come along with him since they were going on the road with a lot of girls..."
Make of that what you choose, 1971.

do a study of 100 seasoned homicide investigators or criminologists who have never heard of the case and ask them what they think of "Helter Skelter" as a motive

What 100 seasoned criminologists and investigators think of HS as a motive is largely irrelevant. I'm well aware that few people give it any credence. I happen to.
By the way, I have no interest in persuading you or anyone else that it was viable. I do however, enjoy discussing it and most discussions need at least two divergent points of view.

Then dont fuckin read it

I most certainly will read it. Even you are going to make some food provoking points with weak arguments {such as they are}.

you sound like a millenial snowflake who thinks anything they disagree with or hurts their feelings should be censored

Millenial Snowflake ? Sounds like one of those late 60s bands that morphed from psychedelia into nascent progressive rock but couldn't drop the acid or the songs about terminal moraine.....
You can't hurt my feelings mate. But you can continue to embarrass yourself publicly.
Knock yourself out.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cielodrivecom said...

Pretty condescending Dave. Those jurors gave almost entire year of their lives to this case. Someone is a moron here and I'm positive it's not them

David said...

Thank you Simon, I knew you could give us that number.

He's right, Grim, the 'millennial snowflake' comment was aimed at me.

I had to walk down and ask my 30 something associate what a 'snowflake' was- since I'm far from a 'millennial'- and was advised it is an alt-right term over here for people to take offense to women being called the "C" word in casual conversation and/or object to misogynists. Like me.

I was then directed to something called the 'Urban Dictionary' and found this definition http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Snowflake:

"Referring to someone, usually the Alt-Right, Yiannopoulos, And Nazi Sympathizers (A.K.A. ARYANS), whose immense white fragility causes a meltdown when confronted with the most minute deviation from orthodox White Supremacy. They often cry bloody murder when expected to give the most modest expression of basic human decency.

The ARYANS have attempted to hijack this term to use against progressives and those opposing Fascism. It failed ultimately, because nobody was foolish enough to believe anti-Fascist resisters to be, by any stretch of the imagination, comparable to the snowflakery of the ARYANs and their cheeto-dusted Fuhrer.

"But the ARYANS succeeded in poisoning the well on calling people "snowflakes," when it became widely understood that they were using it as a euphemism for the human ashes falling in Nazi Germany when they were burning people. This revelation became particularly useful for decoding the ARYAN tendency of referring to snowflakes as a "Generation.""

Although, I like "Sounds like one of those late 60s bands that morphed from psychedelia into nascent progressive rock but couldn't drop the acid or the songs about terminal moraine."


simon davis said...

Whoa Dave ! Just one question. We'll both get in big trouble if we embark on a huge roller coaster of to and fro about HS. Everyone groans when I start banging on about it LOL !

Now your question : why did it stop? Good question, with respect. Curiously, it is a question that has been seldom asked. The answer is at Tex Watson's book at page 151. If you don't have the book, i'll cut and paste it for you. Let me know.

Now, one question for you. A serious question. Not being sarcastic. No sub-text. Not trying to make a point. Genuinely interested because I'm about to publish a book about these events and don't want to make a fool of myself. The question is: what would it matter if there was no explanation for why HS stopped after LaBianca ? Genuinely would like to hear people's thoughts, if you're interested.

grimtraveller said...

grimtraveller said...

some food provoking points

Thought provoking, even. Now, was that a Freudian slip ?

Dave1971 said...

In the US we gave this little document called the constitution that guarantees us certain rights or at least it should but people like you and "Booga Lucy" seem to think its just paper to wipe your ass with

You mean the constitution that Charlie threw in the bin in court ?
Oh yeah.
In your spare time, you could do worse than to read this. You may find that, as the article states, "it is constitutionally permissible for police to play on a suspect's consciousness of guilt by pretending to have conclusive evidence of guilt that police do not in fact have, to prompt incriminating responses from the suspect. As long as the deception is plausible in light of what is known or suspected about the crime, such deception is not likely to induce an innocent person to confess to a crime he or she did not commit." If you're prepared to look at the nuances of what that paragraph {and the entire article} imply, you may just might think again.
It's a practice I heartily recommend.

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

I wasnt talking to you when i said dont read it and i was calling the other guy a millenial snowflake, you cant stop yourself from interjecting in other peoples conversations

Half the time you sound like you're having a conversation with yourself.
Millenial Snowflake still sounds like a band from the late 60s. I'm guessing they broke up after 3 albums when their label dropped them.

Unknown said...

Any argument or discussion or conspiracy theory can be easily cleared up by reading Austin Ann's fabulous post back from March 2015 entitled, "Gary Hinman was murdered for money!"

brownrice said...

As Chris Till says, mescaline may not have been federally banned until 1970 but peyote was on the state legal radar for a very long time before that. I pretty much second every thing else Chris says.

A couple of points worth mentioning. Mescaline can be synthesised from a couple of different chemical precursors or it can be extracted from peyote or san pedro. To do the latter requires a lot less chemistry and a much more rudimentary setup. It does require a lot of peyote however. I always assumed that if Gary Hinman was "making mescaline" he was extracting it. On the other hand, the reality is that cooking mescaline (by whatever means) is one of the less profitable ways to make money off drugs. It's not the easiest process and still winds up pretty bulky if using an extraction method. The precursors needed to synthesize it weren't that easy to come by then or now.

Mescaline is a phenethylamine… as is MDA & MDMA. In the same way that PCP (and all sorts of related or completely unrelated compounds) can be sold as drugs that have a commercially recognisable name, to the average punter in the late 60s, one phenethylamine was pretty much the same as another… even when their effects were markedly different. Cooking MDA though (compared with MDMA or mescaline) is a walk in the park.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chris Till said...

While phenethylamine is a specific chemical compound, in psychopharmacology, "phenethylamines" is also short-hand for a class of compounds noted for their psychoactive effects. The term was popularized, I believe, by Dr. Alexander Shulgin, chemist, psychedelics enthusiast, and author of the minor classic, "PIKHAL," an acronym for Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved, as well as its companion volume "TIKHAL," an acronym for Tryptamines I Have Known And Loved.

simon davis said...

Sorry, could some tell me what Austin Anne said in a post in May 2015 ? I can't find that post. Just a few words would do. Does she say Hinman was killed for inheritance/money?

Also, I need help. Does anybody have a copy of Dr Claude Brown's report on Patricia Krenwinkel (interview/assessment took place on 24 Dec 1969, don't know the date of the report) ? If so, would you be kind enough to supply me with a copy ? Sorry admins don't mean to use blog as a notice board, but I've exhausted all avenues.

Also, there's mention of drugs being mentioned at one of BB's trials. I haven't found any such thing in those transcripts (admittedly incomplete). In a few words, would anyone be prepared to tell me what, if anything, was said about drugs at any of the Hinman trials (bar Manson's claim to officer Whiteley that GH was selling bad dope). Or at least, when were such thing s
aid - 1st BB trial, 2nd BB trial ?).

brownrice said...

Dave1971 said:
"MDA is methylenedioxyamphetamine and MDMA is methylenedioxymethamphetmaine, not phenylalanine"

Sigh... MDA, MDMA and mescaline are all in the same chemical "family" (for want of a better word)... the phenethylamine family (ffs)... much as LSD, DMT & Psilocybin are all in a different chemical "family" called tryptamines. The phenethylamines are essentially a sub-branch of amphetamines. The tryptamines most definitely are not.

Dave, personally I think Helter Skelter is a crock of shit as a motive. My instincts and life experience tell me that "dodgy drug-dealing" makes a lot more sense. So, I'm certainly not arguing with you on that score... but your understanding of MDA, MDMA and phenethylamines suggest a definite lack of research in the chemistry department. :-)

simon davis said...

Actually, especially important is WHEN such things were first said. 1969 ?
1970 ? 1971 ?

ColScott said...

The Col has NEVER posted as anyone other than Col Scott. As the one Official TLB Blogger out there I would have no reason to.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AstroCreep said...

The world according to Dave1971 part 2-

Accepted story people (you know, rational people that believe HS along with the majority of the world) like to post comments using 65 different accounts on the mansonblog solely to keep perpetuating the Buglisosi fabricated and premeditated motive he conceived in order to frame those fun loving hippies out at Spahn Ranch. They race their dune buggies and it's well known that Bugliosi HATED dune buggies.

Maybe manson used his mind control powers to plant the motive in Bugliosi's to frame Tex because one time he sold drugs to a guy that knew a dude who gave a ride to a chick that said Bobby liked Clem but Charlie said no and so Donkey Dan laid Sadie but Ouisch was watching when the drug burn happened. Oh, and plus Charlie said once to Dennis that Melcher saw Doris Day slip Zero some bad peyote mescaline MDA = Charlie is innocent.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shorty's pistols said...



(I'm not knowlegable enuff to make caps of some of the stuff and reply, so hopefully people can figure out my reply mingled with Chris's
Let's wade thru some of this...

there were likely a fair number of amateur would-be chemists who attempted to brew LSD/DMT/psilocybin/mescaline/STP in their bathroom sinks and, in the end, created poison.

Bullshit. You must be very capable at chemistry to make LSD. Nobody made it in their sink or whatever you are talkin' about. Making LSD required good equipment and a great deal of chemical knowledge.

(Or, in the post-Woodstock parlance: "Don't take the brown acid!") It's also likely that there were only a very few amateur chemists in that era who had the patience, skill and equipment to properly brew such medicines. Besides the celebrated Owsley, other skilled American psychedelic chemists of that era whose names have become public are Nick Sand and Tim Scully. As far as a specific poison batch of mescaline circa July 1969, I have no idea, but it is not unreasonable to assume that there was a fair amount of very poorly manufactured psychedelics in that era.

There were hundreds of people who knew how to make acid and did it. There was good money in LSD and lots of capable people took advantage of their skills to make that acid and the bread that went along with it.
You know about the guys you mention bc you've read it on the internet or whatever.

(By the way, It's my understanding that PCP, which I am told is relatively easy to synthesize, used to be sold as LSD/DMIT/STP/mescaline/psilocybin by unscrupulous dealers. Back then, there was not the extensive literature that there is today on the difference between all the various psychedelics and disassociatives.)

I don't know who told you this, but it's more bullshit. PCP popped up as a street drug in the late '60's. It was known as "Angel Dust". It was put on weed or whatever and smoked to produce a strange high. no acid head would buy from somebody that sold that shit or "confuse" the buzz with a righteous acid trip.

You also group various drugs and lump them into the same category, or something..

LSD Good old LSD the expressway to your brain. People bought it and excepted no substitutes.

DMIT Guess you meant DMT as you state later. A short, but wicked trip. Lasts only 30 minutes to 3 hours. Can be a brutal bummer. A buddy equated it to falling 30 feet into a plate glass window. Never caught on and any dealer who tried to fake people out by selling 'em DMT would have gotten his ass kicked or worse.

STP Very potent psych drug. A trip on STP lasts three days. I doubt anyone bought STP thinking it was acid. Once again, no dealer would substitute STP for acid. It was a little more expensive, for one thing.

mescaline The active ingredient in peyote. 99.9% of the people that thought they were buying "mescaline" actually copped weak acid. A little marketing by the dealers and makers to move some weak ass product.

psilocybin Magic mushrooms. In the early 70's there were dealers who chopped up magic mushrooms and stuck 'em in caps bc people were so pill oriented. The best of the best are found in southern Mexico. they are good good good and can be picked in the wild.

LSD laced with strychnine, Acid laced with speed, & "Bad acid" can be all loosely addressed into one group. People not used to tripping got some strong shit and couldn't handle it.

A guy I know who made some fine quality and wicked acid once summed it up. "Why would I put speed in my acid? I'd just make a bigger batch of speed and sell that"

AstroCreep said...

Um, sure pal. Let's run with the motive that was proved credible and that helped get those wastes of human life behind bars. Sounds like a plan.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AstroCreep said...

Interesting that you find the DA, the jury, and victims all to be on the wrong side. And you put the idiots on the street corner, the human waste family members (convicted murderers), and their ringleader (convicted murderer) on a pedestal.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cielodrivecom said...

Seems like the authority here is you

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Dave1971,

Apparently, Gary Hinman doesn't count. Which may be why you want him to be a drug dealer. Because I hate to break it to you but Manson is exactly where he is today from Hinman's murder ( or Shea). 'Innocent'? That's why Tate MUST be dope. Now I understand. Manson is innocent so dope burn must be the motive. Thanks for clarifying.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Sorry Dave,

Your innocent party is where he is today on Hinman, alone- Penal code section 189- substantially identical to what it was in 1969:

"All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle, intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree.  All other kinds of murders are of the second degree."

Stealing Hinman's car(s)- or forcing him to sign them over, cutting off his ear and letting him lie there (torture/ mayhem), not letting him leave or not leaving (kidnapping)) is felony murder. Unless you can remove Manson from Hinman's house (where you admit he was he's committing or aiding the commission of a felony) - he's guilty of 1st degree murder.

Calling Hinman a drug dealer might let you feel better but it doesn't get Manson out of prison (or the gas chamber back then). He got lucky- those 'snowflakes' up on SCOTUS that you detest invalidated the death penalty by 'reading rights' into the Constitution. Ironically, you support 'snowflake' judges if you feel Manson got a break. Its a Constitutional stretch to call the gas chamber DP cruel and unusual punishment when hauled up hanging was common in 1789.

It's not simple assault- Gary Hinman died! He died!

That's felony murder.

Note: torture, robbery, kidnapping, note also the word 'attempt'.

[PS: the second degree exception (I am pretty sure) didn't exist in 1969. I'd have to look that up and this discussion isn't worth that effort. I have the 1969 statute somewhere. I don't recall that.]

No, I am not a copycat. I believe these people were butchered because of HS. Why? Manson said so.

I believe he's also guilty of conspiracy to commit murder on TLB but I don't want to rerun all that. Go look at 'So Manson Didn't Kill Anyone' and read George's book for the counter argument.
_____________

Sorry George. I helped derail your post.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 335   Newer› Newest»