Monday, September 18, 2017

Five To Puke

One of my recent meanderings took me to the Santa Barbara, California area, during which time Deb presciently hipped me to the fact that Ivor Davis would be making an appearance (that very night!) at the Museum of Ventura County in nearby Ventura.



Ivor Davis, as students of TLB know, was the co-author (along with Jerry LeBlanc) of Five To Die, one of the earlier books written about the Tate-LaBianca murders. Like Lawrence Schiller's The Killing of Sharon Tate, Die was actually published before the murder trial of Charles Manson and his three co-defendants even started. Thus, it serves as one of the earliest proponents of many aspects of the case that are accepted as fact even today. It's all there: the drug use, the orgies, the rituals, the mind control, the failed music career, the "Family," the Bible, the Beatles, Helter Skelter -- it's all really there, in a book published seven months before the beginning of the trial of Manson and others.

Above, Ivor Davis
Below, the original edition of Five To Die

Five to Die is the result of Davis being assigned the task of reporting on the murders by his bosses at The London Daily Express. The Express was (and is) a sensationalist tabloid that was once characterized by Britain's Prince Philip as "a bloody awful newspaper. It is full of lies, scandal and imagination. It is a vicious paper." Lies, scandals, and imagination -- that description fits Five to Die to a T. 

Die is based in large part on interviews conducted at Spahn's Ranch with Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston, and Juan Flynn, a trio of malcontented "Mansonites" who early on recognized the value of peddling sensational stories to the bloodthirsty media. How riddled with errors and untruths is Five to Die? I hadn't read this book in decades, so I skimmed it again in preparation for this post. Time and space prohibit a point by point refutation of all of the errors in this book here, but suffice it to say that aside from some interesting historical photos it is full of myths, sensational fabrications, misrepresentations, exaggerations, innuendoes, and untruths. 



Nevertheless, Die had a major impact on the entire TLB phenomenon, and Davis is very proud of that impact. Although Bugliosi dismissed the book in Helter Skelter as "a quickie paperback" (see Helter Skelter, Bantam paperback edition, 1975 page 399) Die in fact was instrumental in establishing much of the mythology that surrounds the Manson case to this day. "Our book," Davis later wrote, "was rushed out in paperback in January 1970, seven months before the trial began. It was the very first book to catalogue the bizarre story of life with Charlie Manson."

An example of Five to Die fear-mongering

But Five to Die was more than just one of the earliest sensational accounts of the Tate-LaBianca murders and "the Family," for according to Davis the book was actually responsible for the state of California's victory in the murder cases against Charles Manson et al. "Several years [after the murder trials] I ran into former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Aaron Stovitz," Davis later wrote. "Much to my astonishment, Stovitz dropped a bombshell, a complement to me, but a bombshell nonetheless. 'Your book was the blueprint for the prosecution of Charles Manson and his Family,' he said. 'It was all there for us to follow.'"

In 2009 Die was rereleased with a forward and afterword sandwiching a reprint of the original book. The new edition featured a summary of the police investigation leading up to the trial and a recap of the trial itself. (As an aside, I was surprised to find a reference to me on page 28, a reference which I consider inaccurate, if it's at all true.)

The updated 2009 edition of Five to Die. (Is it a coincidence that its 
publishing company was located in Ventura, California?)

Ventura was an apt venue for Davis' talk since Ventura County is where the famous mug shot of Charles Manson that was taken on April 22, 1968 after he was arrested on suspicion of grand theft auto when the bus he was driving got stuck in a ditch on a secluded road in the eastern section of the county. As much as anything that mug shot encapsulates the popular perception of Manson as homicidal madman. "Just look at that picture!" Davis exclaimed to the shuddering crowd. (Other people just see a guy making a face for the camera.)

Ventura County's claim to fame: Homicidal maniac or goof? 

The audience begins to assemble in the events hall at the
Museum of Ventura County before the program. 

The program at Ventura was pretty much a regurgitation of the 2009 edition of the book. Davis recounted the police investigation into the murders, taking particular delight in pointing out the ineptness of LAPD (e.g. a television news team found the killers' clothes, not the police, and Steve Weiss' father had to remind the department that his son had found the murder gun and that they already had it in their possession). This incompetence was greeted with laughter and snorts of disgust from the audience until a retired FBI agent stood up and reminded everybody that the police do, after all, make mistakes. Davis also laid into Vincent Bugliosi, mentioning both the DA's huge ego and his indictment for perjury. In fact, no one escaped Davis' critical eye (of course, everybody in "the Family" from Manson on down was treated with snarky disdain, and even the cooperative Paul Watkins was described as just a "wannabe musician") except for Aaron Stovitz, who was likely spared Davis' wrath because he credited the writer for solving the mystery of the Tate-LaBianca murders.

In addition to Davis, two other book authors appeared on the dais and lectured the audience about Manson, "the Family," and the murders. They were the father and daughter writing team of Mark J. and Aryn Z. Philips. The Philipses cowrote Trials of the Century, a compendium of the most sensational murder trials of the 20th Century, one from each decade (Harry Thaw, Mary Phagan/Leo Frank, Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle; Richard Hauptmann, Wayne Lonergan, Sam Sheppard, Richard Speck, CM, Jean Harris, and O.J. Simpson).



Mark and Aryn Phillips and Ivor Davis on stage

The Philipses' presentation was, to be polite, really, really bad, and quick reading of the source notes for their book chapter on the Manson trial reveals why: most of their information was gleaned from Helter Skelter. (Another oft-quoted source was the book The Trial of Charles Manson, by Bradley Steffens and Craig L. Staples. I was unfamiliar with this book so I got a copy. This slim -- 112 pages including notes and index -- volume is part of the Lucent Books series of "quality nonfiction for libraries and classrooms." Lucent has a series of books called "The Famous Trials Series" which includes other famous criminal and legal cases such as the Dred Scott Decision, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Nuremberg Trials, the Rosenberg espionage case, the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the Pentagon Papers, Roe v. Wade, and the Salem Witch Trials. Sources used for Trial include most of the better known TLB books and periodicals. The main recommended Internet source was www.mansonmurders.com, an URL that will surely invoke a nostalgic cringe in longtime students of the case.)


The audience of about two hundred, which consisted of mostly well-to-do older white folks, took it all in. Even the few longhairs in attendance seemed to go for everything. I quickly gave up on any attempt to reply to the onslaught of lies (although I did loudly say "He is not." after the moderator exclaimed, "First of all, Charles Manson is only 5 foot 2 inches tall!") as I was quickly overwhelmed by the avalanche of misinformation coming from the stage. The moderator had requested that all questions and comments be held off until the presentation was over. By then I knew that the audience was a lost and dangerous cause. (If I had asked a question it would have been "If you thought everything you heard from Watkins, Poston, and Flynn was unbelievable, why did you believe it?")

But after the event I was compelled approach the lawyer and his daughter with my evaluation of their presentation. After identifying myself and laying out my background (the lawyer noticeably started when I told him that I had visited Manson in prison almost two hundred times) I told them that their whole spiel was "so wrong" and misinformed that they had no business pontificating about the case. The daughter was visibly taken aback. Her father defended the book as being intentionally superficial re the specific cases, but I said that if that was the case they shouldn't pass off their superficial knowledge of the Manson case as if they were any kind of authority. We exchanged books and they seemed very glad when I left. (Before the event I introduced myself to Ivor Davis as a decades-long student of the case and told him that I was glad to meet one of the authors of one of the first books about the case as I had written a book about the case myself. He wrote down the title of my book and said he'd check it out.)

In addition to the Ivor Davis event, Manson and "the Family" were featured in an ongoing museum gallery exhibit dedicated to "Really Awful People" who included Nero, Attilla the Hun, Vlad Tepes, Gilles de Rais, Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Jack the Ripper, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and…. Vladimir Putin? (Okay, I know that in progressive Ventura they probably believe that Vladimir Putin helped Donald Trump win the election for president of the United States, but does that really warrant his being presented alongside two figures who were responsible for the murders of tens of millions of human beings?)

Really awful people Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Putin 

The Manson exhibit consisted of a large black panel decorated with a sparse description of the case, some photos of Manson, Spahn's Ranch, and Sharon Tate, and a blurb tying Davis and Five to Die in with the whole thing.






Five To Die is an interesting period piece, but it is also a sensational example of the worst of British tabloid "news." Its "unbelievable story" is literally just that. But what's even more unbelievable is that after almost fifty years the public still eagerly laps this garbage up.



134 comments:

Toby King said...

As long as the American public keeps hearing the same old bullshit story without doing some research of their own research and learning to read between the lines, the masses will be fucked out of real knowledge. Charlie is way too infamous and the simple fact is, most people WANNA believe the craziest things they hear about it, even if they can smell the bullshit.

Thanks george, your articles are very useful. Saves amateur truth finders like me a lot of legwork bro

stoner van houten said...

wow..great job George this was awesome to read ....

robin torro said...

George Stimson. Love your analysis. Books written pre trial, all inaccurate, helped to condemn the myth of Manson, dark and evil.. Why does no one, write the tex Watson murders? Thank you for "goodbye helter skelter". Like a breath of fresh air

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

I withdraw all comments until a time I can write them in such a manner that they can be read lol

ColScott said...

Not sure why you were in Ventura George (shiver) but imagine the sadness of dining out nearly fifty years later on some piece of shit rushed book you wrote back in the day. And imagine the desperation. Also I knew Stovitz and I find it very unlikely he would have said such a thing. He knew that Helter Skelter was BUG's brain damage

ALIKEN said...

As always, George nailed it! Disturbing Stovitz could admit such a thing....

Peter said...

That panel discussion looked pretty boring. Is there anything powerpoint can't ruin?

Assuming that Helter Skelter is not the motive, and looking at the crimes as 4 distinct events: Hinman, Tate, LaBianca, and Shea, are the motives for the crimes necessarily related? Do they have to be?

We can all pretty much agree that Shea's murder was based on a traditional motive, revenge, whether because Manson thought Shea was an informant, or some other grudge.

The drug motive in Hinman I think fails. Beausoleil never raised the issue in either trial, and every other individual involved has consistently named robbery as the motive. (See Davis 2003, 2007, 2017 parole hearings, Atkins 1978 parole hearing, Brunner 1969 LASO statement). So here to, I think there is a traditional motive, robbery.

Does this lessen the likelihood that drugs were a motive in TLB? I think it does. Moreover, even if somehow the family was burned in a drug deal with anyone at the Tate house - which itself seems unlikely, the crime seems a little gratuitous to be explained by this motive. It's not like the Family were trafficking drugs, no less in a quantity that could lead to a burn that would justify butchering a house full of people.

Is the copycat crime to save Brother Bobby motive plausible? My initial impression is that it's pretext. Other than the writing in blood, there is not really all that much in common. Why go to a mansion miles away and kill a bunch of Hollywood elites to copycat the murder of Hinman? Moreover, the way Family members offer this explanation is so similar it suggests coordination. Probably at Manson's direction.

So we are still left with a lack of motive for TLB, other than Helter Skelter, which was probably what motivated the actual killers, even if it wasn't Manson's true motive. I guess my only point is that I think its a mistake to search for a motive that ties all four crime scenes together.

ColScott said...

No one is trying to impose a motive. But when a group of people kill a bunch of people some of whom are strangers for no discernible reason forgive me if I think there has to be SOME reason. Hinman was known and was tortured for days. I could beat on stupid Grim for an hour and get him to give me his cash. I would not need days and days of torture. Just the risk that someone would come looking for Gary is high. Gary had to die. But why? Drugs is more tenable than you think but I agree it was not drugs. Even if so why LaBianca?

This is why we cry

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

Here, Dave1971, I'll answer you-

Because on Saturday you posted this:

"Lol f--k off ni--er"

You are incapable of recognizing that there is anything wrong with that comment.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Col. Scott in July 2015 (can't believe it's already been two years) as a comment in D. LaCalandra's piece "Drug Burn or Robbery" you wrote:

"Not sure what Austin Ann is being didactic, A good researcher keeps an open mind. Saying "something would have come out" is not good logic. It is belief not fact. I believed in the drug burn. Ann's discourse made me rethink it. LaCalandra made me re think it. I just came back minutes ago from the largest collection of Straight Satan materials in the world. I have no doubt anymore and never will again. Bobby killed Gary over drugs. 100% "

I never did find out what you saw in the Straight Satan collection that convinced you it was a drug burn and what changed your mind again?

brownrice said...

Great post, George… as was the last post from David… both of them dealing in different ways with the flaws in HS as a motive and where the idea of it as a motive first arose. For me, the really salient points are…

(to quote George):
Die is based in large part on interviews conducted at Spahn's Ranch with Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston, and Juan Flynn, a trio of malcontented "Mansonites" who early on recognized the value of peddling sensational stories to the bloodthirsty media.

Funnily enough, they’re also a primary source for the prosecution.

And (to quote David):
Notice Krenwinkel begins her answer with ‘if he said those things’. This seems to be a recurring point by Krenwinkel, which becomes more direct in her 2016 hearing: she has no recollection of Manson saying the Family would start Helter Skelter. I think this has gotten her into trouble in these hearings because it leads to the question ‘then why did you kill these people?” and her only answer is ‘Tex told me to, so I did.’

…and again (this time quoting Krenwinkle):
But I—he—I never heard him, you know, say he was going to try to start it. He just, it—that came out in, at trial. But I mean, that wasn’t what he was saying.

The first line in almost every version of the offical narrative is that the motive was “to start a race war”. I’ve always viewed this as Bugliosi’s bullshit… cobbled together with a mass of ill-understood interpretations of local variants of (at the time) relatively popular and widely-held beliefs. Many in the “underground” at the time felt that some kinda “revolution” or shake-up was imminent. Lots of people were talking this way. The whole rural commune movement was at least partially inspired by a desire to get away from the imminent shit-storm. Only Charlie & his friends though called it Helter Skelter. To separate “helter skelter” from the broader cultural trends at the time and turn it into a motive always looked like Vince’s doing to me... but it's looking like it was actually down to sleazy tabloid creeps like Ivor Davis & Lawrence Schiller. The London Daily Express???? Why am I not surprised?

To quote Mickey Knox in Natural Born Killers, “You're scum, Wayne; you did it for RATINGS.” :-)

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
brownrice said...

Also nice to see the shot of John Barrymore as Svengali from 1931.
Hollywood was always big on the staring, wide-eyed, bearded, hypnotic, evil guru archetype.

Here’s an earlier version from 1917.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0007927/mediaviewer/rm199241216
This time attempting to portray ol' Grigori Rasputin (the Father of the Hypnotic Stare) in the same way.

It musta scared the shit out of the rubes, I guess :-) Still does, apparently…

Charlie Higgins said...

On the subject of books, has anyone else read the recent release "In A Summer Swelter" by Simon Davis ? An interesting read but he is very critical of Georges book "Goodbye Helter Skelter" ... I'd be very interested in your opinions ... Cheers

brownrice said...

Charlie Higgins said...
I'd be very interested in your opinions
Dunno about you but I instinctively distrust any book that uses a Don McLean lyric as its title :-)

Manson Mythos said...

Ivor Davis looks like a caricature you'd see on a nazi propaganda poster...


and lives up to the stereotype of one as well!

Peter said...

Meaning what? He gets rounded up, murdered and put in an oven?

Mr. Humphrat said...

Haven't read "In a Summer Swelter", but Simon Davis is the Australian I think? who's been on this blog commenting in recent months I believe and was writing a book.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I should read 5 to Die sometime. Does the book specifically credit certain stories to Paul Watkins, Brooks or Juan? George, how do you know for sure when a story they tell is a lie? And, George, you say those three guys knew how to use tabloid stories to their benefit-in what way did they benefit? What about those three in your mind qualifies them as malcontents? In his book Paul certainly seemed pretty happy in the Family up to the point where paranoia and violence took over.

Peter said...

If I remember correctly, during cross examination of one of them during the big trial, possibly Juan or Paul, the circumstances of their interviews and the book deal come out, and it all does sound a bit shady. Brooks comes out of it smelling a little better, but I wouldn't put a lot of faith in what the other two were saying.

Manson Mythos said...

No Peter, don't be silly. A one way ticket back to England would be good enough.

It takes nerve for a...fellow like him to come here and step on a man's constitutional rights so he could write sensationalist pornography. He even pats himself on the back about the fact he helped to convict him.

Peter said...

"Well, I'm all "broken up" about that man's rights."

You'll have to explain to me how writing a book, no matter how sensational, "stepped on" poor Charlie's rights. And your explanation will have to be a little better than that a fellow like Davis looks like a Jew.

You know what takes real nerve? I'll give you five guesses.

St Circumstance said...

Walking into a room and interrupting the speaker and then telling the orator you have met Manson in prison 200 times and they don't know what they are talking about and shouldn't be there...

That takes some nerve I think lol.

You go George!!

Every book - including HS relies greatly on various testimony from the various participants. George's book is just another group of thoughts given by another section of the players who have there own agenda. To clear Charlie. Just like Bugs wrote his with an angle- so too did George and the others.

That's ok with me. We hear all
The angles. Look at the evidence. Then we can make our own judgements.

I am skeptical of George's book. I'm growing more skeptical about HS. I never put much stock in Sanders. I laugh at the vampire monk.

The rest are just various rumors and stories that come from peripheral players. Picking apart mistakes and errors is fun for awhile but gets old fast.

Personally, much more than I like George interrupting and correcting morons...

I liked George and Sandy incognito listening to the tour guide in Death Valley tell tales about The Manson while one of them is standing right there

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

Screen save it while you can, folks!

Peter said...

It is not a violation of his Constitutional rights and it's not a violation of his life, unless he somehow managed to stab Charlie with his book 102 times. It just isn't. No matter what you may think of the author or CNN. If you are just going to cry "violation of Constitutional rights" to everything you don't think is fair, then you are basically saying, I don't understand how the law works, I got nothing, I got my dick in my hand. Most people are more than willing to agree that HS was not the true motive, but we need to be convinced. We need to put our fingers in the wound so to speak. Just saying, well I've seen this information that no one else has, or I talked to the lawyers, or Charlie, means zippo.

And if teh Joos like Charlie, it's probably because it allows them to say "Oy, only a bunch of stupid Goy kids would be dumb enough to follow such a putz."

Peter said...

George. No offense to you. You are a professional.

grimtraveller said...

Charlie Higgins said...

has anyone else read the recent release "In A Summer Swelter" by Simon Davis ? An interesting read but he is very critical of Georges book "Goodbye Helter Skelter"

Yeah, I've read it. I really enjoyed it, Simon introduced some interesting angles into the ongoing debate. He is very critical of some of George's conclusions ~ but coming from a courtroom perspective that finds that there was a sufficient amount of evidence to convict Charles Manson independent of any questions of motive, he couldn't really be anything other. In much the same way that George, believing what he does about Charlie, cannot be anything but critical of Ivor Davis and his book.
For the record, I think all 3 books are superb.

Manson Mythos said...

Ivor Davis looks like a caricature you'd see on a nazi propaganda poster...

Can you explain precisely what you mean by that ?

Mr. Humphrat said...

And, George, you say those three guys knew how to use tabloid stories to their benefit-in what way did they benefit?

Paul actually said "Around the middle of November, at approximately the same time Sadie was at Sybil Brand Penitentiary for Women telling her story to Ronnie Howard, Juan, Brooks, Crockett, and I met with reporters (Don Dornan, Ivor Davis, and Jerry Le Blanc) in Sherman Oaks and told them what we knew about the Manson Family ~ including the murder of Gary Hinman and what we’d heard regarding Shorty’s death. The interviews lasted five days and resulted in the publication of articles in both Spain and Germany as well as a book (which we did not agree to) that was later released, called Five to Die. We were paid eleven hundred dollars each for our information."
So in that sense, they did benefit.

Peter said...

It's ironic that a person who posts propaganda from a regime that murdered six million people because of their religion is convinced that a race war fantasy couldn't possibly have been the motive for the murder of 5 people.

Just sayin'

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

"It's ironic Jews like to combat what they dismiss antisemitic and racist beliefs with rhetoric that actually confirms it."

I don't know, I'm not a Jew, so I can only imagine.


"that is why they work over time to make Charlie out to be either a fool or a monster"

Embrace the healing power of "AND"


I'll leave the rest of your screed to speak for itself.

Peter said...

https://youtu.be/G3KywWPY5zQ

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Every book - including HS relies greatly on various testimony from the various participants. George's book is just another group of thoughts given by another section of the players who have there own agenda. To clear Charlie. Just like Bugs wrote his with an angle- so too did George and the others

But of course. It's interesting that George categorizes Watkins, Flynn and Poston as malcontents. By that stage there were quite a number of them that had been part of the Family. It would seem that finishing as a malcontent was the fate that eventually befell most of Charlie's old mates, including all the ones incarcerated.

That's ok with me

I agree {that it's OK with you !}.
The variety of angles is what has kept this subject such a fascinating one for so many years. Some of the early angles like Five to die, Witness to evil, The Garbage people, Trial by your peers and {although it appeared in 2011 it's from '69~'72} Death to pigs have a charm and importance all of their own that kind of gets overlooked these days, the jailhouse ones like The Manson women, Taming the beast or even The long prison journey of LVH have their role etc, the biographies range from 'yeah !' to 'meh..' and so on....

We hear all The angles. Look at the evidence. Then we can make our own judgements

Although there have been some real clunkers on the subject, I'm glad for the variety of tomes that have appeared. Between most of them, a very interesting picture emerges, some of which may come as a surprise to the various sides of the fence.

I am skeptical of George's book

I think it's a fantastic book and as I've said before, I think HS needs to be read alongside it. I have long opined that it does Charlie in far worse than HS ever did. I think Charlie would have been better off keeping a quiet air of mystery about himself by shutting up.

I'm growing more skeptical about HS

What I find valuable about HS is that it's a chronology as well as being from the specific point of view of the prosecutor. I wouldn't expect it to be flawless.

I never put much stock in Sanders. I laugh at the vampire monk

Sanders book I found written in such a strange style. It wasn't an easy read and it seemed a mixture of the incredulous and stuff he puts names to. Shreck's I thought was an excellent book and well worth the money. Much of the content in my estimation fell under the heading of 'fairy tale' which left me wondering what Charlie would have honestly thought of it.

The rest are just various rumors and stories that come from peripheral players

Of course, depending on who those players are and the nature of their relationship to the various characters, they can still have something valuable to add.

Picking apart mistakes and errors is fun for awhile but gets old fast

It depends on what the errors are. Some come out of sheer laziness mixed with sensationalism. For example, in David Dalton's "If Christ came back as a con man" in 1998, an otherwise excellent article is badly soiled by saying that Rosemary LaBianca was a former biker chick that dealt amphetamines. When writers and researchers throw in sensationalist stuff that we either know not to be true or of which there haven't even been whispers, it severely slices their credentials and makes it hard for much of what that person says to be taken seriously.

grimtraveller said...

Toby King said...

As long as the American public keeps hearing the same old bullshit story without doing some research of their own research and learning to read between the lines, the masses will be fucked out of real knowledge

Granted, but the reality is that it is simply not an interesting enough story anymore for masses of people to take the time out necessary to do some digging and come to conclusions that they can back up in any company and at any time. I could say the same thing about the history of WW2 or the slave trade or a host of things that not many have dug deep on.
In a blurb I wrote in the comments section on Cielo's site about Five to die I noted "Like every book on the subject, there are errors but the errors in the book are forgivable and fall more into the realm of 'subsequently we have discovered more' than the kind of laziness found in more recent books and therefore inexcusable, given that we do know more than was known in early 1970." I stand by that. It's fascinating just how much in the book not so much set the ball rolling for what eventually came out but rather, corroborates what came out from a variety of sources.

ColScott said...

Humpy- at that time I had seen a pile of stuff that this guy Bo Bushnell had put together about the Straight Satans and it was riveting and convincing. Since that time I have become uncertain about Bo and therefore uncertain about his presentation.

Others- I AM CERTAIN that Simon Davis is an idiot. Is this book out in the US?

St Circumstance said...

You could tell from the questions he asked and comments he made he knew very little. I can't believe he actually wrote a book??

I would rather read a book by Mario Nitrini 3 of OJ fame.

Matt said...

Peter said...

I'll leave the rest of your screed to speak for itself.


Apologies from MansonBlog to you and to everyone who sees that kind of ignorant execration prior one of us engaging the delete button.


Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Panamint Patty said...

Fuck off pig

Peter said...

And I'm not even Jewish.
But some of my best friends are.

Found an interesting document in the archives. A motion by Fitzgerald seeking evidence having to do with a number of alternate theories and outlining the drug use and kinky sex acts and other sordid goings on at the Polansky residence. Clerks transcript Vo. 3 about 10 pages in.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

I have cracked the case.

That a Dr. Wayne W. Hoeft, 5554 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, examined said glasses and stated that because of the curve of the ear pieces, that the owner of the glasses had a small round head and probably the left ear was approximately 1/4 to 1/2 inch higher on the head than the right ear. The doctor further stated that the concerned individual was myopic and very definitely needed, the glasses in his position to see normally.

1. small round head, check 2. one ear lower, check 3. myopic, needed glasses to see normally, check.

http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/webimage/1.7441293.1466502214!/image/image.jpg

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

https://i.imgur.com/DDLAVZk.png

***Artists Depiction - Not Actual Photo***

Matt said...

Was Magoo his Family name, or his given name?


Peter said...

I think he was a Straight Satan.

Matt said...

That makes perfect sense...


Peter said...

https://i.imgur.com/rpllUJt.jpg

Matt said...

I'm verklempt!!!


ColScott said...

MATT

You may be a hater but I will tell you again you can delete and block JimNy's IP address

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

St Circumstance said...

I would rather read a book by Mario Nitrini 3 of OJ fame

That's as maybe. However.....

You could tell from the questions he asked and comments he made he knew very little. I can't believe he actually wrote a book??

You really ought to read the book. Then come to some conclusions about it. When you first said to him that it didn't engender much confidence in him as a writer to be asking the kind of questions he was asking here, I thought you were wrong about that and I explained why; there are some good minds here, legal, social, historical and contextual and really, if there was one smart move anyone proposing to write a book could make, given the amount of hogmanure that ends up in books and articles, it would be to pick the minds of those on a site that, in terms of the case, are smarter than the average bear.
Ivor Davis never had that luxury in '69/'70. So he went for as primary a source as it was possible to go for then.
But Simon Davis tried to get some things straight before going into print. The one thing that generally unites all the factions on TLB whatever their particular stances is irritation at inaccuracy. He was attempting to address that by asking questions.
You really ought to read the book. You may love it, you may be riled by it, you may laugh at it, you may be inflamed by it. But you should read the book.

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

St Circumstance, book?

Maybe pretty soon.

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

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

grimtraveller said...

You really ought to read the book. You may love it, you may be riled by it, you may laugh at it, you may be inflamed by it. But you should read the book.


I would but I might miss that fartfest in Aberdeen...


Peter said...

Renewed motion to release the tapes.

Battle stations everyone.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

It takes nerve for a...fellow like him to come here and step on a man's constitutional rights so he could write sensationalist pornography

He was sent as a journalist. He did his job as a journalist and writer. Plenty of journalists and writers wrote about Charlie before and during the trial, on various sides of the equation. Did David Dalton, David Felton and Rolling Stone step on his constitutional rights with their "most dangerous man alive" article in June '70 ? Were Jann Wenner and John Lennon doing likewise when they discussed the case with Lennon referring to Charlie as "cracked" before his case had been concluded ? Were the writers like Steve Alexander doing so in early '70 ?
You can't have it just the way you want it because you don't like what he said....or his cultural background.

He even pats himself on the back about the fact he helped to convict him

Well, I think that's ridiculous. He didn't help do that at all. People often make all these assumptions about the jury or assumptions that don't take into account that the jury convicted him.
Was Five to die some kind of huge bestseller that all the jury and LE were pouring over ?
Bugliosi's view of his book was that it was just a quickie paperback written before the trial {as opposed to the grand tome he was working on after the trial with the result in the bag !} and he went on to say that many of the things that he garnered from Watkins and Poston weren't in the book. Obviously he read the book but was always clear that it was Poston & Watkins that supplied his missing link. He said that to Robert H in the early 70s, long before HS ever came out {recorded in "Death to pigs"}.
If you think about it, Davis doesn't really pat himself on the back ~ it's Aaron Stovitz that says that the prosecution case was based on Davis and LeBlanc's book. But reading his book and having a bit of a knowledge of the case, one can see that's not true. Or at least, that could easily be argued, marketing blurb and Davis' professed surprise at Stovitz's statement aside. And let's not forget other things Aaron Stovitz believed ~ that the murders were done to free Bobby, that Charlie was legally wronged but happy to be some kind of superstar banged up in jail forever, that it was just an LA murder case that no one would remember in 5 years {ie by 1975}.
Aaron obviously thought a lot of things that could be filed under the heading of 'debatable.'

Peter said...

So we are still left with a lack of motive for TLB, other than Helter Skelter

Not really. HS was only one of 3 motives given.

ColScott said...

Drugs is more tenable than you think but I agree it was not drugs. Even if so why LaBianca?

Random, but pressured at not thus far showing the others "how to do it" after that being revealed as the raison d'être for Charlie's direct involvement that night.

starviego said...

Peter said...
Clerks transcript Vo. 3 about 10 pages in.

Do you have a link to these Clerk transcripts?

St Circumstance said...

Thanks Grim and Mario. I can always count on both of you 🍻

Peter said...

They are available through subscription to cielodrive.com. They have already posted about 95% of the trial transcripts for the Manson trial, plus much of the pre-trial briefing, and parole hearing transcripts. Very interesting, well organized and not expensive by any means.

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

Simon's book....

Some time ago Simon asked me to read his manuscript and give him my thoughts. I think he chose me because (1.) I'm a lawyer and (2.) I had written posts questioning the accuracy of Kasabian's testimony. Unfortunately, with the press of other matters I have only read about the first 50 pages of the final version but I assume it didn't change much.

Simon and I had quite a discussion about Kasabian and the need for a motive. I think most people here know I think there has to be one to convict Manson. Simon's position is that Manson would have been convicted even without a motive as Grim noted. I personally think he puts too much faith in Kasabian's credibility but then so did VB.

I thought it was good and an easy read. Two parts I believe make the book worth reading. He gathers in one place sort of an overview of how the Family operated: leadership, finance, drugs, health, etc. I think he did a good job of organizing that information. I'd never seen it in one place like that before. He and I also share the opinion that the defense counsel were not only incompetent but likely unethical and he doesn't dodge that issue.

I recommend it, for whatever that's worth. It's an interesting argument- while we go round and round trying to find the 'real' motive Simon argues there didn't have to be one and the outcome would have been the same.

I'll also add this: a lot of Simon's questions that some deemed 'uninformed' I believe from our e-mail exchanges were actually his way to draw out different points of view.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Humphrat said...

thanks Peter, Grim and Col. for answering some of my questions.

ColScott said...

David

Yes when I want to hear both sides of an argument the first thing I do is act like a fucking idiot. Works every time.

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

Sorry, Col. I had a long day. I'm not tracking with you.

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

ColScott said...

LaBianca

Lynyrd over at LSB once described Steven Parent as the poster child for being in the wrong place at the wrong time but if one kind of connects the dots of randomness on the night of August 9th/10th, home for the LaBiancas was that place. Whereas it seems Cielo was always a fixed destination with no deviations the night before, there seems to be quite a bit that could have prevented the group from not only from pulling up to Waverley but Charlie going over to the LaBiancas.

David said...

I thought it was good and an easy read

It's certainly that. I'm currently reading "Desert Shadows" and at least the way it's started, it's like pulling teeth. I'm hoping that it'll ease up a little as I get further in.

He and I also share the opinion that the defense counsel were not only incompetent but likely unethical and he doesn't dodge that issue

Robert H first alerted me to some of Shinn's shenanigans but this certainly goes a lot further than pose awkward questions without conclusions.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

You're Welcome St Circumstance

And let me add this. And this just might be the most relevant comment this blog has ever had, and, I'd never thought I'd say this in a Trillion years:

But,

"Thank Goodness for blog administrators and their removal skills, especially on this blog, if you know what I mean,"
GESH....

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

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

David when you finish if you still reccomed it please let me know and I'll reconsider. I hear what your saying and if he was just playing stupid I can live with being used and played for a good cause lol.

But what I read and observed of his knowledge and style were not impressive to me based on what he wrote here...

St Circumstance said...

By the way for what my two cents are worth:

I'm not a lawyer or intelligent enough to write a book. But I'm average. I'm the typical type of citizen who winds up on a jury. I'm not a perfect person but I believe in basic right and wrong.

The TLB murders were horrific. Charlie was accused of being the ring leader and the girls were accused of doing the murders with Tex. If they came into a courtroom I was a juror on - and they acted the way they did in front of me.....

I would have absolutely believed they did it and Charlie was in charge with no question. It wouldn't really matter why. I vote guilty for all of them 10 times out of 10.

Laughing dancing. Never denying. Charlie does they all do. Attacking judge. Carving X into heads. Following the leader in words and actions.... I would have been convinced

Just asking?? How important was motive in light of the show they put on

Peter said...

I agree with Saint 100% on that. If I was a juror, I would feel the same way no matter what motive the prosecution offered. A fair trial followed by a first-class hanging for the lot of them.

ziggyosterberg said...


brownrice said...

"Dunno about you but I instinctively distrust any book that uses a Don McLean lyric as its title :-)"


From the truth is stranger than fiction file :

Simon was hustling his book on the Catsfugee site (name of which I can't remember), and they had a "Name Simon's Book" contest. Believe it or not, that was how he came up with the title for his book. This, of course, was after Manson Blog was assigned the less prestigious "Help Simon Write His Book" task.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

If I was a juror, I would feel the same way no matter what motive the prosecution offered

The key to the prosecution case was not so much HS but rather, showing Charlie's domination of his co~defendants which by extension meant that whatever his motivation was, they fell right in ~ even if they didn't actually know what it was. So much of their acting during the trial simply bore out what what the prosecution was alleging. If Manson spoke of HS, they consumed HS. If Manson showed vitriol towards the establishment, their vitriol was amplified. If Manson had a passion for death, they followed him in it. So much of what the women did {and certain Family members during the penalty phase} simply reiterated to the jury what Bugliosi and different witnesses were saying.
The laughing and singing, the X carving, the parroting of Charlie etc only made sense to a jury that were told "this guy runs these people." Zamora makes it clear that he didn't care what the defendants did, he was there to gauge them fairly and he claims he took that role with the utmost seriousness.

Matt said...

Shanah Tovah to out readers who are observant this week.


Panamint Patty said...

What ever happened to Jiri?

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ColScott said...

David- the point was that Simon was not trying to draw out both sides Simon is a fucking idiot.

Saint- If you do not understand why the motive is the ONLY thing I care about because it is the ONLY thing we were lied to about go back to your Sam Adams and give up on an meaningful discussion for life.

St Circumstance said...

It's coors lite Sir lol

I totally get why the motive is important to you. I get why it's important in general.

I understand it's the main purpose of your involvement and a big part of the point of this community.

I just ask if it was important to to the guilty verdict? If you are 100 convinced that someone did something bad. You don't have to understand why to punish them do you?

I am only trying to say that in my opinion they were so obviously guilty and so completely acted exactly like the puppets Bugs said they were- that most people would have seen and heard enough to feel like they got the right people. The community was scared. They wanted to get the responsible people. I don't think they really cared as much about the why as much as they did The Who.

But I understand that's not the focus here.

Peter said...

I never realized that they never offered any defense at the trial.

After the close of the People's case, the defense rested. But the girls all stood up and said in open court and before the jury that they wanted to testify.

Everybody went into chambers. Manson said he wanted to testify also and that he "even got a haircut, and got a suit, and I'd rather take a beating than wear a suit." Leslie made a motion to dismiss Hughes and go pro per and the judge even questioned her on her understanding of the law, the charges, and legal process and her answers were pretty damn articulate. The judge still refused. Hughes even tried to resign. I also never knew that Hughes had never tried a case before this.

Out in court, Sadie actually took the stand and was sworn in, but Shinn refused to ask her any questions. Everybody back into chambers. Sadie admits that she may intend to incriminate herself. Bugliosi says that "I have evidence that Hr. Manson has asked the three girls to take the stand and confess and exonerate him." The defense attorneys all absolutely refuse to put the defendants on the stand without knowing what they will say. The Court suspects that this is all an elaborate attempt at a mistrial or to create an issue for appeal, but is determined to let them testify if they want. He suggests the girls write their own questions for their attorneys to ask of that they give a statement outside the presence of the jury so the their counsel can know what they intend to say. But only Manson agrees. All the girls say they will only make a statement in front of the jury.

Outside the presence of the jury, Manson delivers his famous statement. In it he talks a lot about how his only rule is not to snitch and says, "These children, everything they have done they done for love of their brother. Had you not arrested Robert Beausoleil for something he did not do -- " But the judge shuts this down. Is Manson coaching the girls? I think the Court felt he was. Does that language sound familiar?

Afterwards, they all change their minds and decide not to testify and the defense rests. The next day Hughes goes missing.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

It was the very first book to catalogue the bizarre story of life with Charlie Manson

While it may well have been the first {The Killing of Sharon Tate may have beaten it to the punch} it was by no means the first record of the bizarre story of life with Charlie Manson. Malcontents and loudmouths a plenty had been dropping their own stories all over the place. Even Squeaky and Sandy were talking with Bugliosi in Independence.

As much as anything that mug shot encapsulates the popular perception of Manson as homicidal madman

I've long said that that mugshot is one of the best photos I've ever seen. It's a truly great picture. I don't think it makes Charlie look like a homicidal maniac either. Being an album cover aficionado, that could easily have been a shot for the back of a Moby Grape or Brethren LP.

Davis recounted the police investigation into the murders, taking particular delight in pointing out the ineptness of LAPD

Mind you, in the book, even Aaron Stovitz does that.

If I had asked a question it would have been "If you thought everything you heard from Watkins, Poston, and Flynn was unbelievable, why did you believe it?"

I think it's not an unreasonable reaction to hear something like what those three would have told Davis and LeBlanc and think it's a load of bollocks initially. After all, that was Paul Crockett's reaction at first and come to think of it, Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard's. Aaron Stovitz wasn't comfortable having so much emphasis on Family life. It was possibly most peoples response, at least on first hearing. But Watkins did say that they were interviewed over a 5 day period and in that period, a person can become pretty believable, even if what they say seems far out. Even Bugliosi was aware that the jury would have to keep hearing strands of the same story and from a variety of witnesses because he knew that there was a good chance it wouldn't be believed if heard from just one person one time.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I noticed today looking up Ivor Davis that he is from Ventura, so it made sense to have him give a talk to go along with the museum's current exhibition, because people are interested in local authors. I guess the other two authors live in L.A.?
It just doesn't seem like something to get bent out of shape about, George. They didn't seek you out, you came to their venue. It's a small town thing. Have a bowl of ice cream and enjoy yourself.

David said...

Grim said: ".....that could easily have been a shot for the back of a Moby Grape"

Long day in court....crack a beer and lo and behold a Moby Grape reference. How cool is that: Omaha, Hey Grandma, Mr. Blues, Naked If I Want To, 8:05, Motorcycle Irene and to keep it relevant ....Murder In My Heart For the Judge.

Thanks Grim.

CrisPOA said...

Peter you have a very good narrative style. You should start writing for the blog :)
If you haven't started yet, i dont remember

Peter said...

I prefer my amateur status. And I'm still just a beginner.

St Circumstance said...

But she is right. A beginner with a lot of potential 😉

Peter said...

The girls took the stand during the penalty phase. The transcripts are not labeled and kind of buried in Cielo’s database. They are #3077, 78, 79 (Atkins); 3080, 81 (Van Houten). Also Sandy Good testifies at #3076 and Mary Brunner at #3090, 91.

On the stand, Leslie claims it was her with Bobby and Sadie at Hinman’s house – not Mary, that Sadie stabbed Gary and that she told Bobby to leave the house before Gary was killed, so he wasn’t even there. Might as well be hanged as a sheep as a lamb:

A: … Then we thought we could do copy-cat cases.
Q: Who decided to do that?
A: It wasn't like one person saying, you know, an idea. It was just a group of thoughts put into one thought.
Q: It all came out simultaneously?
A: I am not going to try to pretend like I remember conversations.
Q: So it was you and Sadie and Patricia, then, who decided to do some copy-cat killings?
A: I said a lot of different people. It wasn't like the three of us alone. There were others.
Q: Who else?
A: Linda was there - She became involved in it.
Mainly, probably, because she was a friend of Sadie's. I don't know because I didn't talk with her that much. We asked Gypsy, but Gypsy just completely went off and went into the woods.
Q: Did you ask Charlie?
A: We didn't ask, really, any of the men.

She inadvertently admits to telling Marvin Part that Charlie was with them on the second night and that he went into the house, but she tries to pass it off as something Part had coached her to do.

THE WITNESS: I had a court-appointed attorney by the name of Marvin Part. He had a lot of different thoughts, which were all his own, on how to get me off. He said he was going to make some tape -recordings, and he told me the gist of what he wanted me to say. And I said it.

Q: You told Mr. Part that the second night Charles Manson was with you, Tex, Clem, Sadie –
A: I followed Sadie's --
Q: and Linda; isn't that true? You told him that, didn't you?
A: I followed Sadie's thought precisely. I said everything; that Sadie said in the true confessions that came out in the L.A. Times. Just like Linda did up here, too, Mr. Bugliosi.

Finally, she and Bugs go toe-to-toe on the events at LaBianca’s:

Q: Then why did you start stabbing Rosemary La Bianca?
A: It just started happening. I didn't think about it.
Q: Well, why did you stab her as opposed to stabbing the bed? How come you chose her as opposed to the wall, the bed?
A: Because she was the one that kept screaming out, "Police." “I won't call the police I won't call the police.” The bed wasn't screaming nothing.

Q: Let me ask you again is it true, then, Leslie, that at any given time you can kill anyone for no reason whatsoever? Is that true about you?
A: About me personally?
Q: Yes, right.
A: Anybody can kill anything they can kill. Anybody can.
Q: Are you sorry that you murdered Rosemary La Bianca?
A: Sorry never meant anything, it’s just a five-letter word people use.
Q: Have you ever shed one tiny little tear that you murdered Rosemary La Bianca?
A: I have shed a lot of tears.
Q: Have you ever shed any tar that you murdered her?
A: Not that I can remember.

Peter said...

The defendants appear to have presented their case during the penalty phase. Basically, they used it as an opportunity for the girls - who had already been found guilty and really didn’t have much to lose - to “confess” to TLB as well as to killing Hinman. This is what they intended to do during the trial, but I guess they decided to wait to see if maybe they would get a not-guilty verdict or a mistrial before burning that bridge..

Under questioning by Kanarek, Mary Brunner raises the drug connection with Hinman for what appears to be the first time by anyone. Mind you, this is at the same time she is testifying that in her Grand Jury testimony she lied by “substituting herself for Leslie.”

Q: Now, did she [Sadie] say anything concerning Gary Hinman’s dealing in dope?
MR. BUGLIOSI: That is irrelevant.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. KANAREK: What did she say?
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: She mentioned in one version that I heard, she mentioned there was some dope dealers at Gary's house, that he had burned them, or they had burned him. I don't remember which way it went.

Sadie’s testimony on Manson’s involvement with Gary is absurd. Interestingly, she confuses Clem with Bobby in one sentence.

Leslie and I were in the living room; Charlie had already came in, and was talking to Bruce, with Bruce - and with Gary and with Bobby in the living room. And then Charlie and Bruce and Bobby came into the kitchen, and Gary was in the living room, to my knowledge, I did not see him. And they were talking about the pink slip, and they were talking about who was going to take what car home, and that they were going to leave and it was, you know, it was a lot of changes and a lot of conversation, and I don't know exactly word for word. I don't think I could remember it if I sat and thought about it for 100 years. And Leslie and I were doing dishes, cleaning up the, coffee cups and the saucers for the coffee and Gary is a big man, he is a very large man, say he weighed about 200 maybe six one or six two I don't know for sure. But that is how I saw him.
And he was walking heavily into the kitchen, and he had a gun, it was a big gun. And he was pointing it at Clem, Bruce and Charlie as they were standing by the kitchen cabinet, almost directly across from the stove, and he pointed the gun, and he said "You are not leaving with that pink slip you are not leaving with the money, you are not leaving with anything of mine. Give it back or I will kill you." And he just went off, he went over into a rage, into whatever he went off into. And I stood there, and I watched him shoot the gun, and as he was shooting the gun Charlie came in self-defense and cut him. And Charlie split, he ran, and Bruce ran right along with him.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter said...

I have a question.

What is the whole thing with the Bugliosi perjury indictment? My understanding is that is stems from an article that appeared in the LA Times where the author admits to receiving materials from two of the trial lawyers but never identifies which two. At the time all the attorneys represented to the Court it wasn't them and since the allegation was that Bugliosi was one of them he perjured himself.

What are the materials that they supposedly leaked?

Also, Kanarek keeps alleging that Bugliosi suborned perjury by Sadie in her Grand Jury testimony. Is this related to the Bugliosi perjury allegation? What's going on here?

cielodrivecom said...

The in chambers transcript related to statements made by Virginia Graham. It wasn't the TImes, it was the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. The story appeared on October 9, 1970

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

I have a question

Peter, I'm kind of lost as to you what you're getting at with the pieces of trial transcript and how that's related to "Five to die" or Ivor Davis or any of the conversation offshoot/sidetracks that have been gone into, such as they are. Can you explain ?

DebS said...

Cielo are you referring to the William Farr situation? If so, Peter do a Google search for "William Farr Charles Manson".

Peter said...

Grim. They go to the alternative motives. The copycat motive. And the Hian drug burn motive.

Peter said...

Hinman autocorrect sorry.

Robert C said...

Man I'm getting lost on this thread now as related to the topic.

What is Peter talking about ?

I agree with your last post, Grim.

Peter said...

I'm talking about the motive. The theme of the thread was that these books helped solidify the Helter Skelter motive when there were these other theories. The trial testimony shows that these other theories were just fabrications and how they came out in the course of the trial and why and at what point they came out illustrated why they are fabrications.

cielodrivecom said...

That’s right Deb

Peter said...

Thanks. Cielo and Deb.

Matt said...

Troll Control

The blog will be on moderation for the foreseeable future. Comments won't post instantly but instead will have to wait for an Admin to approve it. We apologize, but the situation warrants it. We will check as often as we can to make your comments live.


grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

What is the whole thing with the Bugliosi perjury indictment? My understanding is that is stems from an article that appeared in the LA Times where the author admits to receiving materials from two of the trial lawyers but never identifies which two

Talk to ColScott about this one. He professes to be the expert. If you unreservedly agree with him on this one, you'll be an expert too.

At the time all the attorneys represented to the Court it wasn't them and since the allegation was that Bugliosi was one of them he perjured himself

In his book, one of the interesting angles that Simon Davis majors on is the conduct of some of the defence lawyers. If what he has to say about them has any legs at all, then it's by no means unfeasible that Farr could have been given those transcripts from members of the defence. If his angle was in any way accurate, it would actually make sense and be quite logical that it came from them. Arguably, Daye Shinn brought in the newspaper with the '"Manson guilty, Nixon says !"' headline in the hopes that something would happen that might lead to a mistrial and Ivor Davis stated that throughout the trial, Paul Fitzgerald was a "great source of inside information" to the media. In George Bishop's "Witness to evil" from 1972, we see Fitzgerald making statements to the press about Pat's guilt, in clear contravention of the gag order, among other things.

What are the materials that they supposedly leaked?

A supposed death list of various Hollywood celebs that the Family were supposedly out to get.

Kanarek keeps alleging that Bugliosi suborned perjury by Sadie in her Grand Jury testimony

Have a listen to this interview, it's fascinating and although it's way into the future as regards the trial, it does give something of a window into some of Kanarek's moves and motivation. It's also sad in a way but that's just my take on it.

ColScott said...

The Bug committed perjury in a capital crime which in itself is a capital offense. He lied through his teeth and got away with it. He was mentally unwell and a sick fuck inside and out

David said...

ColScott said: "....which in itself is a capital offense."

In the context of his lie: Nope.

Peter said...

Thank you everybody and sorry if I've sidetracked this thread a bit.

I looked up the Bugliosi perjury allegation. What I'm seeing is something different. This has to do with allegations concerning subornation of perjury with respect to Sadie's Grand Jury testimony and related to the sale of her book.

But the more I read, the more I'm convinced it's kind of a non-starter because it's all based on a bunch of bullshit.

Basically, what happens - and I urge everyone to just pay Cielo the damn buck (or more if you can afford it because what he/she does is really a labor of love) and read the transcripts because it shows the genesis of all these alternate motive theories - is that the girls take the stand and try to absolve all the other Family members by claiming that: Bobby gave Gary $100 for a car and that when they went to get the car or their money back, Gary pulled a gun on Charlie so she stabbed him because he "threatened my love." (Sadie); that Gary was involved in dealing drugs (Mary); that Leslie was really there at Hinman's not Mary (Leslie); that Linda came up with the idea for the copy-cat killing because she was in love with Bobby (Sadie); that Linda had been burned for $1000 in a MDA drug deal by the residents at Cielo Drive; and that Leslie drove them all to Cielo Drive and then to Harold True's house the second night.(Sadie) That Sadie lied to the Grand Jury because her attorney said it was the only way for her to get off (Sadie), and that Marvin Part told Leslie to tell the same lies as Sadie on recordings so he could play them to psychiatrist and get her off on an insanity plea (Leslie).



ColScott said...

Petey


This allegation was for subornation and never got any traction

He did in fact commit perjury on the stand during a Capital trial and despite what some might tell you it is in fact a capital offense. It has to be because if you lie about someone's guilt and they get killed by the state then you done did commit a crime that cannot be fixed

Peter said...

Col. I understand that. I've seen the posts on this topic on the other blog. It makes sense that if you secure a guilty verdict in a case with the penalty of death by perjuring yourself that you should face the same penalty. It's basically using the legal process to murder someone.

But.

Bugliosi was eventually acquitted. And, I'm not sure you would apply the rule to Bugliosi's alleged perjury the same way you would apply it to someone who perjures themselves on the stand to the jury, which is probably what that law was contemplating. But I am just a humble, small town antitrust lawyer, so I don't know for sure.

ColScott said...

Was he acquitted or did it all go no where? I can't recall.


So according to you the rules only apply SOME times?

David said...

Col,

You seem to be suggesting that Bugliosi could have received the death penalty for his alleged perjury. That is simply not the case. Here is the statute.

California Penal Code Section 128: Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person, is punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3 and 190.4.

ColScott said...

Davey

Bug could have and should have received the Death Penalty for his perjury.

Goliath

David said...

ColScott,

IF (caps on purpose) Bug had caused/helped Kasabian, Jakobon, etc., etc. to lie. And IF someone was innocent (not sure who that would be) and IF the innocent person was executed. You win.

But lying about turning the Hollywood Hit List (alleged) over to a reporter and lying about it. Clearly, you are not a disbarred attorney. The oath really goes like this:

Do you swear.... [Witness: all the time]
To tell the truth....[Maybe, about what?]
The whole truth....[ Not likely]
And nothing but the truth.....[of course not]
Under penalties of perjury? I do.

Peter said...

I don't think he was sworn in. It all happened in chambers. As an officer of the court he was probably under a similar obligation but he did not take an oath.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Col,

You seem to be suggesting that Bugliosi could have received the death penalty for his alleged perjury. That is simply not the case. Here is the statute.

California Penal Code Section 128:


You can 128 Scotty until everyone currently on earth is fertilizer of one description or another, it doesn't matter. You've explained this to him a number of times.
However, monomania is harder to crack than a diamond. He wilfully chooses to ignore all the things he claims to stand up for when it comes to justice, when it does not support his position re: Bugliosi and his propensity for continually going on about it is greater than that of those that are actually armed with facts.

robin torro said...

Books written pre trial, all inaccurate

I'm not sure that they are all inaccurate. They may be questionable, rubbish even, but inaccurate isn't the word I would use. Just about every book on the subject has some element of inaccuracy but it doesn't make the whole show so.

Why does no one, write the tex Watson murders?

Maybe someone should put that to Charles Watson at his next parole hearing.....in 5 years time.
People ask that question as though it not being referred to in that way has resulted in Tex only serving 10 years. Few call them the Leslie Van Houten murders or the Patricia Krenwinkel murders but they're still inside too......

Chris Till said...

Another fine and informative post, Mr. Stimson. Different folks seem to be drawn to different angles of the case. Mr. Stimson and David/Dreath, and the various commenter of late, are foremost among those drawn to the still murky motive. For me, the music angle continues to interest me most.

In that vein, I chanced upon Dean Martin’s daughter Deana Martin's 2004 memoirs "Memories Are Made of This" today. In it, she spends a few pages detailing her encounters with CM circa 1968-1969. While dating Terry Melcher at age 19 or 20, she met CM at Cielo Drive two or three times. The first time was the oft-mentioned incident when CM gave her a silver Indian ring. Once when she met him at Cielo, CM was with Charles Watson and the other time(s) with Lynette Fromme and perhaps other females. At the time, Martin states that TM was working as an independent producer for Apple Records. A little Googling revealed that TM produced the Apple act Grapefruit in 1968. It makes one wonder if CM, like so many other unsigned musicians of that era, responded to Apple’s April 1968 “This Man Has Talent” advertisement.

Further, regarding CM being at Cielo Drive, Mark Lindsay of Paul Revere & the Raiders recalls seeing CM at Cielo twice, meeting him once as CM sat in front of Cielo’s kitchen refrigerator, blocking Lindsay from opening it. (I don’t have a copy of Candice Bergen’s memoirs on hand, but I seem to recall her meeting CM at Cielo too. No?) I just had not realized how often CM had been to Cielo. Peace.

Peter said...

I think during the cross of one of the girls when they are spinning their various lies trying to clear Charlie, Mary and Bonby, , Bugliosi asks why and they talk about the music and Melcher and his response was "that is why that house was chosen, but what was the motive for the murders". Which is true in that they don't need to be the same.

St Circumstance said...

1/2

George this post has made me think back at all the Books about the TLB case. I have read probably 75% of the books published specifically about the case, and a dozen or so Biographies about people who came across Charlie and had chapters that mentioned him...

I will never read Schrek because I cant take anything a guy takes seriously who thinks he is vampire one minute and a monk the next. I don't even think he should count.

I still maintain that H/S is the best I have read and probably the closest to the truth we will ever get.

I like Restless Souls almost as much as H/S. It tells the same story - but from the victims side, and Deb Tate is my hero forever. Every pro-Manson Family person should be forced to listen the an audio version of that book- like every anti-semetic should be forced to walk through the Holocaust museum in DC. Until you can really comprehend the pain and suffering some people cause- you should be careful when you comment about it. It is so classless.

Marylin Marlin or whomever book was ok too... He pretty much plays it straight and gives his mostly qualified psych opinions. We get to here Charlie a little bit too.

Geroge- your book was a good read, and well done job of you to get it self-published. But, your book is much like a lot of the rest of them. Trying to push forth a pro-Manson agenda that hold water in some arguments, and not so much in others. I did like the part towards the end where you compare what Charlie says about the girls today versus how they speak of him. You definitely made your point there in that he is a lot less hostile and more forgiving. Which in most cases would be a sign of graciousness. But, considering what the mistake of following Charlie ended up costed the others, isn't it sort of understandable that the others would be more bitter than vice versa?

( Here is where the die-hard Mansonites will say that the Girls got Charlie in trouble and that's where they totally loose me. How can anyone believe that? How can anyone say Charlie didn't call the shots?)

Long Strange Prison Journey of LULU was easily the worst book about this case that anyone ever wrote. Only the strongest of feminists and Grim like this book :)

St Circumstance said...

2/2


Ed Sanders and The guy who wrote Ultimate Evil simply used each other a sources to spread one crazy rumor after another. There are so many things in Sanders book which I know came from faulty sourcing- I'm not sure how to trust any of it? It was an ok read though before I knew all of this lol

Tex's online book- Will you Die for me" was one of my other favorite things to read. There aren't many articles about him. He doesn't have nearly as many parole hearings transcripts to read/view as the others. This was the first time I got to learn his history and hear his version of the way things went down, from the actual person who did the crimes. Chilling and even more reason to believe he is twice as as scary as Charlie.

Atkins books were horrible. Her final piece of literature- posted online as she was expiring- the Myth of H/S was the most believable thing she ever wrote- but Im still not sure I believe all of it. She claimed to have learned a lot from "overhearing" and being in the right place at right time kind of stuff...

Some really interesting stuff about Manson and the Music scene can be found in the Books "Laurel Canyon" by Michael Walker, and Charlies Topanga days are covered in "Shakey" by Jimmy Mcdonoughs bio of Neil Young.

Also there is an online series 'Inside the LC" which has a whole Chapter about Charlie- and mentions him and his encounters with many of the Laurel Canyon consegneti throughout. This gave me a whole bunch of information that wasn't in any of the other books on the case.

I will let others read Simons book ans let me know if it is better than his appearances here....

Anything else I read was, to me, so unmemorable- I don't really remember it enough to cast an opinion. I have all the videos and DVD's as well, but I recently gave them away to an other member of the community who hadn't seen any of them. The only ones I ever re-watched were MR. H- documentary, and I felt the need to spread them around for the less fortunate to get a chance to view the last, greatest live recordings of life on the ranch any of us will ever see...

I wait with baited breathe or the definitive movie to come put and hope that Quinten can come through.

Alas, I think we have already read the definitive book on the case, and ultimately- like it or not- H/S will end up being the last word....

Happy Sunday and lots of football and beer for everyone I hope :)

Robert C said...

St.C. said: "I still maintain that H/S is the best I have read and probably the closest to the truth we will ever get."

I agree HS remans the front-runner in the horse race for plausible explanations even though I'll always be open to other possibilities, and have even considered many times the reason for the Family actions being several rather than just one.

St.C. said: "I wait with baited breathe or the definitive movie to come put and hope that Quinten can come through."

For me the probability of a movie accurately portraying all that went down is less likely than a rationale explanation for lost airline luggage in the rings of Saturn. For starters the producers and director need to fully understand "all" rather than regurgitate media hype which has been the case so far. At best maybe a well researched documentary -- perhaps get Ken Burns on the case.

Matt said...

JAY EEE TEE ESS JETS JETS JETS!!, (sorry...)

HellzBellz said...

Didnt read for a While....Not realy much time. So had my whole evening filled last night..... Cool Posts,...intresting , Greetz To Y"All ,
from Gold-Coast Brisbane Australia
Hanz