Monday, September 25, 2017

Abigail Folger's Funeral




Recently the San Francisco Bay Area Television Archive posted news footage of Abigail Folger's funeral.  This is footage that hasn't been seen since the evening of August 13, 1969.







69 comments:

Robert C said...

RIP

St Circumstance said...

So tragic. Senseless brutality....

RIP Gibby. Gone but never forgotten. And as long as I am around these blogs I will remind people that only animals could do something such as what was done to you.

Animals that belong in cages....

John Seger said...

St Circumstance, Bravo to you!
Such animals that should never leave their cages!!

John Seger said...

I hope they never get out

Mr. Humphrat said...

That looks like a great archive Deb. Thanks for this. Helps to humanize her more. And I didn't know she'd been in business with Jay.

starviego said...


I would like to know the results of Peter Folger's private investigation into the murders, and why he threatened to sue any journalist who wanted to write about Abigail Folger.

Matt said...

Hump, the video's characterization of Gibbie being in business with Jay is an oversimplification. I think she just invested some cash. No strong ties to his business beyond that.


DebS said...

Hump, I've read the probate papers for Gibby but for the life of me can't remember where. Gibby loaned Jay an amount of money to open his shop in San Francisco and there was a schedule for paying the loan back in the probate papers. Since both were killed at the same time I'm not sure how the debt was settled.

The San Francisco Bay Area Television Archive is great. Besides all of the hippie, dippy, trippy stuff, of which there is plenty, there is quite a bit of news coverage on the Black Muslims including interviews with Malcom X, WD Muhammad and coverage of the Zebra murders.

mrgroove said...

Thanks for posting this Deb! It's always fascinating seeing the media coverage before the actual killers were apprehended and prior to subsequent coverage becoming filtered through the discovery of the identities of the murderers, the circus of the trial and aftermath to which there is no end to.

orwhut said...

Deb,
We're not seeing enough of your posts these days. Thanks for this one.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...


Peter Folger's private investigation into the murders, and why he threatened to sue any journalist who wanted to write about Abigail Folger

She was his daughter. He didn't want her memory tainted by the kind of trash talk that was already creeping into some press articles in the first week after the murders. Can you blame him ? It's easy for us to speak of "the public's right to know" or things "in the public interest" but there is the other side of the mountain and putting oneself in his position, imagine if your brother, Mum, sister, close friend, partner, child, spouse or whatever had been murdered and much of the press coverage revolved around their flaws or what was deemed to be unsavoury lifestyle by a certain section of the population, the kind of things that many people go through without everyone they know knowing.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks Matt and Deb
I noticed the archive also features zodiac coverage which I know Deb must like

David said...

The senseless of these murders is to me evident in this video. What precisely did Abigail Folger do to deserve where she ended her life? How can there be any doubt about the guilt of those responsible?

Does the search for a motive truly matter?

Have we just reduced the humanity of this loss to a search for a 'logical' meaning?

Imagine for a moment being that father, or a mother, sister or friend.

I wrestle with this every time I write a post.

The true 'look at the evidence' is innocent human beings, full of hope and beauty and dreams were horribly murdered: to start a race war; to copy another murder; or to exact revenge for $1000 of mda.

Those who were lost are more valuable then those who remain, locked up or not.

IMO

Mr. Humphrat said...

Well said David. I especially noticed the expression of the young woman right at the end of the tape. She's hard to miss and I can't figure out what her expression means but it seems like she's just trying to wrap her mind around what has happened to Abigail.

Mr. Humphrat said...

And you can also see the tremendous wealth of people in her circle.

DebS said...

David I think we all are here posting and commenting because the murders were senseless and we want to understand. It seems that the only reason that Gibby and the others were murdered is because they were at 10050 Cielo Drive, an address that once belonged to Terry Melcher. But the location itself is not motive so we continue to go over and over the possibilities.

The news footage is a poignant reminder that we should not overlook the victims in our quest to make sense of the senseless.

David said...

Hump, Deb

I have written this comment several times and can't express my point. Abigail has always been my 'ghost'. Sharon was the star. The 'boys' were the boys. But she, perhaps in a strange way is how I would hope I would have been... in that terrible moment. .. a true heroine. 'I'm already dead' to me is a big 'fuck you'. At least that's how I choose to view it.

Jenn said...

Thank you Deb and thank you David.

Peter said...

"I'm already dead" is the most frightening, hopeless, statement in the whole sad, sorry story. It's like something a child would say while playing a child's game and it breaks one's heart to think of her begging for mercy from these heartless monsters. And to read their comments on the witness stand talking about "love" and "loving everybody" is enough to make one puke. You realize that above everything else, even more than they were heartless, or even evil, they were just plain stupid.

That moment in the Hendrickson film when Sandy says "I remember Katie talking about it, and I went through a change, and then I realized I had the baby. A million babies die and a million babies are born." And then the interviewer says "But Sharon Tate’s baby died, yours didn’t?" And all Sandy can come up with is "Mm hm, mm hm" and you can almost see the little gerbil running around on the wheel inside her empty head as she stares off into space pondering the complete vacuousness of her dumb, worthless life.


Robert C said...

My interpretation of Folger's comment, "I'm already dead", is "why me ?" followed by "let this horror be over". In her panic run she'd have to be wondering is this for real followed by who are they and why are they trying to kill me.

AustinAnn74 said...

Peter, my sentiments, exactly! The viciousness & painful way all the victims were killed was beyond horrific. I really don't think there are words strong enough to describe what those sicko fuckos did to their victims. And no, Charlie aint innocent either. Even if he didn't actually kill someone, that we know of, what about him shooting a man & leaving him for dead? He thought he had killed Lottsapoppa. Not to mention what he did to Gary by slicing him in the face with a sword. The worst thing I've ever read is that one of the female victims in the Tate house was calling out for her mother. Geeez! Brutal.

AustinAnn74 said...

Exactly, dear St, exactly!

AustinAnn74 said...

Well said!!

St Circumstance said...

Beyond brutal. Inhuman animals....

And they laughed and danced afterwords. Please remember that when these stupid parole hearings come up.

I wonder what I'm battered woman syndrome or whatever Kreny calls it - explains laughing and singing after you do something like that ??

AustinAnn74 said...

The killers, nor the friends/f*ck buddies of the killers (i.e.-The Family) never seemed to be the least bit bothered, nor repulsed by the murders. They didn't care about the funerals, or how the surviving families would feel, or anything. Leslie Van Houten even admitted seeing the tv footage of the Tate murders with bodies being carried out on stretchers, and it made her want to participate even further. Even a scum bag like Danny DeCarlo drew the line on murder. Yet, nowadays, people want them out.

CarolMR said...

Beautiful picture of Gibby. Maury Terry, in THE ULTIMATE EVIL, claimed that Abigail knew Charles Manson and even lent him money. Does anyone believe this?

Peter said...

And another thing ....

I don't think the killers even had a motive. When questioned about the murders, the actual physical act of committing the crime, none of them could come up with a reason why they stabbed the victims. "Because." That's it. Other than the lies they made up after the fact, I don't think they even knew why. It was just something to do, something Manson asked them to do. Fix the dune buggy, paint the saloon, go do what Tex tells you to do ..."

And the more I think about it, I don't really think Manson had a motive either. He got these kids to the point where they were willing to steal for him, fuck for him, die for him, and even kill for him. And he just decided to take that power out for a spin. Why not.

It's this complete wantonness and lack of empathy that argued for keeping them where they are. "Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil." Jeremiah 13:23

grimtraveller said...

David said...

'I'm already dead'

Given that this came from Susan Atkins, is it even believable ?

Peter said...

even more than they were heartless, or even evil, they were just plain stupid

No, they weren't plain stupid. That kind of minimizes some of their action and thought.

St Circumstance said...

Please remember that when these stupid parole hearings come up

Is the concept of parole stupid ?

grimtraveller said...

AustinAnn74 said...

The killers, nor the friends/f*ck buddies of the killers (i.e.-The Family) never seemed to be the least bit bothered, nor repulsed by the murders. They didn't care about the funerals, or how the surviving families would feel, or anything. Leslie Van Houten even admitted seeing the tv footage of the Tate murders with bodies being carried out on stretchers, and it made her want to participate even further

This is all true. However, within a relatively short space of time, it ceased to be true, at least for the majority of the killers. What therefore does one do with people who genuinely regret what they have done ? And have shown it over 4 decades ? Does one continually remind them of what they did and say "no matter what you do, no matter how much you regret, I'm always going to keep you in those moments."?
There was a reason why the jail authorities, faced with the Manson Family now having "life with the possibility of parole" sentences as opposed to death, took the hard road to deprogramming and reprogramming them to society's standard of normality {as closely as possible}.

Peter said...

Rest easy Grim, here in America, even plain stupid people are held responsible for their actions. Despite the best efforts of many to relieve them of that burden.

AstroCreep said...

The real travesty in this situation was the abolishment of the death penalty in the state of California. Had it not been for that, the turds responsible (and found guilty) wouldn't have had a perch from which to still gain attention and notoriety for so many years. The other problem so many years later, is that the people involved can't at this point, differentiate fact from fiction. The brain tells itself something for enough time, it becomes truth. I've always felt the earliest reports and accounts from those involved are the most accurate. Long live Bugliosi for getting the conviction and death penalty albeit for not.

starviego said...

CarolMR said...
Maury Terry, in THE ULTIMATE EVIL, claimed that Abigail knew Charles Manson and even lent him money. Does anyone believe this?

There is some circumstantial evidence that indicates they did know each other. Maybe that's one of the things Peter Folger was trying to keep hidden.

David said...

Peter said: "I don't think the killers even had a motive."

I am not sure you can listen to Part's interview of LVH and reach that conclusion. Of course it has become in vogue around here lately to argue (without evidence) that that recording was staged.

AstroCreep said: "Had it not been for that, the turds responsible (and found guilty) wouldn't have had a perch from which to still gain attention and notoriety for so many years."

LVH was sentenced to 7 years to life. Those sentenced to term-life sentences for first degree murder in California serve an average of 23 years and most of them were given 15 or 25 to life.

AustinAnn74 said...

Grim:

You said:
What therefore does one do with people who genuinely regret what they have done ? And have shown it over 4 decades?

I say:

Keep their "regretful" asses in prison. You don't get a "do over" after participating in such human terror.

Peter said...

It was Leslie and her attorneys that said the Part recording was staged, not us. Nobody here believes that, and that isn't the point.

I'm not talking about some dumb philosophy, or what put her in the car, or brought her to the house, or to Mrs. La Bianca's bedroom for that matter. I'm talking about that instant when she raised her hand up over her empty little head and decided to plunge a knife into the poor woman with lamp cord tied around her neck.

Read her testimony during the penalty phase of the trial (***coward***). She has no answer other than that she wanted to shut her up. She admits that she can kill anyone for NO reason at ANY TIME. In those words. In fact, she attributes this quality to everyone. She thinks it's normal.

She didn't give a rat's ass for what she did. Maybe she's sorry now. What a surprise! I say good for her. In five more years she'll be even sorrier and then, hopefully, she will be progressively more sorry each day until they cart her SORRY ass out of jail in a pine box. I'll shed as many tears for poor Leslie as she did for the victims. Zip.

ColScott said...

STARVIEGO- nothing Maury says is true- Nothing

PETER- Sure if I had obedient zombies as you describe I would have them kill randos for the fuck of it. (steps back)

David said...

Peter,

Doesn't the Part interview also answer that: they simply had to die. And 'yes' they/she felt nothing.

"coward" ?

Peter said...

Coward because they didn't have to guts to "confess" until after the guilty verdicts. They still held out hope they would get a mistrial or not guilty verdict. Shows you that the whole "I don't care what happens to me" line was just so much bullshit.

Col. That lack of initiative is why you will never have obedient zombies.

grimtraveller said...

AustinAnn74 said...


I say:

Keep their "regretful" asses in prison. You don't get a "do over" after participating in such human terror


But the reality is that people do.

CarolMR said...

Maury Terry, in THE ULTIMATE EVIL, claimed that Abigail knew Charles Manson and even lent him money. Does anyone believe this?

I don't. As yet no real evidence has appeared of such a happening, nothing checkable that stands up. What has appeared has been a lot of stuff that it seems to me is thrown in there to muddy the waters. Wherever there is a claim from the original prosecution, there is a murky counterclaim to "mess with people's heads." So in this case, it is claimed the victims were unknown to Charlie and the killers and hey presto, suddenly Tex knew Wojiciech, Wojiciech raped Linda, the women swam in the Cielo pool the day before the murders, Charlie knew Sharon, Charlie partied with Sharon, Charlie 'knew' William Garretson, Pat knew William Garretson, Tex had a drug connection in Rosemary, Tex & Suzan LaBerge planned Rosemary's death, Linda masterminded the murders after being burned for $1000....
And it semi works, celebs "recall" Sharon & Charlie being at the same party {until you actually check it out and discover they weren't there at the same time}, Charlie at Cielo and because he went to parties were celebs were, because people gave him money and possessions, connections are conflated and whizzbangfairy, Abigail loaned Charlie money.

Peter said...

Read her testimony during the penalty phase of the trial

The penalty phase testimony is completely out of context unless seen for what it is ~ an attempt to ensure Charlie didn't get the death penalty. And to do that the women had to lie and part of that was to demonstrate how big and bad they were. It was a crock that, as Susan went on to say {risky to take her words, but hey !} mixed truth and lies. Do you believe Leslie was part of Hinman ?

Peter said...

Definitely mixed truth with lies, but all they really did was replace Charlie with Linda and Mary with Leslie. That was about as much as their empty heads could handle and still keep the story halfway straight between them all. They still Attempted to minimize their own involvement in the actual murders while at the same time saying they didn't care what happened.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

There is some circumstantial evidence that indicates they did know each other. Maybe that's one of the things Peter Folger was trying to keep hidden

You're assuming that Peter Folger only got heavy with the press after December '69 when Charlie was spoken of as a suspect.

Peter said...

I don't think the killers even had a motive....It was just something to do, something Manson asked them to do. Fix the dune buggy, paint the saloon, go do what Tex tells you to do ..."

There's your motive. Charlie told them to do what Tex told them. It's as powerful as any. That was part of the prosecution closing argument.

I don't really think Manson had a motive either...And he just decided to take that power out for a spin. Why not

Even if true, it's a motive. As powerful as any.

It's this complete wantonness and lack of empathy that argued for keeping them where they are. "Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil." Jeremiah 13:23

Be careful when quoting scripture and proof texting because you'll almost certainly remove statements from their contexts and it's the context that breathes life into the statement. The context of Jeremiah's words there are specifically related to one nation, a nation that had turned its back on its Lord and was being warned of what was on the way if they didn't return. There are examples {such as the Ninevites in Jonah or King Manasseh} where cities and individuals "accustomed to doing evil" did change their ways. Actually, scripture is replete with such examples. It's the paradox of the biblical record.
Without a doubt, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Van Houten were utterly without empathy and were wanton in their "it had to be done" outlook. And that's why none of them have ever seen the streets since '69. But they did not remain in that frame of being. If they had, we'd never be having these conversations.

I'll shed as many tears for poor Leslie as she did for the victims

Let me ask you a serious question. Would you feel the same way if LVH was a loved one of yours ? I'm genuinely interested if the heat of some of our thoughts would be the same if the perp was someone known to us and for whom we had affection or love.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"...celebs "recall" ... Charlie at Cielo .. "

So when Deanna Martin says she saw Charlie at Terry Melcher's place in 1968 you are saying that never happened?

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

Coward because they didn't have to guts to "confess" until after the guilty verdicts. They still held out hope they would get a mistrial or not guilty verdict

Well, beating "The Man" was still an essential part of their thinking. When Susan spilled the beans to Virginia Graham, Ronnie Howard and Nancy Jordon, it wasn't with the intention of giving herself up to the authorities. She didn't expect it to go any further and Virginia Graham encouraged that belief by telling her to keep her voice down and be careful what she said. When she spoke to Caballero who arranged for her to go before the Grand Jury, it was with the understanding she wouldn't go to the gas chamber.
"Coward" isn't quite the word I would use !

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

So when Deanna Martin says she saw Charlie at Terry Melcher's place in 1968 you are saying that never happened?

I can't say it never happened. I don't believe it though.
However, my point was about conflation and how people conflate separate events as though they were one. She testified that the second time she met Charlie was at Dennis Wilson's and I think there's some conflation happening there.
It's not unusual. Celebs with common situations with others do it all the time. Look at all the people that were supposed to have been at Cielo on the night of the murders for example.
Funny thing about Melcher ~ he never denied Charlie came to Cielo in the summer of '68. He testified to it.

Peter said...

Grim loves Linda.

No. If Linda was in my family I wouldn't even write to her. I have other sisters who haven't butchered people.

Yes cowards. If they really wanted to clear Charlie and Bobby and really didn't care they would have pled guilty and confessed straight away.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said..
Funny thing about Melcher ~ he never denied Charlie came to Cielo in the summer of '68. He testified to it.

Source?

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

If Linda was in my family I wouldn't even write to her

Interesting. On 2 levels.
Interesting that you should pick out Linda as opposed to Pat, Leslie and Susan.
And interesting that you wouldn't stand by a loved one that had erred. I say that because a major component in bringing the murderers back to where they'd started to jump off was in their families sticking by them even though they were horrified by what they had done.

starviego said...

Source?

The Watson trial. Melcher stated that he'd been given a lift home once and Charlie was in the car. Have a look through both his and Deana Martin's testimony in the Watson trial. Neither are earth shattering but they do plug the odd gap.

cielodrivecom said...

Starviego, he testified that Manson was there in 68 at the Grand Jury, and both the Manson and Watson trials

David said...

Starviego said: "Source?"

Q: When is the first time you met Charles Manson?
A: Sometime during the summer of 1968.

****

Q: So Dennis drove you home to the address 10050 Cielo Drive?
A: Yes.
Q: And Manson was in the back seat?
A: Correct.
Q: Did either Manson or Wilson get out of the car at your address?
A: No, sir.
Q: They dropped you off at the gate?
A: Yes.
Q: And then you entered and they turned around and left?
A: Right -- well, it wasn't at the gate. It was inside the gate, in the parking area.
Q: You entered the gate?
A: Right.
Q: You got out of the car and then they left?
A: Right, that is correct.

Peter said...

I think pretty much the last thing I would want is for Manson to know my address.

starviego said...

Thanks to all for responding to my query.

Chris Till said...

Are we doing the how-many-times-was-CM-at-Cielo discussion? Here's Mark Lindsay, lead singer of Paul Revere & the Raiders, on his time living at Cielo with Terry Melcher, circa 1968 (from Lindsay's Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/OfficialMarkLindsayPage/posts/905128692856139:0):

"One hot summer day at the end of a series of tour dates, I returned to the house when there was a meeting going on in the living room. Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys was there, and he, Terry, and a prominent attorney were discussing some kind of deal.

So as not to interrupt, I went into the kitchen to get a cold drink. There was a guy I didn't recognize squatting on the slate floor, leaning against the refrigerator. He was dressed in a blue work shirt and jeans and did not seem too happy.
I tried to open the refrigerator door but the guy wouldn't budge. 'Excuse me,' I said, but he totally ignored me. I tried again. 'Sorry, man, but I'm trying to get in the frig! He didn't move or even look at me. I walked into the living room and asked, 'What's with the weird guy in the kitchen?'

Dennis said, 'Oh, that's just Charlie...he's okay'" But he didn't seem very 'okay' me at the time.

This of course turned out to be Charlie Manson, and he was at the house on at least one other occasion. When I was driving up to the house a couple of weeks later, he was just getting into a limo, which then left. Charlie didn't look like the kind of guy who could or would hire a limousine, so I figured Terry or Dennis must have sent one for him.

When I walked into the house, the vibes were not good, so I figured that particular meeting must not have one well. Supposedly, Manson was at least at one other meeting at Cielo, but these are the only two times I saw him there. As I came and went from my trips, I would never know who I might encounter when I returned. I met Hendrix there, Mama Cass, John and Michelle, and a lot of 'folkies' and blues musicians."

David said...

Interesting stuff, Chris.

Jenn said...

I'm real "sentimental" about places. When I'm in LA (monthly or so), I often drive by places that were important in the past, mostly related to music...recording studios, musician's former homes, etc. It helps me get a sense of what it was like back in the day. I recently found the George Harrison Bluejay Way house, for example. So the Mark Lindsay info reminds me what a bummer it is that the original Cielo how no longer exists. Lindsay, Jimi, Wilson, Cass, on and on. I guess that I'm getting to be a sentimental old fart!

Lindsay is still performing well, is in good physical shape, etc. by the way. Good to see.

Sorry for the interruption. We now return you to your regular programming.

Peter said...

Manson had a grudge against refrigerators.

Grim, add it to the possible motives list.

Chris Till said...

And here's Deana Martin from her 2004 memoirs, "Memories Are Made of This: Dean Martin Through His Daughter's Eyes." Contextually, it seems she's referring to mid-1968 or so.

“I started dating Terry Melcher, one of Claudia’s old flames. Through him, I came into contact with someone who would haunt my dreams for the rest of my life- Charles Manson. Terry was by then an independent producer for Apple Records, and Manson fancied himself a singer and guitarist. To woo Terry into considering him for a recording contract, he had a mutual friend, Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys, introduce them. We met up at Terry’s house at 10050 Cielo Dirve in Benedict Canyon, above Beverly Hills. Manson’s friend Charles ‘Tex’ Watson accompanied him on the first occasion, and later he showed up with a couple of girls. Tex talked about music and what he wanted to do with his life. Manson, on the other hand, who liked to be called Charlie, was very small and looked like every other hippie on Sunset with his guitar.
Sitting on the floor one day and listening to him sing and play, my eyes were drawn to a ring he was wearing on his little finger.
‘Here,’ he told me, sliding it off and handing it to me. ‘I want you to have this.’ Before I could object, he pressed it into my hand, adding, ‘You’re Dean Martin’s daughter, aren’t you?’
I looked down at the flat silver band with unusual Indian symbols engraved on it, and nodded. ‘Thank you,’ I said, and slipped the ring on.” pp. 163-164


Peter said...

He probably stole it out of the bedroom five minutes before he gave it to her.

Peter said...

Cielo posted the transcripts from People v. Manson (Hinman and Shea) trial.

Q: Did Mr. Manson say for what purpose he wanted the money and the dune buggies?
...
WITNESS: Mr. Manson said that, "We need money to get our stuff together, supplies and our dune buggies, to go out to the desert, because we have been spotted at the camp site by the Fire Patrol."
Q: Now, was -- during this conversation, or during these statements made my Mr. Manson, were any names mentioned other than names of Family members?"
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what names were mentioned?
...
WITNESS: Gary Hinman's name was mentioned, and also Terry Melcher. [The court strikes Melcher's name]
...
Q: What was said about Gary Hinman?
...
WITNESS: It was believed that Gary Hinman had -- was the owner of the house that he lived in, and it was spoken of that if the Family could talk Gary Hinman into joining them -- or, if not, that he would sign over his house and his vehicles to the Family.
...
A: I said, "I understand Gary Hinman owns his house in Topanga Canyon." I also stated that I believed that he had stocks and bonds.

Thanks a bunch Ella Jo.

starviego said...


Peter said...
(quoting ella jo)
"...he would sign over his house and his vehicles to the Family. ... I also stated that I believed that he had stocks and bonds."

That whole theory never made a lick of sense to me. Getting ahold of those assets would have left a paperwork trail a mile wide leading straight back to whomever the assets were singed over to.

Peter said...

To Charlie Manson.

One (1) house. Regular.

Signed, Gary Hinman.

Peter said...

Can't you just see them doing the closing in Gary's living room. I wonder if Mary was a notary and that's why she went along? Okay Gary, sign here and here ... and here and initial here and here.

DebS said...

Here is a link to Gibby's estate papers, finally remember where I saw them!

http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/449/abigail-folger-estate-papers

Peter said...

Here is an interesting piece of testimony during the examination of Al Springer in the Manson Hinman murder trial.

Q: Now, Did you know Gary Hinman?
A: I had met him on one occasion, down in Venice. That was maybe about a month before that.

Peter said...

This is Kanarek's cross on the meeting.


Q: Where did you see Mr. Hinman in Venice?
A: A little place where the club and everybody used to hang out, called the Potpourri down by Rose Avenue at the Beach, dead ends at Rose Avenue into the Ocean.
...
Q: Well, did you actually see Mr. Hinman drive this automobile?
A:Yes. He was -- He drove it down to the Potpourri, in the big parking lot, and then he left with it.
Q: And on that occasion,you saw him in whose company? If anyone?
MANZELLA: Objection, your Honor. It's not relevant.
...
COURT: Sustained.
KANAREK: Well, was Mr. Hinman -- Did you speak to Mr. Hinman on this occasion?
A: No, I didn't.
Q: Did someone introduce you to Mr. Hinman?
A:I wasn't introduced. I was told that that was Mr. Hinman by Danny DeCarlo.

David said...

Puter,

I would be a little careful with Springer. In his November '69 interview by LAPD he didn't know Hinmans name.

Peter said...

I thought in the taped interview he had an idea of who Hinman was, mispronouncing the name, but close. Maybe I'm mistaken.

I don't know why he would make this up. It doesn't really help the prosecution. Kanarek saw it as somehow implying that Springer was to receive and sell property that the others planned to steal from Hinman and asked whether that was the case, to which Springer responded with a resounding "No." But this theory seems pretty far out there anyway since it was a month before.

What it sounds like is a drug deal and I'm surprised that Kanarek didn't try to bring that out.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Interesting link thanks Deb

Janell Bauer said...

R I P Abigail Folger. May you be remembered
For the many people you helped, and for the time you gave to those in need.

Janell Bauer said...

Well said, St Circumstance. 😃