Friday, November 30, 2012

Nik Schreck, David Bowie, Manson and the occult

It is very difficult now to find any information about how and when the young Nikolas Schreck started playing for David Bowie. This was back in the early 80's before Radio Werewolf. Here is a period photo of Nikolas:

Is it possible that he is one of the "uncredited" musicians on Bowie's "Baal" EP?  Baal, in 17th Century goetic occult writings, is one of the seven princes of Hell. The name is drawn from the Canaanite deity Baal, who is mentioned in the Bible as the primary god of the Phoenicians.

Bowie was very interested in the occult back in the day. He once bought a home that belonged to Aleister Crowley, and reminisced in an interview in the 1990's that it was the Manson murders that first caused him to be fascinated with the occult.

Why doesn't anyone ever bring this up? Possibly because Bowie has money and power, and his mainstream image is no longer compatible with the occult, which has become woefully out of fashion compared to its heyday in the sixties and seventies.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Open Letter To Governor Brown Regarding Parole of Bruce Davis

“I realized then it was dangerous, dirty, criminal, and I did not care because I was getting what I wanted”.

“I could have, should have made different decisions. And I could have. But these are the ones that I made. I chose to stay. I didn't care what he did. It never crossed my mind to care”.

-Bruce Davis at his 2010 Parole consideration hearing

Dear Mr. Governor:

I am writing you today to ask that you NOT grant parole to Bruce Davis. I understand that this is a very difficult decision. Times are tough in the state of California, and there must be many pressing issues on your plate. However, I ask that you take a moment and hear me out on this matter which is surely going to set precedents for not only the other defendants in this case, but many others who may someday consider committing additional crimes of this heinous nature. To help me make this case- I will point out some common arguments for his release below in addition to some words that were never intended for my use to debunk them. I  chose to use the words of those involved so as to make no mistake that my ideas were not made up to support my claims, and that even those involved make the same arguments as I do, although again, they never intended to do so. Please take the time to consider my offering.

“So I decided to be a counterculture dropout and an outlaw. That opened me up.”
    -Bruce Davis at his 2010 Parole consideration hearing

You see Governor, Bruce made this decision to go over to the dark side before he met Charlie Manson or anyone in his family. Bruce was traveling all over the country, and world, doing his own thing both before and during his time with Manson. There are several other crimes out there that coincide with his presence in the areas. Bruce Davis may have been involved with, or have knowledge of, some of these crimes. In fact, another one of his co-defendants Steve Grogan led authorities to the area where one of Bruce’s victims was buried for years. It is worth pointing out that Grogan had no religious conversion aiding him with his decision to help. Certainly Grogan had his own motivations, but wouldn’t Bruce Davis with his search for forgiveness and his desire to make amends to the families under the light of God have felt the need to do so as well, or sooner in his case in light of his new belief system? It seems his actions are not as committed as his words when it comes to easing the pain of his victims families. Letting him out now would be doing so without having ever forced him to come completely clean. That would be not such a  great precedent to set in this citizen’s eyes. Everything Bruce and his attorney have said leads me to believe that if released Bruce would not be out there preaching, or talking to others about the errors of his ways, as much as sitting on a couch somewhere complaining about how unfairly he was treated.

“apply the law fairly and honestly and give Mr. Davis the parole grant he's been owed for about 30 years. Courage that the last 22 Panels with the exception of one Commissioner lacked.”

" Bruce Davis reached his base term over 30 years ago and has to date been denied 22 straight times based solely upon the life crime and other unchanging historical factors."

        -     Attorney for Bruce Davis at 2010 Parole consideration hearing

This is my personal favorite reason you will hear Mr. Governor as to why he should be released. The “time frame” argument. Nobody has yet been able to show me where life sentence with a possibility or eligibility for parole becomes a guarantee for parole after a certain amount of time. I wonder- Is there a matrix or time frame for when Gary Hinman or Jerome Shea get to go home to their families? It seems to me that Bruce is getting frustrated that all these years haven't changed the fact he helped kill a couple of people. You mean after 22 straight parole hearings I still did that? You still want me to pay? Also- I remind you that Bruce Davis initially fled when charged. He decided when to turn himself in to serve justice for what he did. Are we now allowing him to decide when he is done based on a certain amount of  time? We OWE him something? My greatest concern regarding this is the message it sends. If we tell our fellow citizens that taking a life from another may cost your own- it may make people think twice. If we send a message that simple math dictates how long you will serve- wont people start making judgments based on how much time is worth how much damage they want to cause? Do we really want people to start trying to figure out what is and isn’t worth doing. Don’t we owe it to each other to make sure people understand that we will not tolerate behavior which harms others, and if you take a life you need to be prepared to give up your own? I don’t know a single person who would risk losing their freedom forever. But there are people out there with nothing to lose and if they get desperate or angry enough- 7 to 10 may not be the end of the world if they don’t get away with it. Do we need/want to make the statement that nothing you do has permanent consequences?

Q:   Describe or explain the relationship between Bruce Davis and Charles Manson.

A:   It seemed to me that Bruce was competing with Charlie. He was trying to be an equal with Charlie or even he -- he was loud-mouthed. Whereas when Charlie would generally speak most of the people in the family would keep silent and listen, unless he asked them something directly or he said, "What do you think," or, "Say something." But Bruce would interrupt Charlie when he was talking and he talked in a real loud voice, and it seemed like that he like the power that he had when Charlie wasn't around because he could have one of the girls run and fetch him something.

Q:  You got the impression that Bruce Davis wasn't subservient to Charlie either?

A:   It seemed to me that he had more ego than any of the other guys I ever saw there. So that he hadn't given it up to Charlie.

MR. BUGLIOSI:  Thank you. No further questions.

-Exchange between DA Bugliosi and Brooks Poston during Tex Watson Trial

As well Governor- you will hear many say that Bruce Davis was simply a follower, and under Charlie’s spell. But again I point out that he was much older, and more educated than most of the teenage girls following Charlie around. This was a man in his mid to late twenties during this time who had done quite a bit of traveling around. This was not some young dumb hick just getting off the farm for the first time.  In the Oscar nominated Documentary Manson by Robert Hendrickson- there is a scene in which Lynette Fromme goes on and on about a ceremonial vest all the girls made, and contributed their own hair to. She gleefully points out that only Charlie is allowed to wear it. Not 5 minutes later in the same film- Bruce Davis is strutting around in this same vest designated only for the leader. Today they tell us to be weary of the internet and email- for once words are sent out into cyberspace- they are public domain forever, and can’t be taken back. So too was this true for video in the early 70’s. What Bruce wants you to believe now about his role then, and his actual actions and words from back then are very different. If you listen to his words he will tell you he was following Charlie and desperate to please him. Nobody else who was around them says that.

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Bruce Davis came with Charlie. He's the person who originally -- he and Dan DeCarlo from Straight Satan's were the two individuals that drove me to Hinman's place in the first place and dropped me off. Then Bruce Davis came in with Charles Manson. As the information that you have, that part is true. He came with Manson. He didn't do anything to Hinman, but the gun that I had was his gun, and he was concerned about that.

-     Bobby Beausoleil from his 2010 parole consideration hearing

Finally Governor, you will hear people say he Bruce didn’t directly kill anyone himself. Well to that I would say aside from him personally stabbing Shorty Shea- the murder of Gary Hinman could not have happened without the participation of Bruce Davis, and that Bruce Davis specifically had the power to stop the murder from occurring. He drove them to the scene and gave them the weapon to make it possible. The knife may have done the damage, but the gun set the tone and made escape thoughts much more imprudent. If Bruce was concerned about the gun- it had to be his own interest he was concerned about. He did nothing to stop it from harming Gary. He left the gun with them despite knowing the intention of the visit. He never took it away, or told them they couldn’t have it. In fact when he got there and saw that Gary was being tortured and held captive in his own home- instead of offering help- he stole a car and left. Bruce didn’t deliver the fatal blow, but Bruce did nothing to stop it either and he was in a position on at least two occasions to do so. If Linda Kasabian was guilty for driving to the locations at the Tate and Labianca homes, and Susan Atkins was guilty at Labianca for just being in the car- how can Bruce not be guilty for driving the car and supplying the weapon he purchased (illegally by the way) at Hinman, or with Shorty Shea who he physically, personally contributed to slaughtering with his own hands??

So Mr. Governor I ask you to take all of this into consideration. I ask you to follow not only the law, but your heart in making the just choice of keeping Bruce Davis right where he belongs. In prison, working with others through programs and correspondence to make sure that people understand what happens when you get involved with taking lives from others. He will do more good, and can touch more people right there. I understand that with the passing of time it becomes more and more difficult to remember the atrocities this man helped to commit, and although he has behaved himself in prison quite well- it is fair to point out that from Scientology to Charlie to Christianity- he still is seeking for a higher power to lead him. He has spent most of his adult life searching for the right answers. Yet, if he would just listen to his own heart and read between the lines of his own words, the answer and most important issue in all of this has been there all along. What and who have  been the bottom line. This is not about attorneys or matrix’s. This is about life and death, and what we do for each other as a community and society to protect each other and look out for one another and Bruce Davis said it best himself….

“Admitting I had indeed influenced the others brought out a struggle between my old habit of denying my influence in general and my conscious awakening to my true responsibility for my crimes. I struggled with fear of condemnation and pride as I came to terms with the truth about myself. I had not only done dreadful things, but I also influenced others to participate in horrible crimes. I experienced a shattering impact of my crimes when from deep within with my mind's eye I saw two gravestones, Gary Alan Hinman and Donald Jerome Shea."

"I know that the real focus of this was thinking about Donald Shea and Gary Hinman and their families that will never get over it. And the very fact that nothing I could ever do will ever change that for them.”

-     Bruce Davis Parole consideration hearing 2010

But Mr. Governor- there is something you can do for others who have yet to have to go through a tragedy like this. Send a message loud and clear. Let them hear your message from California to New York, and all places they are listening in between. We will not forget, and will not tolerate what this man did. We will not make this type of crime something you can wash away with time, or jailhouse accomplishments. I agree with Bruce on this one point- some things can never be changed. I am not a lawyer myself. I have no real knowledge of the California correctional system or its guidelines. I am not trying to make a legal argument to keep him in. I am just one voice out here trying to remind you of what Bruce and his Attorneys won't tell you. Just to remind you of two voices you wont hear from.Two lives so savagely taken. To shout one out for the memories of Gary Hinman, and Jerome Shea.
And as Bruce said himself-  that should be the real focus…

Yours Truly,
Saint Circumstance

(Transcripts from Trials and Parole hearings can be read in full at

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Movie Mag Gossip

The murders committed by the Manson Family rocked the entertainment world and the gossip magazines were there to tell all. These two stories published in Modern Movies April 1970 touch briefly on two back stories of people on the periphery of Sharon Tate's social circle. We know quite a bit about Terry Melcher but less about his mother, Doris Day, and her reaction to her son's connection to Charles Manson. Also, Barbara Parkins, Sharon's co-star in the Valley Of the Dolls, was doubly affected by Sharon's murder.  She lost her friend Sharon and also a close friend of both women, Steve Brandt.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

In response to all of this bullshit...

The banter about satanism should stop. I understand that he is no longer connected to it. Doesn't matter anyway. The social beliefs connected to eugenics, etc trouble me much more. Does he still believe that the handicapped are a drain on society & should be allowed to die?

I haven't read Shreck's book (and I won't) so I really can't comment on what's in it. But in Styx's video he states his case about a drug motive. His evidence is so ridiculous that it actually supports the fact that it wasn't drug motivated.

They went to Cielo to get drugs because they knew that Jay was getting  $10/20,000 worth of drugs from Joel R? The problem with this theory is that he says it was Jay making the drug deal - so why then didn't they go to Jay's house looking for him?

How did they know to go to Sharon's house to find Jay and his drugs? Or, if set up as a deal, why on earth would Jay set up a major $10/20,000 drug deal at the home of the person that he probably loved most in the world and jeopardize her and her baby's welfare not only that night but every night after if revenge ever became a factor? And if he says because of Woytek, why not do it at the Woodstock house where a known drug dealer had already taken up residence?

Makes absolutely no sense. Only an insane person would use their own house (or a friend's house) to set up a drug deal. And, he will never convince me that Jay would ever set up a drug deal with Watson or anyone else at Sharon's house while she was in residence. Out of the question - Polanski yes, Jay, no.

He comments that Jay & Woytek were stoned out of their gourds - and Abigail too. False. We know that by the autopsy reports.

Jay & Sharon are killed, but they leave Abigail and Woytek alive?? - they're both so stoned that they can't even get out of their restraints - again, the tox screens prove this is false, and, I believe if Woytek was left alive and alone (or with just the women while Watson reported to Manson at the ranch? Really?) in that house he would have escaped. 

Manson going to Cielo? I have to agree with Bugliosi on one point, and that it is absolutely preposterous to think that Manson went back to that house after the murders. His whole point of sending others was to not be at the scene of the crime and therefor not indicted. Five people  brutally murdered - by Watson's own admission people running around screaming like chickens with their heads cut off -  gunshots, etc, and Manson's going to return and therefor place himself at the scene? Not knowing the situation after the killers left or if the police were notified? Extremely improbable.

Manson says, "please don't kill the LaBiancas"? C'mon, man. Seriously?

Manson’s lack of a fair trial: Manson is the single biggest reason that he did not get a fair trial. He was the one that wouldn’t allow the defense attorneys to put on a defense. He was the one that turned the court into a circus of antics. He did all this in hopes of a mistrial or later reversal.

The bottom line here is that Manson never thought in a million years that he would be convicted for these murders - he wasn’t there. What Manson never counted on was California’s law of conspiracy. This was one of the first cases in which someone was not only convicted of first-degree murder by conspiracy, but sentenced to death for that conspiracy.

Manson not allowed to represent himself? Manson was so far off the charts in what he was doing as his own attorney that the bottom line is that if the court had not revoked his right to represent himself this case would have been overturned by the Supreme Court. No conspiracy, just trying to save the tax payers a couple of million dollars. And, in all fairness, the trial judge may have been trying to even save Manson from himself.

Impartial jury? I totally disagree. First, his info on Nixon is incorrect. He says that Nixon made his comment before the jury was selected. They were in fact mid-trial and the judge had the jury voir dire after. The rest equally stupid and not worth thinking about.

14 minutes in he starts on a diatribe of Manson has never actually killed anybody - this of course is inaccurate because he physically participated in Shea and Hinman’s murder - the ear slice with the sword was life-threatening.

Brainwashed followers? No. Helter Skelter as a motive? No, but if you go back and listen to the early tapes the police were making with informants or suspects - before Bugliosi was brought onto the case, they were saying Manson called them "The Family" that he talked about Helter Skelter - or a race war. No one can not deny that Manson was preaching this and I believe that he used it with the women to give them a reason to murder, all along intending for them to take the fall if caught. Like the National Enquirer there is some truth to what Bugliosi pushed on the jury.

Good morning, good afternoon & good night!

Nikolas Schreck

"A meaningful and potent philosophy that people have neglected to see"

Thanks, Stuart...

Monday, November 26, 2012

Prosecutor Steven Kay Caught Letting Serial Rapist Go In Exchange For Lying In Other Cases

This article is posted on by James Whitehouse.

This is the only news article we could find on the case:


At Susan's 2009 Parole Hearing Jay Sebring's nephew, Anthony DiMaria, stated that prosecutor Steven Kay was his "hero" because Steven Kay had spent his entire career with the DA's Office prosecuting cases and advocating Susan's continued incarceration, and had even passed up promotions to do so.

The truth is Steven Kay did not "pass up promotions" in order to continue as a prosecutor,  he was promoted to a high ranking administrator in the LA DA's Office when it was discovered that some of his biggest court-room victories were achieved by making deals to release a diagnosed serial sexual predator. The evidence suggests Kay was demoted back to a prosecutor  once these deals were discovered by the media.

In an article by Los Angeles Times writer Ted Rohrlich, it was disclosed that at least ten women were kidnapped or raped because Steven Kay and the LA DA's Office got Stephen Jesse Cisneros released... twice.

Cisneros had already been in prison as a mentally disordered sex offender sentenced to 1-14 years in prison in a maximum security mental hospital. He had been released after 4 years. Only months later he was arrested for  attempted rape. This is what he was in jail for  when the LA Sheriff's Office moved a suspect in another case into his area of the jail because that "section of the jail [was] reserved for informants."  In what Cisneros later called his "big break"  he was told if he stated the suspect had given him "all the gory details" he would be freed. In one of the continuing farces in American Justice, District Attorneys are still allowed to pay jail-house informants with absolute immunity for their past crimes if they testify under oath that someone else in jail spontaneously "confessed" to them. Steven Kay himself wrote the letter to the Judge confessing that without Cisneros's claims of a confession Kay might not have been successful in convicting the other men. (One was given 45 years in prison, the other is on death row.)

The Judge in the case stated that before Kay intervened the Judge was convinced Cisneros belonged in prison, and only "reluctantly" agreed to set him free and only due to Kay's request. Even LA prosecutors state Cisneros was looking at imprisonment "for as long as [we] can keep him in prison," and the prosecutor handling Cisneros's case said he was someone with "a high potential for danger."

In addition to this, when Kay had Cisneros released, there were the reports of three court appointed psychiatrists that Cisneros should be back in a hospital, the request of the State Probation Department who did not want him out, and more than ten other physicians and outpatient programs all of whom agreed that "the general consensus... is that the defendant is not suitable or amenable to outpatient therapy" and that allowing him access to the public would be a danger to the community. The Probation Department investigator noted candidly that they did not have the ability to supervise someone like Cisneros.

In April 1980 Cisneros was released at Kay's request, and according to Court records within a few months Cisneros was attacking women again. He was arrested in early 1981 for more sexual assaults.  But now he knew how to get out.

Cisneros contacted the DA's Office and claimed he had a confession from a murder suspect. Though the DA's Office later admitted they did not need Cisneros's testimony, they decided it would help their case. By this time at least two more psychiatrists had informed the DA's Office that Cisneros was a "pathological liar." The DA's Office used his testimony anyway. (The suspect was convicted and sentenced to life.)

Cisneros was released again as part of deals with the DA's Office which the Court Commissioner stated "horrified" him.

Cisneros was arrested again for raping and robbing in 1984, but the DA's Office declined to prosecute. He claims this was because of his prior testimony. He was finally arrested in 1985 as the "Riverbed Rapist," and was sentenced to 70 years in prison.

Cisneros now admits all the "confessions" he gave Kay and the DA's Office were lies. He says he gave them simply because the DA's Office promised he'd be freed if he testified their suspects confessed to him..

When confronted with his successful attempts to have Cisneros released, Kay stated that the two men he was trying to convict (who he'd confessed a  jury might not have believed were guilty without Cisneros) were more dangerous, and that the ten women who were assaulted, kidnapped and raped were "just a small, teeny little offshoot."

It was shortly after this story was uncovered, I believe, that the "hero" Steven Kay was demoted back to a prosecutor - a position he never again rose above in his 30+ year career with the LA DA's Office. I was told he was also transferred to the DA's Compton office, which also represented a fall as far from the high-profile LA cases as was humanly possible without being fired.