Monday, July 26, 2021

Lynette Fromme: The Original Manson Family Member Who Tried To Assassinate President Gerald Ford

 By: Dominic Utton

Jul. 18 2021, Published 12:42 p.m. ET

In the summer of 1969, the idealist hippie dream was shattered when over, two hot August nights, Charles Manson’s “family” gang brutally murdered seven people in their own homes, including the actress Sharon Tate, who was eight months pregnant at the time.

Manson was not captured until October of that year, and as the full horror of his fanatical cult was revealed during his trial, America reeled. Charles Manson was not just a deranged psychopath, but also an extraordinarily charismatic leader who had brought dozens of followers under his spell -- most of them young women. They would die for him, and they would kill for him.

His most ardent acolyte, and de facto second-in-command, was Lynette Fromme, who was just 21 at the time of their killing spree. And as authors Dylan Howard and Andy Tillett reveal in their book, The Last Charles Manson Tapes: Evil Lives Beyond the Grave, she not only remained loyal to Manson after his incarceration but in 1975 even attempted to kill the President of the United States. "Did Manson have a hand in Fromme's assassination attempt?" they write. "Almost certainly."

Lynette Fromme met Charles Manson when she was still a teenager. As Howard and Tillett explain, she, like many of his followers, was already deeply troubled.

"Fromme had been born in Santa Monica, California, in 1948 and was a good student at Orville Wright Junior High School. She was a talented dancer, in a troupe that performed at the White House, but developed problems at home and by the time she was thirteen, was no longer speaking to her father. By fifteen she had taken to burning herself with cigarettes and drinking heavily. She then left home permanently after a blow-out fight with her dad.

"In 1967, she was drifting when she met Charles. As Fromme recalled in her own autobiography, he introduced himself by telling her people in the area referred to him as ‘The Gardener,' because his role was taking care of ‘the flower children.'"

The couple, along with fellow Family member Mary Brunner, drifted through California, soaking up the “tune in, turn on, drop out" spirit of the times. Manson continued to develop his ‘philosophy' encouraging the girls to free their minds," write Howard and Tillett, “and encouraging them all to have sex together, so the two girls would lose their inhibitions. Through the force of her personality, humor, energy, and absolute devotion to Charlie, she would be treated as Charlie's second-in-command."

More followers fell under Manson's spell. By 1969 the Family would be dozens strong, and whatever hippie ideals they once held had been twisted into an apocalyptic ideology he dubbed "Helter Skelter" that culminated in the horrific events of August and a death toll that reached at least nine.

Finally, the police caught up with the gang, and on October 12, 1969, Manson's orgy of killing came to an end.

As Fromme had not been directly involved in any of the murders, she escaped the most serious charges, convicted only of attempting to prevent others from testifying, as well as contempt of court, and receiving only short sentences.

Even as the full extent of Manson's evil was laid bare before the world, Fromme kept the faith, turning up every day throughout his trial to protest outside the court. As the authors note, "Lynette Fromme, the Family's nominal leader in Manson's absence, and [fellow Family member] Sandra Good were among those still maintaining their curbside vigil. They knelt, still with shaved hair and X-marks on their foreheads outside the courthouse."

After his conviction and death sentence -- which was later commuted to life in prison -- Fromme remained devoted to her leader. She and Good moved into an apartment together and visited Manson as often as they could. And the self-styled "Messiah" continued to exert his influence over them.

In association with their work with the Order of the Rainbow, Fromme and Good launched the International People's Court of Retribution (ICPR). Ostensibly an environmental group, they soon began to show their true colors.

During a 1975 radio interview, Good claimed the ICPR had 2,000 assassins who were monitoring executives and their families of organizations that harm the air, water, earth, and wildlife. And, according to Howard and Tillett, their manifesto contained the following threats:

"Any woman who uses her body to control, or to sell products harmful to the people and the environment, will be viciously maimed. Anyone who advertises or manufactures food or drugs injurious to the people's health will be killed. Media executives and their wives who allow the flow of distorted sex and violence through the media into the minds of millions of people will be subject to the violence they have been selling to the people in the form of entertainment..."

Strangely, given their backgrounds, history of violence, and continued devotion to Manson, the authorities appear to have dismissed Fromme and Good's bloodthirsty promises as little more than harmless fantasies.

It was very nearly a terrible mistake.

"Fromme made her grand gesture toward environmental activism on September 5, 1975," write Howard and Tillett. "Dressed in her red nun's habit, she approached then-President Ford as he was walking toward a gathering of business leaders in Sacramento.

"Fromme managed to get very close to the president before whipping a .45 caliber pistol out from under her robe. She pointed the gun at Ford and pulled the trigger. Fromme, however, had not chambered a round. Because of this, the gun did not go off. Fromme was immediately subdued, where she cried out, ‘It didn't go off. Can you believe it? It didn't go off.'

"Later, when Fromme's apartment was searched, investigators found a single bullet on the floor of her apartment. More incompetence, or a deliberate alibi? Probably the former, but Fromme would later claim the latter."

Charles Manson, America's most evil man, and the self-proclaimed devil incarnate may have orchestrated the murders of nine people… but his original and most ardent follower, the fatally damaged "flower girl" Lynette Fromme, very nearly outdid him. Nobody has come closer to killing the American president since.

Fromme's trial barely lasted two weeks in November 1975, largely because she refused to cooperate with her defense counsel. She was given a life sentence and spent nearly thirty-four years in prison. She was released in August 2009 and lives in New York state. In a 2019 TV interview, two years after Manson's death, she was asked if she had been in love with the man who had made her a monster.

"Yeah," she replied, "I still am."

(Original Article)

Monday, July 19, 2021

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood A Novel - Review

"If I really considered myself a writer, I wouldn't be writing screenplays. I'd be writing novels."

- Quentin Tarantino

I was mostly disappointed with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood the Movie. I thought the Col wrote a really accurate review of the film. I was hoping for more from the Novel in a couple of key areas. More on Cliff, more on Sharon, and more Manson. Although the Novel did provide me with all three, it was not exactly what I had in mind. Only with Sharon do I feel he hit the spot on what I was looking for. While there was more Manson, and we learned much more about Cliff, I was left disappointed with how he addressed both in the book. As this is a Manson Blog - lets start there.

Tarantino took a strange track with the Family in the novel. There is more of the Family and Charlie in the novel than the movie, but they also play a less significant role if that makes sense? The ending of the movie is mentioned only briefly in a flashback type sequence about 110 pages into a 400 page book. It is remembered as an anecdote from one person to another. It is covered in two pages, and Tarantino gives as much detail about what the results of the killings were, as he does recounting the actual killing. We learn that the event caused Rick to get regular spots on the Johnny Carson Show, among other short-term appearance opportunities. Also, the Family is last mentioned with about a quarter of the Novel left, and they are essentially finished for the rest of the story. There are a couple more scenes with Charlie than in the movie, including a face to face with Sharon and Jay. As well, there is an interesting chapter with the Pussycat character where Tarantino gives us his spooky version of a creepy crawl mission that Pussycat goes on in an initiation event. Tarantino also takes a deep dive into Charlies music career ambitions. The Spahn Ranch scene from the movie is in the book, though slightly altered. Cliff leaves at the end without beating up Clem or anyone else. You also get that visit from Squeaky's point of view. However, much like the movie, the Manson Family is really not at the heart of the story Quentin is trying to tell here. Going into this Novel looking for a Manson story is going to leave you disappointed much in the same way the movie did. Albeit maybe a little less so, if you looking for more Manson content and are willing to sacrifice Manson relevance.

My favorite character in the movie was Cliff Booth. I wanted the Novel to clear up some things about his background for me, and I got way more than I bargained for. Cliff, it turns out, is a much darker guy. We learn how Cliff and Rick met, with Cliff saving Rick from an on-set fire. Cliff seems to have a very strange affinity for Rick, but outside of that it just gets worse and worse as far as Cliff's character. We find out that Cliff did indeed kill his wife on that boat. In a typically Tarantino violence on woman way, we are walked through how she was shot through the middle with a spear-gun. The back story on this event is very detailed and very gory. We discover that Cliff killed more people than any other US soldier in the War, and that he received medals of valor for his performance. We also are told that he continued to kill people after the war, in once instance just to see if he could get away with it. Cliff is also a foreign film buff and a critic of US films. He prefers the work of a Japanese film maker named Kurosawa. Everyone in this Novel has an opinion on film and music it seems. but more on that later. We see how Cliff came into possession of the beloved pit-bull which was given to him to pay off a debt. Cliff is clearly an old-school tough guy, but is given much rougher edges in the book than he was portrayed as having in the movie. In the book, Tarantino explains in the fight scene with Bruce Lee that Bruce is able to identify in Cliff's eyes that Cliff is different from other opponents. Bruce recognizes Cliff is a killer. This Novel makes sure that you understand that about Cliff. He is not the smiling charming buddy of the film. When I saw the movie I felt like the Cliff character was, if not a hero, at the very least a loyal friend and good type of guy. After reading the Novel, I feel like Cliff is more like some of the other villains in some of the other Tarantino movies. Think the Vega brothers. Cold. Lots of wit and one-liners, but ultimately capable of being very cold.

Then there is Sharon. The one area of this book that was exactly as I hoped was the treatment of Sharon. She gets more attention and focus and I loved it. We get to hear her voice and she had some very interesting things to say. Sharon liked pop music more than Rock. Sharon was a Monkees fan. Sharon liked Bobby Sherman lol ( Remember that old song - "Julie , Julie, Julie, do you love me") Sharon does not like the playboy mansion parties or scene, and in fact the scene from the Movie where Sharon and Roman are at the party at the Mansion is written out. At the end of the Novel, Sharon is on her way to one of the Mansion Parties when she talks Roman into having a pool party at their place instead. Sharon is given a chance to express things she could never tell her "hip friends", and she comes across in the novel as very sincere and endearing. As does one other female character....

Remember Trudy? The 9 year old girl who Rick acted with in the episode of Lancers? Well, Trudy is also at the very heart of this novel. Trudy and Rick have an almost love-hate type of relationship in this Novel. In fact, the Novel ends with a conversation not between Rick and Cliff, but with Rick and Trudy. We learn here that Trudy would go on to much bigger things. Trudy would eventually be nominated for an Academy Award for her role in the film Ordinary People, and would go on to win the Academy Award for her performance in a Quentin Tarantino1999 remake of "Lady in Red." 

The novel opens up with a chapter reliving the conversation Rick has with Marvin Schwarz. Although in the book its not at a restaurant, it is in an office setting. I have read that Tarantino is also having this story turned into a play. The plot of the play would be centered around Rick's time in Italy. I have also read that Tarantino signed a two book deal. In addition to this Novel, he will be releasing a book for reviews, or critiquing films. That makes sense as there was plenty of that going on in this book. All the main characters had something to say about different films. Most likely Tarantino speaking for himself through his characters. Quentin clearly heard the criticism about Sharon's lack of a voice and adjusted for the better. If he heard the criticism about his portrayal of Bruce Lee, he apparently couldn't care less. Bruce is portrayed very poorly. There are plenty of references to all things Quentin. He references his other movies, people who have worked with him in the past, as well as his favorite characters and works. I had to laugh when one of the Manson girls called Cliff- "Mr. White." Quentin went into lots of detail about Lancer, and Jim Stacy. In one nod to himself, he even had a scene where a character based on his father runs into Stacy and asks him to sign an autograph for his son "Quentin."  There is lot's of nostalgia. The book itself looks like one of the old paperbacks you buy on a spindle while waiting on line at the convenience store. The last couple of pages are adds for old Elmore Leonard, and Western novels. There are probably so many things going on as well that are just above my head. Tarantino references so many people, songs, and shows from an era that was simply before my time. All for the low cost of eight bucks lol. Hell, How can you go wrong for that? It was an interesting read, and it only took a couple of afternoons at the pool to read it. One or two of the scenes are verbatim from the movie, but mostly it is Tarantino going into very serious detail about the films, music, and television shows he grew up with. It was not very fulfilling to me as far as the Manson stuff, and I walked away feeling disappointed about Cliff. I am not sure that personally I need to see a play. I was intrigued with the story of Rick. Cliff, and how they crossed paths with both Sharon and Charlie. I am not so sure how interested I am in the rest of it. It had a tendency, in parts, to get too preachy. You sort of walk away from this Novel with a feeling that you have just spent several hours listening to a lecture on the merits/shortcomings of certain work that is sometimes very obscure to an average person. He goes way into description of process and technique in some cases. It can work sometimes, like when describing Roman Polanski's way of filming frame by frame to develop suspense in Rosemary's Baby. It can also get tedious reading an entire Chapter about the History of Stacy and Lancer. 

Overall, I think this Novel is a decent supplement to the story when Tarantino is not spending too many pages on the most technical and mundane details of certain processes and backstories. I recommend this book if you liked the movie. It is a quick read for the most-part, and very cheap. If you are really into Quentin Tarantino, you will probably like this more than I did. There are many obvious references to his personal interests, so I am sure there are plenty of not-so obvious ones as well for the die-hard fans. I respect Tarantino, but never got that into him either. I think Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs were great movies. I think he made two other really good ones, and I put Once Upon a Time in Hollywood somewhere after that in my personal rankings of Quentin's work with the rest of them. I didn't love the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood movie, and the character I liked most in the movie was ruined in the Novel. But, it was fun in parts and I am not sorry I spent the time reading it. Bottom line:

Scale of 1 to 10 Coors-lights:  6 pack...

- Your Favorite Saint

Monday, July 12, 2021

A few more Spahn Ranch raid photos!

Hello everyone! Hope y'all are all well. It's been a helluva long time since I've posted on the blog and I have to say, I'm very excited to bring you.... absolute nothing, except a few extra photos from the Spahn Ranch raid of 1969 that I stumbled upon by pure accident. I recognize a few of the scoundrels. Do you? Could one (or more) of these photos contain the Manson Family's sweetheart, Leslie Van Houten? Is Sadie in there wearing a bandana on her head? How about Pat? Imagine what these girls had just done a mere week before? It looked like business as usual for them with those shiteous haircuts, neglected children and Charlie being tossed around like a rag doll by the fuzz. Au Revior!

Monday, June 28, 2021

The TLB Motive - My Final Word


"Unknown answers are far less dangerous than unquestioned answers."

- Tippy Philuea

"The ulterior motives with which you absorb and  assimilate evil are not your own, but those of evil. The animal wrests the whip from its master and whips itself in order to become master, not knowing that this is only a fantasy produced by a new knot in the whipmaster's  whiplash."

- Franz Kafka

What is the real motive for the TLB crimes? I believe that ultimately this question will always remain at least partially unanswered. Today, I am going to give my best and final shot at answering it based on what I have learned in my years researching this case. In doing so, I am going to take one final look at Helter Skelter to remind everyone why I have always felt that there is more hard evidence to support that motive than any of the others. Recently, I have made cases for all the other reasonable motives to the best of my ability. I think this is a great way to wrap it all up, and finish my motive series with a quick nod to the motive that I personally give the most credence to. I am not saying now or ever that I believe Helter Skelter was the actual/sole motive for the crimes. Just that, to me, if you had to pick just one- it is the choice with the most hard evidence to support it. But before I get into that let me review what I think the ultimate motivation for the actual killers those two nights was NOT...

I do not think the actual killers went those two nights for a drug burn or robbery. There is some testimonial evidence to support that motive, but almost no physical evidence to back any of it up. There is no evidence that substantial money or drugs were missing or gained.

The Music revenge snub motive is intriguing. It used to be be my first choice for many years. However, here too, there is not much physical evidence or supporting evidence to authenticate any of the rumors or stories. Nobody who directly screwed Charlie was killed on those two nights. He knew Melcher was already gone at Cielo. Wilson was allowed to live. People who Charlie had not known were killed. Not really enough there to move me in that direction.

Ever notice something about the "Get a brother out of jail" motive supporters? They are all the people who stayed loyal to Charlie after the crimes. The people who still associate and identify with The Family. Is it because this is the motive that gives Charlie the least amount of culpability?  I have read almost every word that Tex has written since he went to jail. Listened to every taped word he has said. I have gone through every letter, book, and email on his website. All of it. There is no way on Earth that Tex went to those houses with the purpose of getting Bobby out of jail. I will never believe that.

That brings us back to the one motive that I still sort of do believe had an impact on the actual killers. Helter Skelter. And while I will be in the minority on this site, I am not alone in the world in general. Helter Skelter is etched in history and, at this point some 50 years later, it is going to stay that way forever. That will frustrate the experts on this blog. The true researchers. The Scholars. It doesn't bother me. I am ok with it. I understand why an average person would see the evidence Bugs presented at trial, accept the Helter Skelter motive, and move on. This is ugly shit and why would your average Joe dwell on it? Besides there is, to borrow a phrase, "A mountain of evidence" to support the Helter Skelter motive. And, unlike other motives, there is some actual physical evidence to back up the testimonial evidence. Ultimately, I think that is why Bugs decided to run with Helter Skelter as his best motive to include Charlie in the indictments. He did a deep investigation, followed the physical evidence and witness testimony where it went, and landed on the common element to all of it. A very weird and far-out philosophy Charlie was preaching to his followers. A Philosophy that Charlie would use to the ultimate manipulation - Murder. Charlie may have had his own personal motivation for selecting the specific people who ended up being murdered, but I think we will never know that for sure. The people who actually did the killing have said that they did so, albeit only in part in a couple of cases, in the name of this Helter Skelter Philosophy Charlie had taught them. There is almost no evidence that anyone who committed the murders would have done so for any reason outside of that being what Charlie told them to do. There is evidence that Charlie chose the nights, participants, weapons, and locations. So we are left with "Why" and here is the key: Which why? Many people focus on the "Why" Charlie sent them to kill. Now that Charlie is gone we may never know that for sure. But we can focus on the other- just as important- "Why." Why the people he chose were willing to go along with it? Bugs found a "Why" that included Charlie. He may very well have started there and built a legend around that "Why." He may have exaggerated and embellished the Helter Skelter motive to fit his narrative and grander plans. But he did not make up Helter Skelter or invent it. There is just too much evidence Helter Skelter played a role to the actual killers to completely ignore it. To me the question is not if Helter Skelter was Manson/Bugs bullshit because in both cases, to different extents, it surely was. The more important question is if Helter Skelter was the motivation that caused Tex, Susan, Katie, and Leslie to commit murder on those two nights of August 1969? Did they buy the bullshit to the point they were willing to kill for it? It can be possible that Charlie created some ridiculous story for his followers, Bugs exaggerated parts of that story for his jurors, and yet half a dozen Family morons still bought into the story enough to kill over it? Or maybe, did a few of them use it as personal justification to cross a line they never would have otherwise? Is it possible that this is what happened here? 

Let's take one last look at the Helter Skelter motive and I will show you for the final time why I think it just might have been....

" If anyone had asked me back in March of 1969 why I was going back to Manson, I would have said I had no choice. Every day I stayed away from him felt like I was running, running away from the place I was supposed to be, running away from the changes that were necessary for me. Charlie was my destiny. Even when I talked to them on the phone, the Family women sounded different. All they could talk about was Helter Skelter. I knew the title from the Beatles White Album, but  I wasn't sure what they all meant when they kept insisting that "Helter Skelter was coming down fast and we're getting ready for it." Everything had changed, they told me as they babbled on about a club they were opening and about having dune buggies and about the White Album, which explained everything, laid out everything and that I would understand if I would just come talk to Charlie."

Tex Watson in  "Will you Die For Me" about the time just prior to the TLB Murders

" I had an urge to stretch out under that searing desert sun and just roast out of me every thought, every sensation. But my mind wouldn't stop flying, speeding back over those two nights and the days before them, the days ahead, maybe tomorrow, maybe tonight, when Helter Skelter would start roaring down on the world. I should start organizing the supplies. I should start looking for the bottomless pit. I should move around. I should catch up with the time rushing like the wind past my ears. My bombed-out brain was was whipping around inside my skull and I couldn't stop it. Even that huge sun couldn't stop it, slow it down, and give me rest."

- Tex Watson in "Will you Die For Me"  about the time immediately after the TLB Murders

It seems like Charlie really did his job on Tex. In six months Tex went from hearing about Helter Skelter for the first time to becoming one of the primary instigators to getting it started. It is hard for me to understand why people say Bugs "invented" the Helter Skelter motive when I read words like this right out of the killers mouth. Tex wrote this book long after the murders, When his head was clear, and he is trying his very best to sound reasonable, rationale, and honest. Albeit for self-serving purposes. Tex will also add in his book that there were a couple of other reasons in addition to Helter Skelter why they went those two nights, but there is no doubt to me that Tex had spent considerable time hearing about Helter Skelter. And again we don't have to just take Tex at his word, because there is physical evidence to back up the testimonial evidence that just doesn't exist with other motives.

I keep saying that lol - Want an example? Here is a piece of Testimonial evidence about the Helter Skelter motive with Physical evidence to support it:

"Charlie pointed out the repetition of the word "Rise," first whispered strangely, then screamed until almost recognizable. This was the Beatles way of  calling blackie to rise up and begin Helter Skelter, he said, and it was no coincidence that Rise was printed in blood on the walls the night of the second murder, along with Helter Skelter, just as pig had been scrawled on the door of the house on Cielo Drive in Sharon Tate's blood. He showed us how the same weird chord that ended the song Piggies appeared later on in Revalution number 9 followed by machine gun fire and the screams of the dying, the interpretation was obvious, most important, because it tied together the two parts of Charlies apoplectic puzzle."

Tex Watson in "Will you Die For ME"

Well, they did write those words in blood at the crime scenes. Those words do go along with the Helter Skelter story Charlie was telling them according to the way each one of them explain it. Tell you what, lets not be too smart for our own good here people. I think Tex is honestly telling you exactly why those words were written. Now let us now listen to another of the actual killers:

" This was the beginning of the talk of Helter Skelter. The notion of a black and white race war was, of course, something Charles Manson had picked up in prison. That it began to come out more and more, was an indicator of the things being said by the young people who began joining the family at this time. A consummate manipulator, Charles Manson simply parroted back at people what they most wanted to hear. With the Watts riots in LA, and the growing fervor over Viet Nam, revolution was a popular catchphrase for ensnaring the young, the idealistic, and the unwanted. And so Charles Manson sewed together several disjointed ideas and began to construct a tale so incredible and so fanciful that it could hold the attention of even the most drugenfeebled teenage mind. And the story of Helter Skelter was born. That Charles Manson's Helter Skelter story was around will not be disputed. That he used it to manipulate the young people around him is abundantly obvious."

"All we knew was a vague story about Helter Skelter, or revolution, or that these people were establishment people who should be hated. We weren't even told what would be happening, were simply told to go with Charles Watson and do what we were told." 

- Susan Atkins in The Myth of Helter Skelter.

Now the entire purpose of Susan's final book on the matter is to repudiate the Helter Skelter motive. She too, for self-serving purposes had changed her story for the umpteenth million time. But even when trying to argue against Helter Skelter, she had to acknowledge it. A pending Race War is what they were being preached to about. And then there is the physical evidence. Once again there is some physical evidence to back up the idea the murders were committed to ignite a WAR:

Its an interesting choice of words they chose to leave at the scenes. To me it seems that words like Rise, War, and Helter Skelter have a lot more to do with Helter Sketler and a Race War than they do to drugs, money, revenge, or robbery. You also have to remember that this book was Susan later on, at the end of her life, trying hard to blame the entire thing on Manson and sound responsible at the same time. She has changed her story so many times, that I think it is also fair to also consider her initial comments back at the time of the crimes. In her 1969 grand jury testimony she recalled the exact conversation Tex  had with Charlie immediately after returning to the ranch from the Tate house:

Q: Did Tex tell Manson in your presence what you and Tex and the two girls had done?

A: Yes.

Q: What did Tex tell Mr. Manson?

A: Basically, just what we had done. That it all happened perfectly. There was a lot of- it happened very fast- a lot of panic, that we were panicked, and he described it, " Boy it sure was Helter Skelter."

Q: Tex said this to Charlie?

A: Yes.

Above is a picture of a door taken from an entryway at Spahn Ranch. It was taken into evidence as proof to the existence of the Helter Skelter Phenomena at Spahn Ranch. Physical evidence to support the testimonial evidence. Before I move on let me point out two more things Tex said in his book - "Will You Die For Me" that goes along with what Susan said in her Grand Jury Testimony above.

"When word of the arrest got to the family, Charlie disappeared  for a couple of days up to Big sur, something very unusual for him. When he got back he called us all together. It was the afternoon of August 8, 1969, and his message was simple. " Now is the time for Helter Skelter"

Then when talking about speaking with Charlie after getting back to the ranch after the Tate murders that same night:

"Okay, he said gently. "Go to sleep and don't tell anyone." As the girls wandered off, he called me back. "Was it really Helter Skelter?"  He asked. "Yeah it sure was Helter Skelter."

So you have Tex saying that the day of the murder he was told it was time for Helter Skelter, and then Tex saying that night after the murder that he told Charlie it was Helter Skelter. Susan backs up the second part independently. Although, as always with Susan, who knows? She told a grand jury she heard Tex tell Charlie "Boy it sure was Helter Skelter", and in Tex's recollection of the same conversation- Susan was no longer around. However, Susan's version was told right after the crimes and Tex wrote his many years later. It seems reasonable that Susan overheard them as the conversation was remembered so similarly, and as Tex's version of the conversation with Charlie came out second. It would have been really hard back in 1969 for Susan to guess almost identically what Tex was going to say he said to Charlie on that night all those years later. 

Lets talk about the Labiancas for a second.

The hardest part for most TLB Scholars seems to always have been tying a motive to both crimes. There are a plethora of motive options for the Tate murders, and I have explored all of them. Figuring out where the Labiancas fit in, has always been much harder. Scholars and researchers have tried looking into their kids, their kids relationships, their business', their hobbies, private lives, potential mob connections, drug involvments. Nothing has stuck. Nothing that you can put a finger on to explain why they were killed that night that would tie the Labiancas to Tate...


Come on people. What would connect the two houses? The words written on the walls and appliances in the residents blood doesn't ring any alarm bells? The words left behind at both houses have a common theme. And it ain't drugs or money. We are not playing a trivia game here. The obvious answer is not always a trick one. There are important things both crime scenes those two nights have in common. The main participants, the style of the slaughter and the bloody messages they left when they were done. I think the words were intended to leave a message, and the messages were the same at the Tate and Labianca houses. Rise, Pig, War, and Helter Skelter. These words just may have been the key connection between the two crimes. In fact you can throw Hinman in as well. Words that support the idea that the Family was under the impression there was a revolution coming down fast...

Presiding commissioner Roberts:  "Why was that?"

Inmate Van Houten:  " We were stealing Dune Buggies in order to convert them to Desert Vehicles for the revolution."

Then later Leslie says:

Inmate Van Houten: " But prior to the murders, he began to say that it looked like the blacks weren't going to start the revolution, that we would have to. And that's when he seriously started talking about us killing people."

- Leslie Van Houten Parole Hearing 9/6/2017

Here is more from another of the actual Killers:

Deputy Commissioner Lam: "So did Manson do anything to prepare you for this first set of murders, other than what you said already indoctrinating you with his philosophy?"

Inmate Krenwinkle: "No. I mean, the only preparation is yeah, exactly the ideology. Making me just, us and them philosophy and this war he was creating, and this God-like figure that he created for himself. No- that was all his bit. and nobody ever said no."


Deputy Commissioner Lam: " OK. And During these meetings did he teach you about the race war?"

Inmate Krenwinkle: "Yes."

Finally for this segment:

Inmate Krenwinkle: "Tex. I went out and stole Dune buggies with Tex."

Deputy Commissioner Lam: "And what were those dune buggies for?"

Inmate Krnewinkle: "To go out to the desert. That was part of his philosophy, that we would live in the desert."

- Patricia Krenwinkle  Parole Hearing December 29, 2016

Let's take a look at another exchange LULU had in that parole hearing....

Inmate Van Houten:  " This was the 9'th."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "OK"

Inmate Van Houten: "And so the next morning, I saw Pat outside of a trailer, and she said that Helter Skelter had started."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "And what did that mean?"

Inmate Van Houten: "It meant that people had been murdered."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "What did the whole Helter Skelter thing mean to that group? What- when someone said Helter Skelter to that group- what did it mean?"

Inmate Van Houten: "Revolution and chaos."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: " So revolution and chaos had started?"

Inmate Van Houten: "Yeah."

Then just a few questions later she adds this:

Inmate Van Houten: "It bothered me, but again, you know, I never questioned why they were selected or why it happened. But I knew that because Pay had committed herself and early on in my time at the ranch, Manson had told me to stay very close to Pat, I knew that I wanted to go and commit to that cause too. I believed in it, and I wanted to go."

Presiding Commissioner Roberts: "Alright."

So there is Leslie telling you in her own words, not even 5 years ago, why she personally was involved. She did not go to get Bobby out of jail, to rob anyone, for revenge, or over drugs. Now my question to all of you who argue so strongly that Leslie should get out of jail would be this: Leslie said this 4 years ago. She is older and wiser, and clear minded. She has become a responsible older woman who takes responsibility for her crimes and is showing true remorse. If we are to take her word for that, do we not take her word in all of it? If she is being honest, then we have to accept what she is saying as truthful right? Well, Leslie is saying that she went out to kill the Labianca's in the name of Helter Skelter. It is really as simple as that. She does point out one of the always present unanswered questions. Why the Labianca's were selected? But she doesn't really leave much room for doubt as to why she helped kill them once they were. Again, it kinda goes back to the which "Why" you are trying to solve? Did Charlie have some personal, or specific reason for picking those houses? If the people who actually killed the victims inside those houses did not know, and so went in the name of Helter Skelter does it matter? 

Inmate Krenwinkle: "All right. My personal feeling and I believe that it, of course, it could never be repeated. I don't think anything like that could ever happen again. But the situation that developed into that situation was something of a kind of  - well it was like two years of alienating myself  from any- its hard to find words - thought patterns or a certain way of living, certain mores, certain feelings that are instilled in someone probably from the day they are born. Those certain things through the process of drugs, through the process of having someone who - like - alright, to bring up Charlie, he is someone whose opinion, or I guess, would be his opinion or direction that I would accept as being totally correct. I would follow that. Now, what happens is, when you get more than - when you don't have anyone to say that's not happening and you have more people doing the same thing, more people saying ok, that's correct, then you pick it up and you emulate it. It was like taking one, I don't know. It was like making popcorn balls or something. You start and you build. And each time, there is nothing that comes and breaks it apart. There was never any wedge that stopped it. And each thing reflected upon the other, keeping that whole together."

Patricia Krenwinkle Parole hearing July 17, 1978

I think that by 1978, Pat's head was starting to clear up and she was trying to explain how she could fall for a story so stupid. Pat has decided to keep it simple since then lol. You will notice that Pat has been amazingly consistent over all the years as to why she went along:

From Pat's Parole Hearing in 1978: " I was in taking care of the children at the time -at - when I was awakened in the night and I was told to go with Tex by Charlie."

From Pat's Parole Hearing in 2004: "I participated because Mr. Manson came into a trailer where I was taking care of the children and told me to come out to come to the ranch. When I got to the front of the ranch there was a car and Mr. Watson was there and Miss Atkins was there and Miss Kasabian was there, and Mr. Manson told me to go with them and do whatever Tex Said."

From Pat's Parole Hearing in 2016 "And Manson said, go with Tex and there was Susan and myself and Linda Kasabian and Tex. And he told us to get into a car and go with Tex."

Bugs: "The night of the afternoon that Mr. Manson said "Now is the time for Helter Skelter", were you at the ranch that night?"

Linda: "Yes."

Bugs: "Was this the evening of August 8, 1969?"

Linda: "I believe so."

Bugs: "What took place, that evening Linda, at the ranch?"

Linda: "I remember I was standing out front at this one point and Charlie came up to me at this one point and pulled me off the porch, and I was standing at the very end of the porch, closest to George Sphan's house, and he told me that- "

Bugs: "He told you what?"

Linda: "He told me to go get a change of clothing, a knife, and my drivers license."

Bugs: Did Mr. Manson tell you to change the clothing you already had on, or to bring an additional change of clothing?"

Linda: "To bring an additional."

Bugs: "To bring an additional change of clothing?"

Linda: "Yes"

From Linda Kasabian Testimony at Manson Trial

So now we have heard from all of the actual people who were involved in the killings. I could make this post three times longer going on and on with quotes from other members of the Family about Charlie preaching Helter Skelter. I will not use those here today. I will not use any outside sources of any kind. No rumors, second hand stories, or legends. I am only using the exact words of the people who participated directly and mostly collaborated by supporting testimony from other direct participants - with examples of physical evidence to back the testimonial evidence. You just cannot do that for any other motive. And every person who participated said the same thing. Charlie ordered these crimes. I think there can be very little doubt about that part. Which eliminates some of the other nonsensical motives out there, and it also brings us back to the real question and purpose of this post. The unanswered question of WHY? And that brings me back to my question of which WHY are we trying to answer? I promised to give my final answer to motive, so I will do that now. I think there are multiple answers, depending on who we are talking about and which WHY you want answered. I will start with why I think the killer's went along with the murders:

I think that Tex was a Charlie "Wanna-be", and went because Charlie picked him and he wanted to please Charlie. I think Tex used Helter Skelter as an excuse at the time to justify it to himself, and to sound like he was a leader to the others.

I think Susan went because she was an attention whore and this was a big deal. God forbid something big go down and she not be part of it. I think she may have spouted the HS lines from time to time to impress others, but I doubt she seriously cared much about anything other than her own best interests at any given time.  I am sure she made sure she was the loudest voice in the group about Helter Skelter when it came up, as I am sure she was one of the loudest about any subject that came up. As long as eyes were on Susan, I think Susan would say anything.

I think Pat was a true believer in Charlie and would have gone for any reason he gave. Due to the fact that she has never given any reason outside of the pending race war, I believe she went along with that as the motivation at the time, although again- she primarily went simply because she was told to.

I think Leslie went along to "belong". I think she was another one who would have done almost anything to not be left out of anything the others would be talking about so much. I believe that Leslie thought she should believe, and therefore felt the need to prove she believed. I doubt she really believed as much as she wanted people to think she believed.

I think Helter Skelter mattered not nearly as much for Linda. I believe Linda was not around long enough to buy in as much as the others, but also not around long enough to object when being asked to go along either. I think she was the least involved in many ways, which is why it is funny to me when people try to make up alternative motives based on her.

That is WHY I think these people participated individually. I think Tex and Pat are stone cold killers and Leslie and Susan were more reluctant ones. I don't think Linda was capable of killing in that manner at all. I think they all went in the general name of Helter Skelter although I think they all had varying degrees of  enthusiasm for it, and different limits on how far they ultimately could go in the name of it. I have not found any significant evidence that Tex. Pat, Susan, Leslie, or Linda thought they were being sent there for any other reason than to ignite the race war on  that first night. I take them at there word when they all say Charlie sent them there and why. They have all been consistent and uniform about that part of the story if nothing else.

And the brings us to the other WHY. Because if you don't believe the actual killers when they tell you WHY, you must believe there is another WHY. WHY did Charlie really send them if it were not to ignite his race war? WHY were those victims chosen, if not for simply being rich pigs? If Charlie used Helter Skelter to manipulate these people to kill for his own personal reasons- it is going to be really hard at this point to find out what those reasons are. It is my opinion you won't. Charlie is gone. Any secrets Charlie had went with him. Bug's is gone. If Bug's exaggerated the Helter Skelter motive to include Charlie at the expense of any real motive possibilities he may have known of, they too, went with him. The Killers have all told their stories over and over. What do they gain in changing those stories at this point? To admit they have still been lying these last 30 years would hardly be the best way to get out of jail for the last years of their lives. Have any of the dozen books or documentaries that still come out shed any new light? I am sorry to say that we know almost all we are ever going to know about this story. It is a fantastic story as it is. I will never understand the need for so many people to make it even more complicated, and strange than it already is. And look, for a little while I was no different. For 15 years, I have read so many websites, books, testimony/trial transcripts you would think I was obsessed. For hours and hours I have watched videos, listened to parole hearings, and interviews. All trying to understand why the hell this happened. I kpet telling myself it couldn't be Helter Skelter. It has to be something else. So I kept looking into every avenue. I chased down every story I heard or rumor I read. I went to all the locations in person to try and get a feel for myself. I met some of the people loyal to Manson, and considered their versions of the events. All with an open mind. And while I am no scholar or professional researcher I feel I have earned the right to my opinion. It is my opinion we are stuck with Helter Skelter lol. That is just the way it will be. There is just enough real evidence to make Helter Skelter credible, and just quite not enough evidence of any other motive to disprove it. Many people better than myself have tried to prove other motives, and we all always end up at the same intersection. Accept the answers we have found, or keep asking the same questions in different ways. If you chose the latter, my friends, I fear you must prepare yourself to live with frustration. I think the last remaining questions about the TLB motives are always, unfortunately, going to end up unanswered questions...

Now I leave all of you with a question:

A person who lives in the neighborhood where I walk my dog is the leader of a gang of thugs. They do whatever he says. One day he gets pissed off my dog keeps pooping on his lawn. He warns me, but I just laugh him off. So decides to have his boys kick my ass really bad. He is not sure they will go that far over dog poop, so he makes up a story that I raped his sister. He tells the gang members that and they buy it. One day I am walking home with my dog and they jump me and beat me so bad I pass away in the hospital 3 days later. As they first confront me they are screaming at me about rape. the night of the attack the Gang leader who masterminded my attack had a freak heart attack and died. Someone witnessed the attack and the people who beat me are caught. When they are questioned by police they all say they killed me because I raped the leaders sister. When they go to court they repeat this in front of my family in friends. At the scene where they beat me they wrote rapist on the street next to where my body was laying. I died thinking I was killed because people thought I raped someone. The people who killed me did so because they thought I raped someone. My family and friends live the rest of their lives thinking I was killed because someone thought I raped someone, all this even though it is later proven I never committed the rape.

What was the motive for me being murdered? 

-Your Favorite Saint

Monday, June 21, 2021

Weird Scenes Inside the Resume of Candice Bergen

Most actors and actresses struggle for years to break into The Industry, spending a small fortune on acting lessons, photos, resumes, etc.  Most never make it, and eventually leave Hollywood behind.  Not Candice Bergen, though.  This gal literally had fame and fortune served up on a golden platter.  Nepotism could have opened some doors(her dad was a big name in The Industry), but that alone can't account for her success. 

Bergen launched a successful modeling career when she was in her late teens.  Her looks also had a lot to do with her flunking out of Penn, where she’d gotten A’s and F’s simultaneously.  But so what?  She was barely nineteen and a mini-celebrity.  “It was quite tantalizing what I was being offered out in the world.”  (Oscar nominated director)Sidney Lumet asked her to play the coolly beautiful lesbian Lakey in the film version of The Group. Esquire gave her an assignment to write about it.  Before The Group was even released she was given a co-starring role with Steve McQueen in The Sand Pebbles (a huge big budget production). 

Knock Wood by Candice Bergen, pg134 "Sidney Lumet had contacted me before I left college. ...he.. was interested in me for the part of Lakey." [Candice had experience in just two college plays at this time]

pg152  Producer Robert Wise recruits her to star opposite Steve McQueen

pg162  Fall 1965  she travels to Rome, Beirut, Damascus, Cairo, and Calcutta  before going to Taiwan in Nov 1965 to film The Sand Pebbles 

pg96   "I made other friends on Taiwan:  American bureau chiefs who briefed me on the island and generously took me on tours; US Military brass.. and Taipei's diplomatic circuit... "

Candice continues with her world travels:
pg169  1966  She travels to Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Rhodesia, and South Africa

pg171 Summer '66 in Greece, where she is sought out by yet another director for another movie (The Day the Fish Came Out)

pg172  She goes to Paris, where she just happens to meet another director who again offers a role for yet another film(Live for Life).  Films in Amsterdam, East Africa

 Candy kept getting juicy roles, despite bad reviews of her acting ability:
Candice Bergen wanted a life of adventure...   Her reviews were often lukewarm, but directors kept casting her, enchanted no doubt by her Scandinavian beauty... Another early mentor was the celebrated photographer Richard Avedon.  [Candy seems to be surrounded by highly-placed, influential 'mentors.']
Nicknamed “the Ice Queen”, her earliest on-screen roles had received fairly dismal reviews. ...
By then she had signed with Ford Models. Film director Sidney Lumet spotted her posing with a leopard-skin* pillow in a Revlon ad and cast her as a lesbian in his controversial 1966 movie The Group, but her first foray on the screen didn’t impress critics.                                                                           
Reviewers were left equally bemused by her performance in 1970’s The Adventurers (critics: "It alternates from slaughter to torpor to sex to torpor and back again to slaughter." “Bergen performs as though clubbed over the head … the dialogue may simply have stunned her.”)

Candice seems to have been as confused as anybody as to how she got to be a star:

1968 interview: “Why do I do it? Why?” she says. “It’s not what I am or want to be. It’s so contrary to what makes me happy. And I honestly don’t know what I’m doing. ... I’m not an actress. I’m just a kid who goes out there and reads a line..... I would be very proud of myself if I could give up acting.”    [Why can't she?]


Candy even admitted in her book that she didn't bother taking any acting lesson until after her twelfth movie!  You won't find the word 'audition' in her book.  All the while, she is being courted by some people in very high places:

November 28, 1966    Candice also managed to get invited to the social event of the decade, the BLACK AND WHITE BALL at the Plaza Hotel in NYC.   Hosted by author Truman Capote, 540 of his elite friends attended the masquerade ball. 

The attendees mostly included the creme de la creme of New York society.  Why was Bergen included on the guest list?

                                                         Eyes Wide Shut?

CANDICE BERGEN, actress: I remember faces: Frank Sinatra and Mia Farrow, ... I was a new girl in town and wasn’t really sure why I’d been invited.

"There was a guy who wore an executioner’s hood,” Bergen recalls of the party. “It got a little creepy."                                                         Throughout the 1960’s, she would attend lavish parties thrown by the likes of CBS president William Paley.                     She went from pheasant shooting on the Continent with uptight European aristocrats into the arms of her old high-school flame, Doris Day’s son, record producer Terry Melcher, one of the hippest of the L.A. hip.

May 1967 Candice appears on the cover of Vogue Magazine. (Abigail Folger's photo also appeared in a featured story in that issue.)

Candice Bergen, of course, was Terry Melcher's live-in girlfriend from about May of '67 until just after TLB happened.

Doris Day, the untold story of the girl next door by David Kaufman c.2008  pg390
Bergen moves back to the US after two years in Asia, Africa, and Europe in 1967.
"Bergen first saw Terry's house on Cielo Drive when she attended one of his parties."

June 15, 1967 Candy at Monterey Pop

 (Abigail Folger was also back stage at some point.)

Aug. 24, 1967 - Yippies throw dollar bills onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in a famous stunt.  Trading is briefly halted.  The group of about a dozen young men and women, including Candy Bergen, is led by radical Abbie Hoffman. The media is tipped off and is there to record it all.

Dec 1967  Candy writes article for "Esquire" 'Is BelAir Burning?' about the invasion of rock 'n roll musicians into Bel Air("Beverly Hills' snootiest neighborhood").  She meets Sonny and Cher, the Mamas and Papas and the Beach Boys and other big names. (That issue also had a picture essay of Sharon Tate titled "A Beginner's Guide to Mao Tse-Tung.")

"Inside the gate is a rose-infested bungalow housing the Bel Air Patrol, a sort of Special Forces squad of pristine policemen... ..they keep teeny-boppers away from Bel Air's celebrity residents(Elvis).. or celebrity transients(The Beatles)."  (Strangely ineffective on the night of Aug 8th, 1969, though.  If Bel Air was a 'gated community' how come nobody in the Patrol ever noticed the Watson crew coming and/or going?)


May 1968  Candice goes on tour to help with the RFK presidential run.  She also covers the 1968 presidential primaries in Oregon as a journalist.

Many sources also claim Candice is one of the celebrity ex-members of the Church of Scientology.  Her involvement was in the 1960s, at some point.


One person she apparently never met at Cielo in those years is Charles Manson.  In Knock Wood she mentions Charlie only in reference to Melcher knowing him.  And says nothing about Tex or any girls with him.  Nor does she say why she and Terry suddenly broke the lease on the house and fled to Malibu, or exactly why she and Terry felt they were the real targets, right after the murders.  No mention of any interview with the LAPD detectives.  After TLB she managed to make herself scarce:

She broke up with Terry and fled to Mexico to do a blood-soaked Western("Soldier Blue"--(critics: "set a new mark in cinematic violence"  "a bloody 1970 exploitation western ... [which] has a gore-count worthy of Cannibal Holocaust.").  And thence to Spain to film "The Hunting Party" (critics: "It is blood and more blood..." "a repellantly violent western") from June '70 until Sept '70.  (No pesky reporter's questions for the Golden girl!)

Deana Martin was subpoenaed to testify in the Tex Watson trial.  According to her, Melcher had some kind of deal with Bugliosi so she wouldn't have to testify in the TLB trial.  Candice got an even better deal.  She wasn't subpoenaed for the TLB either, and for the Watson trail she merely had to sit in the back of the courtroom with Bugs to see if she could ID Tex.  She claims she didn't recognize him. 

Knock Wood pg203  "I had been shown photos earlier in the year to see if I recognized Charles Watson... the police believed he might have been at the house on the hill while I was there. I looked at the photos; I don't think so.... When I received a subpoena to appear in court, Bugliosi arranged for me not to testify publicly, and instead sat with me in the back of the courtroom when Watson... was brought out to the defense table. Did I recognize that man? Bugliosi asked. No, I said, I didn't. All flower children look alike."    (No messy cross examination for the Golden girl!)

[Though she now admits to seeing Watson at the front door of the Cielo house in this recent interview:    (29:15)      She also now admits that they broke the lease at Cielo to get away from Manson.  (worth listening too, just for Candy's obviously faked ignorance of the case)]


Interestingly, Bergen also backed away from her association with Roman and Sharon.  She does admit that Roman Polanski attended her 21st birthday party on May 9, 1967 in Los Angeles.  She does NOT mention that she attended Roman and Sharon's wedding in London on January 20, 1968.  Nor does she mention that she sent a letter to Roman while he spent a month in prison:

Jack the Great Seducer by Edward Douglas c.2004   pg182
"...Polanski was confined in Chino Prison for forty-two days(late Dec '77 to Jan '78) of psychiatric assessment prior to sentencing for having sexually abused a minor. ... Polanski received mail from Candice Bergen ..."

Did Roman and/or Sharon visit Terry and Candice while they lived at Cielo?

Roman by Roman Polanski c.1984 pg299
Terry Melcher... ... was splitting up with Candice Bergen, so their rented house off Benedict Canyon was on the market. Sharon, who had always liked it, contacted the owner, Rudy Altobelli, and we signed the lease on February 12, 1969.

Obviously Sharon, at least, had been there before, and it is likely she had been there while Terry was living there, given Candice's friendship with Roman.


After returning from making movies abroad, Candy takes up with radical Hollywood wunderkind/producer Bert Schneider('the Monkees' "Easy Rider").  In the spring of 1970 she attends Black Panther fundraising events.
In actress Candice Bergen's memoir, "Knock Wood," she writes about her love affair with Schneider, then in his 40s. She was still in her mid-20s. ... After his divorce, he had moved in across the narrow canyon from her cottage and lived barely 200 yards away. ...she fell for him nonetheless... He was all about "taking care of things or controlling things ... Soon he began to take care of me ..."
The ardent revolutionary who introduced his pal Huey to the likes of Jane Fonda and other luminaries...                                                                                 Q:  Your life in the '60s with all these revolutionaries.  You met them all didn't you?"  
A:  I did, yes...  Bobby Seale, Huey Newton, Abbie Hoffman, Dan Ellsberg. Joan Baez .... That was in the '70s, in the '60s it was really the rock people that moved into Bel-Air....

Her affair with Schneider lasted from 1971 to about 1974.  In that time Schneider became increasingly close to Black Panther leader Huey Newton, and funded him to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, back when that was real money.  In this time also Newton became a heavy user of cocaine, and ended up destroying what was left of the Panthers with his paranoia and arrogance.
What hooked her(Bergen) was the sheer force of his(Schneider's) powerful and seductive personality...   "At times, I thought he financed the Panthers single-handedly, indirectly dispatching agents of the revolution from behind his desk or beside the pool table of his Hollywood Office of Operations."
....both men were spiraling down with drugs -- free-basing cocaine was their shared drug of choice.


                                            Newton and Schneider

Candy's description of Bert sounds a lot like what the girls said of Charlie, and they seemed to have the same interests:

Knock Wood pg243   re Bert Schneider "This was what I had waited for:  a man who wanted to take care of me; a man who wouldn't take any lip." (he lives at Bergen's feet, but won't let her step on him)  His bookshelf included books by John C. Lilly**.  "The bookcase bulged with volumes on behavior modification, LSD therapy, subjugation of jealousy and maps on open marriage." 


Bergen dates Henry Kissinger.  She lays down on the floor of the U.S. Senate Building and gets arrested.  She serves as a fundraiser and organizer for George McGovern's presidential campaign.  She interviews Fidel Castro and Haile Selassie.  She travels to Red China and Esalen.

After her breakup with Schneider, Bergen hits the road again: Ethiopia, Dar es Salaam, Rio, Kyoto, Teheran.


In the '60s and '70s Candice went everywhere, met everyone, and did everything.  Successful model?  Check.  Successful actress?  Check.  Successful photojournalist and magazine writer?  Check.  Hobnobbing with European royalty, New York High Society, Rock Stars, Yippies, and Panthers?  Check.  [The daughter of a member of Bohemian Grove?  Yeah, that too.  oo-ee-oo!]

This gal was where she needed to be, when she needed to be there!  IF someone was fortuitously directing her career--the hidden hand behind her amazing success--then the question is, did this person put her at 10050 Cielo Dr. for a specific purpose?


“She’s one of the people who knows a hell of a lot more than she’s ever said” 

    --Tom O’Neill


*Was Candy a beta-kitten?  See

"Animal Print clothing is employed for this method of communication as it symbolizes the uninhibited or “wild” instincts brought out in the slave via Project Monarch’s Beta or “Sex Kitten” Programming; and when triggered will perform any action (or sex act) required by the handler."

                                  Who took a bite out of that apple?  

**A John Lilly book was also found in the bedroom of Folger/Frykowski at Cielo.  He was into CIA sponsored mind-control in the '50s before re-emerging as a counter-cultural guru/dolphin whisperer in the '60s.

Monday, May 31, 2021

Barker Ranch - Strange RV Tours



Monday, May 24, 2021

Shorty Shea: Wrongful Death Lawsuit

March 18, 1971 a lawsuit by Phyllis Shea on behalf of herself and daughter Karen Shea was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The suit named Charles Manson, Bruce Davis, Steve Grogan, John Doe Grogan, Mary Doe Grogan and Doe’s 1 through 20, inclusive as the defendants.

 The suit asks for 1.5 million to be awarded to the plaintiffs for the wrongful death of Donald Jerome “Shorty” Shea, husband of Phyllis and father to Karen.  Phyllis claims in the suit that Shorty was the sole support for her and her daughter and that she and her daughter are his sole surviving heirs.

John Doe Grogan and Mary Doe Grogan are Steve Grogan’s parents.  The plaintiff’s attorneys were not privy to Steve’s parents first names at the time the suit was filed, nor were the names ever produced during the time the suit was still “live.”  Steve was under the age of 21 when Shorty’s murder was committed therefore his parents could held financially responsible for his actions.  As an aside, Leslie Van Houten is commonly referred to as being the youngest member of the Family to be convicted of murder when, in fact, Steve Grogan was the youngest member of the Family to be charged and convicted of murder.  He had turned 18 years old about three weeks prior to Shorty’s death.  Leslie turned 20 two weeks after the LaBianca murders.

Phyllis Shea was living in Sonoma California at the time the suit was filed and she retained two Napa California attorneys to handle the lawsuit.  Both of those attorneys have since passed.  It’s quite possible that Phyllis was still married to Shorty at the time of his death.  There are no records of a divorce.  Shorty would have committed bigamy with his subsequent two marriages after Phyllis.   Shorty and Phyllis did not live together for very long after their marriage.  They were separated before daughter Karen was born.

It’s doubtful that Shorty contributed financially to Phyllis or Karen for any length of time after their break-up.  Shorty never had much money and always had trouble keeping up with his bills.  Added to that, Phyllis met another man and had four children with him between 1963 and 1969.  She later married this man in 1982 and according to her 2016 obituary they were together for 54 years.

The 76 pages of the lawsuit are not complete, you can tell that there are missing pages but they are all that I received from my request to the Archives and Records Center at the Los Angeles courthouse.  The suit was eventually dismissed in 1978 due to no parties in the suit making an appearance in court at their last scheduled court date.

PDF file download (202mb file - takes time to download)

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Lesley Chilcott ('Helter Skelter' documentary) on the continuing fascination with Charles Manson [EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW]

Tony Ruiz
Emmys May 11, 2021 4:00PM

"We all wanted to do an anthropological dig into the time," declares Lesley Chilcott about the Epix documentary series "Helter Skelter: An American Myth." The series is an in-depth examination of Charles Manson and his followers culminating in the brutal murders of several people — including the actress Sharon Tate — in 1969. Chilcott, producer of acclaimed documentaries such as "Waiting for Superman" and the Oscar-winning "An Inconvenient Truth," acts as director of the six-episode series and is one of the show’s executive producers. In our exclusive video interview (watch above) Chilcott explains why it was important to avoid what she calls "the tabloid-esque coverage" of the Manson family.

Chilcott says that she took on the project in part because she never understood the public’s fascination with Manson, who died in 2017 while serving a life sentence. The director now says that it is the nature of the crimes that explains Manson’s continued presence in pop culture rather than the man himself. "I think it’s because the puzzle pieces don’t fit," she explains. "What possessed these seemingly normal boys ad girls from down the road to join what was most assuredly a cult, and some of them commit these horrific unspeakable crimes? And it’s still not understandable."

Chilcott spoke to some of those "family members" who followed Manson and readily admits that she will never fully understand the hold that Manson had on them. "On the one hand, it makes me think that it could have happened to a fair amount of people," she says. "On the other hand, it was a very unique time in history." Chilcott points to the Vietnam War, racial unrest and the invention of LSD as the perfect atmosphere for Manson’s ability to bring young people into his orbit. "You isolate [his followers] out on Spawn Ranch," she explains. "You give each person a new name. You alternate with sex and love and abuse. You keep the news and time and television away from the people. That’s what we know now as a classic cult."

In examining the political and social undercurrents of Manson’s era, Chilcott sees disturbing parallels with current society. "What we have now that we had then was that we have a lot of mayhem," she declares. "After a while, people don’t have the tools to process all of this mayhem, so they fall in and they follow a person who could be lying to them day after day but they repeat the same phrases over and over again. That’s not that different from now."

However, Chilcott emphasizes that Manson wasn’t worthy of the mythology that surrounded him in his life. "I kind of wanted to knock him off of that pedestal," she exclaims. "Number one because he doesn’t deserve a pedestal. And number two, he was a small time con artist with some really good raps and these desperate acts got out of control. He did a lot of horrible things, but was he a mastermind planner that should be idolized in that way? No."