Monday, October 9, 2017

In A Summer Swelter


Simon Davis' new book In A Summer Swelter: The Charles Manson Murders is out.

Because I knew that in Swelter Simon goes into some discussion of my own book, Goodbye Helter Skelter (he was courteous enough to contact me before his book was published to ask some clarifying questions about some of the positions I took in my book before he critiqued them), I was eager to see his finished product and see what he thought about GHS.

But unfortunately, even though I thought I had responded thoroughly to Davis' questions, he has still managed to seriously mangle many of the points I was trying to make. So herewith I will offer a rebuttal to his misinterpretations and (thus) misrepresentations of my viewpoint. (And although I disagree with very much else I can see that's in his book -- which, in all honesty, I have not had time to read through cover to cover -- I'm only going to take the time here to respond to the things he wrote about me and my book.) 

I first appear on page 59 of Swelter where Davis says that I support the drug burn theory of Gary Hinman's murder. But the drug burn argument as described by Davis in no way matches any drug burn argument that I have ever put forth. Davis has Manson ordering Bobby Beausoleil to kill Gary Hinman because Hinman wouldn't give him money. I argue that Beausoleil killed Hinman to keep him from going to the police over his Manson-slashed ear after he had given Manson his word that he would not. It's  a different set of circumstances leading to a totally different set of dynamics. Davis misrepresents my point of view and then goes on to criticize it. But I don't have to defend a position that I do not hold.  (I could go on and address most other aspects of Davis' interpretation of the drug burn theory as he understands it, but my fundamental criticism is that he doesn't understand it the way I understand it, and he should not assign positions to me that aren't mine.)



On page 97 Davis  brings up Voytek Frykowski's  51 stabs wounds and concludes that they were not indicative of a speed-induced "preservation"-style mechanical assault, as I assert in my book. Davis says that the attack on Frykowski was "static," and that his attempting to flee his killers rendered him too much of a moving target to fit the profile of a preservation attack wherein a stationary person would be stabbed multiple times in a mechanical fashion. 

Davis implies that I compared the stabbing of Frykowski to stabbing the arm of a chair, but that is not true. I simply encouraged the reader to "stab" the arm of their chair 51 times to get an idea of just how many times that was (because readers often don't really think about the numbers they read). In any case, Davis says that the stabbing of Voytek Frykowski doesn't fit the circumstances usually associated with preservation because the fatal attack on him did not all occur in one location. Well, as much as I don't like to get into clinical descriptions of how people are murdered (so as not to be considered as peddling gratuitous violence) I would say that it seems that Frykowski was initially attacked by stabbing by Susan Atkins in the living room of the Cielo Drive house. Apparently the accepted number of stab wounds inflicted by Atkins is eight. After those wounds were inflicted Frykowski made a break for the front door, at which point Watson (according to his book) caught up with him and stabbed him several more times and then beat him over the head with the butt of the .22 caliber Buntline revolver thirteen times (another repetitive mechanical motion). Frykowski was still going out the door, so Watson shot him twice in the back. Upon being shot Frykowski collapsed again and then crawled a few feet further onto the front lawn where Watson caught up with him again and stabbed him an additional (allowing for subtracting eight wounds from Atkins and maybe five wounds from himself) 38 times. So maybe the first part of the overall attack on Frykowski was somewhat static, but by the time he had collapsed on the lawn he was a pretty stationary and unresisting target. He was very likely nearly as inanimate as a chair arm when Watson delivered the final 38 blows. And I could say the same for Abigail Folger, who lay a few feet away. Chased out of the house by Patricia Krenwinkel, the coffee heiress was brought to the ground and into a supine and surrendered position ("I'm already dead!") before Watson took over from Krenwinkel and finished her off. How many of Folger's  28 stab wounds did Charles Watson inflict? We don't know. but the evidence indicates that she was likely submissive and relatively still when he did it. 

Pages 192 and 194 -- Here Davis tries to poke holes in the copycat motive by claiming that if the killers wanted the crimes linked they would have used the exact same writing at all three crime scenes. He writes, "Even allowing for possibly being stoned and usually pretty vacant, one would expect them to get the copying part of the copycat exercise right."  

I really love it when grounded, smart, educated people look at the actions of people from a druggie netherworld and try to apply their own carefully considered and linear thought processes to people who aren't just "possibly being stoned and usually pretty vacant"  but rather have been snorting amphetamines for a couple of weeks and are beyond not thinking clearly. I can't imagine that writers like Davis have ever done any quantity of amphetamines (or whatever you want to call the speed spectrum of drugs) or even spent any amount of time around (i.e., lived with) people who have. I mean, how can you wonder why they're not acting rationally? You can't even compare your minds. It's like wondering why a lion and a deer don't act alike. These were young people whose minds were affected by drug use and intentionally alternative thinking and who had little real criminal experience (at least with nothing approaching mass murder). In many ways they had no idea what they were doing. The Tate-LaBianca murders were not well thought out crimes by any means. Tex Watson was not Professor Moriarity, and it's not reasonable to expect him to be or wonder why he wasn't. 

On page 194 Davis points out that I don't mention the cross-examination of the copycat witnesses during the penalty phase of the trial where copycat was "exposed as a lie."  The main reason I didn't include mention of the cross examinations in my book was not because of any intention to mislead by omission as Davis implies (or to omit because of my not understanding the significance of cross-examination, as Davis also implies) but because most of Goodbye Helter Skelter was written in 1998 and 1999 before the Internet existed as we know it today and before TLB trial transcripts were as available as they are today. But since reading Swelter I obtained the transcripts of the penalty phase cross-examinations and read them. Sandra Good testified regarding copycat, but she was not cross-examined. Nancy Pitman also testified in favor of copycat, but in her cross-examination she was only asked about previous inconsistent statements that had nothing to do with it. Susan Atkins and Leslie Van Houten also testified in favor of copycat, but Bugliosi's cross didn't exactly expose them or tear their testimony to shreds. Rather, he merely confronted them with prior inconsistent statements and the insistence that they were telling the truth before but not now. (Atkins prior statements were from her December 1969 Grand Jury testimony and in letters to former jail mates Virginia Graham and Ronnie Howard. Atkins claimed that most of the information she testified to before the Grand Jury had in fact been planted in her mind by D.A. Bugliosi the previous day during a conference Atkins had with Bugliosi and her lawyer Richard Cabellero. She also said that the letters to Graham and Howard were simply exaggerations intended to impress them. Van Houten was confronted with her infamous interview with her lawyer Marvin Part. She said she got all of the information for that interview from Susan's Grand Jury testimony and had made the tapes in cooperation with Part, who wanted tapes of crazy testimony in order to submit an insanity plea.)

Page 223 -- Davis says that Manson claims through me that when he told the girls to "get a knife and a change of clothing and go with Tex and do whatever he says to do," he thought that they would be going on a garbage run. 

Davis counters by writing, "Knowing what we know about life and conditions at the Ranch, it seems like a joke that anyone thought that they needed "nice" clothes for the supermarket or that sanitation was such a pressing issue." This gratuitous insulting of is born of the myth that "the Manson Family" was a bunch of dirty hippies, a myth promulgated by law enforcement officers who would arrest Manson and the people around him during pre-dawn raids, round them up in the dirt, destroy all of the property in the buildings they were living in, and then take pictures of arrestees and the premises and say, "Look! They were dirty, and this is how they lived!" It's a mindset worthy of George Wallace in 1968 and a malfeasance clearly worthy of LAPD in 1969.

The thought that mostly middle-class (or even upper middle-class) young women would descend into living in filth defies common sense. And anyone who sees pictures of any "Family members" that are not sourced from the police can see that they have an obvious tendency towards cleanliness and style. Davis' use of this idea as a counter to Manson's claim is only evidence of a sneering condescension towards certain people who live, whether by choice or because of circumstances, a lifestyle other than his own. 

Manson passing out the glasses is a close call, but it should be noted that it's only a call at all because he said he did it. It fits, however, with the notion of sowing confusion at the scene of any crime that the car's occupants might have ended up committing that night in their efforts to get their brother out of jail (efforts that could have included robbery or burglary or any of a number of other illegal actions designed to do something to free Bobby Beausoleil). But even though the glasses ended up at Cielo Drive they are not evidence of any intent on the part of Manson that murders be committed there. 

Page 224 -- Davis here has totally misunderstood my point about "means, motive, and opportunity" as being investigative indicators as to whether a suspect could possibly be guilty of a crime. And the key word here is possibly. Where Davis ever got the idea that I would think a person who had the means, motive, and opportunity commit a crime would have to be guilty of that crime is beyond me. Really, this is such a fundamental investigative tool that I can't believe I would  actually have to explain to everybody about Billy being the only person in the room when the cookie went missing and how that makes it look like Billy very likely took the cookie since he loves cookies, he has hands and a mouth, and he was the only person in the room. But wait! It turns out that Sally was also in the room! And the dog! So, any one of them could have done it -- not did it; could have done it. We still don't know which one of them did it. We only know that they all could have done it. Is that clear? This is a fundamental evaluation that law enforcement officials make to either clear or set up for further investigation people who are suspected of committing a crime -- not crime on the legal end; crime on the police end. It has nothing to do with the court or any kind of legal requirement, and for Davis to imply that I think it does is really kind of insulting.

Page 225 -- Davis criticizes me for saying that the manner of the murders was not unusual, citing the numerous stab wounds of Voytek Frykowski and writing "It was small by the  standards of  international war atrocities like Katyn or My Lai, But for civilian killing in the suburbs is was incredible."  But I didn't have to go far to easily find information to back my claim, for just in Helter Skelter itself are mentioned the so-called "Scientology murders" of James Sharp and Doreen Gaul (both of whom received over 50 stab wounds on or about November 21, 1969),  Marina Habe (whose body was found on Mulholland Drive on New Years Day 1969 with over 150 stab wounds), and Jane Doe # 59 (who was found near the Habe dump site on Mulholland Drive on November 16, 1969 with 157 stab wounds). And those were just murders that occurred in the L.A. area at about the same time as the Tate-LaBianca murders. Extrapolate beyond those dates and locations and I'm sure you will find many more. So while I'm not trying to minimize the vicious violence perpetrated on the victims in all of these crimes I will stand by my assertion that unfortunately the massive violence committed against the Cielo and Waverly Drive victims was not that unusual. 

In the next paragraph Davis goes in just a few sentences from saying"most" of the participants in the crimes supported Helter Skelter as the motive to  that "all" of the participants supported Helter Skelter as the motive in an interesting sleight of hand that most readers probably won't catch. But Davis fails to mention that all of the participants in the crime have gone back and forth on motive and any person can pick any version that suits their preferred scenario, so perhaps it is time to call it a draw on that point altogether. 

As for all the evidence at the trial about Helter Skelter, I think I addressed most of those in my replies to David's post here. (If you don't have time to read them, the witnesses testified to the existence of Helter Skelter, which no one, not Manson, any of his co-defendants, and certainly not me, has ever denied was a reality in the minds of the people at Spahn's Ranch. But only a few of them said they heard Manson saying he would personally jumpstart the war by committing mass murder.) Here my "astounding" failure to acknowledge these supposedly "incontrovertible matters" forces Davis to step outside the bounds of temperate language, "unable, in the interests of fairness and justice to all parties, to shirk from making harsh calls on these types of statements." 

He chastises me for presenting my book as a "realistic examination of the murders," but Davis' "incontrovertible matters" are not so incontrovertible that participants on the MF Blog don't spend pages and pages of text disputing them. Davis is a TLB flat-earther, unable to see beyond the horizon of his own experience and beliefs. My book is a realistic examination of the murders. Simon's two books, on the other hand, are dogmatic rehashes of the worst kind of prosecutorial propaganda, lies and distortions, and condescending legal snobbery in such excess that it would be impossible for me to address them all here or probably anywhere. And yet "in the interest of fairness and justice to all parties" Davis has to call me out?  Please. Yes, I was cooperative with Davis when he told me he would be critiquing Goodbye Helter Skelter in his book. I only wish he had cooperated back and checked with me to make sure we were clear on everything before he completely misrepresented my points of view in his finished work. 

Page 226 -- Here again is a fundamental misunderstanding based on Davis ass-uming to know what I think. So let me explain the premise of my informal investigation into Manson's innocence or guilt. Yes, I assumed that Manson was innocent because I believe in the fundamental American (United States) concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty and I don't automatically believe everything I hear about people (even people who might not share my experience or values) from the police, the D.A.'s office, the "news" media, or in books. Then I looked for evidence of a plausible version of the circumstances surrounding the various crimes that Manson was accused or convicted of and wondered if amongst all of the different versions of those crimes there were scenarios that didn't point to Manson's guilt. Yes I was looking for them, and yes I found them. If "this is terrifically convenient for Manson, because such an analysis can only have one result -- innocence" then I guess I must have proved my point that alternative scenarios surrounding the various crimes could mean that Manson was innocent. That's the only point I was trying to make with my amateur legal analysis -- that there is a possibility that Manson was not guilty. (It's a possibility that I accept, by the way.)

And in the next paragraph we confront yet more examples of Davis' apparent  inability to comprehend a point I am trying to get across. He says "as I understand it" that I think if a jury is offered a more rational motive than the one offered by the prosecution they have to accept it and therefore acquit. Well, Davis doesn't "understand it" and  that is not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a jury has to accept a more reasonable version of an event or concept (including motive) than an unreasonable version. And if by accepting the reasonable version of motive the jury rejects the unreasonable version presented by the prosecution that is the only evidence of the necessary-for-conviction criminal intent then the evidence of criminal intent vanishes and the jury must acquit.

Further on he says, "The ultimate inference of guilt depends on proof of the essential elements of intent and killing. If there are rational alternatives to the prosecutions versions of intent and killing, then the jury must acquit the defendant. Motive is different. Presentation of a more rational motive does not mandate an acquittal." (underlines in original)

And here we get to the crux of my legal argument regarding Charles Manson. In order to obtain a murder conviction the state has the obligation to prove intent -- not motive, but intent. But in the case of Charles Manson, the offered motive, Helter Skelter, is the only evidence of that required intent. For if Helter Skelter is not the motive, why would Manson desire that these specific murders be carried out? If not for want of the personal gain of becoming ruler of a post-apocalyptic world (don't wince -- it's not my fantasy) why would he order those killings? There is a more rational and less sensationalistic explanation than Helter Skelter for the crimes of the summer of 1969. That's the explanation I give in my book. Copycat is a more rational motive than Helter Skelter. But copycat isn't a motive (indication of intent) for Charles Manson. And that is why it is unacceptable to the "Manson is guilty" crowd. If there was any evidence that Manson had ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders as copycat crimes to free Bobby Beausoleil I'm sure the prosecution would have been happy to run with it as a motive. But there wasn't, so they had to go with the fantasy concoction of Helter Skelter instead.

On 227 -- Davis expresses  "concern" about my apparent lack of legal bona fides. That is certainly a legitimate thing to wonder about, and frankly it's about time that somebody asked.  In the original manuscript for my book I included several paragraphs outlining my self-alleged legal experience but I deleted them from the final draft. What I said, however, was that while it's true that I do not have a law degree I do come from a family full of lawyers. My grandfather was a lawyer, my mother was a lawyer (in 1943!), my uncle was a lawyer, my brother is a lawyer, and I can think of at least three cousins who are or were lawyers. So certainly I'm not lacking in lawyerly genes. (I did briefly consider trying to get a pre-law degree in college but when they took us into the auditorium and informed us that pre-law students were in for some serious school work I begged off.) My family lawyers (both sides) were all very intelligent, educated, and bright, but they were also mere mortals. So I'm not one of these people who is impressed with someone simply because they are an attorney (or even a -- gasp! -- prosecuting attorney!), and I don't automatically give their opinion or mind any more validity than I do to my own. Sorry. 

During Sandy's three-year pro per visitation lawsuit against the California Department of Corrections I attended paralegal courses at the nearby community college (College of the Sequoias in Visalia, California). Not only did I graduate first in my class, but the professor told me that I was wasting my time there and should be in law school instead. Now I realize that that still doesn't make me a lawyer, but it doesn't make me an idiot either. Plus, one needn't be genius to know how to read a statute or even understand a court case ruling. Statutes are mostly written clearly enough that a couple of read throughs should enable any person of reasonable intelligence to conclude whether they fit their circumstances or not. It's usually not too complicated. In fact, lay people are expected to be able to understand the law. (Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse!)

Plenty of books have been written about trials by non-lawyers who question the outcomes of those trials, and my book is nothing unusual. Is Davis saying that one has to be a lawyer in order to have an opinion on whether something is legal? What about anything else? Can a person who has not experienced a certain period of history write about it? Can a person who has not been in a war have opinions and write about it? Can non-athletes write about sports?

Am I claiming I could function as an attorney in a courtroom in a criminal trial? No. I'd get creamed for sure. But I do know my way around a law library and I think I can draw reasonable amateur conclusions based on what I read in law books. So until someone punctures my "no motive/no intent" theory I'll continue with whatever fantasist legal theorizing that suits my pleasure or purpose.

As for Manson severing his trial from that of his co-defendants, I thought made it clear that that was only my own opinion and nothing that Manson ever brought up on his own. I'm saying what he hypothetically could have done. In my opinion. 

Pages 228 - 229 -- Davis lays out  his whole premise of Manson as a diabolical dirtbag who was willing to engineer the executions of his co-defendants in order to save his own skin. He writes, "Stimson's claim of Manson sticking by his friends is incorrect. There is no doubt that the girls were 100% loyal to Manson, but it was a one-way street. Charlie was the epitome of disloyalty to the extent of positively engineering the plan for the girls to falsely testify to his innocence, so they would face execution and he would survive….

"Ultimately there were no debts owed to Charlie, nor were an favours granted by Charlie. The crimes cannot be explained by codes of brotherhood or loyalty within the Manson Family. Charlie's "IOU's" were fictions created by Charlie and propagated by Stimson, in attempt to mitigate the crimes which were in fact calculated and cold-blooded executions, almost all based upon the Helter Skelter prophecy. The code of honour was, and still is, a deception perpetrated by Manson. He used it to get his acolytes to be willing to kill or be killed (will you die for me?"). But there was no way he was ever going to kill, or be killed, for them."

But everything that Davis says isn't there is actually all there. Because Davis is overlooking the fact that on July 1, 1969 Charles Manson shot Bernard Crowe, fatally he thought, to keep Crowe from coming up to Spahn's Ranch seeking revenge for Charles Watson's marijuana burn. In other words, it's not a question of whether Manson would have killed for his friends -- in their minds he already had. And that level of love that he showed them, they showed him right back. And they all -- Manson included -- believed in that love enough that they were willing to go to the gas chamber together. 

Page 237 -- I'm really glad that Davis picked up on the ultimate non-conclusion in my Shea chapter! That was the hardest one for me to write, because I have never had or expressed any doubt that Shea was murdered or that at least Charles Manson, Bruce Davis, and Steve Grogan were involved with his death. So I really didn't know what to think about it. That's why I didn't come to any conclusions there. I felt it was best just to let Manson give his version of the murder ("mumbo jumbo" as Davis put it, but actually perfectly clear) and let the readers decide for themselves what they think.

Regarding whether there was some doubt that Shea had been murdered, I didn't make up that idea out of thin air. In The Family (1989 updated edition, pages 458-459) Ed Sanders wrote, "In addition to the thrill of having a case finally closed, the officers were very glad to find Mr. Shea for a very practical reason: There had always been the faint dread of Shorty Shea showing up. Attorney Paul Fitzgerald: 'They really did want to find this body. And they were subject to to a lot of kidding and a lot of some good natured and not so good natured ribbing about the fact that they railroaded these Manson people to jail, that this was all fictitious, it was all bullshit; that this Shorty Shea, the flake, would turn up one of these days to the embarrassment of all concerned.'"

Bruce Davis and Steve Grogan's confessions to the crime were made years later at parole hearings after they had been convicted,  Barbara Hoyt is a totally unreliable and discredited witness, and Ruby Pearl's nighttime observations regarding Shea and "the Manson boys" are only important in that they set up the fantasy testimony of Barbara Hoyt. and are evidence only of a possible encounter that was likely nine or ten hours before Shea was actually killed (albeit by those same individuals!).

It is also telling that the jurors in the Shea trials were not sure enough of the certainty of Shea's murder that they applied the death penalty to any of the defendants, especially in a supposed decapitation-dismemberment murder wherein one of the defendants (Manson) had already been convicted and sentenced to death for seven of the most atrocious homicides in U.S. criminal history. 

"No body" homicides are always difficult to prosecute because there is no corpse to prove that the alleged decedent is actually dead. Doubt is always a factor in such cases. But it's not accurate for Davis to say that I'm a doubter when it comes to whether Shea was murdered or that Charles Manson didn't have some involvement with that murder, because I never doubted that. How could I? Manson and I talked about it. 

That's about it. I don't have a problem with anything on page 242.


So, to sum up, I have always held that students of any murder case should get their hands on all of the case material they can, even including books. When it comes to Tate-LaBianca, In A Summer Swelter is no exception. You should definitely get it. It is a classic of its kind, a collection of stereotyped and hackneyed caricatures woven together in a fantasy fairy tale of misrepresentations and lies that only a complete naif could believe. Nevertheless it contains much food for thought, and I think everybody should read it. But just remember that although some of the food for thought you consume helps you to grow, a lot of it just ends up as shit.


52 comments:

St Circumstance said...

George here is the hard truth friend ...

If this book is basically nothing more than a rebuff of your book there is no reason to read it. While your book is well written and interesting- it is also propaganda and written with an Agenda. To clear Charlie as much as possible.

Personally, I don't need to hear an argument of why you were wrong in Goodbye HS. I read it and already know it was written with an angle. That doesn't mean your not intelligent or need to be a layer lol

It just means your biased ;)

After reading this review I want to read Simons book even less. I didn't think that was possible. If I had to choose who I prefer to read work by George you win every time but I don't think either of you have the real answers.

Sorry I just don't. I think you both have your own strong opinions. That's ok. Me too. Mine just aren't interesting enough for a book. George yours was. Apparently Simon should have stuck on sidelines with me if all he has to offer is where George was wrong.

Easy to pick apart someone else's ideas. A little harder to put your own out and defend. I do compliment you for that as well George.

Mr. Humphrat said...

George can you explain the phrase "speed-induced "preservation"-style mechanical assault?" I don't understand what preservation refers to in that context.

And I forget from your book why you thought Charlie couldn't have had the motive along with the others of 'get a brother out of jail.'

Peter said...

I think you downplay the significance of the penalty phase testimony regarding the copycat motive. If you think that the crimes were poorly planned, then you should recognize how poorly planned the substitution of this motive was. It is obvious to anyone that it is a very, very, VERY thinly veiled attempt to clear Charlie, Bobby and Mary. I mean really, Leslie trying to say she was there and not Mary, and Sadie saying she stabbed Gary because he ran off Charlie and Bruce?

On the possible garbage run at night. I noted that this was posited in a previous post and I can't remember which transcript I was reading just recently. But they were talking about garbage runs with one of the girls friendly to the defense, and it wasn't on a material point, rather just some background on life at Spahn type of testimony, and they said that they never went on garbage runs at night - period, full stop. I should have written that down, if I can find it again I'll post the case and transcript page numbers.

Robert C said...

St. C. wrote: "If this book is basically nothing more than a rebuff of your book there is no reason to read it."

FWIW, it didn't sound like Davis' entire book was a focused rebuff per Stimson but rather contained some commentary to that end as well as inaccuracies (per Stimson) regarding George's position on certain issues. No offense meant St. C.

What I'd be curious about is is there anything new in Davis' book that we haven't seen/heard before ?

Peter said...

"And here we get to the crux of my legal argument regarding Charles Manson. In order to obtain a murder conviction the state has the obligation to prove intent -- not motive, but intent. But in the case of Charles Manson, the offered motive, Helter Skelter, is the only evidence of that required intent."

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "intent". In the criminal law context, it simply means that when he acted it was with the intent that it cause the death of the victim. That's why when the prosecution is cross examining the witnesses, or when the judge is questioning Atkins during her plea allocution, the questions go something like "And when you stabbed Mr. So-and-so, it was with the intent that it would cause his death." If you read this transcript, you even see how Atkins attempts to insert that the reason was not robbery, but the judge refuses to let her sidetrack the plea and sticks to the point, focusing only on her intent to commit the crime of murder. You may go to a house and stab someone for any number of reasons or no reason at all. You may not even intend to stab someone until the moment you do it. The only necessary intent is that, at that moment you plunge the knife you do it with the intent that the person dies.

With Manson, the prosecution needed only to show that the defendant entered into an agreement to cause the death of someone and that the defendant took some affirmative step in furtherance of that agreement.

I agree with you that Helter Skelter may not be the true motive, I agree that there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding all the who, what, where, whys and when. But the evidence of intent with respect to Manson - at the very least concerning the La Bianca's - is overwhelming. Helter Skelter is just the theme that the prosecution used to frame the story, to give the "intent" context, to create a story that the jury could follow as they tied the various pieces of evidence together over nine months.

St Circumstance said...

I'm with you there. IF there is anything new. No offense taken lol

George Stimson said...

Mr. H,

From Charles Watson in Will You Die For Me? regarding how many times he and the others stabbed the victims:

"I kept wondering how I could have, we could have, struck so many times. Later a defense psychiatrist, Dr. Ira Frank, would explain that speed sometimes creates a phenomenon called “preservation” — the mechanical repetition of a manual act or series of acts. That was how it had been, over and over, again and again, my arm like a machine, at one with the blade."

As for "get brother out of jail" as a motive, yes Manson wanted people to do something to get Bobby Beausoleil out of jail, but he didn't sign on to the means that Watson and the others chose -- copycat murders -- to achieve that goal.

Peter said...

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

prefeteria said...

George - if Manson did not sign on to the means, as you put it, then why did he tie up the LaBiancas?

Peter said...

Charlie was thinking more along the lines of a bake sale, or car wash, or possibly a charity softball game against the Straight Satans. Not murder.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I see thanks George I looked it up and preservation is the term for the repetition after the initial stimulus has stopped
I wonder if it's the same thing as rage creating an adrenaline surge during a killing

Lynn said...

I read his blog and saw his posts here. I am under the assumption that he did not interview anyone new that was directly tied to the case that he gleaned his info from information found directly from this blog and previous published books. Am I correct in my assumption?

AustinAnn74 said...

No offense, but Charlie ain't innocent of jack shit! He sliced a man's face open with a sword, beat the ever-loving crap out of young women (and teenagers) when he wasn't screwing them, had people robbed & taken advantage of due to his obnoxious sense of entitlement to everyone's property (what's yours is mine, what's mine is MINE), shot a man & left him for dead (that's not heroic), and participated in a home invasion where he tied up the frightened, horrified victims, and ordered their deaths. Innocent, when used as an adjective is the last word I could think of when describing Charles Freakin Manson! Of course, all of this is based on the crimes we can tie them to. Imagine the stuff we don't know about.....Hint Hint: Karl Stubbs.......(This is just my opinion. It is not to be taken as a personal attack, btw.)

St Circumstance said...

I think you put that quite eloquently myself Ann.

And I concur wholeheartedly.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Lynn I can't find it in the old blog comments but I think someone asked Simon that several months back and he said he wasn't going to interview anyone, that an interview so many years removed from the event would be unreliable, and that he was scouring the original trial transcripts and very early attorney client interviews and applying his legal training to analyze them. David/Dreath did a blog back in June about the unreliability of eyewitness memory and Simon commented extensively on that.

David said...

I was going to stay completely away from this post but…..I can’t. I am one of those Simon reached out to before he published his book.

No, Lynn, he doesn’t interview anyone because it’s not a book of ‘revelations’. He generally accepts the facts of the ‘official narrative’. He relies primarily on the transcripts and interviews with the players and also case law and various studies.

There are no ‘oo-ee-oo’ or ‘ah-ha’ moments.

He argues that the evidence is overwhelming that HS was the motive. But he also argues that motive didn’t matter to the convictions and that Manson would have been convicted anyway by the overwhelming evidence against him. He does a nice job of building his case using a list that grows as he proceeds. (ie:1. Disciples. 2. Gun. 3. Rope. 4. Thong. 5. Scripture. 6. Houses. 7. Bolt cutters. 8. Glasses…..).

Davis argues Manson wasn’t so much trying to incite a race war as he was conducting a personal war and that HS was a tool he used to motivate and ‘depersonalize’ his soldiers.

A couple high points:

Hinman. Simon says (couldn’t resist) Hinman is the first HS murder. I wasn’t convinced but the arguments are interesting.

The incompetence and more accurately unethical behavior of Fitzgerald, Shinn and Hughes. The argument is that the ‘girls’ (not Manson) didn’t receive a fair trial because they were effectively unrepresented. In fact, the three, during the trial, actively undermined any defense the girls might have had to either guilt or the DP in order to try to free Manson. The copycat crap in the DP phase is part of that. It was literally assisting the girls to commit suicide. Davis cites examples from the transcript where not only was the question asked on cross examination stupid it actually hurt the questioner’s client. Davis goes a step further and argues the girls were likely incompetent to enter a plea at the outset, which is interesting (see, below, but maybe only to a lawyer). While the girls likely still would have been convicted, the question asked is ‘of what’?

Davis spends a lot of time discussing legal aspects of the case. Reading it the second time that is likely one reason I liked the book- others may not appreciate those parts. One thing that is clear- a lawyer wrote this book.

In the end Davis’ theory is that the family was a ‘cult’ like many others and the crimes occurred because Manson went to war.

Which brings me to this post….

I would have much preferred if this had been a review.

I am unclear how someone can say this: “And although I disagree with very much else I can see that's in his book -- which, in all honesty, I have not had time to read through cover to cover….”

And then say this: “You should definitely get it. It is a classic of its kind, a collection of stereotyped and hackneyed caricatures woven together in a fantasy fairy tale of misrepresentations and lies that only a complete naif could believe.”

In fact, I think the first statement rather uniquely disqualifies the author from making the second.

I think Grim and I are the only two people here that have read this book. Because of this fact I have to ask what the defense, here, is all about? Most of us are sceptics on one level or the other or we wouldn’t be here. So who actually would be swayed by Davis’ comments about Stimson without reading Stimson?

I’m left with the feeling that this comment- “collection of stereotyped and hackneyed caricatures woven together in a fantasy fairy tale of misrepresentations and lies that only a complete naif could believe.” – is rather unfair given the author hasn’t read the book.

As Stimson observes, Davis does indeed lay “out his whole premise of Manson as a diabolical dirtbag who was willing to engineer the executions of his co-defendants on (sic) order to save his own skin.” That observation likely reveals the motive behind this post.

I also guess I’m a complete naif.

Oh…… and Fitzgerald, Hughes and Shinn helped Manson do it.

George Stimson said...

No, I didn't read the whole book, but I got enough of the gist of it from leafing through it to see where Davis was coming from.

And also no, the reason behind this post was to point out where Davis misrepresented my point of view, not because he laid out any premise that was worth ten minutes trying to refute.

If you're a true HS believer, believe on. My book isn't intended for you.

George Stimson said...

And I fixed the typo. Thanks!

St Circumstance said...

so Simons book offers nothing new? Just an argument for HS and a rebuke of all the pro-Manson arguments? A list of all the reasons every other motive doesn't hold water except HS. Lol

Maybe I could write a book about the case after all. It would probably suck though. I don't really care as much as most of you why they did it. I'm content to know we got the right group of animals and they are paying for it. Let the doctors sort out the psychology. Just keep them far away from me please.

George it makes my mind race to think what you could accomplish in life if you aimed your focus on something more productive than trying to convince the world Charlie was something more or better than he really is. For such a smart capable guy- you chose some strange friends. But then again I hope I'm one of them so who am I to judge lol

Peter said...

The True Story of the Tate La Bianca Murders that Probably Sucks

By St. Circumstance

Now available in paperback wherever fine books are sold

Peter said...

"The main reason I didn't include mention of the cross examinations in my book was not because of any intention to mislead by omission as Davis implies (or to omit because of my not understanding the significance of cross-examination, as Davis also implies) but because most of Goodbye Helter Skelter was written in 1998 and 1999 before the Internet existed as we know it today and before TLB trial transcripts were as available as they are today. But since reading Swelter I obtained the transcripts of the penalty phase cross-examinations and read them."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkqgDoo_eZE

St Circumstance said...

Lol

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

If you're a true HS believer, believe on. My book isn't intended for you

I believe that HS was part of the 3 pronged motivation that the prosecution claimed and I think your book is superb.

That's the only point I was trying to make with my amateur legal analysis - that there is a possibility that Manson was not guilty

I agree with that. I remember when I first read your book in the May/June of 2015, reading that point and I did a lot of thinking about that. To walk one's talk and live just principles, one has to believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty unless you actually saw the crime {and even then it may not be cut and dried}. I just don't see that, having looked at evidence of varying shades and statements made across 4 decades and in particular, taking on board what Charlie himself has had to say and weighing that all up, the prosecution got it wrong.
Maybe I am but a naif. But then, you're likely to say that of anyone that upholds the prosecution view, even if they have meticulously searched it with a searing light themselves.

St Circumstance said...

If this book is basically nothing more than a rebuff of your book there is no reason to read it

It's a heck of a lot more than that. There are a few parts where George's book is critiqued. Given that George's book is the only book of any substance in the modern age that takes anything approaching a sound legal look at the case and the reasons for Charlie's conviction and given that Simon is a lawyer that believes HS wasn't necessary to convict him, it was inevitable that he would have to point to flaws he sees in the book. A similar thing was done a couple of years ago on this blog.
But St, I'll say it again ~ you should read the book. I cringe every time you conclude how crap it is or will be but won't read it first. There will soon come a point where I won't be able to encourage you to read it because you'll have gone beyond the point of no return. But read it. It's an interesting book. Is it flawed ? Yeah, but I've not come across one TLB related book that isn't. HS is, George's one is, Death to pigs is, the long Leslie walk one is, George Bishop's is, Shreck's is, Garbage People is, Crucified is....I don't know about you but I don't look for perfection, just good, incisive and thought provoking writing, whether I ultimately agree with the stuff written or not.

Robert C said...

is there anything new in Davis' book that we haven't seen/heard before ?

That depends on what you've picked up or noticed before. Sometimes there's info that's been out there for 47 years that not even the prosecutors really picked up on. I certainly came across stuff that I'd not encountered before. But new stuff isn't always what it's suspected to be, as an example think of Linda Kasabian's statement that she entered Steve Parent's car when ordered to get his wallet.

Lynn said...

Thank you, Dreath for your review. With what you have said about the book, it sounds interesting but reading legal information from an attorney sounds like a homework assignment...I liked your cliff notes better.

grimtraveller said...

George Stimson said...

In fact, lay people are expected to be able to understand the law. (Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse!)

Although paradoxically, it's generally frowned upon if someone wants to represent themselves in a court of law....

When it comes to Tate-LaBianca, In A Summer Swelter is no exception. You should definitely get it. It is a classic of its kind, a collection of stereotyped and hackneyed caricatures woven together in a fantasy fairy tale of misrepresentations and lies that only a complete naif could believe

It is kind of interesting that two of your recent posts about writers called Davis take similar verbal shots at what they've written ~ interesting because one has a sensationalist element to it and one is legal. I'm particularly fascinated that one of Simon Davis' major points is that HS was not necessary to convict Charles Manson ~ but still invites a sting or 10 from you.

St Circumstance said...

so Simons book offers nothing new? Just an argument for HS and a rebuke of all the pro-Manson arguments? A list of all the reasons every other motive doesn't hold water except HS. Lol

St, you really should read the book. Had you done so, you may not have written that.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I agree with Lynn I may not read Simon's book because of the legal focus maybe I should though It's the same reason I skipped over some of George's book
George I was wondering was your book sold primarily through Amazon and how have the sales been? How does it fair as a self published book?

St Circumstance said...

I may not read it only because I thought Simon came across as a butthole.

Also because if it has no new information what is the point? Another persons point of view on the facts as we already know them?

I have been getting that here for years. And yes- there have been several lawyers weighing in over the years including Dreath now so I get that as well....

Why did this guy think he would make money writing a book that covers nothing new and rebuffs a privately published book most will never hear of? ( no offense George)

If there are no no interviews or revelations- and he has no personal ties- it becomes another spouting of personal opinions and his personal ideas. He means nothing to me or this case. He was a putz when he interacted here.

I don't get it and think I will pass but I appreciate the idea to read and absorb as much as possible. I just don't see much opportunity to learn and I have learned to pick and chose materials more carefully as I just don't have the same time on my hands to waste that I used to.

Besides Grim. I want Long strange prison journey of Lulu to remain worst book on TLB and I think this might give it competition.

πŸ˜‰

St Circumstance said...

Worst book on TLB - I have personally read. Let me clarify lol. I'm sure Schreks book sucked too among a few others

starviego said...

David said...
The copycat crap in the DP phase is part of that.

I have to agree that the copycat theory of motive is the least believable of all. Bugliosi himself destroyed that theory in his book. Hard to believe anybody takes it seriously.

Peter said...

David.

I think you place too much blame on the girls' defense attorneys. To their credit, they appear to have dissuaded the girls from taking the stand during the trial phase which is what they originally intended to do. They took the position that they would refuse to ask them any questions on direct and even went so far as moving to be relieved as counsel. After the guilty verdicts, the girls got their wish, but to imply that Fitzgerald, Shinn and Hughes were somehow complicit in sacrificing their clients is as tin-foil-hat as anything else that's been raised here. I've read much of the trial transcript and I didn't see anything that rose to even the level of an appealable 6th Amendment issue. To the contrary, I think Fitzgerald was quiet good, given the client he was dealt.

I'd ben interested in his reasons for believing the girls incompetent to enter a plea. Not interested enough to buy the book, but interested. My understanding is that the test is the same as that for competency to stand trial, which I think they all clearly had in January of 1970.

grimtraveller said...

Lynn said...

but reading legal information from an attorney sounds like a homework assignment

You know, it's a really easy read. I'm ever fascinated by how some books are so easy and some are so hard. I recently read "Desert Shadows" and it was like pulling my own teeth ! Getting from one word to the next was a real effort and when I would put the book down, it felt like I had been pushing a snowball uphill in the desert at noon. Whereas straightaway after, I read Rosemary Baer's "Reflections on the Manson trial" from 1972. She was the wife of one of the jurors in the trial and apart from the odd haiku or poem, the book reads so easily. I got through it in 3 or 4 days, just reading it in the bath.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I may not read Simon's book because of the legal focus maybe I should though It's the same reason I skipped over some of George's book

The legal angle is what makes the book and it wouldn't have been in Simon's interest to bog it down with technical jargon. It really does read easy. I find it an easier read than "The Family."
I'd also encourage you to read the entirety of George's book. It went a long way towards getting me interested in the legal aspects of the case. In it, he mentioned three parts of Judge Older's directions to the jury that supported the case he was making in the book and when I came across all 108 parts or whatever it was in William Zamora's "Trial by your peers" I forced myself to read every point of the direction given. More than anything else, that transformed not so much my interest but my understanding of the case. I was able to catch exactly why various characters were done for conspiracy and what constituted which aspect of which crime. David has opened much of that up since, but understanding those legal parts has only added to my fascination. If I hadn't tried to get to grips with them, I'd never dare to challenge ColScott on many of the things he keeps repeating. We're fortunate that we have got access to people like George, David and Simon who are able to articulate certain aspects of the law in easily digestible ways.

St Circumstance said...

I may not read it only because I thought Simon came across as a butthole

I liked him. I didn't agree with everything he said but when he was new, it was our end that started giving him jib initially and he gave as good as he got. There was a lot of crossing of wires.

Also because if it has no new information what is the point?

New information is kind of in the eye of the beholder. There can be old information but put together in a way that no one else has done so which makes it "new."
In this particular instance, you may well come across stuff that, because of the way it is collated, causes you to see certain matters in a somewhat different light. I don't really want to go into details on that because the conversation we'd have wouldn't be anywhere near as fruitful as the one we'd have if we had a relatively shared understanding of the particular point[s] Simon made, the way we can for example, with the long Leslie prison road book.

David said...

Peter,

I was writing a review. Those are Davis' arguments.

Peter said...

I realized that and was going to correct, but knew it would be too late anyway with the delayed posting.

Anyway, would be interested in the competency argument. Untangling the pre-trial transcripts and motions is the hardest part of the case to understand in my opinion. All the multiple substitutions of attorneys. I still can't figure out why they didn't let Manson represent himself? It looked like at one point they were going to, and they the court just steadfastly refused.

ziggyosterberg said...


St Circumstance said...

"I want Long strange prison journey of Lulu to remain worst book on TLB and I think this might give it competition."

Mario's upcoming book, "Charles Manson's Secret Construction Site and Me", might give both of those books a run for the money.

ziggyosterberg said...


starviego said...

"I have to agree that the copycat theory of motive is the least believable of all. Bugliosi himself destroyed that theory in his book. Hard to believe anybody takes it seriously."

A pimp kick-starting a race revolution in an effort to take over the world is more believable?

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

David.

I think you place too much blame on the girls' defense attorneys


That is one of the reasons why you ought to read the book rather than blindly second guess it.

Not interested enough to buy the book

Some of the TLB books are expensive. I remember when I asked Robert H if I could have "Death to pigs" at a slightly reduced price and he wasn't able to do it. I then made a decision that if I really wanted to find out what various author's angles were on this thing, then every so often, I was going to be looking at a bit of a layout of cash, especially if I was buying them from the US of A with postage included. But I was always like that with rare records too. Learn to do without one thing for a couple of weeks so that I'll have that album forever. Shreck's book was pricey but I considered it a must have and I'm glad I've read it and got it.

St Circumstance said...

I'm sure Schreks book sucked too

You could never have a valid opinion on that unless you'd read it. It's 991 pages and takes ages to digest. There's quite a lot of stuff there I'd never come across before, much of it being Shreck's opinion. He blatantly stated that Charlie and Sandy had had a falling out and said Charlie was none too complimentary about her and George.
Actually, it's a frequent thing among a number of the authors of the various books, this thing of knocking the other authors and their books. Bugliosi does it with Sanders and Davis, Schreck does it with even those that seemingly support where he's coming from and well, we know about George & Simon. It kind of reminds me of the way mechanics here in London so often knock another mechanic's work, "'kin,'ell man, who did this job on your car?"

George Stimson said...

Davis tries to poke holes in the copycat motive by claiming that if the killers wanted the crimes linked they would have used the exact same writing at all three crime scenes. He writes, "Even allowing for possibly being stoned and usually pretty vacant, one would expect them to get the copying part of the copycat exercise right."

Yeah, but come on George, is that really unreasonable ? In trying to deflect attention from the "crime of the century" and one of its supposedly kooky {and seen by many as the main} motive by saying "this copycat is the real motive," regardless of thinking or not thinking clearly, it's not a fart in a hot room to question to what degree the copycat actually copies the cat, if you get my drift. In saying what you do about Davis' denigration of the copycat, you kind of shine a light into HS in exactly the same way. "when grounded, smart, educated people look at the actions of people from a druggie netherworld and try to apply their own carefully considered and linear thought processes to people who aren't just 'possibly being stoned and usually pretty vacant' but rather have been snorting amphetamines for a couple of weeks and are beyond not thinking clearly. I can't imagine that writers like Davis have ever done any quantity of amphetamines (or whatever you want to call the speed spectrum of drugs) or even spent any amount of time around (i.e., lived with) people who have. I mean, how can you wonder why they're not acting rationally? You can't even compare your minds. It's like wondering why a lion and a deer don't act alike" could just as easily apply to HS, even with those that have been in the druggie netherworld.

David said...

Thank you, Grim, I appreciate that comment.

St Circumstance said...

George Mario Nitrini III of OJ lore....

His book I will read πŸ˜‰

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

I have to agree that the copycat theory of motive is the least believable of all

I wouldn't say it was the least believable. I wouldn't even say it was unbelievable. I just don't think it's true.
Every one of the motives put forth have been believable.

Lynn said...

reading legal information from an attorney sounds like a homework assignment

Reading through some of the "approach the bench" and in chambers sessions during the actual trial, now there's a homework assignment. Some of it is interesting, some of it is excruciating. My advice ~ only do it when you're not tired or when you don't have a wandering mind.

St Circumstance said...

Besides Grim. I want Long strange prison journey of Lulu to remain worst book on TLB

Have you read Virginia Graham's "Sinatra, Manson and me" ? Be prepared to forego those extra few hours on the end of your life if you do. Books as lame as that, you don't get the time back !

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Mr. ziggyosterberg

Well ziggy, I would highly-doubt that I would write a book pertaining to
The Charles Manson Case & Saga. But ziggy, if you've been following my Tweets on my Twitter account, you know "Who" I've been corresponding with who had a "Connection" to The Manson Family while The Family lived at Spahn Ranch.
Certain "Happenings" at Spahn Ranch when The Manson Family lived there is NOW my main focus in The Charles Manson Case & Saga.

A few blog posts ago, St Circumstance commented about me (OJ lore) and a book in The OJ Simpson Case. I commented back to him:
"Maybe pretty soon"
But, for me, No, I could NEVER
"tell-all" about what's happened to me and how I've gathered information and evidence in The OJ Case. No Way.....

But ziggy,
Maybe I could pitch a reality show to the networks titled:
"How to Keep-up with The Osterbergs" especially:
YOU KNOW WHO.....lol

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

Lynn said...

It most definitely would be interesting!

Lynn said...

Thanks, Grimm. Like Mr. Circumstance, my time these days is very limited, so even a book that takes a few hours and i am not getting into it is a waste for me. I liked Dreath's synopsis, that was good enough for me.

St Circumstance said...

Mario George Nitrini Cubed...

You are like Kazoo from the Flintstones. All I have to do is say your name and you appear lol. 🍻

Mario George Nitrini 111 said...

Well St Circumstance
I guess you could say I am Jurassic.

I read this fine blog, I comment and read on katie's/beauders blog, and I have read some of Col Scott's blog. All 3 blogs are excellent, and I have gained knowledge from all 3, and in some cases, all 3 blogs have confirmed some "Items" for me that I know, that are related to
The Charles Manson Case and Saga.

PS St. Circumstance:
I always liked Kazoo......lol


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

David said...

Does anyone actually follow Mario on twitter and have the slightest clue what he's talking about?

Mr. Humphrat said...

I tried to read some of the stuff from his Twitter site last night, but part of the problem is I don't follow Twitter at all so it looks like shorthand to me. I didn't see any reference or comment from someone who looked they stayed at Spahn's Ranch. I Googled Osterbergs and couldn't see anything which seemed relevant to OJ or Manson.

St Circumstance said...

Lol. Cheers!

strix aluco said...

The Twitter reference is a tenuos link showing that an ex Hells Angel named George Christie knew some of The Straight Satans and possibly went to Spahn. Nothing on Georges blog indicates he knew Danny De Carlo or Manson.There is a photo showing the Spahn raid featuring Manson and Danny and a one line reference. George has written several books so maybe there's more in there.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks Strix

grimtraveller said...

George said...

This gratuitous insulting of is born of the myth that "the Manson Family" was a bunch of dirty hippies, a myth promulgated by law enforcement officers who would arrest Manson and the people around him during pre-dawn raids, round them up in the dirt, destroy all of the property in the buildings they were living in, and then take pictures of arrestees and the premises and say, "Look! They were dirty, and this is how they lived!" It's a mindset worthy of George Wallace in 1968 and a malfeasance clearly worthy of LAPD in 1969.

The thought that mostly middle-class (or even upper middle-class) young women would descend into living in filth defies common sense. And anyone who sees pictures of any "Family members" that are not sourced from the police can see that they have an obvious tendency towards cleanliness and style


Does it defy common sense ? Part of the alternative living of some groups and certainly the Family was turning one's back on "the conditioning" of class, family, school and religious structures. There's been lots spoken about that over the last half century.
There are a few indications of the conditions at Spahn & Barker not being exactly salubrious. Al Springer noted the filth of the place which really put him off. The desert rangers that busted the Family at Barkers noted that the clothes of those arrested were filthy, the bathroom was filthy, the mattress in the bedroom was filthy and someone had left a shit in the corner of the living room {in "Desert Shadows". I keep referring to it as Desert Sands for some reason !}. Stephanie Schram, whose interview with Brian Davis back in 2011 was far more complimentary of her time with the Family than not described Barker as being hot and dirty with little food and Spahn's as being dirty with dirty food and she even caught dysentery from the water while Dennis Wilson & Juan Flynn were on the record about the prevalence of STDs.
I don't think there's any correlation between the dirt at the various ranches or the lack of personal cleanliness and the murderous activities so in that regard, I think that was a cheap shot on Simon's part ~ but let's not pretend it was a 5* spa designed for Arabian royalty.
When I look at photos that are in existence of any of the raids, I don't see a bunch of dirty hippies but even if they were dirty, so what ? The Beatles, the Stones, Donovan and their ilk went through phases where they weren't exactly prime time adverts for Dove soap. Once, the Stones were staying in a hotel where the water was turned off and Mick Jagger issued a sarcastic statement to the press saying "so you can't blame us if we smell !"
Where I definitely will agree with you is that clothes wise, the Family, {even Charlie when he had been in the same clothes for a while} had style.

Lynn said...

Mario, curious if you would ever do a walking tour of the construction site and share your thoughts

beauders said...

Mario it’s not my blog it belongs to Lynyrd Skynyrd and Katie works with him.