Monday, June 11, 2018

Why Esalen?

Manson’s road trip to the Esalen Institute in early August 1969 has always interested me. When he returned from this little junket on August 8th he proclaimed the start of 'Helter Skelter'. 

A lot had occurred while Manson was gone. Bobby Beausoleil had been arrested so maybe the timing of the announcement relates to the final decision to ‘get a brother out of jail’ and start copycat murders. Then again, maybe the announcement occurred because of the approaching anniversary of the Watts Riots (August 11-16, 1965) . Or maybe there was some other reason why, suddenly, now was the time. 

And maybe it was related to Manson's trip to Esalan. 

I scoured the notes I took listening to Manson's interviews. I didn’t find any reference to Esalen in my notes. I admit I didn’t go back and listen to those again. At the time I took the notes I wasn’t looking for Esalen so maybe something is out there. If not, and if we believe Nuel Emmons, here is what Manson said about the trip....
_____

“So, looking for that feeling of escape, I drove there now. I spent the night in my truck, and the next day, I visited the Esalen Institute to enjoy the mineral baths. It was totally relaxing relaxing and I felt refreshed when I left. 

After leaving the Institute, I parked my truck by the ocean, smoked a joint, played some music and fell asleep. About two in the morning, I woke up and went looking for a coffee shop. While looking, I pulled into a service station for some gas and to take a leak. On my way out of the john, a young, pretty girl [Stephanie Schram] was going into the ladies’ john and I lingered until she came out. When she did, I asked what a pretty girl like her was doing out so late at night—by now it was well after three.”

(Emmons, Nuel. Manson in His Own Words (p. 192). Grove Atlantic. Kindle Edition.)


_____

There are a few things wrong with this. 

The most obvious error, for anyone who has read Helter Skelter, is that Stephanie Schram is not with him when he goes to Esalen but she is picked up after his visit. Her statements contradict this. She says she was there.

Steve McQueen at Esalen
Another problem is that by March 1968 no one simply walked into the Esalen Institute to use the hot springs. By then a ‘hippy guard’ (sometimes a Hell’s Angel) patrolled the parking lot and entrance and checked the credentials of anyone trying to get in. ("Games People Play at Big Sur", Los Angeles Times, Sunday, March 17, 1968) 

The only way to get in by August of 1969 was by reservation or invitation. It cost $75 for a weekend (about $600 today). 

The third problem is the date is wrong. In 'The Family' Ed Sanders calulates Manson’s presence at Esalen as being August 3, 1969. He relies on Emmon’s statements by Manson, above. (Ed Sanders, The Family, pp 190 2002 edition.) That is not the right day. 

If Emmons did hear this description of Manson's visit to Esalen from Manson it does at least suggest to me that Manson was trying to trivialize his visit there: (1.) He changes the date (2.) He eliminates the only eyewitness and (3.) He avoids any suggestion that the egg heads at Esalen had disrespected him. 

Why?

Esalen is not much help in answering this question. The ‘official’ position of the institute is that Manson was never there. 
______

“Larry Harvey and Michael Murphy are sitting on stage in that same cliff-topping tent near the end of Esalen’s property where we were welcomed to the four-day summit. Stuart Mangrum is up there too, moderating the exchange between one of Burning Man’s founders and the co-founder of Esalen. It’s a little like they are at the adult table, talking as visionaries do, while us kids overhear snippets and try to get the jokes.”

*****
“A lot of people didn’t like, or were threatened by, what was happening, or what they thought was happening, at Esalen. Dick Nixon targeted the place for dirty tricks, like the time his henchmen tried to convince the press that Charles Manson had hatched his murderous plans for Sharon Tate while on retreat there. (For the record, Manson never stayed at Esalen.)”

(John Curley, The Burning Man Journal, November 19, 2015 from https://journal.burningman.org/2015/11/philosophical-center/spirituality/burning-man-takes-a-look-inside/)
_____

If the author took the parenthetical at the end from something Murphy, the co-founder of Esalen, said then Murphy seems to be saying Manson was never there. At the same time look at how the denial is actually phrased: Manson never “stayed” at Esalen. And that may be accurate.

A historical account of Esalen has this to say about Manson’s visit. 
_____

“Things could get very dark indeed. Charles Manson was forming his own cult down at Lime Kiln 57. Moreover in an aggressive attempt to discredit Esalen, what Murphy calls “the Dirty Tricks Department” of the Nixon administration went so far as to claim that Charles Manson had been indoctrinated at Esalen and that Esalen was therefore somehow implicated in the murders. The opposite was in fact closer to the truth. Seymour Carter remembers being awakened by a young woman in the middle of the night in the waterfall house, where he was living with his girlfriend. The waking woman wanted to get her friends into Esalen. Sleepily, Carter agreed to meet the group, which turned out to be three women, a baby and a scruffy hippy man in a bread truck van parked up on Highway 1. After offering Seymour some grass to smoke, the man began playing his guitar and singing, both badly. Carter sensed that something was wrong, that they were, in his own words, “bad news”. He thus refused them entry and sent them on their way. Within two weeks, the murders happened, and within another two Esalen was receiving phone calls about rumored links. Carter realized then just who he had sent away that night.

It was true, though that Abigail Folger, the coffee heiress who was among the murdered, had attended an Esalen seminar. It was also true that Sharon Tate happened to be at Esalen the night before the gruesome events. Both were there to work with Perls. But there certainly was no causal link between Esalen and the Manson crimes. The connection was not fact, but rather the work of a misinformation campaign apparently under the direction of White House aides. With events such as this Esalen knew it had to be careful. It had enemies in very high places.”

(Jeffery Kripal, Esalen: America and the Religion of No religion, University of Chicago Press, 2007 pp 133).
_____

Again, there are a few problems with this story too. First, no corroborating source is identified, while the Hell’s Angels bit, just above, has a footnote, the Manson story does not. Not even one saying the author spoke to Seymour Clark. 

There are, also, too many people with Manson, although the description does sound a bit like the Family right around April, 1968. 
George Harrison and Ravi Shankar at Esalen 1968

I also found absolutely nothing to corroborate this tale from anyone including Seymour Carter (Gary Sohns), even after slogging through about a dozen interviews where I learned more about Gestalt Therapy than I ever wanted to know. 

And of course, Sharon Tate was not at Esalen the night before the murders (in fact, I found no evidence Sharon Tate was ever at Esalen). 

And, of course, no one at Esalen started receiving phone calls about Manson and the murders within 'two weeks' of the murders. The police didn't know who committed the crimes for months.

There is another potential problem with this story. At some point (the exact date is not clear) in 1969 or 1970 Carter took a trip to Chile chasing after Oscar Ichazo, the founder of the Arica Institute. Some sources place that trip during the summer of 1969. And that, of course would mean he wasn't there to confront Manson in August.

So I am pretty confident we can write this story off, too, as 'not accurate'. 

That leaves the official narrative, which is supported by our one eyewitness: Stephanie Schram.
_____

“On the night of the fifth Manson and Stephanie drove north to a place whose name Stephanie couldn’t recall but which Manson described as a “sensitivity camp.” It was, he told her, a place where rich people went on weekends to play at being enlightened. He was obviously describing Esalen Institute.”

*****
“It is unknown whether he had been there on prior occasions, those involved in the Institute refusing to even acknowledge his visits there.*”

*****
Manson took his guitar and left Stephanie in the van. After a time she fell asleep. When she awakened the next morning, Manson had already returned. He was in less than a good mood, as, later that day, he unexpectedly struck her. Still later, at Barker Ranch, Manson would tell Paul Watkins—to quote Watkins—that while at Big Sur he had gone “to Esalen and played his guitar for a bunch of people who were supposed to be the top people there, and they rejected his music. Some people pretended that they were asleep, and other people were saying, ‘This is too heavy for me,’ and ‘I’m not ready for that,’ and others were saying, ‘Well, I don’t understand it,’ and some just got up and walked out.”

*****
Footnote: 

“At 3:07 P.M., July 30, 1969, someone at the Tate residence called the Esalen Institute, Big Sur, California, telephone number 408-667-2335. It was a brief station-to-station call, total charge 95 cents. It is unknown who placed the call, or—since the number is that of the switchboard—who was called.
Since the call occurred just six days before Charles Manson’s visit to Esalen, it arouses a certain amount of speculation. A few things are known, however: none of the Tate victims was at Big Sur during the period Manson was there; Abigail Folger had attended seminars at Esalen in the past; and several of her San Francisco friends visited there periodically. It is possible that she was simply trying to locate someone, but this is just a guess.

Though both the call and Manson’s visit to Esalen remain mysterious, I should perhaps note that, with a single exception—the Hatami-Tate-Manson confrontation on March 23, 1969—I was unable to find a prior link of any kind between any of the Tate-LaBianca victims and their killers.”

(Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 317-318 and 588). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.)
_____

Stephanie Schram more recently said this…..
_____

Stephanie: We spent one night there and then we went by the Esalen Institute where I think Charlie had hopes to get some recording people on his side to record some music.
Cats: Did you go in with him?
Stephanie: No, I didn’t.
Cats: When he came out was there a change in his attitude at all?
Stephanie: No. I had already at one point the night before seen a violent side of him and why I remained with him, I don’t really know.
Brian: Can you tell us about that?
Stephanie: Well we met a couple of people hiking down one of the trails there in Big Sur and I think he was hoping that they would be able to provide us with dinner.  I was pretty freaked out at the time and I think when they saw me they were afraid and they left.  He came into the van and gave me a pretty good slap and said that I had ruined his chances for dinner that night.
Brian: Wow and that’s when the first red flag goes up.
Stephanie: Yeah I know it should have, shouldn’t it?

*****
Cats: When he came out of Esalen was he even more angry?
Stephanie: Well, yeah he was. He seemed to kind of stick to himself though then. I mean he was obviously angry, was not real communicative with me so I was just along.  I was just kind of along at that point.

(Brian Davis and Cats Cradle, Interview with Stephanie Schramm former Manson Family Member, October 9, 2011, Transcribed by Gina Judd  April 29, 2014 downloaded from scribd.com)
_____

None of this tells us ‘why’ Manson went to Esalen. According to Bugliosi, he told the Family he went there to get new recruits. (Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 317). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.) But I don’t think that is why he went to Esalen in part because the clientele of Esalen don't fit the Family mold. 

What is the Esalen Institute? 

_____

Esalen Encounter Group circa 1968
“The Esalen Institute is a non-profit organization founded in 1962 by Michael Murphy and Richard Price as an alternative educational center devoted to the exploration of what Aldous Huxley called the "human potential," the world of unrealized human capacities that lies beyond the imagination. Esalen soon became known for its blend of East/West philosophies, its experiential and didactic workshops, the steady influx of philosophers, psychologists, artists, and religious thinkers. Historical luminaries like Abraham Maslow, Joseph Campbell, Allan Watts, Fritz Perls, Allen Ginsberg, Ida Rolf, Joan Baez, and countless others have gathered here to develop revolutionary ideas, transformative practices, and innovative art forms.

*****
The site of the natural hot springs (also known as the baths) is on the rocky ledge perched just 50 feet above the Pacific, is unparalleled in history and in its majestic beauty. These same healing waters have been flowing for centuries providing respite for Esselen Indians and early pioneers.

Today Esalen recognized as a world leader in alternative and experiential education. Now in its fifth decade, Esalen offers more than 500 public workshops and seminars a year, accenting personal growth and social change, in areas traditionally neglected by mainstream institutions. Esalen is also known for its research initiatives, invitational conferences, residential work-study programs, and long-term is a retreat center where people live and work in a communal setting.” (Steve Harper.com)
_____

So why would Charles Manson go to Esalen? 

Fritz Perls at Esalen 1969
Some people believe the CIA had some kind of covert operation set up at Esalen and that Manson went there to get his marching orders from his handlers to commence the destruction of the 60’s youth movement and the new left by committing grisly murders. Ah…no…that's not it....get out the aluminum foil (see below). 

I think in order to answer that question 'why' Manson went to Esalen the first step is to understand what had happened to Manson’s ‘musical career’. You see, I don’t think Manson went to Esalen to rap with Fritz Perls about Gestalt Therapy (Perls had actually left Esalen in July of 1969) or to soak in the hot springs with Steve McQueen. 

Manson’s Musical ‘Career’ August 1969


Manson had all but run out of opportunities to further his musical career by August 1969. It didn't look like he would ever get his message out.

I once believed that Manson recorded at Brian Wilson’s house only once. In a post, I even argued that event was the Steve Desper recordings in July 1969. (http://www.mansonblog.com/2017/05/the-manson-sessions.html). 

I still believe he did record with Desper in July of 1969. But I don’t think that was the only or the first time he recorded at Brian Wilson's house. 

Many sources, and the generally accepted narrative, place Manson at Wilson’s studio a year prior to Desper's session in 1968. 

Dianne Lake describes a recording event at Brian Wilson's house, involving Manson, so radically different from Desper that I suggested here (http://www.mansonblog.com/2017/11/do-facts-matter.html) that she got her facts wrong. Now, I’m not so sure. And I think I may owe her an apology on this one (but not the rest). 

I think, initially, an effort was made to record Manson the way Dennis Wilson and his kin would record anyone. I think that in the summer of ’68 the Wilsons brought in studio musicians and the whole shebang to help Manson. Dianne Lake describes that event. 
_____

“Dennis scheduled a recording session for Charlie at his brother Brian Wilson’s house somewhere in Bel Air. Charlie brought a few of us with him in the car with Dennis. The house was a beautiful two-story place, with a state-of-the-art recording studio inside. While Charlie was jamming, he let us watch. He seemed nervous at first, which I found unnerving. Dennis told him to relax and to show the people what he had. We had been singing some background vocals for him, but fairly soon Charlie signaled for us to leave. He seemed to be having trouble getting into his groove. As we headed for the door I noticed that someone who I believe was Brian along with some of the others were stopping Charlie and making suggestions. Someone suggested he increase the tempo of the song. I saw the slow burn growing in his eyes. Charlie hated anyone messing with his music. We could feel the tension rising as we went outside.”

*****
“When Charlie emerged, he was seething, muttering under his breath things like “Cocksuckers, they should leave it alone.” His pupils were dilated and his energy had completely shifted. The group was dispersing, and Brian and the other musicians who had been in the studio with Charlie seemed shaken. I have heard accounts that Charlie had pulled out a Buck knife when he got fed up with the attempts to “produce” him as they would any other musician.”

(Lake, Dianne. Member of the Family: My Story of Charles Manson, Life Inside His Cult, and the Darkness That Ended the Sixties (Kindle Locations 3822-3844). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.)
_____

The effort didn’t work. 

I think the next step in the process was Gregg Jakobson taking Manson ‘under his wing’ so to speak. This led to the various Manson recording sessions during the spring of 1969  that Jakobson testified about at the trial. 

I believe Jakobson may have given those tapes to Terry Melcher or played them for him and that Melcher was unimpressed. 

Strike two. 

Remember Jakobson’s job. He was a talent scout for Melcher. His job, if he believed in an act was to find a way to sell him. Jakobson clearly believed in Manson's talent.
_____

Q (Bugliosi): Were you impressed with Mr. Manson’s musical talents? 
A (Jakobson): Yes.
Q: Did Mr. Manson ever tell you what ambitions he had, if any, in the field of music? 
A: Yes.
Q: What did he say?
A: He wanted to record. He wanted to get his message heard. He wanted people to hear what he had to say. 
Q: And what did you say to that, if anything?
A: I agreed. I thought it was a good idea and I thought it was a fine way to do it, through music, through records.
_____

So, at this point I believe Jakobson convinced Melcher that the way to sell Manson was to capture him in his natural habitat. Enter Mike Deasy, stage left. Jakobson convinces Melcher to go to Spahn and see the beast in the wild. He brings along Deasy to record it. 

Afterwards, Melcher is still unimpressed. 

Strike three. 

Manson is pretty much out of options at this point. But I believe Jakobson convinced Dennis Wilson to give Manson one more shot. No one shows up to listen to the session except Desper who is there to record it. A call comes down from 'management' to Desper telling him to record this guy, Manson. So late one night when no one is around Desper records Manson. No one listens to the tapes, or maybe they do listen to them and chuck them aside as crap. 

So, what was Jakobson’s plan at this point? Fortunately, he told us. 

Q (Bugliosi). Did you ever want to make a documentary film, on him?
A (Jakobson). Yes.
Q. Did you discuss your interest in Manson with Terry Melchior [sic]?'
A. Yes.
Q. Did, you want Melchior to somehow be involved in this project?
A. I did.
Q. In what fashion?
A. As a producer, financier.

Lance Fairweather (Jakobson): "I wanted Terry Melcher to meet Charlie and make this film of him. If we could sell the man, his music would emerge, so I wanted some backing for the film.”

This same topic is discussed during one of Jakobson's recorded interviews with Bugliosi. Jakobson says his ultimate goal was to record Manson and a documentary film was going to be the vehicle. (Jakobson Interview by Vincent Bugliosi at Cielodrive.com, Part 3 at 20:00). Jacobsen’s goal was to capture the essence of Manson’s music. That essence has been best described by Neil Young.
_____

Neil Young 1968
“Anyway, I went to visit Dennis there and found him living with three or four girls who were kind of distant. There was a detached quality about them all. They were not like the other girls I had met in Hollywood or Topanga, or anywhere else for that matter. He had picked them up hitchhiking. They had a pretty intense vibe and did not strike me as attractive. After a while, a guy showed up, picked up my guitar, and started playing a lot of songs on it. His name was Charlie. He was a friend of the girls and now of Dennis. His songs were off-the-cuff things he made up as he went along, and they were never the same twice in a row. Kind of like Dylan, but different because it was hard to glimpse a true message
in them, but the songs were fascinating. He was quite good. 

I asked him if he had a recording contract. He told me he didn’t yet, but he wanted to make records. I told Mo Ostin at Reprise about him and recommended that Reprise check him out. Terry Melcher was a producer at that time who made some very influential hit records. Apparently Melcher had already been checking out Charlie and decided not to go for it.”

(Young, Neil. Waging Heavy Peace: A Hippie Dream (p. 104). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)
_____

So how does Jakobson accomplish this feat without paying Manson and without spending Melcher’s (or his own) money? That, I believe, leads us back to the Esalen Institute. 

The Esalen Institute-the home of the human potential movement and Gestalt Therapy is hardly the forum for Manson’s musical breakthrough. Further the odds any music industry types would be there on a random weekday (August 5th and 6th were a Tuesday and Wednesday) were pretty slim. But the Big Sur Folk Festival of 1969 fits the bill perfectly. 

The Big Sur Folk Festival 1964-1971


The Big Sur Folk Festival was the brainchild of Nancy Carlen, an Esalen employee, with help from Paula Kates. It came into existence after Joan Baez held a musical workshop at Esalen. 

Here is how the Festival worked. Musicians were invited to participate at the event following the summer touring season as a sort of intimate end of the season celebration. The musicians  were paid only the union minimum rate ($50). Local groups, unknowns and relative unknowns were always on the bill. The crowd was small. Many were there by invitation. Others purchased the few tickets available. Profits, if any, went to charity, Joan Baez’ Institute for the Study of Nonviolence.

That is Nancy, there, on the right to the left of Joan Baez.

The line-up for the Festivals in 1968-69 and 1970 is dotted with performers with six degrees of separation from Charles Manson. 

September 7-8, 1968 at Esalen
1968 Big Sur Folk Festival 

Cass Elliot
Charles River Valley Boys
David Crosby
Joan Baez
John Hartford
Joni Mitchell
Judy Collins
Mimi Farina
Penny Nichols
Stephen Stills
Marl Spoelstra
Van Dyke Parks

Joan Baez 1969 Big Sur Folk Festival
September 13-14, 1969 at Esalen


Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young
Dorothy Morrison
Joan Baez
John Sebastian
Joni Mitchell
Mimi Farina
Ruthann Friedman
Sal Valentino
The Frying Burrito Brothers
The Incredible String Band

October 3, 1970 at the Monterey County Fair Grounds

The Beach Boys
Beach Boys 1970 Big Sur Folk Festival
John Philips
Joan Baez
Merry Clayton and Love Ltd.
Kris Kristofferson
John Hartford
Linda Ronstadt with Swamp Water
Mimi Farina and Tom Jans
Mark Spoelstra
Country Joe McDonald
Tom Ghent

By the summer of 1969 it was known that the Festival was going to be the subject of a documentary film: Celebration at Big Sur directed by Baird Bryant and Joanna Demetrakas. The highlight of the film, by the way, is the 'hippie' Stephen Stills leaving the stage to beat the crap out of a heckler who was going on about the fur coat he was wearing. 

The 1969 Big Sur Folk Festival is made to order for Jakobson. Unknowns were invited. Manson gets to perform in his natural element in front of a small attentive crowd in an intimate setting and he will be filmed. 

At the Wiskey a Go Go 1967
So, if I am right, how did Manson get there? From those festival line-ups a number of possibilities emerge. Neil Young and Dennis Wilson come to mind but neither of them appear to have been Festival ‘insiders’. Young could have gone to Crosby and Stills who were better connected but I think the best avenue is still Terry Melcher. Melcher, of course, produced the Birds, worked with the Mamas and the Papas and helped to promote the Monterey Pop Festival in 1967. 

I believe Jakobson would have contacted Melcher and Melcher had the connections to arrange an audition through Cass Elliot if no one else. As an aside, while I was researching this post I came to the conclusion that while Manson may have been at Cass Elliot’s house she did not know him, despite what some sources say. She did, however, know Abigail Folger better than I originally thought she did. 

Now Get Out Your Aluminum Foil


I’m not a conspiracy guy but there is another possible connection that adds one more player to the Jakobson to Melcher to Elliot chain: Abigail Folger. There are some connections. Gibbie (not ‘Gibby’ by the way) did attend workshops at Esalen. Her mother did volunteer at the Haight-Ashbury Free medical Clinic and David E. Smith MD of that clinic did speak at ‘sponsored’ engagements with Richard Price co-founder of Esalen. (Seven Lectures at Stanford are Free, San Mateo Times, January 6, 1968, pp. 31.)

 Abigail Folger's father's home. 
In 1969 the name ‘Folger’ still carried weight. In fact, in and around San Francisco in the 1960's it was a name like Rockefeller or Vanderbilt. As a child her parents entertained royalty. Her 'coming out' cotillion was attended by 2,000 members of San Francisco society. Abigail Folger made donations to a number of charities. I do not know if one was Esalen. I have also not been able to connect her to the inner circle at Esalen and likely never will due, in part, to Esalen’s position on all of this. But why wasn’t Abigail in those last photos of Sharon et al taken around the pool on August 5thor 6th ? Could she have been at Esalen? 

Revenge!


If Manson went to Esalen to audition for the Big Sur Folk Festival of 1969 he would have performed in front of ........... women: Nancy Carlen, Paula Kates and maybe Joan Baez or her sister, Mimi Farina. 

And if the description just below is what happened, I think that would have had an impact on Manson's fragile ego:

“Some people pretended that they were asleep, and other people were saying, ‘This is too heavy for me,’ and ‘I’m not ready for that,’ and others were saying, ‘Well, I don’t understand it,’ and some just got up and walked out.”

But what if what happened went a step further and those women critiqued him and then told him he didn’t measure up. What if they told him that he sucked? 

Career over. 

Is it that far a stretch to think this could have driven Manson over the edge, given his attitude towards women, his abusive treatment of them and his view that their only purpose was ‘serving’ men? 

If it happened he was disrespected and more importantly, humiliated, by......... women. I think at a minimum this may very well explain why he changed the date, eliminated the eyewitness and trivialized the trip even if it didn't trigger the murders. 

But that humiliation just might also have driven him to exact revenge- revenge on the man who walked him into that humiliating experience or just 'them', the 'pigs' who humiliated him. 

What was it that Krenwinkel said at her 2011 parole hearing: "I did know that that was, the plan was to murder two women inside the house. That was a given, was a given." (Patricia Krenwinkel, 2011 Parole Hearing from Cielodrive.com).

I would personally like to thank Presiding Commissioner Melanson and Deputy Commissioner Hernandez for dropping the ball on what may be one of the most significant comments ever made at a Tate-LaBianca parole hearing. If I had been there I think I could come up with a few follow up questions with very little effort. How about 'Huh?' or  'WTF'? But the panel didn't ask anything. So we will likely never know what that comment meant.

So let's speculate a minute.

A 'given'? She repeats that word. Why was it a given that two women would be killed? This was 'a 'given' which means everyone knew that that was the reason they were going to Cielo Drive and that seems to say the motive centers on killing two women. Why two woman? Under the drug burn motive theory shouldn't she have said 'two men'? Aren't we led to believe under this motive that Jay Sebring and Voytek Frykowski were the targets?

Under the 'for the love of a brother copycat' motive theory shouldn't she have said everyone in the house or at least one man not just two women? The copycat motive says the murders were planned to copy the murder of Gary Hinman to get Bobby Beausoleil out of jail. Then why make sure you kill two women?

If the motive is Helter Skelter, again, why two women? Wasn't the basic concept of Helter Skelter to 'destroy' everyone in the house and hang them from the rafters. Why did Krenwinkel think her marching orders were kill the two women? Where did that come from?

Maybe her comment means nothing. But maybe Manson wanted to exact revenge on 'two women' who symbolized the two women (Carlen and Kates) who had just humiliated him and doing that in Melcher's old home was to send a message. 

........And what if one of those present at the audition or somehow connected to it was Abigail Folger? Ok, now I'll go get the aluminum foil.

Pax Vobiscum

Dreath 

[Total Aside: On December 31, 1969, about the time Van Houten was explaining to Marvin Part why it was ok all the victims died, a band named Steel Mill played at Esalen. The guitarist in that band (right) went on to some moderate fame a couple years later. Some say his guitar style with Steel Mill was a lot like Clapton. My personal listen to his songs back then suggests he was better than his later albums let on. My friend Steve used to laugh at his lyric about making his guitar talk compared to the 'lead' that followed. Clapton-like? ...maybe...not much to compare.]

184 comments:

starviego said...

Investigators flew to New York, Boston, Wisconsin, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, and Jamaica pursuing leads, but they couldn't send anybody up to Big Sur to find out what Charlie was doing at Esalen?

No way, they are covering something up big time.

SJ said...

Dianne Lake said in her book that she took a road trip with Charlie & Squeaky to visit Charlie's parole officer and they stopped at Esalen on the way back and spent the day in the hot springs. She had also visited with her parents previously.

brownrice said...

"It was, he told her, a place where rich people went on weekends to play at being enlightened."

Well, he certainly got THAT right... beautiful spot though. :-)

Great post David... really interesting. I'd never heard of Katie saying that about killing two women being a "given" before. Wow! That's huge... and so far out of whack with ANY of the traditional narratives that's it's just... well... almost ontology-shattering... wow! Bloody useless parole boards...

David said...

Brownrice,

Thank you and yes that is a very intriguing comment by Krenwinkel. It certainly is diametrically opposed to anything else anyone has ever said and suggests a rather heightened level of premeditation. At the same time, while I don't like giving Manson any credit, I am not convinced Manson would have ordered a 'hit' on a very pregnant Sharon Tate. That, then, may lead to another question fumbled by the board: who were the two women?

Smill said...

That comment by Krenwinkel on the transcript was not questioned bc that isn't what she said. It was typed wrong. They discuss it at the next parole hearing. In fact, there were several typos in that transcript. She's explaining that she did NOT know the mission had anything to do with killing. Words in her statement were left out. Words in the DA's statement were also changed to other words. There is a big discussion about it at the next hearing when it is brought up, and her lawyer has asked them to find the original recording and correct it.

brownrice said...

David said...
I am not convinced Manson would have ordered a 'hit' on a very pregnant Sharon Tate.


Yeah, I'm inclined to agree wth you there... and any time he's mentioned her, he's been vaguely regretful (almost)... "poor Sharon" etc...

Gibbie & Rosemary LaBianca maybe... though that doesn't really fit with "inside the house" and to include the latter opens the whole "Rosemary as drug dealer" can of worms... not that there's any other more or less provable or believable motive for the LaBianca slayings... or ANY really... except maybe Susan Laberge...

Interesting...

brownrice said...

Smill said...
That comment by Krenwinkel on the transcript was not questioned bc that isn't what she said. It was typed wrong.


Geez... just when I thought there was finally something new in this case to contemplate... sheesh...ah well.

brownrice said...

...back to dead babies... :-(

Robert C said...

Thanks for that, David. It all more closely aligns with my personal beliefs and suspicions regarding motivations. I never saw much of a linear line between Hinman and TLB.

But yes, agree with you and others about Krenwinkel's comments which if true are very enlightening. Since she's still around it would be great to see some future interviews with her by people who know the right questions to ask including follow-ups (and see if she'll repeat that 'two women' comment). Clearly premeditation/planned/targeted if referring to Folger and Tate.

By all accounts Charles was extremely sensitive about his music and future music 'career' so it's not too hard for me to suspect a sociopathic progression of his feelings of rejection and anger to planned murder to 'show them'. In prison you got revenge for disrespect.

Robert C said...

And just having caught up to Smill's comment I agree, brownrice. Was hoping we were on to something revealing for a change.

brownrice said...

Totally, Robert.

AstroCreep said...

The pic of McQueen in that shithole of a bathtub is priceless.

David said...

Still,

Thank you for the correction. I wondered why I had no recollection of seeing that before. Now I have the answer. Do you happen to know what it was corrected to?

AstroCreep said...

I think Manson liked to make others think he had influence- that’s what cons do. He obviously couldn’t pay for it, couldn’t even eat dinner for that matter. “Hey I’m friends with Dennis Wilson” only goes so far and they sent him and his shite music walking- and what did Charlie do, displaced his aggression and slapped up his chickie travel buddy.

Isn’t that what Helter Skelter really is? Charlie’s displaced aggression?

David said...

I went over and read the 2016 and 2017 hearings- I admit not even word. Krenwinkel states she does not remember saying the line. Her lawyer argues it is a typo but describes the typo as being in a previous line. He is hard to follow. He argues at length that her prior statements were always consistent- she did not know why they were going to Cielo. The hearing in December 2016 was continued.

At the 2017 hearing her attorney relies on a letter he submitted to the board regarding the page 46 statement. I couldn't find the letter.

I scanned through the board member statements and they rule they are denying her request because she is minimizing her role (she actually seemed to be doing just that from what is quoted) and for lack of credibility. They connect the credibility issue to why she suddenly went from zero violence to 100 and their belief she knows more than she is admitting. The 2017 hearing is over on Cielodrive.com.

I didn't see anything where they agreed to correct the 2011 transcript. I might have missed that but the reasons for the denial seem to me to be saying they don't believe her when she says she didn't know what was going to happen until she got to Cielo Drive. So right now I'm not completely sure you can write that statement off as a typo.

Maybe I missed something.

I could be wrong. I have been before.

ColScott said...

David

Well written and very thorough but like so much in the case much ado about nothing. Charlie did not audition at Esalen and although I have taken the baths there more than once it has nothing to do with this case.

And your quote about what Katie said is either a lie or wrong, I seriously am not gonna bother looking it up. Katie did not know what she was going to do at that house or who or why. Only Tex did.

And the man's name is DESPAR. And you have inconsistent usage of Jakobson/Jacobson. Details matter to serious scholars.

Under other versions of your theory Charlie was "acting out" - sending a message to Melcher. He expected Melcher to do right by him. The Golden Penetrators club had used his girls after all.

Charlie suffered from something I see all the time in this business even today. No clue how the business really worked. And true laziness in not wanting to put the hours in.

He thought he had the golden ticket- Dennis/Terry would take him to the top of the pops. He SHOULD have use Jakobson and said " Your boy Terry is fucking killing me here with the delays, who else can you hook me up with if you are such a fan?"

Esalen is nothing. Stephanie is nothing.

Drugs. Sex . Money. These are eternal motivations.

starviego said...

Stephanie: No. I had already at one point the night before seen a violent side of him ....
Brian: Can you tell us about that?
Stephanie: ... He came into the van and gave me a pretty good slap...

So did Stephanie get slapped before AND after? If it was before the "audition" then doesn't this kind of mess up Bugliosi's idea that Charlie was pissed off for being rejected by the Esalen crowd?

Chris Till said...

Interesting post, but...

I certainly have no idea why CM went to Esalen in August 1969, but's a bit like wondering why someone went to the Rocky Mountains or one of the natural wonders. Why? Because the Esalen Hot Springs are just phenomenal, one of the great wonders of the West Coast.

I first enjoyed the Esalen Hot Springs at age 19, in the summer of 1985. At that time, there was one night a week, after midnight on Wednesday (I think it was), that the hot tubs were open to anyone without reservation for a few dollars. Being broke, or close to it, instead of paying, I snuck in by crawling down a cliff through the dense foliage. Perched on a cliff over the Pacific Ocean, the hot tubs lived up to their reputation: just utterly fabulous to soak in the hot mineral water and hear the waves crashing below. I slept on the main lawn and split via thumb the next day. So, regarding the author's statement that "no one simply walked into the Esalen Institute to use the hot springs," that was definitely not true in 1985 one night a week.

I think the author of this post would enjoy studying the history of Melcher's short-lived record label, Equinox Records circa 1968. Without specific knowledge, I assume that Jakobson was a scout for Equinox.

Please also recall that instead of producing CM in the summer of 1969, Melcher produced the Byrds "Ballad of Easy Rider" album. If CM came in second (or third or whatever) to the Byrds, that's heady company.

Also, while the name Mike Deasy tends to just get tossed out for his tiny role in this history, I'm not convinced people know who Mike Deasy was or is. He was part of the Wrecking Crew, an A-list Los Angeles session guitarist, just a top-notch musician's musician. Whether Melcher hired him or Jacobson hired him, it was a serious vote of confidence in CM.

Finally, fans of the counterculture probably already know that Hunter S. Thompson used to work at Esalen as some kind of half-baked security guard circa 1960-1961-ish. His first national magazine article appeared in "Rogue" in October 1961, about Esalen. In it, he off-handedly details a homosexual subculture at Esalen, which caused him to be fired from Esalen for supposedly putting it in a poor light.

Peace.

David said...

Chris,

Thank you very much and I will check that out-Equinox. I should have been clearer. Yes, by 1985 you could get in one night a week. I thought I read it was on Wednesday.

Col.

I am sorry it is Desper. I recommend a quick look at his website: http://swdstudyvideos.com/index.html. I did mess up on Jakobson and seem to do that a lot. Thank you. I'm not sure who you are saying 'lied'. But the quote comes from the 2011 parole hearing transcript, where indicated. But as Smill pointed out, up there, PK subsequently did not recall saying it so it may be a typo. You can find the transcript over at Cielodrive.com.

Doug Smith said...

I seem to recall on some website that serves as a Beach Boys timeline (concerts, tours, recording sessions) that DESPAR recorded Manson on August 8th or 9th 1967 or 1968.
I am looking for this to link it. Seems that Manson's ego, his complete musical rejection coupled with his sense of entitlement/self importance and, ultimately, his mental unraveling would have this date (August 8/9) as an especially lousy anniversary for him and, therefore, an appropriate date to lash out at his perceived saboteurs...no?

grimtraveller said...

Chris Till said...

Also, while the name Mike Deasy tends to just get tossed out for his tiny role in this history, I'm not convinced people know who Mike Deasy was or is. He was part of the Wrecking Crew, an A-list Los Angeles session guitarist, just a top-notch musician's musician

Funnily enough, I spent quite a bit of last week listening to Larry Norman's 1969 LP "Upon This Rock" on my various travels and Deasy is one of the 2 guitar players {Norman being the lesser} on it. Other wrecking crew members Joe Osborne, Larry Knechtel and Hal Blaine are on it too.
Those guys certainly got around !
Deasy appeared on quite a few early Christian rock albums and Leslie Van Houten remembers him as being a guy that had a mobile recording studio, something of a rarity at the time.

starviego said...

Investigators flew to New York, Boston, Wisconsin, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, and Jamaica pursuing leads, but they couldn't send anybody up to Big Sur to find out what Charlie was doing at Esalen?


Arguably, with Stephanie Schram on board, they didn't need to. What he was doing there wasn't as important to the investigation as whether or not he was in the region at the time.

ColScott said...

Katie did not know what she was going to do at that house or who or why. Only Tex did

Although there is a split between the perps {Susan & Tex say they all knew, Pat & Linda say they didn't}, I broadly agree with this, with caveats.
You form a kind of impression of a person when you read, listen to or watch their interviews and Pat is often an incoherent trainwreck when it comes to public speaking. She doesn't finish sentences, is full of ums and ahs, runs one sentence into another and that makes her very hard to understand or know where one bit is finished and another bit begins, unlike Leslie who comes across as articulate and reflective. I think Pat is reflective, she just can't put it across. In that 2011 hearing, she said of herself, in relation to a previous hearing where she had said she was the one she'd harmed the most:
"And I was absolutely wrong. It was a total mistake. At the time, as I am now, I was nervous".
I think her statement about the two women falls under that category. It makes no sense that she's suddenly, out of the blue, confessing that there was a plan to kill two women specifically when she's always said that she didn't know when she set out what was going to happen and continues to say it. If you follow the thread of her answer, she's just been asked about the time she tried to leave the Family and Charlie came and got her back, threateningly. She then goes on this lengthy monologue about the fear in the relationship and the consequences of not doing what she was told, jumping from item to item that she hasn't been asked and because a standard question has been something to the effect of "Why didn't you try to stop the murders or get help ?", you can see her trying to show that she is aware that she has no excuse and is trying to take responsibility for being part of Cielo even though she didn't set out to murder. It's interesting that she says she should've run down the hill and not gone over the fence; previously she has said that that is the point she was made aware that there was going to be killing. And she really does get nervous, blurting out about "two women." But she blurts out about 2 women because 2 women died, not because 2 women were targeted.

grimtraveller said...

Smill said...

That comment by Krenwinkel on the transcript was not questioned bc that isn't what she said. It was typed wrong. They discuss it at the next parole hearing. In fact, there were several typos in that transcript. She's explaining that she did NOT know the mission had anything to do with killing

I actually reckon she did say those words. But I also firmly believe that that is not what she meant. It's interesting looking at what the 4 perps have said that actually dovetail when it comes to Cielo and one thing that {apart from the penalty phase, which I think we can all consign to the dungheap} has always remained constant, is that they had no idea who was going to be in the house or how many. According to Leslie {as told to Marvin Part}, Pat commented on this later that day.
Fact is, in high pressure situations, people do get nervous and say things that they did not mean. Let's face it, George Bush snr didn't really mean he and Ronald Reagan were sexually intimate.......
Whenever Tex did tell them there was going to be killing, I wouldn't be surprised if, because they knew he had a gun, they thought he'd be the one doing it, a la Bobby.

GreenWhite said...

Awesome post. I've been re-reading Will You Die For Me the past few days. When Watson says Charlie slowly sat up during their repose and drew his finger across his throat to signal the start of HS on 8/8, I wondered for the millionth time what happened on the trip to Esalen. It's quite a drive for a simple soak.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I am not convinced Manson would have ordered a 'hit' on a very pregnant Sharon Tate

Me neither.

Robert C said...

I never saw much of a linear line between Hinman and TLB

Me neither. In the sense that one may have had options {get Gary to join the Family...} then span out of control while the other was very deliberate.
There are however, some fascinating parallels between the two, which is why Bobby is always going to have a hard time.

David said...

I scanned through the board member statements and they rule they are denying her request because she is minimizing her role (she actually seemed to be doing just that from what is quoted) and for lack of credibility. They connect the credibility issue to why she suddenly went from zero violence to 100 and their belief she knows more than she is admitting

And that's why she pfaffs and splutters. Pat was never one to stand up under a grilling. Unlike Leslie and Susan who from day one never worried about getting caught and Linda who made off under the cover of night {ha ha, not literally !} and wasn't sitting around fretting about the Police knocking on her door, Pat was having to be reassured by Charlie that she couldn't be touched and in Alabama was hiding her face at the sight of a Police car.
The iron lady she ain't.

Doug Smith said...

Sweet Baby Jesus!
That website is freakin amazing!
As a (sort of) musician since '79...these study videos are unbelievable...thanks!

Robert C said...

Grim --

I can accept the girls may not have known what was going to happen that first night to Cielo with Tex but I suspect they knew there would be murder involved. It was confirmed when Parent was snuffed. But weren't they issued knives and a change of clothing ? Then, wouldn't there be some curious discussion on the way to the destination in the late evening ? Even more so to LaBianca's place -- I think LVH even said they knew killing would be involved.

I wonder if on the way the first night Tex told the three girls that two women had to be dispatched ? Was this embedded in Krinwinkle's mind, later to be blurted out during her mental search for an answer and then retracted or denied before a review board ?

Intriguing stuff, just speculating possibilities ....

This brings me to wondering why the surviving Manson women and men aren't interviewed and asked some of the harder questions along with strong follow-up more often ? Granted they or the system may be refusing but they are all in the autumn of their lives so there's no time like the present. Next Manson Tour -- Manson people interview time !!!! ;-)

Smill said...

When I first read Krenwinkel's comments from that hearing, I too thought maybe we were about to find out something new. Did she actually make a new confession? Or did she get nervous and say the wrong thing? Then I thought, "Wait, why are they not questioning her about that comment?" They evidently did not hear what we see typed---and don't think for one minute that Debra Tate would've allowed that comment to get by her when it was time for her statement! Why didn't she hear it? Well then I went back and read her entire comment and realized that it didn't make sense. That statement was contradicting what she was explaining. Finally after the next transcript was posted, I realized they ended up having quite a discussion about that comment---not just with Pat, but her attorney discusses it also in her closing arguments. She too claimed that there are missing words that were not printed which have totally changed the meaning of her comment. She then requested that they find the original and correct it. I expected the DA to still use that comment against her after their break, but she instead came back requesting corrections she found of her own statements where her words had actually been changed to other words that just sound similar. So, it's obvious there was a problem with the dictating machine that types it as they speak. This is actually a common occurrence according to a friend of mine who works with an attorney. Also, Pat has a soft voice and they are always telling her to speak up. You would think that she would speak loud and clearly with her life on the line. Maybe now she will learn a lesson from that. I get sick of reading her transcripts that say "unintelligible" in parentheses every other line. Oh, and we may never see an updated and corrected copy of the transcript. My friend says that usually the attorney writes a letter explaining what happened that just becomes part of their file so that it won't be used in the future against them. If other errors are reported from the same transcript, then they accept the letter and don't normally even go back to check the original bc they realize more than one person had a recording dispute that day. She said on the few times that it was checked and corrected (in her own experience), the correction was sent to the parole board and attorney in case it is an issue again. Now my friend doesn't deal with high profile cases like this, so she doesn't know how they will handle it. Who knows if it will ever be confirmed to the public that a correction was made if indeed it was. I personally doubt they will even bother to check it bc I don't think they ever intend to let her out anyway. If I were her lawyer, I would address it in the next hearing and make them confirm it was checked and corrected. If she does, it will be a while before that is cleared up in the public though. She was given a 5 year wait.

David said...

Grim,

You and I are in the two camps on the 'what the women knew' issue.

I agree the comment at page 46 may be nothing. It may be a nervous misstep or it may be a typo. It also may be what we lawyers call an "excited utterance". Unfortunately, since no one present in 2011 followed up, we will never know.

But I, for one, believe they all knew exactly what they were going to do. I think it may help them survive (psychologically) to say 'we didn't know' but I think they knew. That approach certainly doesn't help at parole hearings.

Reading the conclusions for PK in 2017 I'd say the board doesn't believe they didn't know either. Maybe that is the myth created by Bugliosi coming home to roost. Maybe since the board is present observing the 'witness' they judged her 'credibility' from what they saw. We weren't there.

The women were 'groomed' for this event, if you believe the official narrative. Rope, knives in Kasabian's dress, a gun in the glove box- this was no creepy crawl. Take a leaf from the Col's oft repeated line: close your eyes and use your common sense (or words to that effect): 'Leave something witchy' were allegedly Manson's last words and yet no one is reported to have asked 'what do you mean, Charlie?' Both nights they wrote in blood on the walls/door. Spontaneous 'witchy-ness'? I guess.

Van Houten wanted to go and felt 'left out'. Left out of what? An accidental or spontaneous murder spree? Gillis, I believe, (someone correct me) wanted to go. How did she know?

IMO they were to quote the Blues Brothers: on a mission from God. This was a millennial movement (and I don't mean 30 somethings) spiraling to its end: we all die or they all die.

IMO the 'we didn't know' serves two functions (1.) it lets them off the hook psychologically (I'd likely go there myself) and (2.) it was created by VB to reinforce his innocent hippie chick (which gives them their out).

It's an opinion and that is the reason I put that bit after the shot from 'Signs'. It is speculation.
_____

Doug,

I am even far less of a musician - high school garage band- I found that site researching a post back there and I have to agree with you.
_____

Greenwhite,

Thank you.

Smill said...

Oh but BTW David, I do think you have a good theory about the trip to Esalen. I have always wondered if something happened on that trip that triggered the thought to hit Cielo. While I do believe Krenny's words at the hearing were an error, and I don't think Krenny was told to target 2 women at Cielo, I believe it's highly possible that CM saw Folger at Esalen at the time he was rejected (as I believe he was). Did seeing her make him think of the Cielo house and suggest it? I think that's very possible. I believe he knew her and knew who was frequenting Cielo. Folder may not have had anything to do with him being rejected. He could've simply seen her there and associated her as being a part of his rejection.

Smill said...

I believe Krenwinkel had no idea why she was going to the house originally. I think Tex was the ring leader. I think Linda knew more than the others, but I don't think she wanted 2 women murdered and quickly realized it was a mistake to be there. Susan was so screwed up that I don't know what to believe about what she really knew. I think Leslie wanted to go along the second night bc she thought it would help Bobby. I don't think the women had knowledge of ALL the drug "issues" that were taking place at the time. I think CM only fed them what he wanted them to know. Their job in his mind (I believe), was not to handle business issues. I think that if Pat really knew more, she would tell it at this point. She seems to despise CM and I don't think she has much for Tex either. She also has accepted that she isn't going anywhere unless it is in a body bag. I just don't think the woman knows anything more to say. That is just my opinion---doesn't mean much, but, like you, I read all those transcripts hoping something new will emerge....

Smill said...

Oh, and my phone changed Folger to Folder....
Sorry Col....

Smill said...

Well everyone has an opinion. I can't prove CM knew Folger any more than I can prove he did not. I'm saying that I believe he knew who she was and knew where she hung out. I think CM knew a lot about a lot of people in that area---especially the ones who purchased and sold drugs.

Carlos said...

Robert C said...

... wondering why the surviving Manson women and men aren't interviewed and asked some of the harder questions along with strong follow-up more often

Is there any value to any of the defendants in doing so? My take is absolutely not. The cult aspect and infamy of the Family alone tell me that doing anything that even remotely suggests seeking publicity or notoriety can only be used against them at parole hearings.

But I share much of the same curiosity that many here do, and to that end what I wonder about is whether any of them have prepared writings to be made public after their deaths. I don’t expect anything that truly upsets a half century of analysis and conclusions, but we might learn something new or at least gain some deeper insight. Time will tell.

Robert C said...

Carlos -- I generally understand what you're saying and agree in some instances but there's a lot of detail we're looking for in many ways they would not cause any harm to the incarcerated's case and in fact could help it. It gets complex but that's my feeling, and if blowhard preacher Tex has any real sense of remorse he'd be helping us all out if people could get in there and do some interviews of the type we'd all like to see.

Carlos said...

Robert C said...

... but there's a lot of detail we're looking for ...

And there’s the tricky part, unfortunately.

I’m very much a part of that “we,” and I have been for many years. But it just doesn’t seem to me that what we’d like to see aligns with what the remaining inmates find in their best interests, at least for the time being. Neither the legal system nor the inmates are worried about us. If some new facts or revelations could actually help, I’d expect the various lawyers to already have considered it. And I’m unconvinced that the non-incarcerated Family members will ever prove to be a valuable source of meaningful answers.

I hope that time proves you right and me wrong.

Carlos said...

David said...

(1.) it lets them off the hook psychologically

Linda, Pat and Susan went out both nights, and it’s clear to me that regardless of what they knew on the first night, they knew there would be more murders on the second night yet went willingly. Leslie only went out the second night and has stated she knew there would be killing. So, I think it’s a stretch at the end of all the events to be able to have a psychological way out by simply relying on “I didn’t know.” At some point they knew and started stabbing.

(2.) it was created by VB to reinforce his innocent hippie chick (which gives them their out).

VB never claimed Linda was innocent. She was granted immunity, of course, and VB has spoken of how in some ways she was unlike the others, but he never seemed to overdo it. For the other hippie chicks, VB took a two prong approach. He argued they were sent out under Manson’s domination / direction. But once they were there and Manson wasn’t and they knew what the mission was about, they were all willing, eager participants.

Matt said...

Ugh... Springsteen. When I hear him the radio gets muted immediately.


starviego said...

Smill said...
"... I believe it's highly possible that CM saw Folger at Esalen at the time he was rejected (as I believe he was)."

I agree. If they were there at the same time, it would have immediately raised suspicions that Manson was stalking his victims. And thus there was nothing random or even "Helter Skelter" about it.

So LAPD investigators should have bent over backward to prove they WEREN'T there at the same time. But they didn't. Which is evidence they WERE there at the same time.

starviego said...


grimtraveller said...
"What he was doing there(Esalen)wasn't as important to the investigation as whether or not he was in the region at the time."

So the investigators went to all the trouble to track Charlie's gas purchases coming and going, but they didn't bother to actually talk to the people at Esalen? Such a hypothesis is absurd.


Bugliosi, Helter Skelter, pgs372-374
8-3 (Sunday) Manson leaves Spahn "as sometime between seven and eight am he purchased gas at a station in Canoga Park, using a stolen credit card."
8-4 at 4am he picks up Stephanie Schram "outside a service station some distance south of Big Sur, probably at Gorda" Later "Manson, still using a stolen credit card, purchased gas at Lucia." ...
8-6 "...Manson left Big Sur on Aug 6, making gas purchases that same day at San Luis Obispo and Chatsworth..." arrives back at Spahn in time for dinner

ps
If Manson is using stolen credit cards, how exactly would they have been able to track him? (Especially the first purchase in Canoga Park, when Shram wasn't there to witness it.) How did they know it wasn't someone else in the Family using the stolen credit cards?

AustinAnn74 said...

Manson's music probably sounded good if you were sitting around a campfire, stoned out of your mind, but I never thought it was good enough to sell records. It was all jumbled up with the same sounding harmony coming from those girls, which sounded like alley cats on a fence. Melcher was right: Manson's music stunk. (No need to attack. Opinion only)

David said...

Starviego said: "So LAPD investigators should have bent over backward to prove they WEREN'T there at the same time. But they didn't. Which is evidence they WERE there at the same time."

Not sure I agree with that. We don't know what investigators tried to learn. That may be buried in the evidence files and boxes in LAPD storage or in Ed Sanders' shed. Given Esalen's official position, which has always been that Manson was never there, I am not sure asking questions would have led anywhere:

LAPD: We know Charles Manson was up there on August 5-6. We'd like to come up there and find out why, talk to those who he met with.
Esalen: Charles Manson was never here.
LAPD: Well, we have a witness who says he was.
Esalen: Charles Manson was never here.
LAPD: Well, we're coming up anyway.
Esalen: Go for it. Everyone will tell you that Charles Manson was never here.

At the same time that denial and the fact that they keep denying it when there is no reason, fifty years later, to even bring it up- that comment from Murphy in 2015- is why I find this little side trip interesting. Why deny it? I could see them being worried about some connection impacting 'sales' in 1969 but in 2015?

David said...

Matt,

Ever been to a Springsteen concert?

Matt said...

Nope. Nor Bob Seger or Jackson Browne. To say I dislike those three would be an oversimplification.


Carlos said...

starviego said...

So the investigators went to all the trouble to track Charlie's gas purchases coming and going, but they didn't bother to actually talk to the people at Esalen? Such a hypothesis is absurd

My understanding has always been that since Charlie’s initial attempt to evade involvement with the murders was to claim he wasn’t even in the LA area, the goal of the investigators was primarily to find proof that he was. Which they did.

The full details of any visit to Esalen were likely of less interest to the investigators than establishing that Charlie was back in LA in time to declare that now is the time for Helter Skelter. Remember, Esalen wasn’t going anywhere, and if necessary the investigators could always go back; to date, they have not needed to.

Carlos said...

David said...

At the same time that denial and the fact that they keep denying it when there is no reason,

Who do they keep denying it to? Probably not the LAPD, as they consider the matter closed.

I do see your point about the time that has elapsed, but I also see the flip side: What possible reason would they have to announce that Charlie was there? All institutions always act in their own best interests. Always. What possible benefit could they derive from publicly admitting they lied to the police on an infamous case that was legally settled decades ago? My take is that there is no benefit, so I wouldn’t expect any change in their official position.

Dan S said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan S said...

Great comments and post. I wish i had time to read them all right now!

Smill said...

Well, I think that the investigators would surely NOT have wanted the trip to Esalen to become a major focus---and not just because the murders would then not appear random, although I totally agree with you that's part of the reason. The other problem for investigators bringing light to the Esalen visit is that it may open up that entire can of business worms. Remember, Charlie is supposed to be a scorned, rejected, wannabe recording artist who can't get producers to promote him bc they've determined he isn't good enough. The Bug didn't want anything contradicting that "theory" in the official narrative that was presented by the prosecution. He overtook that investigation and took control of it and made sure it led where he wanted it to lead (at least it appeared that way to me). If he allowed focus on the trip to Esalen, then that may shed light on the REAL relationship Charlie had with Terry, Gregg, and others who were working with him. IF Gregg --or someone else associated within that circle of the industry, sent Charlie to Esalen to get him noticed at the summer event and be recorded, then that proves there was still a recording interest in Charlie. That would just not be beneficial in supporting the DA's theory.

Carlos said...

Smill said...

If he allowed focus on the trip to Esalen, then that may shed light on the REAL relationship Charlie had with Terry, Gregg ...

VB called both Melcher and Jakobson as prosecution witnesses knowing full well they’d be subject to cross examination by the defense. He therefore was not overly concerned about any aspect of their relationship with Charlie coming to light in open court in the presence of the jury.

In their professional capacities, Melcher and Jakobson were all business as far as I can tell. Melcher’s famous line says it best: “You’re good, but I wouldn’t know what to do with you.” I have never gotten the impression either wished Charlie to fail, and in fact the evidence is clear they gave him a chance. After that, Charlie was free to pursue his musical career elsewhere.

David said...

Carlos said: "What possible reason would they have to announce that Charlie was there?"

I don't disagree with you at all and guess I didn't make my point as clear as I could. It's not that someone asked them: was Manson here in 1969? And they declined to answer or said 'no'. That would make sense. It is that they almost seem to go out of their way to say he was never there when nobody even asks.

Smill said: " IF Gregg --or someone else associated within that circle of the industry, sent Charlie to Esalen to get him noticed at the summer event and be recorded, then that proves there was still a recording interest in Charlie."

It does, indeed and I think there were a lot of people in summer 1970 that didn't want in any way to be connected to Manson during the summer of 1969.

Smill said...

Carlos, I respectfully disagree with you about that. There was oh so much more about that relationship that VB did not allow into the trial. He did not want the public to know just how much Terry really was interested in CM. He covered up much of the truths about that relationship.

grimtraveller said...

Smill said...

bc

I just love that contraction of "because." Never seen it b4 but I'm going to start using it as part of my shorthand.

Robert C said...

I can accept the girls may not have known what was going to happen that first night to Cielo with Tex but I suspect they knew there would be murder involved. It was confirmed when Parent was snuffed

You've kind of lost me there.

But weren't they issued knives and a change of clothing ?

Funnily enough, when Robert Hendrickson {recorded in "Death To Pigs"} or Laurence Merrick questioned Brenda about this, she wrote this off as a common thing that they used to be given for garbage runs, knives to cut the bruising out of fruit, a change of clothing to change into after dumpster diving.
I thought and still think Brenda was boxing clever, but if nothing else, it shows that it is at least possible that going out with that stuff didn't necessarily mean inconclusively that they would have assumed that they were going out to kill.

Then, wouldn't there be some curious discussion on the way to the destination in the late evening ?

I can see it both ways but I guess if you're told to do what Tex said, you'd follow his lead. I wouldn't be at all surprised however, if at whatever point they became fully aware of death being on the night's agenda, that the women thought that Tex would be the one to handle that end of things and they'd get the money.

Even more so to LaBianca's place - I think LVH even said they knew killing would be involved

Well, whenever conversation about what the killers knew beforehand comes up, at least for me, it's only in relation to Cielo. There is no doubt whatsoever that on LaBianca night, everyone in that car knew absolutely, 100%, even Clem, that killing was the on the agenda. Leslie wanted to go, Tex, Pat, Susan and Linda all knew, having already done a run. At least 3 of them {Pat escapes me at present} said that Charlie said that he was going to show them how to do it. As far as I'm aware, not one of them {except of course Charles himself and Clem} has ever intimated that they did not know what the second night was about. Was it not Atkins that supposedly said to Juan Flynn "We're going to get some fucking pigs" when he asked her where they were all going on the 2nd night ?

ColScott said...

Lots to reply to

ANECDOTE: In my experiences in HWOOD despite the extreme examples you hear in the tabloids 99% of the people just want to do their job, make a lot of money and go home. There is zero doubt in my mind that when Terry went to the ranch and saw Charlie pistol whip the drunken ranch hand Charlie's chances were over for good with Terry. Gone baby gone. Now I am not certain that Charlie understood that. But a rich Beverly Hills kid, son of a celebrity, success in his own right, does not cotton to watching some old man get his ass handed to him.

In my version of the film we saw Terry hurriedly give Charlie the $50 as a way to get out of there quickly. Charlie sees it as an "advance."

The BUG had every movement traced that he could find. Charlie at Esalen, assuming he even went, is a distraction. "Charlie was so butthurt at being snubbed that he wiped out 7 people the next week" is the usual silliness. And if remotely true BUG would have used it. ANYTHING that led back to Manson motivation he used.

Smill- I know that Tom O'Neil with his 20 year in the making, threatening people to talk to him book did interview Terry before his death in a deep throat time Garage interview. OOO-EE-OO. But really, what can he say? I believe Terry boned some of Charlie's girls and led him on quite a bit. I believe he could have sold some records but if you like 90% of Terry's acts (90% of most acts) did not last past 1972.

These victims were stabbed, up close and personal. OJ Style. They had a gun and used it to hit people with!

The motivation is out there, god dammit, but I don't know who knows anymore.

Carlos said...

Smill said ...

There was oh so much more about that relationship that VB did not allow into the trial.

I completely agree that VB was highly selective regarding what he introduced in court. But then so is every attorney. Kanarak was a famous serial objector before Manson’s trial, often objecting on the basis of relevance. I simply think that VB only brought in what he needed. If details about the Esalen visit would have valuable to the defense, the onus was on them to introduce it. We all know what the defense phase looked like.

And I note one piece of Melcher’s testimony under oath during Tex’s trial under cross by Mr. Keith regarding Melcher’s history with Manson:

My reason or reasons, rather, for going there on both occasions was as a favor to Mr. Jacobson, not that I was really, you know, looking

Melcher testified under oath there wasn’t much of a relationship.

David said...


How it really went down:

"Now is the time for Helter Skelter....... but first...... a little nocturnal dumpster diving. Whose in?"

"Here take this gun its good for squishing cockroaches."

"Take this 30 feet of rope too in case you fine a really juicy one. If it has wheels you can tow the whole thing back to Spahn."

"No need for a torch, you guys are all witches and can see in the dark."

"Leave some graffiti on the side of the dumpster. Here's a can of spray paint. You guys know what I mean, something witchy but don't let Katie do the tagging. She can't spell worth a shit."

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said...

This brings me to wondering why the surviving Manson women and men aren't interviewed and asked some of the harder questions along with strong follow-up more often ?

To what end though ? The case is solved. All the parole board wants to know is "is it safe for this lot to be out ?"
Various boards or lawyers have often stressed that the case isn't being re~tried.
At this stage, if there really are any deep dark secrets that haven't yet come to light, unless there is some utterly convincing mental breakdown of sorts, it's not going to come out. Let's assume for a moment that they're all a bunch of bloody liars. Having been inside for 49 years and gone through 42 years of the parole rigmarole, they would have played the system to the max. They're not young anymore. If they were to come clean, that would ensure they'd never be out because trust and credibility would be such a huge issue. It already leaves Pat and Tex spread like melted butter after each hearing. So they'd be having to hold the line as it has developed.
On the other hand, if they've been relatively truthful, they're just going to keep on giving variations of the same thing.
So in either event, there'll just be pretty much "same old, same old."

David said...

Grim, You and I are in the two camps on the 'what the women knew' issue.
But I, for one, believe they all knew exactly what they were going to do


I think it's heavily nuanced.

I think it may help them survive (psychologically) to say 'we didn't know'

Perhaps, if true.
Except that if they really did know, then, despite our sometime powers of self deceit, they'd always know that they knew, the same way Tex has always known that he knew. So if the women did know before they reached Cielo, that they were expected to kill people and not just leave it to Tex, it's hard to see how denying it publicly brings them psychological comfort. It could do, people are funny, but it's hard to see.
I also can't see the point of stating you didn't know. I can see the point of Linda saying she didn't know {either way}, Susan said that she found out in the car {although depending on which book or testimony, she flip flopped on this}, but it doesn't in any way lessen Pat's stance. It's hard to work out which is actually worse, the person like Pat on the 2nd night that knows she's setting out to kill or the [possible] Pat of the first night that hasn't set out to kill but goes ahead and does so in the most horror filled and ruthless of ways. If I went out with intent to rob a bank or post office with no intention to kill anyone, but in the commission of the crime, I ended up killing someone that got in my way, does that somehow make me better or lesser than I would be if my intention had been to kill someone so that no one would get in my way ?
I think the "how much the women knew beforehand" point is really about Charles Manson.

That approach certainly doesn't help at parole hearings.
Reading the conclusions for PK in 2017 I'd say the board doesn't believe they didn't know either


You're right. And I find it one of the great ironies that Pat, possibly telling the truth, gets hamstrung by that truth. But if you peek beyond, the parole board has legitimate worries that someone could end up murdering when they didn't set out to 2 hours or so earlier. For many, such a person is far more a concern than someone whom you know which way they are likely to deal.

AstroCreep said...

Best comment ever... with almost as much humor as Peter.

This is common sense and spot on.

Robert C said...

Grim said: "You've kind of lost me there."

Meaning they may not have been aware of where they were going and the plan or details of the murder which is different than knowing they were set out to murder.

Grim said: "... it shows that it is at least possible that going out with that stuff didn't necessarily mean inconclusively that they would have assumed that they were going out to kill."

One can frame it that way but there were indications, some of which David has mentioned recently, that this wasn't going to be a standard creepy crawl. Coupled with a natural human inclination to ask, especially once away from Manson, what the hell was going on and I'd have to give stronger credence to the notion the girls knew that murder was in the works but maybe not where and with whom. As was mentioned by you above, Atkins said they were out to kill some pigs (paraphrased). All young people back then knew "pigs" referred to the cops or someone in a position of power, control and/or affluence.

Grim said: " To what end though ? "

I wasn't referencing interviews with the parole board or other authorities. Talking about interviews with "us" or people who could ask the hard/interesting questions and follow that up like a pitbull who won't let go. Not the Diane Sawyer or Geraldo Rivera style (here in the States) of questioning.



Smill said...

I honestly think Pat doesn't know much more than she's said already. I don't think she realized they were going out to murder someone before they left either. She obviously knew on the second night, but she was too far in by then....and she did as she was told. I don't see her standing up to anyone. I did notice in that transcript that she said Lynnette Fromme was the person who gave her the clothes and the knife, but offered no other information that she recalled. That leads me to wonder just how much Squeaky knew about what was happening.

starviego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starviego said...

Not only did Esslen face-down the LAPD, they managed to face-down the media and the White House, too:

The Upstart Spring, Esalen and the American Awakening by Walter Truett Anderson
pg239
In 1970, when the Manson case was at its apex, a major Southern California newspaper began making enquiries for a news story about Manson's connection to Esalen. There was a report circulating that Manson had been a student at Esalen; the source of this was the Springer News Service, an agency that was actually a "dirty tricks" operation under the management of White House aide Charles Colson. The newspaper assigned one of its reporters to check out this interesting angle on the Manson case--the press had a huge appetite for new angles--and the reporter telephoned Esalen. ...There was much excited long-distance telephoning; Esalen's lawyer wheeled into operation and threatened lawsuits. In the end, the Manson-at-Esalen article was not published...

Conclusion: Esalen had some friends in very high places who, for whatever reason, did not want this connection to see the light of day.

starviego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starviego said...

Dianne Lake confirms Charlie had been to Esalen long before Aug of '69:

Member of the Family: My Story of Charles Manson, Life Inside His Cult, and the Darkness That Ended the Sixties
Chapter 11 WE ARE ALL ONE
Jan-Feb 1968?
--As we drove back toward L.A.(from the bay area where Charlie had met his PO), Charlie seemed to notice my melancholy because he decided that we would stop off at Esalen, that magical place overlooking the ocean, where I had gone with my parents. The healing hot springs were just what I needed. There the three of us dropped acid and sat in the tubs built into the mountainside.

Charlie's own version, from Manson In His Own Words by Nuel Emmons:

pg191
Following Highway One, my next stop was Big Sur. After I was first released from prison, I would often go there to escape from what was going on at the Haight. ... I spent the night in my truck, and the next day, I visited the Esalen Institute to enjoy the mineral baths.
(He then says he met Schram after leaving Esalen.)


It looks like Charlie had carte blanche to come and go as he pleased from Esalen, without ever having to pay a dime, not even as a 'student.' This strongly implies a much closer, pre-existing relationship than we know about.



David said...

Starviego said: "Charlie's own version"

From two comments now I guess I should have put this in the post.

Until about March 1968 +/- you could just walk into Esalen and use the hot springs. I couldn't find an exact date- one source said the sign went up a couple years after he arrived there. He arrived in late '65 if memory serves. The other source is the article I cited that mentions the 'hippy guards' and restricted access by March 1968.

So anyone could have visited there in '66, '67 early '68 to soak in the tub. Lake and her parents could have. Manson could have.

From what I could determine access changed for two reasons: (1.) the Steve McQueens of the world started to hang out there and bitched and (2.) the fact people engaged in homosexual encounters in the hot springs concerned Murphy and Price. They thought they would get busted. And they might have. For the same reason drugs were officially 'taboo' at Esalen despite the fact people like Alan Watts lectured and hung out there all the time.

Remember, by '68 they were trying to 'sell' encounter weekends to people like Abigail Folger. If you can walk in, why would she pay.

grimtraveller said...

AstroCreep said...

Best comment ever... with almost as much humor as Peter. This is common sense and spot on

I think this was aimed in your direction, David.

Robert C said...

Meaning they may not have been aware of where they were going and the plan or details of the murder which is different than knowing they were set out to murder

Ah, gotcha.

One can frame it that way but there were indications, some of which David has mentioned recently, that this wasn't going to be a standard creepy crawl

Like I said, Brenda was boxing clever {ie, trying to be smart}. I thought her explanation was bollocks pertaining to that particular night. It may not have been to the women though. Of course, I don't believe they went on midnight garbage runs but in and around that period, there was an increased knife consciousness.

Coupled with a natural human inclination to ask

I'm inclined to waive that particular privilege in relation to the women in the Family.

I wasn't referencing interviews with the parole board or other authorities. Talking about interviews with "us" or people who could ask the hard/interesting questions and follow that up like a pitbull who won't let go

I get you. That's an experiment I'd like to be in on !

AstroCreep said...

Isn’t that what Helter Skelter really is? Charlie’s displaced aggression?

To a large extent, when pared down to basics, yes.

ColScott said...

Drugs. Sex . Money. These are eternal motivations

Indeed they are. But they're by no means the only ones and sometimes not even close to the strongest ones.

GreenWhite said...

When Watson says Charlie slowly sat up during their repose and drew his finger across his throat to signal the start of HS on 8/8

I wonder who told him that because he also says he never saw it himself.

David said...

Take a leaf from the Col's oft repeated line: close your eyes and use your common sense

In this saga, sometimes that works and one hits paydirt. Other times it actually gets in the way.

'Leave something witchy' were allegedly Manson's last words and yet no one is reported to have asked 'what do you mean, Charlie?'

From a common sense point of view, that would be the exact thing to have asked and probably, most people would have asked it. But common sense rarely flew in this coop from what we've learned about it. In fact, one of the phrases on this very blog alludes to and echoes the very ethos of a Manson shaped milieu ~ "[where] no sense makes sense." The very fact that he often went out of his way to turn convention {including society's notion of common sense} upside down tells me that the "normal" rules of most engagement don't {or at the very least, may not} apply. And importantly, young people that were turning their face against convention would often really feel it if their peers thought they were still thinking and/or operating along the old straight lines. That seems to have been double+ in the Family.

ColScott said...

starviego- I am calling horseshit on your theory

Carlos said...

starviego said ...

There was much excited long-distance telephoning; Esalen's lawyer wheeled into operation and threatened lawsuits. In the end, the Manson-at-Esalen article was not published...

Conclusion: Esalen had some friends in very high places who, for whatever reason, did not want this connection to see the light of day.


My conclusion: Esalen’s lawyers, recognizing the reality that private institutions like Esalen have no legal obligation to the press, made it clear that Esalen possessed both the will and the resources to make the newspaper think twice about reporting anything unsubstantiated or uncorroborated or potentially libelous. No high level friends necessary. Your citation literally calls out the threat of litigation.

I’m not the least bit surprised. In the mid to late ‘60s the counterculture was much, much more than dirty, smelly drugged up hippies eating out of garbage cans and marauding around America in stolen cars running on gas purchased with stolen credit cards. Esalen was founded by Stanford graduates and attracted academics and intellectuals and artists who shared some new ideas about how humans might live. And it was run as a business; it still is. It’s clear to me they would react strongly at any attempt to be associated in any way with Family-style aspects of the counterculture.

Carlos said...

leave something witchy

Both VB’s book and one of Susan’s books specifically refer to Charlie giving an instruction to “WRITE something witchy.”

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Van Houten wanted to go and felt 'left out'. Left out of what? An accidental or spontaneous murder spree? Gillis, I believe, (someone correct me) wanted to go. How did she know?

When Van Houten spoke with Marvin Part in Dec '69, she stated "I don’t really remember how I learned exactly that the Tates had been done. I can’t remember knowing before they left that they were going to go do that."
She then went on to say that later, after a conversation in which Manson asked if they could see why he believed they would have to kill {but not specifying any particular time}, Charlie woke Katie up and she, LVH, suspected they might be going to "knock somebody off" as she put it. She found out the next day from Pat and it is in that context that she felt left out or whatever. Your "mission from God" point hits the nail on the head where Leslie is concerned and with that in mind, her saying "I was feeling bad, to tell you the truth. Because Katie was my best friend. And to think that she was strong enough in her believing not - you know, to be able to go kill, I wanted to, too. Because I wanted to be just like Katie. And almost it was like it would make myself stronger to know that I could kill somebody, because at the moment I’m killing them I have to be that willing to die" makes abundant sense but doesn't sort out the mystery of who knew what, when.
Leslie's desires of going out to actually kill formed in the aftermath of Cielo. She earlier told Part that when Charlie had asked the two of them if they wanted to kill, "And we said, 'No, but we know that it has to be done; so,yes.'
You know, in other words, we didn’t want to go out and actually like do somebody in, but it had to be done; and we were the only ones that saw that it had to be done."

As for Cappy, by the time she wanted to get in the car on the night of the LaBianca murder, word had obviously spread among some of the troupe. A couple of years later Ronnie Howard told Laurence Merrick that there were young girls that knew about the murders. As I mentioned earlier, there is no doubt in my mind that on the second night, no one was in the dark about what was to unfold. By this point, Leslie had had the entire day to process and feed her desire to kill someone. It had turned from "I can see why this needs to be done and I'm prepared to do my bit" to "I want in, big time."

IMO the 'we didn't know' serves two functions...and (2.) it was created by VB to reinforce his innocent hippie chick (which gives them their out)

There again, to the Grand Jury, he established that although leaving Spahn Susan supposedly did not know, at some point in the car she became aware {and she said Tex did all the talking} that they were to get the money of whoever was at their destination and kill everybody....He wasn't trying to make Susan seem in any way innocent back then. And this was the only info he had at the time.
Regarding Linda, when Joan Merrick {in Robert's book} said she possibly didn't know, Bugliosi interrupts her with "The 2nd night she did, the 1st night she possibly didn't know. She was guilty."
I have reasons why I don't think Pat and Linda knew until late in the day, but like you, it's speculation. We'll never know for sure.

Smill said...

I think CM only fed them what he wanted them to know

I think after the 50s, that was his MO for life. But sometimes, he just doesn't seem to have been able to help himself, especially when he thought he had something others didn't know. On a number of occasions, he roped himself good.
Sometimes, it feels like Susan Atkins was his appointed nemesis even though he felt he was using her for his own ends.

David said...

Grim,

I agree we shouldn’t apply conventional thinking to what they knew at 10 p.m. on August 8th. Conventional thinking says someone would have had to tell them murder was the plan. Conventional thinking says they should have known from the gun, knives, rope and bolt cutters that something bad was going to happen.

Non-conventional thinking says everyone in that room knew precisely what ‘now is the time for Helter Skelter’ meant. It meant murder, people dead on the lawn, pigs hung from the rafters, eyes plucked out and smashed on the wall. People destroyed. It didn’t mean the 'conventional' view of HS that the Panthers were in the driveway or blacks were marching on Bel-Air. Everyone in that room knew what Helter Skelter meant. The bizarre nature of the concept is why we conventional thinkers can’t buy it (as you have noted). Do you really think they needed anything more to know what was up? Now is the time for Helter Skelter meant now is the time for murder. IMO

And if the motive is copycat murders, it’s easier. The official narrative on that says they held marathon planning sessions discussing the idea. That one is easy.

Drug burn? well, the drug burn theory is, IMO, crap so I won't go there except to ask don't you need to know 'who' burned you or had the cash or ran the cartel and where they would be that night? And if you do isn't the plan to whack them when you get in the car?

DebS said...

OT There is a brush fire in Benedict Canyon. It appears to have started at the top of Portola Drive, where Rudy Weber lived. Jay Sebring's home is on the next block.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-benedict-canyon-fire-20180612-story.html

grimtraveller said...

Carlos said...

Both VB’s book and one of Susan’s books specifically refer to Charlie giving an instruction to “WRITE something witchy.”

And interestingly, in no account from the women or Bugliosi is there specifiedwhat to write.

Robert C said...

and if blowhard preacher Tex has any real sense of remorse he'd be helping us all out if people could get in there and do some interviews of the type we'd all like to see

Put like that though highlights a major flaw in the strategy; the bias on our part that there is more to reveal. What if Tex has told the truth so far as he can ? At what point do skeptics accept that though they don't like it, what is laid out there is what is ? In a way, unless one of the perps says something we'd like to hear, we'd never be satisfied. Which would kind of bring us back to here and now.

Carlos said...

I’m unconvinced that the non-incarcerated Family members will ever prove to be a valuable source of meaningful answers

Some of them have. But that, I guess, is dependent on what one holds as "meaningful."

VB never claimed Linda was innocent

Few characters in this episode polarize like Linda. Bugliosi does give Linda props, but always in the context of having testified and him securing convictions. He says little outside of that that can be construed as nice, cute or complimentary. Telling the world that someone leads an aimless drug oriented life or that they are frankly and repulsively truthful or that she had sex with anyone that showed an interest isn't going to get the teller on that person's Christmas card list ! The basic conclusion one can come to regarding Bugliosi's words re: Linda is that she was a waster who did one good thing in testifying.

starviego said...

So the investigators went to all the trouble to track Charlie's gas purchases coming and going, but they didn't bother to actually talk to the people at Esalen? Such a hypothesis is absurd

I don't know whether it's absurd but I didn't say that. They might have talked to people there but for the purposes of the prosecution, Esalen came up for one main reason. Because all the evidence showed that Charlie was not at either venue when the murders actually happened, it doesn't take a genius to work out that one easy route for the defence would be to state that he wasn't even in the area at the time. In a certain vein, Brenda tried back in the days of 70/71 when she said that he'd spent 4 consecutive days and nights at the waterfall caves or whatever they were and AC Fisher Aldag in the modern day spent years on Cols blog telling us how he wasn't in the area and she'd got this verbatim from Charles. So in possible preparation for Charlie asserting that he wasn't around at the time of the killings and therefore couldn't have ordered them, Bugliosi detailed a couple of detectives to try and track his movements in the week leading up to the murders. The idea wasn't so much to talk to people he ran into but to see if he could be shown to be in the area at the time. And through a process of credit card payments, a ticket for making an illegal turn and Mary & Sandy being arrested in the same vehicle the following day, that was good, strong circumstantial evidence in addition to other witness statements.
I don't know if the cops spoke to Stephanie's sister or the guy Steph was with when Charlie persuaded her to go off with him and have acid {Stephanie knew him so he could have been located} or any of the people working in gas stations that he went into. But it wouldn't be absurd if they didn't.
Not with the physical evidence and Stephanie Schram.
Esalen is a fascinating side bar and this has been a great post on it but from what you're trying to ascertain, you're on a non starter.

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...


The BUG had every movement traced that he could find. Charlie at Esalen, assuming he even went, is a distraction. "Charlie was so butthurt at being snubbed that he wiped out 7 people the next week" is the usual silliness. And if remotely true BUG would have used it. ANYTHING that led back to Manson motivation he used


I haven't gotten around to whatever might have been said in the actual trial transcripts yet {there's a lot to take in !} but Bugliosi certainly made the connection, and a very strong one, in his book. He even makes the point that it was yet another establishment rejection, just 3 days or so before the Cielo murders. Given that hatred of the establishment was a central plank in terms of motive....

Smill said...

Grim, you know Susan always seemed to know more than the others, and I've always wondered why. I thought for a long time it was bc she was so chummy at one time with Danny DeCarlo and was getting info from him. Maybe she was just good at being sneaky and eavesdropping. She claims in her last book (Myth of Helter Skelter), that Charlie kept her up front near the men to keep her away from her son, and that's why she knew more of what was happening. I've always wondered the truth about it though.

Peter said...

Did something happen at Eslan that served as a tipping point for Manson? Maybe. Maybe it was something that happened, maybe it's something that didn't. Maybe it is just a decision he reached while away with time to think.

Did Eslan some how stop the investigators or the reporters? No way. Good luck with that defamation suit. The one thing a place like that is not interested in is civil discovery.

Are people in Hollywood only interested in making money and going home? Absolutely not. Feeling they are our moral and intellectual superiors is paramount.

David. Really? Excited utterance? You should be ashamed. This isn't some bar exam where you grab at anything that floats by

GreenWhite said...

Hi, Grim. I always wonder who told Tex about Charlie sitting up and sliding his finger across his throat that hot August evening. Surely inconsequential but curious regardless.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"Not with the physical evidence and Stephanie Schram"

What physical evidence? And regarding Stephanie Schram, you'll notice that Stephanie Schram is the only source that says Stephanie Schram was with Charlie at Esalen.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

What physical evidence?

The physical evidence of getting a ticket on August 7th made out to Charlie Manson on the bread truck and the same bread truck being hauled away the next day after Mary and Sandy were arrested in it. You're trying to prove some sort of LE cover up. I'm simply pointing out the priorities of proving Manson was in the region trumping going to grill people at Esalen.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

dont feed ne this "no sense makes sense" garbage

Yeah, let's just ignore everything that doesn't point to Tex murdering Jay and Wogiciech over drugs ~ like the overwhelming weight of what's made up the official narrative and most of the alternatives and a whole lot else in between.

Smill said...

Susan always seemed to know more than the others...Maybe she was just good at being sneaky and eavesdropping

She and Charlie were almost made for each other....by someone with a warped sense of humour !
I think Susan spent much of her life trying to play the meteorite when really, she was an inconsequential piece of moon rock. It hurts me to say that but her attention seeking and what she would do to keep out front eventually has tainted so much of what she had to say.

I honestly think Pat doesn't know much more than she's said already

I agree. Which doesn't bode well for her, especially if the people that matter think she's holding back. In a sense, Leslie's upfront "I wanted to kill" has worked in her favour because there isn't much of a sense or suspicion that she has anything to hide.
Life is full of ironies !

GreenWhite said...

I always wonder who told Tex about Charlie sitting up and sliding his finger across his throat that hot August evening. Surely inconsequential but curious regardless

Especially when you take on board his description of the mellow scene leading into it. I wonder if it was before or after they'd heard of the Brunner/Good arrest. And the time he describes it would have been after Charlie's "now is the time for Helter Skelter" statement.

starviego said...

If they were there at the same time, it would have immediately raised suspicions that Manson was stalking his victims. And thus there was nothing random or even "Helter Skelter" about it

Not if you take the prosecution's 3 pronged approach when it came to motive. Had Abigail been there at the same time as Charlie, it could easily be argued that one of the motives was giving rise to the other. To some extent, the prosecution did that anyway. By having those 3 motives and witnesses to speak up for all three, it meant that Charlie could never escape their shadow if found guilty. And that's exactly what has happened despite a herculean effort to establish otherwise.

And regarding Stephanie Schram, you'll notice that Stephanie Schram is the only source that says Stephanie Schram was with Charlie at Esalen

She was 17 and super smitten. Don't discount the possibility that her memory of that lurve might be more solid than Charlie's on that.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

LAPD investigators should have bent over backward to prove they WEREN'T there at the same time. But they didn't. Which is evidence they WERE there at the same time

Strange conclusion. Suffice it to say, the really important part of the week regarding Charlie's whereabouts are the Thursday {7th} and Friday {8th}. He could have gone to the moon up until the 6th. What he was doing and where he went between the 3rd and 6th is really of limited interest. What needed to be known was ~ where was he on the 8th, given Atkins said he sent them out that night ? That's what makes the 7th more important than the other days. Even if he was Esalen every day that week, so what ? Even if events at Esalen tipped him over the edge, it didn't happen in a vacuum. That powder keg had been building up for a while.

Carlos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Carlos said...

grim said...

I honestly think Pat doesn't know much more than she's said already

I agree. Which doesn't bode well for her, especially if the people that matter think she's holding back.


Maybe. On the other hand, parole boards accept the facts as found at trial. They shouldn’t be expecting her to show up and provide new revelations. The decision at her 2017 hearing boiled down to finding her unsuitable based on still being a danger to society. Opinions here will of course be divided, but the decision does not in any way seem to be based on her holding back some part of the story.

David said...

Peter said: "David. Really? Excited utterance? You should be ashamed. This isn't some bar exam where you grab at anything that floats by"

Now, now , Peter, play nice. There is only one Col.

Ask yourself: who here other than me might have made that connection?

Then ask: why would he write something directed at such a small audience?

Welcome to the discussion.

'Ashamed'? Never, if it works.

David said...

Carlos said: "Opinions here will of course be divided, but the decision does not in any way seem to be based on her holding back some part of the story."

Square that with the this, please?

"And all this came from a person as you describe to us, you know, a person that within maybe a 24-hour or maybe a little more period of time who was naΓ―ve to the intent of why she was going, um, to, um, the crime scene or to the murder scene in the first -- in the first set of murders. Why -- what she was doing there. She -- you were naΓ―ve to it, and then in a day -- a day later, uh, you become this -- this -- this evil, very evil, brutal murderer who, like I said, and -- and I just described, um, what happened in the second, um, set of murders, you know? It w -- put into question in looking at all this is that we feel that you were being somewhat -- y -- your credibility w -- was somewhat, uh, at stake here, um, because we feel that before -- even before that first set of murders happened, um, we -- we felt that you, as I indicated before, you were much more involved than -- than what you were disclosing to us. Um, y -- you went from -- looking at the crimes, you went from -- from zero -- your level, you know, of violence went from zero to 100 within a short period of time. Um, when you went from this domestic role, uh, to this -- like I said, to this fully -- to be en -- fully entrenched in this -- this wicked, violent behavior, um, with no discussion, um, with -- with anybody within your group about -- about your role change. Uh, it just didn't ad up for us, and -- and because of this, we found that, um, like I said, you're not to be credible in this area, and in not accepting a full responsibility for your roles in the crime, and, um, that's a concern because with all your years, um, of incarceration and programming, um, you still do not appear to understand or at least fully disclose your understanding of the specific factors of your involvement in the life crimes, and -- and you're not choosing to be honest with this Panel has a direct nexus back to your life crime, making it relevant today." (Krenwinkel's 2017 Parole Hearing. Cielodrive.com)

David said...

or this:

"I think there is a l -- uh, so -- so for me, credibility is also an issue. I don't think you've (sic) completely honest with what you know and how much of it is you because there was a part -- I -- I -- I try to get it out of you, and I don't think I was successful because I was trying to see if you understand how much of it is just you wanting to do all this, right? Um, and -- and I don't think you know, or -- or I don't think -- or -- or actually, let me qualify: I don't think you're being honest because I know you know more because if this was a gangster case -- a gang drive-by case, you're basically an OG. You're part -- an original gangster. You're part of the first four of this family. So, uh, uh, we -- we -- we do find it hard to believe when you don't know this." (same source, different Board member)

Carlos said...

David said...

Square that with the this, please

Well, I’ll try.

I have interpreted this portion of the whole statement as justification for Pat continuing to pose a threat to public safety. The essence to me is Pat’s seeming ability to turn instantly and become horrifically violent mulitiple times. One could argue it’s a valid point.

Consider this choice of words:

you still do not appear to understand or at least fully disclose your understanding of the specific factors of your involvement in the life crimes

An issue raised is about disclosing understanding, not disclosing new facts.

To me, what’s being said is this: Since you can’t convince us you know why you went from non-violent to murderer AND that it won’t happen again, we find you unsuitable for parole. Other statements by other commissioners support this, to me at least.

I may be misinterpreting the commission’s intent, but in the context of the whole decision, I don’t conclude they are faulting her for not providing new, juicy facts about what happened. I conclude they find she hasn’t done enough to understand what makes a nice middle class girl commit such crimes, especially since on the second night she knew there would be more killing.

Robert C said...

I think both Tex and Pat still have a lot to offer being as heavily involved both nights but it's likely much of what they could tell would incriminate many around them. Something like confessing, " ... oh, we knew exactly where we were going, who was going to be there with instructions to kill and make it look pretty bad ..." or " it was dead silence in the car as we drove to our ultimate destination with Tex telling us nothing except step by step orders along the way and during the action ... ", (which I don't believe), or somewhere in between.

But Charlie's gone, Tex, Pat, Bruce, Bobby and Leslie have been marinating for quite some time now in prison perhaps softening up a bit, and Tex/Pat surely knowing by now their imminent release is remote, I don't see why they wouldn't at this point under intense scrutiny reveal many details others are seeking. I don't mean interrogation but close to it with good management of questioning, time and frequency of interviews. I realize that it's likely nobody really cares by now except a handful of us but just saying .... from a historical viewpoint that's good info that will slip away along with these last few when they pass who may have been in the know.

David said...

Carlos said: " I don’t conclude they are faulting her for not providing new, juicy facts about what happened. I conclude they find she hasn’t done enough to understand what makes a nice middle class girl commit such crimes, especially since on the second night she knew there would be more killing."

New 'juicy facts? No, its not their job (unfortunately, I wish it was.) But your comment sounds a lot like LVH's hearing not this one.

I think the quotes are directly or indirectly related to '2011 page 46' and leave you with this:

"I don't think you're being honest because I know you know more because if this was a gangster case -- a gang drive-by case, you're basically an OG. You're part -- an original gangster. You're part of the first four of this family. So, uh, uh, we -- we -- we do find it hard to believe when you don't know this."

How could this be related to good girl gone wrong? It is saying (as are the other quotes): You were original six. You know why this happened. You say you have had no inkling before midnight 8/9/69. We don't believe you.

Aside: That is a hell of a good parole denial. Very hard to appeal.

David said...

I would like to thank everyone for their comments (even you, Grim). That is what this is and should be all about. Thank you very much.

Carlos said...

David said...

Aside: That is a hell of a good parole denial. Very hard to appeal.

I won’t argue with you on that one.

And thanks for encouraging me to dig a bit deeper into some of my interpretations and conclusions. I’m a loooong time lurker, and I owe much to sites like this that not only provide lots of raw information but also provide a forum in which people can express freely and, to the extent that people remain respectful and objective, challenge each other freely. I’m grateful for the manner in which you challenged me.

David said...

Carlos said: "I owe much to sites like this that not only provide lots of raw information but also provide a forum in which people can express freely and, to the extent that people remain respectful and objective, challenge each other freely. I’m grateful for the manner in which you challenged me."

I think I can speak for the 'collective' here: you are very welcome.

And as for the second sentence: I hope you know that goes both ways.

Pax Vobiscum.

Dan S said...

Tex was jealous of bobby getting all the attention. He probably was eager and charlie just told him to run with it (and get HIS revenge on society in the process).
What IS up with all the rope at Cielo anyway? Isn't it weird how they tied Sharon and Jay? Were they really supposed to hang them from the rafters?

They probably didn't find any drugs at the crime scene cuz the killers stole all of them.

Orwhut said...

Can anyone identify the babe in the tub with McQueen? His lady love perhaps...

Robert C said...

Orwhut said: "Can anyone identify the babe in the tub with McQueen? His lady love perhaps..."

According to a caption I saw on that pic many years ago it's his first wife, Neile Adams (m. 1956-72). He eventually dumped her for a young fresh Ali McGraw but for some reason she remained friends with him until his death in '80.

Orwhut said...

Robert,
Thank you. I once read an account of his final days with quotes from a lady who was with him at that time. I thought she might have been the one in the picture.

Matt said...

She was his wife at the time named Neile Adams:

http://www.mansonblog.com/2015/07/lust-and-marriage-sweet-sexy-portraits.html


Robert C said...

Orwhut said: "I once read an account of his final days with quotes from a lady who was with him at that time. I thought she might have been the one in the picture."

His third wife, married for less than a year to his death ('80), was Barbara Minty - a much younger fashion model. She came along long after that pic was taken.

starviego said...

David said...
"But why wasn’t Abigail in those last photos of Sharon et al taken around the pool on August 5thor 6th ? Could she have been at Esalen?"


The known timeline certainly puts Gibbie nearby in SF, thus making it even more possible she took a side trip to Esalen:

The Family by Ed Sanders, pgs240
One Saturday, either the last Saturday in July(the 26th) or the first Saturday in August(the 2nd), Sebring threw an afternoon publicity party at his hair shop in San Francisco attended by Paul Newman, Miss Folger and a throng of guests.

www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com/show/520/Sharon+Tate/
8-1 ...because of her pregnancy, she(Tate) doesn't attend Sebring’s grand opening of his new salon at 629 Commercial Street in San Francisco. Paul and Doris Tate show support to Sebring by going in her place. Also on hand is Folger, who is an investor in the enterprise.


As far as I know, no other source puts Folger down in LA during those first five days or so of August.


grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

If Manson is using stolen credit cards, how exactly would they have been able to track him? (Especially the first purchase in Canoga Park, when Shram wasn't there to witness it.) How did they know it wasn't someone else in the Family using the stolen credit cards?

This is an interesting question. Anyone have any ideas on answers ?

Dan S said...

I wish i had time to read them all right now!

Back in the late 70s, I read in a Donald Duck comic "Time is nothing, on the cosmic scale." He was quoting someone called "The Great Peabody."

Smill said...

There was oh so much more about that relationship that VB did not allow into the trial. He did not want the public to know just how much Terry really was interested in CM. He covered up much of the truths about that relationship

Can you substantiate this ? If Bugliosi didn't want the public to know how much he was really into Charlie's music {and this is a major assumption}, why would he have asked him the questions that he did ? They were questions that could have been answered either way. That also means both Bugliosi and Melcher were both knowingly in cahoots in known lies in both this and the Watson trials. Plus, one has to ask, if there was really more to the relationship than revealed, then why in the world did not Charlie, knowing that this was part of a central plank of the prosecution deck against him {ie, the record stuff going down the pans leading to his hitback against the establishment}, not get Kanarek to go for Melcher's jugular ?
Maybe Charlie, when he came down to it, realized that he was actually the one that had grabbed the wrong end of the stick, where Melcher was concerned.
Leslie, when questioned by Mike McGann remembers Melcher {she called him Terry Marshmallow} coming only 3 or so times to the ranch.
It seems to have been Tex and Dean Moorehouse that had any relationship with Terry Melcher that went beyond the Family.

starviego said...

pg191¬>"Following Highway One, my next stop was Big Sur. After I was first released from prison, I would often go there to escape from what was going on at the Haight. ... I spent the night in my truck, and the next day, I visited the Esalen Institute to enjoy the mineral baths."
It looks like Charlie had carte blanche to come and go as he pleased from Esalen, without ever having to pay a dime, not even as a 'student.' This strongly implies a much closer, pre-existing relationship than we know about


It does no such thing because you've put your quote from the book in such a misleading way.
Manson is simply describing his travels that week; spends the night with some old friends just outside Santa Barbara and then heads up to Big Sur. Then he gets reflective about Big Sur and tells us that a couple of years previous when he was living in the Haight, he used to go there often to just get away from a rapidly declining Haight Ashbury. He tells us that the reason he went to Big Sur was that he was looking to recapture that feeling of escape that he used to have in '67 when the Haight was getting heavy. End of reflection. The next day he goes to Esalen for a mineral bath and then goes back to the ocean.
The Esalen visit, if it happened the way Manson tells it, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the times he used to go up to Big Sur in '67 to escape the tensions mounting in Haight Ashbury. He doesn't even imply that he went to Esalen during those visits.


David said...

Grim said:

"starviego said...

If Manson is using stolen credit cards, how exactly would they have been able to track him? (Especially the first purchase in Canoga Park, when Shram wasn't there to witness it.) How did they know it wasn't someone else in the Family using the stolen credit cards?

This is an interesting question. Anyone have any ideas on answers ?"

Speculation: Sanders says the Canoga Park gas purchase was discovered as a result of 'interviews'. Bugliosi seems to give the credit to the Hinman detectives. One thought is that maybe the owner of the station reported the event to the police and good police work connected the dots. Another could be following the use of the card if, like the ticket it was in the van when Good and Brunner were picked up.

PS: In checking this out I noticed that Bugliosi says about the phone call to Esalen from Cielo Drive that one thing was known 'none of the Tate victims was at Big Sur during the period Manson was there'. He does not say how he knows this but as to Abigail Folger I would guess it was from interviewing her therapist, whom she saw every day.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Do you really think they needed anything more to know what was up? Now is the time for Helter Skelter meant now is the time for murder

To the entire Family ? No, I don't agree with that. It's never been clear at what point there was even a joint understanding that they'd be kicking things off, or even if there was that point.
Watkins, Flynn and Lake are the only ones that I've heard make mention of Manson saying he'd have to start things off, and Van Houten is the only one that I've come across saying that she understood that she'd be part of that ~ although interestingly, she does include Pat in that "we."

And if the motive is copycat murders, it’s easier

Well, there's no argument about that. Except he wouldn't have been talking about HS.

Smill said...

Susan...she was so chummy at one time with Danny DeCarlo

It's funny, until I started reading the transcripts to some of Bobby's parole hearings a few years ago, I had never had any idea of Danny and Susan being an item or even particularly close. In fact, on more than one occasion, Bobby says they were an item. I always thought that was dodgy for a few reasons, namely, boyfriend/girlfriend relationships weren't part of the atmosphere {that Group marriage study by those guys associated with the free clinic still makes for fascinating reading, even in the 21st century}, and also because Danny had the hots for Ouisch which he admitted to the Police in November '69 and which he admitted to in court.
I think the promotion of their "relationship" came from Bobby in the same way and for the same reasons the original TLB defendants tried to first of all "promote" the Tex/Linda then the Linda/Bobby "relationships." Interesting in each of those 3 cases that the people supposedly involved weren't around to counteract the tales put forth about them.

Peter said...

David. Really? Excited utterance? You should be ashamed. This isn't some bar exam where you grab at anything that floats by

I was really hoping this was a joke or excited utterance because otherwise, it comes across rather harshly.

grimtraveller said...

Carlos said...

On the other hand, parole boards accept the facts as found at trial. They shouldn’t be expecting her to show up and provide new revelations

Yes and no. They do accept the court records, but in understanding how the killers got to that point, there's a whole host of info that becomes part of the record, much of which may be quite new.
Tex revealed some new stuff in his last hearing around the Lotsapoppa case.
With Pat, they are using the record as the basis for where they question her from. If you look through Leslie's 2 recent actual parole hearings, there are things that appear there that don't appear to have appeared before. They don't change the crime but they help frame Leslie's understanding of what went on which make it easier for her in fully accepting responsibility and being able to articulate it. They also allow the board to determine to what degree she's thought to be truthful.
I feel for Pat because she's in an extremely difficult position. I actually believe her when she says she didn't know murder was on the Cielo night agenda until she was going up the hill to 10050. But if the board does not believe her, then she remains in shit street because the charge of minimization sticks. Even worse for her, the board freaks out when faced with someone who, with no inkling that she would be killing, goes onto kill in a savage way but can't adequately describe how she got to that point as a person. It kind of, in their view, cancels out, not remorse, but good work that has been done by her to change because, what is she actually changing from ? If she wasn't a violent person, exhibited no violent tendencies, yet, just like that, because some guy told her to, actively stabbed and pronged 3 people, then went back to being non violent, and can't really explain her evolution in concrete, practical ways, then you can see why she will be deemed a risk.
I can believe how that all came about, wild as it seems. The people on the boards simply can't. They want black and white, concrete, unambiguous, tangible, digestible stuff that they can justify believing, not airy fairy, nebulous, gas that dissipates in 1000 directions at once. So though Leslie is all those things, because she says murder was on her palette well before she did it, she has a measuring mark that's relatable.
Pat doesn't and if she provides one by saying "ok, I knew that we were going to kill," the obvious objection keeps her denied. She's already tried the partner battering suit, which has a degree of solidity about it. But the disbelief of the board threw that one out. I kind of hate to say it, but, if you look at where they are coming from, you can't blame them. They can't take a risk with nebulous.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

That is a hell of a good parole denial. Very hard to appeal

On both counts, yeah.
When I first read them, I could feel the strength of feeling that Commissioner Chappell puts into the denial.
Pat's other big problem is that she sometimes appears to still see herself as responsible only for the death of Abigail Folger. In terms of actuality, she's right. She didn't physically touch the others. She's said this before in a previous hearing. But that's not how her conviction plays out and her presence was almost as huge a factor in the night's proceedings as the murders themselves. She sort of caught herself when she'd just mentioned Abigail, before amending her sentence to taking responsibility for all the murders. But the board noted that and it gives them the willies because it adds weight to their thought that there's more to Pat than she's willing to give. One can almost follow their logical thought line; "I'm worried that she doesn't deep down think she has responsibility for Steve Parent's death."
I kind of suspect that the board is cognisant of Susan's Caballero interview of '69 {public since July 2015} and Tex's book revelation {out since 1978} of Pat calling for the killing of Sharon Tate at the point at which it happened and although it doesn't form part of the record, perhaps they used that as some sort of test marker. It's not that unusual that things outside the record are brought up or used ~ Tex has never been charged with the murder of Shorty yet, both Steve Grogan and Bruce Davis have had parole hearings where Tex comes up in that murder, in one actually being called a crime partner. And Rosina was asked about in Tex's last hearing but Tex faced nothing to do with Lotsapoppa's shooting. Perhaps they wondered if Pat would comment on something that her two significant crime partners both recalled in totally separate circumstances. And by not doing so, adds fuel to the minimization fire.
Pat's in a mess.

I would like to thank everyone for their comments (even you, Grim)

Oh, you flatterer, you ! πŸ‘ πŸ˜‰

Carlos said...

I’m a loooong time lurker

And with some great points that are seriously thought provoking. Hopefully, you'll remain a lurker no more.

Dan S said...

They probably didn't find any drugs at the crime scene cuz the killers stole all of them

AC Fisher Aldag used to put it about that Susan wasn't even present as part of the crew on the second night because she was strung out and sick on drugs that had been taken from Cielo.
On all 3 counts: unlikely.

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Ive always wondered about Abigail seeing Flicker every day, ive never heard of a psychiatrist seeing a patient every day, every week is even kind of odd

Maybe back in '69 it wasn't so odd or maybe it's because Abigail had money. It does seem odd though. Some people have time !

Orwhut said...

Matt,
Thanks for the link. I'd forgotten that post from 2015.

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

on the drugs, does anyone actually believe Harrigan actually flew in from Toronto to simply TALK about an upcoming MDA delivery just a couple of days before the murders?

Does anyone seriously think Tex knew about it, either way ?

Robert C said...

Good to see you back in fine form, Grim. I thought you skipped out for a while or longer.

cielodrivecom said...

Grim, don’t you know everybody that does or sells drugs know eachother. What more evidence would your possibly need

Carlos said...

grim said...

I feel for Pat because she's in an extremely difficult position.

Agreed.

Being that nice middle class girl who got caught up in Charlie’s domination or IPB cleary hasn’t worked for her, and you and I both seem to agree a major issue there is her continued inability to express any personal understanding of why those things were enough to make her act so uncharacteristically murderous and then go back to baseline. And if she owns up to that alleged OG status, she risks arguably making her situation with the board even worse.

I’ve read my share of her writings, such as in Prose and Cons, and I expect that deep inside herself she truly has pondered these sorts of questions. I believe her when she says the events have stayed on her mind all these years. She knows what she did. But for some combination of reasons, such as inherent shyness and simply lacking the right words to express that level of sudden ferocity, she fails at every hearing. I think you are quite correct to say the boards are looking for easy, black and white points made with simple words. A difficult position indeed.

P.S. empathy is not sympathy.

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

on the drugs, does anyone actually believe Harrigan actually flew in from Toronto to simply TALK about an upcoming MDA delivery just a couple of days before the murders?

Whenever it was, I do. Many deals go through the talking stage and some dealers want to see their connections face to face. Criminals of all shades often met face to face to discuss and set up deals. A flight in from Toronto wasn't a big deal.
I must admit, as an Englishman with our tiny patch, I did used to think of flying from city to city as a big thing but that ceased when people explained to me some of the mechanics that went with 911. At the time I didn't appreciate that flying city to city was so commonplace in the States. I recall flying from Birmingham to London when I was 14. That was a serious big deal for me. But London's only 106 miles away.
On top of that, quite a few people back in the day that were making good money from drug dealing didn't scrimp in their living. A number of them were determined to live the good life and did. They weren't going to drive little cars, wear threadbare clothes, drink the cheapest drinks or drive across the country or to a neighbouring country when they could treat the airlines as a kind of personal taxi service.

Robert C said...

I thought you skipped out for a while or longer

Every now and again, I see if I can discipline myself to be a lurker. I really wanted to come in on Monica's recent one as I was itching to say a few things {it was a great post, by the way} and also, on David's "recollections" one. I generally read the posts daily and think about what gets said but sometimes, if I'm on a discipline jag, then I stay disciplined.
Then when I'm not, I don't shut up !

Orwhut said...

I've read that Pat doesn't believe in God. She must still believe in miracles or she wouldn't go to her parole hearings.

Peter said...

Zing.

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Harrigan.....MDA.....murders?

In 49 years, not a shred of evidence has ever appeared of a link between Tex and Frykowski or Tex and Harrigan and the other Canadian dealers. Nicholas Shreck's suppositions don't count.
When that evidence appears, then we'll talk drug murder, but you're going to have to go some to convince me that Wogiciech would say "who are you and what do you want ?" to someone he already knew.

SJ said...

Dianne Lake said in her book that she took a road trip with Charlie & Squeaky to visit Charlie's parole officer and they stopped at Esalen on the way back and spent the day in the hot springs

That was quite a significant visit for Dianne. She says that was where she first really focused on the Man ~ Son aspect of Charlie's surname and first associated it as being "just like Jesus." Along with that as she tripped in the springs, she says the notion of letting go of American society's rules and materialism made sense to her.
The positive side of set and setting ?

grimtraveller said...

Carlos said...

a major issue there is her continued inability to express any personal understanding of why those things were enough to make her act so uncharacteristically murderous and then go back to baseline....I expect that deep inside herself she truly has pondered these sorts of questions. I believe her when she says the events have stayed on her mind all these years

I think she understands how she got there. When Cats77's site was up, I used to describe Pat as "dangerously in love." Those waters ran deep and she came ever so close to being permanently one of the women that Paul Watkins said could never love anyone again because they'd given all their love to Charlie. You've only got to ponder on how she was scared of him finding and killing her when she was in Alabama & how she initially fought extradition until a word from him brought her simpering back to LA. And that's before we even get to her being ready to die in the gas chamber at his say so, just so he wouldn't.
The prison authorities intervention, the love of her Dad and just sheer, endless time to clear~mindedly think as an adult for the first time fortunately combined to drive the necessary blocks on Charlie and his aura. Jess Bravin writes something to the effect that Squeaky was among the first to feel the changing winds of Pat as she started becoming resentful of the fact that she was in jail while Squeaky, Sandy & others were on the outside.
Yeah, I think Pat does have understanding of how she got there. Being dangerously in love meant she went the full gamut in pouring herself out and letting herself be filled with Charlie's world and because that meant he could, in a way, do anything with her, for me at least, I can see how 8th & 9th August could have happened. She wasn't a prostitute but she allowed herself to be pimped out as one. One of the parole boards all but freaked out at that !

But for some combination of reasons, such as inherent shyness and simply lacking the right words to express that level of sudden ferocity, she fails at every hearing

I feel for her, partly because as deep as she goes, someone with the responsibility for working out if she should be allowed to come out of jail after having been involved in 7 murders, has to go to far reaches within to understand the difficulties she has and the nebulous place she's coming from. A place where "no sense makes sense," to coin a phrase. And, truth be told, that's identified with Charles Manson's world of understanding. Which, no board can afford to touch with a barge pole.
There may not actually be the words to express what she needs to and being shy and nervy and not sharp like Leslie, is rather easy to catch on the hop. When she gets one shot every five years, calamity awaits because she just isn't believed. I'm sure many feel that it serves her right and whatever it takes to keep her in is just alright.

empathy is not sympathy

I've said on occasion that there are quite a few people on all sides {victims, their families, various branches of LE, the Family, murderer's families, people often left out like Winifred Chapman and William Garretson....} of this case that I really do feel sympathy for. She's one of them.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Did Susanatkinsgonorhhea make parole?

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

Did Susanatkinsgonorhhea make parole?

Well, he made some interesting points but the governor quashed it due to him constantly minimizing his past actions and not taking full responsibility ! πŸ˜‰

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

did anyone ADMIT to a delivery or deal? Of course not ...

It’s no secret that VF was a prolific drug user. And the first report seems to make it pretty clear VF was getting at least some of his personal stash from Doyle and Harrigan:

Harrigan and Doyle supplied Frykowski and Folger with some cocaine and mescaline and probably most all of the MDA they used.

Doyle and Harrigan told Frykowski that they would obtain the new synthetic drug MDA, from Canada and allow him to be one of the first to try it.

It is known that he supplied at least a portion of this MDA to Frykowski

Kaczanowski was present at the Polanski house in the early part of July and overheard Doyle and Harrigan tell Frykowski they were going to get him the drug known as MDA.

Again, the choice of words clearly suggests personal use, and we certainly know VF and to some extent AF indulged. What’s still missing for me is reasonably compelling evidence that VF was ever a dealer or ever planned to be one and that any of this involved Tex or any of the Family.

I also have seen no evidence that the trip from Canada to LA was exclusively to visit VF for a couple of hours on Thursday August 7.

dealers dont just offer this type of info to police no matter what type of immunity theyre promised

If it gets them out of five murder beefs, they probably do.

Smill said...

SAG said:
dealers dont just offer this type of info to police no matter what type of immunity theyre promised

Carlos said:
If it gets them out of five murder beefs, they probably do.

Well, maybe not Carlos--especially in those days. It would depend on who was behind the main drug source. If it was an organized group of men in little nice business suits who had connections in prison, then I doubt I would've been bold enough to snitch about the drugs. You know with a murder rap that you'll have to spend SOME time in prison. If you take the risk of snitching on someone powerful, you can expect to be dead shortly after arriving at your new home behind bars.

Matt said...

grimtraveller said...
Mr. Humphrat said...

Did Susanatkinsgonorhhea make parole?

Well, he made some interesting points but the governor quashed it due to him constantly minimizing his past actions and not taking full responsibility ! πŸ˜‰


Grim and Hump just cracked me the fuck up. Congrats.

And no, he's still and always will be in the hole. No GenPop for him.



Matt said...

^^^ So that's what an emoticon looks like in italics...


Carlos said...

Smill said...

You know with a murder rap that you'll have to spend SOME time in prison.

Not if you beat it. The interviews I have read clearly have the cops saying they are trying to solve a mass murder, and they aren’t interested in some simple drug dealing, such as this remark from Deemer:

We don’t have any interest in drugs per se. That’s been entirely separate from it – for instance, Harrigan told us a great deal about drugs and we gave him a free ride. We’re not really investigating anything that has to do with drugs; only has it has interest in this case.

If you take the risk of snitching on someone powerful, you can expect to be dead shortly after arriving at your new home behind bars.

Who was snitched on? I interpret the investigations as simply establishing three things: VF was a recreational drug user (no secret anyway), VF got some of his stash from Doyle and Harrigan, and most importantly neither Doyle nor Harrigan nor Pic had anything to do with the murders. Remember too that in Doyle’s interview he specifically asks to avoid comment on Cass in order to spare her any harm. These guys weren’t just singing to the cops.

These guys told enough, supported by the polygraphs and other evidence, to eliminate themselves as murder suspects and that was the end of it.

ColScott said...

My goodness. I had forgotten just how inept Grimmy was at argument, logic or making sense. I felt I was reading the crayon scratchings of a special needs child of 3. Then I again click on his profile picture and realize he not only had that picture taken, he willingly (not at gunpoint) posted it. Fucking astonishing this guy can wash himself on a weekly basis.

Grim- Bug's novel does note the Esalen visit but does not make a great point of it.
Peter- the fact that people in Hollywood express their moral opinion does make them better people than your friends who advocate for ripping babies from mothers.

Dan- you write like an idjit. Tex was not jealous, he OWED Charlie for fucking up the Crowe deal. Read and learn before inserting foot

David's article was well written and thought out but Esalen is meaningless.

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

... Folger could still afford a very sizeable stash of the drug,

Her wealth is indisputable. But there are also indications such from her psychiatrist, Dr. Flicker, that she was tired of VF’s drug use and his mooching. It’s a stretch for me to believe that someone whose wealth came from an old school, high society family would feel the urge to get into the drug trade in any fashion. Supporting VF’s habit and having a taste herself makes sense to me; trafficking does not.

enough for Harrigan to fly in personally with it, what quantity he brought with him ...

I’m reminded of something Tom Forcade, the founder of High Times, once said:

There are only two kinds of dealers. Those who need forklifts, and those who don’t.

I admit he was almost certainly referring to weed, which takes up a lot more space per dose than pills. Nevertheless, Harrigan flying in personally with the goods is an indication to me of how relatively small time the operation likely was.

Carlos said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

And yet she was doing it....paying for his drug use that is and using drugs as well

Exactly. They were recreational users as were many others of that time and place.

Still no evidence to date of anything beyond that.

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

I had forgotten just how inept Grimmy was at argument

Ooooohhh !

logic

Aaaaahhhhh !

or making sense

Uuurrrrrgggghhh !

I felt I was reading the crayon scratchings of a special needs child of 3

Aw shucks ! He thinks I'm kinda special.....πŸ˜‰πŸ˜‰πŸ˜‰πŸ˜‰

I again click on his profile picture and realize he not only had that picture taken, he willingly (not at gunpoint) posted it

You forget, I designed the shirt and took the picture myself.
Make sure you get that in next time, you naughty, forgetful, boy, you !

Peter said...

Isn't "Ripping Babies from their Mothers" a song by Squeeze?

Monica said...

Funny! I have been laughing at the last several comments for three hours straight and don't quite know how to explain it to my co-workers. My favorite is that Col said "idjit."

Monica said...

I dont think ripping babies from mothers is funny. The other stuff.

grimtraveller said...

Smill said...

especially in those days. It would depend on who was behind the main drug source. If it was an organized group of men in little nice business suits who had connections in prison, then I doubt I would've been bold enough to snitch about the drugs

Maybe, maybe not. But the overarching point is that the Police weren't after drug dealers or drug users. They were after murderers. But some dealers were suspects and those dealers came clean on their dealing because by doing so, they left the murder suspect list. Deemer made it clear that chasing dealers and users didn't interest him. He says it clearly more than once in various interviews with the suspects and Polanski.
Remember, initially, the Police thought there was a huge drug angle to the murders at Cielo so naturally, they'd look at dealers. They were so hung up on drugs, they ignored vital info and missed out on nabbing the Family a couple of days after the bodies were found.
SAG is just obsessed with making the murders about Tex and drugs.

ColScott said...

Bug's novel does note the Esalen visit but does not make a great point of it

Depends what you mean by a great point.
Re~iterating once again so you can follow my inept logic; if one of the motives for murder was an extreme anti-establishment state of mind, as stated in the prosecution opening statement, and, if Bugliosi mentions the visit to Esalen in his & Gentry's book and quotes at length Manson's explanation of how he played his guitar to people that were meant to be "the top people there" and their reaction, {ranging from bored to ignorant to rude to dismissive}, then, given that he regarded the place as being one "where rich people went on weekends to play at being enlightened" and Bugliosi more than just notes the visit but ties it in to yet another establishment rejection, just 3 days before the Cielo murders, then I think your statement of "Charlie was so butthurt at being snubbed that he wiped out 7 people the next week" is the usual silliness. And if remotely true BUG would have used it. ANYTHING that led back to Manson motivation he used is surprisingly short sighted for such a master scholar, although not for you. As I replied, in the book he does use it. Along with a host of other things, granted, but he uses it. He doesn't say it's a direct reason for murder {we can all speculate it one way or the other} but he includes it as one of the ingredients in the bag of motivation.
Sometimes, 'inept' can be the new 'incisive'.

Matt said...

grimtraveller said...

ColScott said...

Make sure you get that in next time, you naughty, forgetful, boy, you !


Yes, he has a very selective memory


Mr. Humphrat said...

Peter said...
"Isn't "Ripping Babies from their Mothers" a song by Squeeze?"

Yes! I wish I'd had a beverage in my mouth so I could've gotten the screen wet!

Peter said...

I'm more of the Harold True school of thought, that you can't apply rational thinking to these people.

There is no evidence that sex or drugs in the traditional sense were the motives. And they didn't steal anything. Give me 5 minutes in that house and I could pocket a dozen things that could be sold for $100 or more.

Jewelry, watches, objects duh art, fancy clock radios

Peter said...

Bobby had been arrested, Baily and Vance had split, Mary and Sandy hadn't come home. His music career - possibly his only attraction - was DOA. The time was now because he was running out of time.

I think esalen may have contributed to the decision. More than I think it was sexdrugsandmoney. I think there's a lot to it.

Peter said...

Grim.

An "excited utterance" is an exception to the rule that an out of court statement, made in court, cant be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted - hearsay. The hearsay rule is notorious for having so many exceptions that it's barely a rule at all.

An excited utterance is:

A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.

The rationale is that under those conditions you wouldnt have the presence of mind to say anything other than the truth.

An example would be if a witness testified that the victim came stumbling out of the house and said "I can't believe Tex just stabbed me."

Fumbling an answer at your parole hearing would not be an example of an excited utterance.

David knows this. But he also knows that the fun of the hearsay rule is to see which exceptions you can shoe horn your statement into. And lawyers have made some pretty big stretches to try to make an exception. Crazy exceptions are a standard on any Bar Exam.

So my comment was just a little joke that I'm sure he gets.

starviego said...

David writes...
The third problem is the date is wrong. In 'The Family' Ed Sanders calculates Manson’s presence at Esalen as being August 3, 1969. He relies on Emmon’s statements by Manson, above. (Ed Sanders, The Family, pp 190 2002 edition.) That is not the right day.

Sanders is already making that claim in his first printing of the The Family, which appeared in 1971, so Emmons cannot be the source for this claim.

pg257
"...his alibi for his whereabouts during a double homicide in San Jose on Sunday afternoon, August 3 is that he was visiting the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, enjoying the hot springs and steam baths."

grimtraveller said...

Saggybutt71 said...

And Grim im not obsessed with anything to do with this case, what i am trying to do is figure out a MOTIVE that doesnt involve childish fairy tales invented

....For which there is so much evidence that we can forget most of it and still have enough to make a case infinitely more convincing than....your drug obsession fairy tale.

my point us Tex KNEW these people from bumming around Hollywood,

Since the creation of the planet/big bang that made earth, there has never been a single individual that has verified this. Yeah, it's not a stretch that Tex may have known some or all of them. But in 49 years, not a single crumb has appeared to connect them. You talk of the Hollywood drug scene as though it was 180 yokels living in the village square, all knowing each other, each other's movements, each other's preferences and each other's dealers.
Whatever one thinks of the copycat, at least there it can be substantiated. At least evidence based facts can be put into place, even if one concludes that they are twisted into shape to do so.

ColScott said...

Grim Deceiver

Hmmm...
I don't recall twice going into print for anyone in the known universe to see, stating that Steve Grogan chopped off Shorty Shea's head when it has been known fact and truth since 1977 that that is bollocks, Sweet Baboo.
But you did.
You're the one who tells us all that you're the "scholar." You're the poohbah that berates people like Dan S for not having a grasp on important details before venturing an opinion. But in something so important in informing people regarding true facts, you chose to go with something totally untrue though that truth had been factually established for 35 {first time you did it} and 40 years {2nd time around}.
Deceiver indeed. Even Bugliosi admitted and corrected his error once he had the chance.

I will refer you to something I used to say often in the ONLY official TLB Blog. We need to trust our own senses for what is a real reaction

Sometimes, that's bang on the money.
However, an individual's frame of reference of what they deem to be a real reaction cannot be the only yardstick. If you know nothing about acid, your own sense of an acid tripper's possible reactions to anything may not be worth much.
If you've never been raped, never had your Mum give you away, not been rejected by your Dad, not internalized hatred towards any given society, never had visions outside your control, be they religious or trippy, never felt you were hamstrung by the Man in jail or scores of other other things that could bring about a myriad of reactions, then you're not really in a position, just because your individual sense tells you "X must be the real reaction", to say that some other conclusion can't be right for someone who has passed through such things.

Maybe you think being butthurt at rejection is motivation for the mass murder of randos. That says more about your psyche than anything else

Well, of course it does. It tells you my psyche is prepared to accept that a person could have any reason for murdering, be it random or known people.
Do I think that people at Esalen {if indeed it was Esalen} not liking his music is why the people at Waverley and Cielo died ? No I don't. It could have played a part in the specific timing. But Charlie had already thought he'd killed Lotsapoppa and he'd played a part in Gary's death. Death by that point was no stranger to Charlie Manson.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...


So my comment was just a little joke that I'm sure he gets


That's what I had hoped. Thanks for the explanation. I like to know what some of these in~jokes mean.


David said...

Starviego said: "Sanders is already making that claim in his first printing of the The Family, which appeared in 1971..."

Thank you, I don't have that version. The date, however, is still wrong.


Grim said: "I like to know what some of these in~jokes mean."

We lawyers have an odd sense of humor. I got the joke. Her statement is, as Peter pointed out, far from an excited utterance and, in fact, his explanation is spot on as to why I used it.

"And lawyers have made some pretty big stretches to try to make an exception."

And likely, only Peter 'got' it, which he did.


The Col said: "David's article was well written and thought out xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx."

Was...was...that a compliment from the Col.? That's it. I'm out, done. I can retire from the blog. I have made the grade. I AM a TLB scholar!!!!

Kidding aside: Thank you, Col. I appreciate that.

grimtraveller said...

Sag said...

What evidence would that be Grim? Space cadets like Paul Watkins spinning yarns to Bugliosi about Manson being Christ, holes in the desert, revelations 9, etc? Criminal scumbag bikers like DeCarlo facing felony charges telling investigators what they want to hear to get immunity from pending charges? A bunch of 19 and 20 year old girls a year removed from high school telling cops about Charlies bullshit con talk?

Er, yeah.
That you don't happen to believe what people say from their own experience isn't unusual. You're not alone. Lots of people think what a number of people came out with in court was crap.
But you're not saying anything substantial. All you got is "I don't believe it. It has to be something else. And that something else is something for which there isn't even dumb evidence ! But it ain't that stuff I can't get my head around that anyone could believe that they were prosecuted with and that's good enough for me."
You know, there isn't even circumstantial evidence that your thing's got legs. Just supposition. But you keep running with it. It may be conduit by which you learn how to interact with people without getting snarky when the heat is on.

Don't mind me. I'm just being jovially provocative with you because I know you like to dish it out.πŸ‘

Doug Smith said...

"And I feel like William Tell
Maid Marian on her tiptoed feet...
Ripping babies from..."

starviego said...

starviego said...
Sanders, The Family, pg257
"...his alibi for his whereabouts during a double homicide in San Jose on Sunday afternoon, August 3 is that he was visiting the Esalen Institute in Big Sur.... ."

Does anybody know anything about the 'double homicide' referenced?

Mr. Humphrat said...

Starviego, I recall I think the double homicide referred to was two young women or girls up on a hillside outside San Jose and there was speculation it could have been Manson, but they found a disturbed young man who turned out to be the killer. I think it's been discussed on this blog.

Mr. Humphrat said...

http://www.cielodrive.com/archive/new-cult-link-in-san-jose-slayings/

Mr. Humphrat said...

This was the man convicted: Karl Werner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_F._Werner

starviego said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
starviego said...

Well that clears that up! Thanks Mr. Humprat!

Funny how clock-and-calender -hating Charlie could be so specific with dates when it suited him.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Maybe he met Charlie in Vacaville. The online info. says he's been incarcerated there. Deb probably knows a lot since his name is mentioned as a possible Zodiac suspect.

Carlos said...

susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

What satisfaction does Manson derive from 1) not being along for the ride to be personally involved in the killing

I’m reminded of this bit from VB’s summation:

Charles Manson is a clever fellow all right. He is clever all right.

In Manson's world, he probably felt if he never himself killed anyone but had someone else murder for him, he was thereby immunized or insulated, as it were, from all criminal responsibility. Well, it is not quite that easy, and when you folks come back into this courtroom with your verdict of first-degree murder against Charles Manson, you are going to tell him it's not quite that easy. In the offbeat world of Charles Manson he probably never heard of this rule of law. Well, he is learning about it right now.


Additionally, according to the standard narrative, Charlie tied up the LaBiancas and left instructions about what was to happen next. That satisfies my definition of personal involvement.

Peter said...

I find it hard to believe that someone who spent so much time in jail could be so ignorant about the law.

starviego said...


ColScott said...
starviego- I am calling horseshit on your theory


But you haven't even heard my theory! Here it is:


From Sanders' The Family, pg259
Manson seems to have left the Esalen Institute sometime late Sunday. Manson was then cruising around the Big Sur area in the 1952 Hostess Twinkie bread truck with two unknown male companions.

I speculate, without any evidence, that these two unknown males were actually Bobby Beausoleil and Bruce Davis. It's probably not coincidence that neither can remember where they were in the first week of August, 1069:

cielodrive.com/bobby-beausoleil-parole-hearing-2008.php
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: ".... I don't remember much of the next week until my arrest."

www.mansonblog.com/2015/05/the-mansonfamilytodayinfo-files-bruce.html
"Davis claims he doesn't remember much from the time after Gary Hinman was killed."


IF so, then it's possible all three had gone up north with the explicit plan to murder Abigail Folger at Esalen. But it didn't happen for whatever reason, so it had to happen back in LA.


San Luis Obispo, where BB was picked up, is a hell of a lot closer to Esalen than it is the Spahn Ranch!

OO-ee-OO!

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


OK, now you can call horseshit on my theory.

Carlos said...

starviego said...

all three had gone up north with the explicit plan to murder Abigail Folger at Esalen. But it didn't happen for whatever reason, so it had to happen back in LA.

It seems a stretch that they would go from targeted hit on AF to overkill slaughter of her plus 6 others.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...




OK, now you can call horseshit on my theory


That was horseshit that few plants worthy of the name would want to grow in !
















I'm jesting with you, Star. Though I do not in any way believe it to be remotely true, as theories go, it's actually worthy of thought.

ColScott said...

Nothing to do with Esalen is relevant to this case

Peter said...

Glad that's settled.

grimtraveller said...

Orwhut said...

I've read that Pat doesn't believe in God

As she was coming from the LaBianca kitchen with the knives before the butchery began on Rosemary, she says that she begged God to make it stop "but that didn't happen and I have never believed in God since. He doesn't answer prayers."
This came from Jeff Guinn's book and he interviewed Pat for it so one can conclude from things she says that these are relatively recent comments. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if members of the parole board of her last hearing were up to speed with things she said and comments like that one would possibly worry the shit out of them.
That was a rather daft thing to say; she carried the ultimate responsibility for making it stop and didn't. God gave her the freedom to act ~ what would she have been happy with ~ to have been struck with a major stroke or heart attack ? One could argue that the prayer was answered ~ "Ok Patricia, run out of the house and alert a neighbour to get help" and she chose not to. It could also be argued that Pat has shown at various points over almost 50 years that fully taking responsibility has not been easy for her or even that deep down, she still looks elsewhere for someone to blame.

ColScott said...

These victims were stabbed, up close and personal. OJ Style. They had a gun and used it to hit people with!

True, but each person that was shot by that gun suffered fatally from it as well. Two of the Parent shots were fatal and the one Sebring shot was too. Frykowski got hit 13 times on the head and the medical examiner said that collectively, those 13 blows to the head would have been fatal as well as the bullet to the back. It's noteworthy that it was because the gun stopped working when he'd shot him twice that Tex began whapping Wojiciech's head with it and whether with bullets or without, wounds from the gun were sufficient to kill.

Brian G said...

I'm not sure why or if Manson went to easlan. I'm curious if anyone ever checked if Hinman and any at Tate's were acquainted. It seems Hinman knew the beach boy. Maybe it's as simple as they could implicate Manson in the Hinman murder

Mr. Humphrat said...

Grim said:

'As she [Pat] was coming from the LaBianca kitchen with the knives before the butchery began on Rosemary, she says that she begged God to make it stop "but that didn't happen and I have never believed in God since. He doesn't answer prayers."'

'That was a rather daft thing to say; she carried the ultimate responsibility for making it stop and didn't. God gave her the freedom to act'

Grim if you take Pat as sincere, which I tend to do, I would think you'd suppose she didn't feel freedom in her actions, that she was doing what she was told to do as a soldier in a 'cause' she'd committed herself to- and the action wasn't something she chose to do as an independent thinker at all. I take what she said to the parole board as her individual voice was crying to God because what they were doing was abhorrent but she didn't feel free to stop. I don't think her statement is remotely daft.

grimtraveller said...

Mr. Humphrat said...

if you take Pat as sincere

I do.

I don't think her statement is remotely daft

"Please stop this or I don't believe you exist" ?

I do.

SAG said...

besides all Charlie did with Gary was slash his face

Have a read of the Hinman autopsy and the transcript of Bobby's first trial. When you understand what "possibly fatal" in relation to that one inch deep to a face and ear slash means in reality, then there's no "all Charlie did with Gary" about it.
Here's an irony for you ~ he did more life threatening damage to Gary than he did to Lotsapoppa.

David said...

Grim said: "And I wouldn't be at all surprised if members of the parole board of her last hearing were up to speed with things she said and comments like that one would possibly worry the shit out of them."

I agree with you but with a slightly different perspective from where I think you are coming from. I don't think her 'lack of faith' would be the issue for the board.

I think the problem with that comment is the same problem she had with her new version of hiding back by the guest house and hoping/waiting for it to end.....it's BS. I don't mean her not believing in God is BS. I mean her singing songs in the hallway, giggling in court and testifying that what she did was right and otherwise establishing she had absolutely zero remorse or empathy for her victims in 1969 calls her credibility into serious question when she suggests that on August 8-9-10 1969 she (a.) hid to avoid further participation and (b.) asked God to stop it.

And I think that is precisely what those statements by the board are getting at. IMO she'd do better if she walked in sat down and said 'Look in August 1969 I was at war. I wanted to kill pigs. I felt nothing for them' and then proceeded to explain how she has changed from that person.

But she can't/won't because I don't think that in that way down, inside, spot she actually believes she is responsible. She believes Manson made her do it. That she too is a victim.

starviego said...

It's my belief he was there, though I couldn't tell you the source(I think it was author Ed Sanders). Others say there was a 'Steve Scorpi' there with Rosina Kroner and Dale Fimple, instead of Lukashevsky.

Dan S said...

I'm trying to get y'all to think about the inner dynamics of Watson to the family. The frat boy jock who's an outsider at band camp. The pretty boy Bobby, charismatic musician insider, the guy Watson wants to be like, wouldnt you imagine?
Watson is not a musician; he's not a bike gang member; he's really bad at dealing drugs; he's awful at the orgies. Basically he's a pariah looking for a chance to impress.
"You owe me, brother," is not his motivation. Come on, this is the drug burn irresponsible king we re talking about. Since when did he give a shit about owing anything? He's after acceptance/promotion or he has some personal thing with the victims. This is an extremely immature individual who i believe went into murder as casually and for similar reasons as his typewriter caper.
Throw the MDA speed in there and some success with the new girl and he's overconfident and raring to go.

Mr col, im not going to make any personal insults, im just asking you to think from a different angle and squash my theories with your knowledge. BB was owed by Hinman for sex. Tex was an outsider desperate to get in the clique. Charlie told him to kill the people at cielo but didn't really mean it, just like OJ was hanging out at a bar with Glenn Rogers and said, "Man, I wish that bitch was dead," not realizing the empty eyed eagerness of the man.

Dan S said...

Not saying that Charlie isn't a misanthropic nightmare for society. Not saying he didn't give instructions. Just wondering what were those instructions?
The 2nd night was SO much neater than Cielo, it does make me think the only adult was involved. Not that Charlie's much of an adult

Dan S said...

Thanks, SAG. Atkins' husband came to see my band play 2 months ago. He seems cool and she definitely had cleaned up nicely. Penicillin does wonders too lol.
Anyways, what about BB, gay prostitute? Any evidence there?
(Also sorry to hijack the thread)

Dan S said...

Oh just saw your last response. Good questions. Garretson's story(ies) seem quite fluid. I was just reading rumors from another post about the porn shot in his place. Manson had his disciples sucking and fucking everything; why wouldn't that be the connection? Stabby Tex might be overcome by gay shame/rage. Obviously Steve Parent isn't trying to sell a clock radio, right? Was a clock radio some bad ass tech like when the ipad came out?

I guess if the shame rage theory was true garretson would be the first to die. More likely he was in on it really

Dan S said...

I tried to be gay, turns out I sucked at it. Seriously though, i never wanted to suggest you said anything of the kind. It's my pet theory that BB and Gary Hinman had a special relationship in which BB felt he was owed money for sex. It just makes the most sense to me like a light bulb going off in my dim bulb brain. Charlie's notorious for his pimping and turning people pansexual.
The Garretson story made me think of the shenanigans that could've been going on back there and why a Texas boy would commit so much overkill....
I'm going to re read your comment and try to read it for what it says and not get tunnel vision on my own theories

Dan S said...

Inside knowledge that would give such a motley, straggly crew the balls to dominate the household, definitely points to a stronger connection than stranger murder.
I believe garretson's behavior is pretty strange all the way from his first police contact onward. Im going to read the garretson posts on the blog....

grimtraveller said...

David said...

I don't think her 'lack of faith' would be the issue for the board

I didn't mean that it would be. It's arguably what that statement to Guinn points at ¬> "someone other than me {be it God, Charlie or Tex} is bottom line responsible. Charlie ordered it, Tex made me do it, God didn't stop it."

IMO she'd do better if she walked in sat down and said 'Look in August 1969 I was at war. I wanted to kill pigs. I felt nothing for them' and then proceeded to explain how she has changed from that person

This is why I believe that Pat is in the shit so deeply. That doesn't describe her. It would be a lot easier for her if it did. Despite the fact that Leslie says that she wanted to be like Pat, their circumstances are a million miles removed. Your quote describes Leslie almost to a tee. When she heard Pat had killed, she became the living embodiment of that. Granted, I'm using Leslie's statement to Marvin Part and Pat's statements to Claude Brown and Charlie as my basis for this, but Pat does not fit that picture. Sure, at trial she came across in the way she did, but there, we're talking about the woman that gave up the fight against extradition from Alabama on Charlie's say so to then talk her way into the gas chamber ~ on his say so.
Leslie can talk about the war, what was right and what she felt she had to do because, unless that Marvin Part interview is the most fantastic piece of acting of the 1960s, she believed what she was saying. She actually went so far as to say she'd do it again if the clock was put back. So she really can talk about how she's changed. She has a measurable yardstick that she can point to.
Pat has no such. That's why I said it was so ironic. I don't doubt that she's telling the truth actually, but that truth trusses her up, rather like it does Tex, because it's nebulous. And as such, a board that needs something tangible will see her as not fully taking responsibility. You can't really blame them.

But she can't/won't because I don't think that in that way down, inside, spot she actually believes she is responsible. She believes Manson made her do it. That she too is a victim

Part of the paradox of Pat is that there's a lot to that and she's slipped up in the past about that. That doesn't take away from her being responsible for her actions. However, it means that her understanding of how she got to the point of murder and ability to articulate it needs to be set to a somewhat higher bar than many others that have killed. And if she can't show it to a satisfactory level.......then naturally it leaves many looking on with real doubts as to whether or not she really does adequately take full {with the emphasis on full} responsibility.

grimtraveller said...

Dan S said...

The 2nd night was SO much neater than Cielo

That's right, this time around the killers didn't leave behind footprints, heelprints, fingerprints, rope or knives, they didn't let any dogs run away and they left behind much neater calling cards, painted on fridges and walls, not front doors. πŸ™‚ πŸ‘ πŸ˜‰

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Curious as to what you think

One has to marvel at your persistence in continually showing up at a house you've been told you're not welcome at and keep getting thrown out of !
Or does one ?

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

You have a nice day too spearchucker

Better the chucker than the actual spear !

Mr. Humphrat said...

Matt prepare the confinement loaf for SAG! He escaped again!

"But she can't/won't because I don't think that in that way down, inside, spot she actually believes she is responsible. She believes Manson made her do it. That she too is a victim"
Count me as one person who thinks that's a reasonable belief

David said...

SAG,

You know I almost thought after your earlier posts that you should get out on parole. I almost suggested it. Then, with your help, I came to my senses. You have not addressed your mental health issues. Your next hearing will be in 2023.

David said...

You know, SAG, what is more fun?

You can't do anything about it but scream at the machine.

David said...

Scream!!!!!!

Robert C said...

SAG falls into a general psychiatric affliction called 'Anxiety' and in particular loneliness. What he wants, even needs, is to be part of something, be accepted and especially to have a dialogue no matter what it's about. When rejected he resorts to infantile baiting and racism which itself is designed to elicit a response which again is the core of his need. Next time recommend just let it pass and not respond directly to him until the hosts can once again remove his posts.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

SAG, You know I almost thought after your earlier posts that you should get out on parole

He reminds me of Charles Manson talking to a couple of Rolling Stone reporters while in jail, awaiting trial on 7 first degree murder charges and one of conspiracy, talking about the Black revolution and the prophecies of the Beatles found on the White album, stuff that would help eventually sink him. It's in him somewhere, so it has to come out. He just can't help himself.

Monica said...

Exactly.

Peter said...

Grim said"

"Charlie ordered it, Tex made me do it, God didn't stop it."

Wesley: Jenny? Things got a little out of hand. It’s just this war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson and ... I would never hurt you. You know that.

Mr. Humphrat said...

is that from Forrest Gump?

Peter said...

:)

grimtraveller said...

Robert C said...

Next time recommend just let it pass and not respond directly to him until the hosts can once again remove his posts

I see the general sense in that. However, there are some interesting talking points raised in some of his replies and although some comments are definitely addressed to him, for the most part, they're thrown out there for everyone to peruse and reflect on.

When rejected he resorts to infantile baiting and racism which itself is designed to elicit a response

Besides, he's so easy. I regard his little interludes as in~flight entertainment. Almost a kind of advert break.

Peter said...

I find it hard to believe that someone who spent so much time in jail could be so ignorant about the law

I don't.
Although Charlie came out on a few occasions and said he knew about the law of conspiracy, I notice that he tended to say this more, once he'd been convicted. Back in the day he showed real ignorance of certain aspects of the law. When he was on trial, he said he served 7 years for a $30 cheque which isn't true once all the details are known. When, during his trial he said "My reality is my reality, and I stand within myself on my reality" and "a lot of diagrams are actually in my opinion senseless to the case", he was displaying some ignorance of aspects of the law.
Part of the reason I'm not surprised is that I don't think while he was in jail he planned to murder. I think that came to him gradually as he brewed his thoughts and deciphered his visions and saw the power he had at his fingertips, when he saw he could get a group to crawl around on all fours and baa like sheep or pimp out women that were devoted to him.
Many people in jail don't regard the law the way people on the outside tend to. And let's face it, for many of us, in whichever country we live in, there'll be laws we're totally ignorant of or have grasped in a kind of second hand way "from someone else." A lot of criminals and inmates observe different codes and can be lost in the laws of the land as a result. As Manson said at trial, "the only way that I have been able to live on that side of the road was outside the law. I have always lived outside the law. When you live outside the law it is pretty hard, you can't call the man for protection. You have got to pretty much protect your own. You can't live within the law and protect yourself."
Bugliosi called Manson amoral. If true, that would explain a lot.

FrankM said...

I have long been interested in the handles and avatars that people use on blogs and boards. I think they probably tell quite a lot about the person: the name is in a sense the identity, the persona s/he wants to be known by. That said, one has to wonder just who would want to be known as Susanatkinsgonorrhoea, and why? I guess it's a free world, but ....

FrankM
[breaking silence]

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

Bugliosi calling Manson amoral, pot meet kettle

Not really. There's a difference between someone who, on a few occasions hypocritically goes against a governing moral code that they purport to believe in and generally live by and someone that abandons that moral code and no longer believes in it or lives by it and more or less invents their own.

grimtraveller said...

Susanatkinsgonorhhea said...

You just described Vince B to a T but forgot to mention his stalking, woman beating, baby denying and intellectual dishonesty and general scumbaggery when it came to this case and the JFK assassination but lemmings like you will always be around to make pieces of shit like him rich

My copy of his & Gentry's book was bought second hand in 1982 for £2 on a stall in Camden market. Just how does that make anyone remotely rich, much less Bugliosi ? It wouldn't even have made a dent in the stallholder's lunch budget for that day.
Nice try though.
Actually, it was kind of lame. Something you're no stranger to, evidently.

David said...

So you all know….

SAG is actually named David Forsken (he prefers 'Dave'). He's 5’1 and weighs in at 135lbs. He is a math teacher at the local high school where he wears a plaid shirt with a pocket protector and lectures the class on the efficacy of the slide rule even in the age of iphones and laptops. He’s never been married but did have a date in 1989 for his senior prom, his cousin. His favorite movie is Apollo 13. He can tell you every track of every Kenny-G album. His personal favorite is Gravity, which he believes is vastly underrated. SAG once went out on a limb and bought Middle of Nowhere in the 90's but has regretted it ever since.

He drives home in his Prius every night, pours himself a sherry and microwaves his Marie Callender’s chicken pot pie. When he’s done he folds his napkin (cloth, not paper) then dons a bustier, high, heals and a Danzig t-shirt (bought secretly at a local garage sale for him by a kid down the street) and appears here as his alter ego known as susanatkinsgonorhhea. He misspells his own handle on purpose in case someone from Fernwood High happens upon this site. They would know Mr. Forsken would never misspell that word.

Hiding behind his internet persona he quaffs one Blue Moon, White Belgian IPA (with a slice of orange) and is able to release all of his pent up frustration on anyone here, because, well, he knows they can't see him. He's safe and gets the attention he needs.

Then tomorrow he will go back to Fernwood as an 11th grade physics teacher.

He will, of course, deny this vehemently. He will call me names, safe behind the obscurity of the internet. But, it is the truth, just like the drug motive theory that he believes in with all his heart.

Robert C said...

Well ..... SAG wanted attention and now he's getting it ....

FrankM said: "That said, one has to wonder just who would want to be known as Susanatkinsgonorrhoea, and why?"

A very lonely person who wants attention. Of course it picks a name suitable for entertaining snickering schoolyard adolescents but otherwise reflects on the afflicted's absence of mental maturity.

Grim said: "However, there are some interesting talking points raised in some of his replies ..."

Somewhat agree if he'd remake his persona and handle into some semblance of a 'normal' adult bringing at least most of his mental bricks, if any, to the table with helpful insights and reflections on the topic at hand at least once in a while.

mdm253 said...

Look at your game girl makes me cry its very sad song .