Monday, October 21, 2013

DEBUNKING THE BUNK PART 1: A Look at Joel Rostau

Introduction | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

We first meet Rostau on page 24 of Schreck's book, The Manson File, where he writes: "New Jersey underworld figure Joel Rostau delivered a large amount of mescaline and cocaine to Sebring and Frykowski." 

On page 490, Schreck calls Rostau the "Boiardos' chief bi-coastal middleman…a major broker in the operation." 

Later, on pages 540-541 Schreck connects Jay Sebring to New Jersey mafia man, Abner "Longie" Zwillman (Zwillman's FBI File ) and Joel Rostau through Sebring's house on Easton Drive.  According to Schreck, Zwillman, uncle to Joel Rostau handled the estate and therefore the home of Jean Harlow (the former owner of the Easton Drive house).

Schreck writes: "When Jean Harlow died of uremic poisoning in 1936, a friend of the family, Zwillman, handled her estate. From then on, the house (Easton Drive) was administered as the property of the Lucky Luciano/Frank Costello syndicate that later became known as the Genovese Family. And those luxurious digs stayed in the family business when Jay Sebring moved in. Literally, a family business. There, Sebring bought vast quantities of drugs from Zwillman's nephew, Joel Rostau, whose boss was Ruggiero "Richie the Boot" Boiardo. Richie the Boot's boss was Gerardo "Jerry" Catena, who answered to Luciano and Costello's successor, Vito Genovese himself."

First of all, Jean Harlow died on June 7, 1937. Second, from newspaper articles dating August 27, 1937 following Harlow's death we find this: "Mrs. Jean Bello, mother of the late film actress, who was named administrator said the value of the estate was $35,000…Mrs. Bello said the estate included very little cash, three autos, some furs, jewelry and clothing."

It would appear that at some point Harlow sold the Easton Drive home because later in the article, an attorney representing the owner of the home occupied by the star and her mother, a Mrs. Harnett Breese, demanded that a $50,000 bond be posted to cover the alleged damages Harlow and her mother made to her property.

As a note: We cannot confirm who Jay Sebring purchased the Easton house from. There is a lot of confusion surrounding this due in part to the Samuel Marx/Joyce Vanderveen book Deadly Illusions: Jean Harlow and the Murder of Paul Bern. In the book on page 121, the duo wrote of the Easton Drive home: "It was rented for a period of two years by Jay Sebring. …At the time…owned by screen actress Sally Forrester and her husband Milo Frank…". In the next paragraph, the authors write that owners Forrester and Frank saw Sebring the day before the murders and made plans to speak with him the following day, along with Sharon Tate, to talk about his lease option to buy.  But, of course, that meeting never took place.

We believe this account to be inaccurate because we know through property records that at some point Jay Sebring did indeed purchase the Easton house and later, the estate of Jay Sebring sold the home to the Hale family who still holds the title to the property deed today. This would have been an impossible sale if Forrester and Frank owned the home at the time of Sebring's murder. If Forrester and Frank did own the home at some point, and Sebring did indeed rent from them with an option to buy, then it could be surmised that the above incident happened, it's just that it happened years before the murders when Sebring purchased the property from the couple.

The above information, along with the fact that Zwillman died in 1959 (Zwillman's FBI File ), are indicative but not proof that the Easton house was not in Zwillman and Genovese associates possession at the time Sebring moved into Easton Drive. So, if anyone has information that will help prove Mr. Schreck's claim or information of who Sebring purchased the house from, please notify us and we will post it here.

On Page 643 Schreck notes another tie to the New Jersey syndicate by stating that: "The Genovese (crime) Family's, Robert Cudak, (was) a close associate of Joel Rostau."  

With his New Jersey Mafia ties in place between Rostau and the Genovese and Boiardo crime families, Schreck, goes on to weave a web of mafia, the FBI, Naval Intelligence, and ultimately a top-secret division of the FBI known as Department 5.

According to Schreck, Cudak and Rostau were under constant surveillance by Department 5 due to their alliance with the Genovese/Boiardo crime families in what was to be a huge sting operation.

What was the huge sting operation? Airport mail courier thefts, which included highly classified government intelligence documents that were sent via these stolen mail items along with cash, jewels, stocks, and securities. Schreck claims that it was actually the Genovese crime family behind these U.S. Mail heists being carried out by their trusted associate/family members Robert Cudak and Joel Rostau.

Now, for the truth. Will the real Joel Rostau please stand up?

DebS did a complete search on the Zwillman and Rostau families looking for a connection that would prove Schreck's claim that Joel Rostau was Zwillman's nephew. Here's is what she found:
Abner "Longie" Zwillman was born to Abraham Zwillman and Ella Slavin. Along with Abner the couple had 6 additional children, 3 female, 3 male. Zwillman's sisters each married into the Warshowsky, Morganstein, and Oliner families. Longie married Mary Mendels Steinbach (Mendels was her maiden name, Steinbach from a previous marriage that gave her a son John). Longie and Mary had a daughter named Lynn.  To the best of our knowledge, Lynn married a man named Edward Tuttle. Longie Zwillman died in February of 1959—roughly 10 years before Rostau's troubles with the law began.

Joel Rostau was born to Morris Rostau and Beth Snerson. There is no record that a Snerson ever married a Mendel, Zwillman, Warshowsky, Morganstein or Oliner. Morris Rostau had one brother named Eugene. I found Eugene was married to a woman named Ella.  She was from San Salvador and was Spanish speaking; I do not know her maiden name.  The two of them lived in San Francisco in the first half of the 1930's

Aside from Eugene in San Francisco and Morris' father Joseph moving to England after his first wife died, the Morris Rostau's lived a majority of their lives in Brookline, Massachusetts.

So, one might ask, how in the world did Schreck connect Joel Rostau as Zwillman's nephew? DebS probably solved the mystery when she found this bit of information:
There is another Morris Rostow who appears in a 1930 Census and he was living in East Orange, New Jersey, the same town as Abe Zwillman.  But this Morris, whose last name is truly Rostow, was Russian, two years older than Joel's father, had a wife named Minnie and a daughter named Blanch. 
For the sake of civility, we're going to assume that if this was Schreck's connection that it was an honest blunder on Schreck's part and not an intentional mislead to his readers in order to support his motive for the murders.

Now, with what we believe to be confirmation that Joel Rostau was not Longie Zwillman's nephew and that as opposed to being a Jersey boy Rostau was actually a Massachusetts boy, let's have a look at the airport mail heists. (We used other sources for the following information, but for a full FBI profile on Joel Rostau and the mail heists, as well as articles pertaining to the case, please visit for their extensive collection of materials under one site).

To reiterate, Schreck writes in The Manson File that Robert Cudak and Joel Rostau were working for the Genovese/Boiardo crime families while doing the JFK (along with numerous other airports) mail heists.

But, according to newspaper articles from that period, Robert Cudak (along with friend James Schaefer) eventually testified that he and his group were not part of any syndicate, but instead fenced the millions stolen to the mafia for 15 cents on the dollar. Cudak testified that, "Everyone I went to was in the mob," he said, but he himself remained aloof from organized crime control.

Cudak also testified that the most important of his partners was William Ricchiuti who Cudak said, "Had very good connections with the principal mob of people in New York and New Jersey", and, who Cudak said introduced him to most of the fences the gang used.  This would be indicative of Cudak not being part of any New Jersey gang, let alone the Genevese and Boiardo families if he needed Ricchiutti to make the introductions for sale.

Both Cudak and James Schaefer, testified that they did indeed find top secret military documents, but that they refused to fence them: "We frequently found government documents, some of them marked Top-Secret…Finding this material in the bags always scared us…we burned the missile diagrams and then ran over the ashes many times with a truck." Other times, Cudak testified, they threw the documents in the ocean.

Furthermore, Cudak testified, that due to a warning by an FBI friend that these top-secret files would put them on the FBI and CIA's radar, Cudak never tried to fence these items because it would be a life sentence of treason by authorities and a death sentence from the Mafia for putting them on the FBI and CIA's radar for having said documents.

What Schreck does not go into great detail on is Cudak's crime prime partner, co-defendant, and turncoat, James Schaefer along with Schaefer's brothers, Charles, Edward and John who were from Rostau's home state of Massachusetts.

As opposed to being connected through the Genovese/Boiardo crime families, a more likely link between Cudak and Rostau was that they knew each other through Massachusetts partners Schaeffer. Being friends, Cudak and/or one of the Schaeffers did offer and sell jewels, securities, and bonds (and whatever else heisted from the thefts) to Rostau for 15 cents on the dollar… And then, Rostau got greedy.

With jewels, cash, and securities taken during the mail heists and probably passed on cheaply to Rostau, Rostau then hooked up with another friend from Massachusetts and the two began fencing their lower end merchandise for much more than Cudak could have ever imagined.

With their success, Rostau and his partner then hooked up with a powerful Massachusetts crime boss to fence the higher priced merchandise, which they successfully did. They were so successful that Rostau began staying in very expensive hotels and freely spending grand amounts of cash wherever he went to sell the items. Rostau was tracked from Florida, New York, LA, Paris, London, and Geneva where they suspected Rostau hid the securities in a safe deposit box.

During his travels, Rostau began getting a reputation as someone with little discretion and a very big mouth. Adding to Rostau's loose lips trouble was the fact that the powerful crime boss he worked with was arrested for murder. The crime boss' trial was to begin within weeks prior to Rostau's murder.

Rumor had it (within the mafia) that Rostau (with his indiscrete mouth) was going to testify against this powerful mafia boss in exchange for immunity on the mail theft scams. As a result of this rumor, after renting a car in Massachusetts, Rostau drove to NY for unknown reasons and was murdered, possibly to eliminate him as a witness in the murder trial.

As a side note to the New Jersey Mafia connection, Schreck also writes that Jay Sebring had an independent connection with the Boiardo crime family through a gentleman by the name of James Sanatar who was also connected with the mail heists. On pages 644-645 of The Manson File, Schreck writes:
"One interesting link in the network was a certain hairdresser named James Sanatar, who did mob business under cover of a Long Island beauty parlor funded by the Boiardo Family blood money. It was through placing Sanatar under constant surveillance that Department 5 discovered that fellow hair dresser Jay Sebring—who dropped in on Sanatar eight times in a seven-month-period—was part of the Boiardo laundering scheme."
We had DebS research Mr. Sanatar. While she did find a James Sanatar with an extensive rap sheet relating to drugs, who appears to be the man Schreck is referring to in the book, she also noted the following:
When I looked up Sanatar in all the different state barber and cosmetology licenses I just used the last name in case another relative of his might have had the shop or license.  I got nothing.  I also spelled the name Sanator and  Sanatore because it looked to me like that may have been the way the name was originally spelled.  
Looking at property records for NY, there were properties owned by a few Sanator's but I couldn't tell whether they were residential and/or commercial properties.  A Joseph Sanator purchased a property in Queens in 1969 but nothing before then for anyone by that last name.
In the news articles, numerous men were mentioned as being purchasers or sellers of these mail heists: William Ricchiuti, Vincent Pisano, Frank Mannarion, and Anthony Cappucci to name a few.

Oddly, what DebS did find in researching the gentlemen named in the mail heists, was a strange connection to an Anthony Cappucci that is worth mentioning:
There were only 5 Anthony Cappucci's in the 1940 census, three in Mass., one in RI and one in PA.  I followed the youngest one who was born in 1922 in Mass.  I was able to locate his obit and it is notable that he was a hairdresser.  This Anthony Cappucci (we have no idea if it's the correct A. Cappucci) was born and raised in East Boston, MA. Later he moved to Tewksbury, MA where he was a well-known member of the community and owned a salon called House of Cappucci.
Why is this connection worth mentioning? Well, we like to give Schreck the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he was confused in his research and there was indeed a hairdresser involved in these mail heists. And, because it would seemingly discount Jay Sebring's connection to this supposed Department 5 stakeout on Sanatar if Sanatar was not the hairdresser in question.

We're certainly not calling Schreck a fabricator of facts, but we would very much like to know where the Sanatar information came from because with the other snafus in the East Coast Mafia connections that we were able to debunk, we have our doubts about this. If anyone has corroborating information about the James Sanatar/Jay Sebring connection, please contact us so we can post your findings. Until then, this will remain an unsubstantiated mystery.

With all of the above in mind, let's now go back in time with Joel Rostau to the months before the murders.

On page 485 of The Manson File, Schreck writes of a robbery against Rostau that he believes was conducted by Bruce Davis and Charles "Tex" Watson on April 13, 1969.  Please see Schreck's book for a detailed description of this event. For now, we will summarize it.

Schreck claims that Davis and Watson were doing a string of drug burns (a la Bernard Crowe). For the Rostau burn, Schreck has Watson and Davis entering Rostau's apartment at 6AM with the buntline revolver later used in the Cielo Drive murders. At gunpoint, Watson ties up Rostau and his girlfriend, Charlene McCaffrey, while they ransack the apartment looking for Rostau's drug stash. After a beating by Watson, Rostau tells them where to find the drugs. The heist, Schreck writes, brought in "Quite a haul for one morning's work: roughly $15,000 worth of the highest quality of uncut cocaine, hashish, and marijuana." Before leaving the property, Watson shoots Rostau in the foot.

In further corroborating his story, Schreck quotes McCaffrey as saying that the robbers both had southern accents and that one of them referred to the taller one as "Charles."

An interesting note that contradicts Bruce Davis being able rob Rostau on April 13, 1969 comes from the archives of Dennis Rice's now defunct site that DebS found:
I was able to find a portion of Dennis Rice's now defunct website on the Wayback Machine where Davis says that he left the US aboard a Portuguese freighter and turned 26 on that trip.  Davis was born Oct. 5, 1942
On the site, Davis wrote: "I turned twenty-six that fall aboard a Portuguese freighter. Hashish, Hess's Siddartha and Joplin's Ball and Chain did a lot to fill the time until the Acores anchored off the Biscay Bay in the Spanish Basque port of Bilbao. Spain and then Portugal led me to North Africa. But even Tangiers' abundant drugs were unable to satisfy me. I drifted to Gibraltar and then to England."

Now, remember, that on October 1 we posted a document that shows Davis was still in England on April 25, 1969

For the record we have not seen the police report on this incident so we cannot contradict nor corroborate what Schreck writes here about McCaffrey's ID or about the .22 caliber bullet that may have been recovered from Rostau (though Schreck states that the bullet stayed in Rostau's foot) or the apartment in order for Schreck to surmise that it was the .22 Buntline revolver used in the Cielo murders. What we can probably conclude is that if any part of Schreck's version of this event is true, Rostau nor McCaffrey gave the police an inventory of stolen drugs for Schreck to report on the $15,000 finding. If anyone has seen this police report or can confirm Schreck's findings please let us know ASAP.

Here's what we can conclude:

DebS found an article from March 10, 1969, which indicates that Rostau was robbed of $23,000 worth of jewelry (this article can also be found on TOTLB).

There is a notation about this robbery in the Tate Homicide Report, but it is unclear whether they're reporting on the March robbery or an entirely new jewel heist from Rostau's apartment (with an April date).

In the police report it's noted that Rostau was tied up with Charlene McCaffrey and robbed at gunpoint. The robbers ransacked the house taking jewelry and other valuables, and then shot Rostau in the foot before leaving.

Rostau (or more probably a neighbor) called the police to notify them of the robbery and shooting. When police arrived and investigated the scene, it was noted that jewelry and other valuables were stolen from Rostau, but apparently the robbers weren't interested in his drug stash because the police found enough narcotics to file charges against Rostau for "Possession of narcotics for sale". McCaffrey was also taken into custody, but then released for insufficient evidence.

At the time of her LAPD interview for the Cielo murders, McCaffrey failed to mention the drug bust and her arrest, but she did say that Rostau told her that he went to the Cielo house in the early evening of August 8 to deliver drugs to Frykowski and Sebring.  McCaffrey further stated that Rostau told her that Sebring and Frykowski had wanted additional drugs so Rostau had promised to return later that evening for another delivery, which he never made.

After the McCaffrey interview, with suspect Rostau placed at the scene of the crime on the night of the murders, Lt. Bob Helder put Rostau under 24-hour surveillance.

After weeks of what Rostau termed harassment by the LAPD, he tried to secretly relocate to another apartment to avoid them. Our findings show that Rostau wasn't avoiding LAPD to talk about the murders or his supposed drug delivery to the victims, but for an entirely different reason, the U.S. mail thefts.

Thirty-six hours after Rostau moved into his new place, LAPD left him a welcome-to- the-neighborhood card. With that, and under the advice of his attorney, Rostau finally agreed to talk to LAPD with the contingency that the Cielo murders would be the only topic of conversation so that he could not incriminate himself on any other crimes/pending charges.

During his interview/interrogation with LAPD, Rostau admitted that he concocted the whole story about being at Cielo the night of the murders to impress Charlene McCaffrey (Jay Sebring's receptionist and Rostau's girlfriend) and his friends, much like half of Hollywood was supposed to be at Cielo that night for a party.

During the interview, Rostau also stated that while he was on friendly terms with Frykowski, he'd only met Sebring a handful of times. His association with Jay's receptionist, Charlene McCaffrey, began because he frequently got his hair cut at Jay's shop—but not cut by Jay. For what it's worth, Rostau also passed a polygraph test implying (though not absolute proof) that he was not at Cielo on August 8.

In the circumstantial evidence department we might question that Rostau is lying to LAPD about being at Cielo on August 8 to save his own skin. But then we'd have to go with circumstantial reason: what was there to save? He didn't commit the murders. He didn't set up the drug burn. We know from other witness interviews that the LAPD offered immunity to other charges if suspects came clean with their information, so Rostau need not worry about being busted for selling drugs (example, suspect Thomas Harrigan supplying LAPD with MDA for testing). And, if, as Schreck claims, Rostau was so tangled up with the mafia and protecting this big syndicate of the Jay, Frykowski, himself, and ultimately the Genovese/Boiardo crime syndicate, why would Rostau be foolish enough to insert himself into the arena of a huge homicide crime scene/investigation that had nothing to do with him and everything to do with (according to Schreck) two low-end drug burners, Watson and Kasabian.

We could go with the theory that Rostau had a big mouth, but with the other circumstantial evidence presented, and Rostau's own admission to LAPD, the more logical answer is that there was no huge Rostau, Sebring, Frykowski, Genovese, Boiardo operation at risk of exposure and Rostau was just another poor slob looking for his 15 minutes of fame by claiming he was with the victims the night of their murder—a non-existent brush with death that so many people have claimed over the years.

We do not deny that Rostau sold drugs. We do not deny that Rostau was selling stolen goods. And, we do not deny that Rostau had mafia ties. We don't even deny that Jay Sebring had clients/friends who were tied to the mob.  What we do present is a case of doubt that Rostau was the "New Jersey underworld figure", with deep ties to the Genovese and Boiardo crime families as depicted by Schreck in The Manson File and therefore, we present the first of many cavernous gaps in Schreck's motive for these murders.


Added 10/22/13

While McCaffrey did not offer up the information to LAPD about her arrest with Rostau during their interview, it should be noted that on page 4 of the second Tate homicide investigation progress report it states:

McCaffrey was arrested on 4-13-69, along with Rostau after two armed men had entered Rostau's apartment at approximately 0600 and tied both Rostau and McCaffrey up and subsequently shot Rostau in the foot. When Sheriff's investigators arrived at Rostau's apartment, they conducted a search and found a quantity of marijuana, cocaine, and hashish. The District Attorney refused to file on McCaffrey, but did file Possession of Narcotics for Sale against Rostau. Rostau is presently out on $5,000 bail awaiting trial in Beverly Hills.


Farflung said...

Holy hala hakala, DebS ripped that guy such a savage new one, it actually hurts me to sit down. Great job everyone.

Little known fact about yer basic Mail service there Norm.

There’s a man who leads a life of danger

Page 41 – “Top Secret information must not be sent through the mails. Always use a
courier who has proper clearance and is authorized by the Inspector in
Charge, DMI-HS.”

Warning: White people dancing

Matt said...

During the vetting process I too was taken aback that missile designs were ever entrusted to the USPS.

Years ago there was considerable attention given to an unclaimed winning Lotto ticket. It was reported unclaimed on the expiration date but lo and behold it showed up in the mail at the lottery office postmarked on the last possible day. The prize money was awarded. Now that's trust in the US Mail!

Suze said...

WOW! It took me over an hour to read through that because I had to keep backing up to try to absorb all of the info & documentation. Thanks, team! I did read the book. That took months for me to read because it was so dense with info. Without Rostau being entrenched in the Genovese and Boiardo crime syndicate Schreck's theory holds no water.

Have you uncovered what really happened to Schreck's ear? LOL.

fiona1933 said...

Absolutely first-class research.
Hey I have often wondered if Bugliosi could have got Manson off, if he'd been on the defence team. He managed to get the jury to believe him in And The Sea Will Tell.

What would the team do, if we had to defend Manson in a new trial? Researchers like this, you'd think at least reasonable doubt.

Can't believe he's never had an appeal.

Matt said...

Fiona, these days most states have automatic appeal in capital cases. Not sure about CA back then. Also, since the death penalty became unconstitutional for a time it may have negated any automatic appeal process if indeed CA had it.

WeR7 said...

To Fiona's question: They all had appeals, but only Leslie Van Houten won a new case based solely on the fact that her defense attorney Ronald Hughes disappeared in the middle of the trial. The link is to a site that has one of the many appeals filed:

Ajerseydevil said...

Very impressive Glad I decided against the $90 + dollar purchase price of the book

Matt said...

Great posting! BUT I would virgorously defend Shreck's Constitutional Right to FREE Speech and YOUR's to comment on his FREE Speech - AND Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" FREE Speech, EXCEPT Bugliosi's "speech" in the courtroom is actually the "government's" OR the "people of California's."

This opens the issue of Charles Manson's "right" to FREE speech in the courtroom. Apparently, not only was he denied his right to "represent himself" with the advise of counsel, BUT his "right" to "SPEAK" freely.

I wonder IF any "Prosecutor" was EVER declared "incompetant" to speak in court????????????

Good point Fiona: WHY has Charles Manson NOT taken the issue of his sacred "right's" violations to the Supreme Court? Figure that one-out and YOU may begin to crack the entire "MANSON" case.

Deb: While YOU did all this grat work, two cops are still trying to figure out which end of the Watson "tape" is heads and which is tails.

Robert Hendrickson

DebS said...

Robert, I was merely an accessory to this endeavor. I did the grunt work of finding documentation to points in Schreck's missive that were noticed by others on our team as being questionable. This was truly a collaborative effort by the crew here at the mansonblog. We worked together and bounced a lot of ideas off each other.

Coyote said...

Schreck's ear. One night Mister Schreck and a "friend" decided to go into west Hollywood and post anti-gay fliers all over town. While posting one of the fliers a group of large black gay men approached and began to attack. As Nikolas entered his car one of the men cut off his ear while Nikolas attempted to shut the car door. According to Schreck, while waiting in the hospital, a woman from Debra Tates victims rights group approached him and told him he would be available to receive financial assistance for his medical bills, as he was a victim of violence. Schreck declined. Schreck also claims that the entire day, before the ear incident occurred, was spent attempting to photocopy images of Gary Hinmans Head ear/head wounds...he believes this is part of the reason his ear was cut off...some cosmic evil. All of this is straight from Schrek's mouth. You can hear him tell the story himself if you like. I'll provide you with a link to the recent audio interview in which he explains the story...though many on this site are, well, not on friendly terms with the interviewer.

Suze said...

OMFG. What a story, Summer. He's a little off on the cosmic evil thing I think. Sounds more like instant karma and nothing to do with Hinman.

orwhut said...

If any of those family members convicted of murder got new trials now and lost, would they be eligible for the death penalty since it's been reinstated?

orwhut said...

Please put up the link.

WeR7 said...

We believe that prosecutors in CA still can seek the death penalty, but at the moment, CA has a moratorium on executions.

From Wiki: California reinstated the death penalty in 1978. In 2006, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel halted executions in California after finding flaws in the state's execution process. The current hold is pending judicial review of a new execution chamber and new methodologies for executing prisoners. However, the moratorium is expected to expand in 2013 because of the current court battle between inmate attorneys and the State's Attorney General. Though prison officials have revised their procedures since 2006, death row inmates allege the procedures are still flawed and expose them to cruel and unusual punishment.

Aside from some freak DNA finding or evidence of equal caliber being entered into the Tate/LaBianca cases, that ship has sailed on new trials for any of these killers.

We could go into an entire post (Hey, hmm) about why Manson's try under the 6th amendment will be a dead end, but we suppose that this is not the thread for that.

What would be super interesting is if something like LAPD's review of the 1969 Watson tapes (don't laugh, we can dream), proved an unsolved, add'l murder that anyone in the Manson Family may have committed. Then, of course, all bets are off and they could end up with a death sentence. Sadly, because of California's appeals process, most, if not all, would die of old age before the state was allowed to execute them.

Coyote said...

Righthand side, podcasts 4, 5 and 6

orwhut said...

I thank you for that fine legal opinion. It sounds about right to me.

orwhut said...

Thankyou for the link.

Farflung said...

The death penalty in California is a double edged, Catch 22.

I would have thought after Prop 89, some judges or parole boards would realize it’s not nice to muck with the electorate, but they still charge on with fantasies of another Pyrrhic victory on the horizon. The parole review, or endless denials, came about because a single prisoner, who was originally sentenced to death, was forced on parole and set free. The citizens freaked, and passed Prop 89, which has been the main reason for so many parole denials. All this over one psycho. Way to think downstream bleeding hearts.

Now the death penalty opponents have hung their collective, pointed hats on this cruel and unusual punishment definition in order to actually eliminate the death penalty all together. This while a total of 13 have been put to death in California since reinstatement, and more have died of natural causes on “Death Row”.

Meanwhile, over 150 “Death Row” inmates have been freed due to technicalities or perjured testimonies which arose from the MANDITORY reviews, required when a “death sentence” has been imposed. So here’s the deal: avoid the death penalty and get sentenced to life without parole and you get…. Zero mandatory reviews and likely die in prison. A good deal if you’re guilty. But if you are innocent, or some third tier error is made on your way to a non-death penalty sentence (like 824 years) and you will probably never be heard. If I was innocent of whatever, I would welcome the death penalty in California (slow, slow delivery) and the endless reviews.

Now if there are 3,000 people on Death Row in the US, and over 150 have been released due to whatever, the bleeding hearts are missing the 400 lb gorilla in the courtroom. I suck at maths, but it seems as if the error rate for false convictions, for Death Penalty cases is around 5 percent. That scares the shit out of me if it is true. What must the percentage be for non-death penalty cases which have no required reviews? Guess we will never know since the bleeding hearts at too focused on the piss ants while the elephants are charging by. Weird; and they view themselves as somehow heroic. I’m all for a death penalty and jail time for bank robbers and pedos, but I want it to be righteous.

Anonymous said...

It's hypocritical and ridiculous to consider any forced death not cruel and unusual punishment so eliminate "cruel and unusual" from the law and alls good.

Matt said...

To Deb: Don't sell yourself short. Every successful attorney KNOWS the value of investigative "grunt work." This raises another issue. Years ago, I met a lady who said she worked for the private "eye" firm that was hired by the DA's Office to investigate the Tate murders. Does anyone know of such a firm doing "ivestigative" work for the LA District Attorney? I know the City of LA hires outside attorney's for certain work, but IF "Private Eyes" are known to be hired, that could be significant - especially in the Tate / MANSON case.

Robert Hendrickson

starship said...

Well, there's family, and then there's 'family.'

starship said...

The biggest confirmation that Rostau was tied to the mafia is in the way he was murdered.

How important a figure was he? Important enough to be murdered, that's for sure.

Matt said...

Starship, there's no question he had mob ties. He fenced securities to them. What I think we've proven here is that he was not a "member", especially of the Genovese and Boiardo crime families. This is central to Schreck's theory.

And you don't have to be "important" for any crime family to execute you. He had a big mouth and he was set to testify. That will sure do it.

Chris B said...

Hey kids, really enjoyable piece. I appreciate the hard work and effort that went into it.

I look forward to reading your work over the coming months.

mrgroove said...

Much appreciation to the researchers for this terrific article! Looking forward to more!

Matt said...

Do you know of anyone, other than an Italian, actually taking the BLOOD OATH in an official Mafia ceremony, that made them an integral part of the Mafia Family?

Remember, the Catholic Church and the Mafia are very close business partners, BUT is the Pope an actual BLOOD Oath member of the Mafia?

There were Jewish officers in the German army during WWII, BUT were there any Jews in Hitler's upper/upper crust?

Obama is the President of the U.S. BUT will HE ever be an offical "member" of the few elite-who actually make the "important" decisions in America? Bugsy Siegel was a visionary, Meyer Lansky (both Jewish) was a brain - the Italians needed them to survive! It's called "USERY."

That's not to say there was wasn't something special about the Lansky / Siegel relationships with the Mafia, BUT by the late 1960's, when the mafia was really moving into LA - OOPs I better shut up.

Robert Hendrickson

starship said...

Yes indeed, Matt. As for Schreck and blowing holes in his theories, fire away! I hate to pass judgement because I have not read his book, but he fairly well seems like a loon to me.

Matt said...

Also, I am satisfied that he never went to Cielo on August 8th. He was blowing smoke to Charlene. I also have abandoned any notion that he is any sort of key to solving the motive.

starship said...

well, indeed this post goes a long way toward pointing out that the whole Rostau thing might just be a co-incidence, must as I hate to admit it because it sure seems like it may have promise. Perhaps it's just another layer in the ether much like the JFK coincidences.

Matt said...

Yes, but tossing away the Rostau layer makes it a little simpler. On to more promising possibilities.

DebS said...

If you want to read Rostau's FBI file and can't access them at Truthontatelabianca, as I could not, they have been nicely posted at scribd where one and all can read them. There are four parts, accessible at the bottom of each page. You might want to download in case they disappear.

Matt said...

Got it :)

We'll post it here...

orwhut said...

Is a photo of Charlene floating around anywhere? I'd like to know whether she was worth Rostau's trouble.

Matt said...

orwhut said...

Thankyou, Matt. Quite nice.

CarolMR said...

So who is Charlene Caffritz? I may have asked this before. If so, I apologize.

DebS said...

Charlene Cafritz is a Washington DC socialite that was said to have befriended the Family, Charlie in particular, and given them money. Sanders book said she took movies of nefarious goings on but those movies have never surfaced. She was a troubled soul, had a drug problem and after drying out was released from a back east hospital, then apparently OD'd. Much of the information on her has been stifled due to her own family connections.

She was suppose to testify at the Tate LaBianca trial but died before that happened. There is a bit more to all this, just giving you the Cliff notes!

BTW Charlene McCaffrey's first name is actually Karlene but that is not how it was written up in the police reports.

DebS said...

Just to be clear, Charlene McCaffrey and Charlene Cafritz are two different women with no relationship to each other.

Patty is Dead said...

Even Patty has a hard time keeping those two straight.

Vera Dreiser said...

"Even Patty" -- no, THE expert on the case?!

Max Frost said...

Uh oh...

Matt said...

Vera, please commit suicide.

CarolMR said...

DebS, thanks for the info on Charlene Cafritz. Like Patty, I always get the two Charlenes confused. I have read that C. Cafritz was a friend of Sharon's. Do you know if that's true?

Patty is Dead said...

Matt if she actually does kill herself, then you get arrested for bullying. That is the world we live in today, strange as it may seem.

Vera deserves an apology for being bullied! Sorry Vera if Patty came off as a know it all. That's your department, after all.

Max Frost said...

No no no Patty, don't be silly. Matt would not be arrested.

This is America... that kind of facist draconian law enforcement would never happen here.

Anonymous said...

Can you please site where you got that Rostau passed a lie detector test?

Anonymous said...

I would give more info on what became of Beth and who she married but I have been plagerized by DebS once already so I won't make that mistake again. But there's a little clue for you Deb.

DebS said...

Hi Gina, could you please cite where I plagiarized you?

Anonymous said...

I guess you didn't. I guess you just took part of my research and claimed it as your own, which I really don't own anyway. It's all public information out there for anyone determined enough to find it. You and your cronies here just sort of piss me off the way that you seem out to bash Nikolas' work. Nikolas didn't make up what he wrote in his book, he got it from people he can't cite and from sources that if he revealed he's have no choice but to expose someone innocent to this ugly topic. That happened to me, I found something via your research that I did not know and combined it with something I recently found and I can't share it on any forums because it would involve identifying an innocent party in order to verify it as a fact. Instead of doing that I'll just keep it to myself and share it with a trusted few. I have a question for all of you, are you guy's Bugliosi minions? I mean why rip apart a book that's main purpose was to state the obvious and that was that Helter Skelter was a load of shit? I don't get it. I have found information that totally confirms parts of Schreck's book and I've only been researching this stuff for less than a year. I won't bother you people anymore. It's just that I like Nikolas and I like that he has done what he has to expose that the judicial system lied, and that the media lied. I think its important for the public to know that. I don't understand why any researcher who finds the material you find would take it and turn around and seemingly use to support a big ass lie like Helter Skelter. That's all.

Matt said...

Nikolas didn't make up what he wrote in his book, he got it from people he can't cite and from sources that if he revealed he's have no choice but to expose someone innocent to this ugly topic.

Really Gina? REALLY? Can't cite his sources? That's the oldest line on Bullshit Mountain.

Let me tell you something, prolific researcher - all of us read this book multiple times then took some of the most important lynchpins of his argument and dug up public records to try to verify what he said. With what we were able to dig up we could see that he has fabricated an elaborate story.

When you can come up with verifiable public records that back up his theses, we’re listening. But don’t come on here with your poor grammar and spelling and accuse anyone of “plagiarizing” you (note the correct spelling).

I like Nikolas and I like that he has done what he has to expose that the judicial system lied, and that the media lied. I think its important for the public to know that. I don't understand why any researcher who finds the material you find would take it and turn around and seemingly use to support a big ass lie like Helter Skelter.

We agree on one point (you are an idiot nonwithstanding). Helter Skelter is a farce. Doing our due diligence and picking apart another novel doesn’t make us supporters of the first novel. If NS had been accurate we would have acknowledged it. Perpetuating new lies is as bad as disseminating old ones.

Pull your head out of NK’s ass for a while and do some research in PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, verifiable records. Don’t tell me your sources cannot be cited. That’s a liar’s crutch.

Anonymous said...

I was just reading you're critique of Schreck's Rostau section. Bravo you picked apart every tiny detail of what you call bunk and replaced it with more bunk. You are so far off. Instead of speculating so much why don't you just use the Freedom of Information Act to find out why people who were close to Joel Rostau were saying he was allegedly killed? These were federal cases which means they were FBI files. In fact you can read the ones that I obtained on Familiarize with the facts and then critique someone elses work.

Matt said...

I was just reading you're critique of Schreck's Rostau section. Bravo you picked apart every tiny detail of what you call bunk and replaced it with more bunk.

Typical. You rant about our content, THEN you get around to reading it. FYI, we didn't replace it with ANYTHING except VERIFIABLE PUBLIC RECORDS.

just use the Freedom of Information Act to find out why people who were close to Joel Rostau were saying he was allegedly killed? These were federal cases which means they were FBI files.

Gina, Gina, Gina, what people say in interviews is hearsay. It isn't verifiable. Rostau was killed because he was willing to testify. Period.

DebS said...

Gina, Gina, Gina.......

First you attempt to defame me, then you back off saying you guess I didn't plagiarize you but still accuse me of stealing your work which from what I can see isn't your work at all but publically available FOIA documents. How do you know whether or not I sent for the FOIA myself?

I've never seen you write anything that could be considered "your work", you have only offered what is available to anyone who files an FOIA request.

Perhaps you do not know the difference between plagiarism and copyright which speaks volumes about your abilities to come to any useful conclusions about Rostau and his murder.

Matt said...

Gina, you really shouldn’t debate folks who have a much stronger command of the topic (and the English language) than yourself. I'm actually embarrassed for you...

Matt said...

Just in case you're still reading Gina, we posted Rostau's FBI report on October 24, 2013

Your upload to ScribD was on Nov 21, 2013 - nearly a month AFTER us.

grimtraveller said...

william marshall said...

Glad I decided against the $90 + dollar purchase price of the book

I'm glad I paid the £90 for the book.
It's definitely worth reading. It's full of really interesting stuff, coming from a variety of angles. For instance, Shreck's tracing of Manson's spiritual life and practice is utterly fascinating and were it the sole subject of the book, would make the book pretty much unbeatable.
Unfortunately, the sole aim of this book is to state that Helter Skelter is a myth, a lie, a fabrication of Vincent Bugliosi etc. And it rarely ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to try and rubbish HS without truly understanding its genesis and application.
If one looks at the major TLB blogs and their subject matter and debates prior to around the time Shreck's book came out and compare it to what has been debated and discussed since, then one can see that Shreck has done his job well and has been responsible for the introduction of more red herrings than the combined fleet of EU fishermen trawling the North Sea. So many of his deflections and suppositions that he can't verify have bled into discussions about these murders and have, by many, assumed the mantle of facts. But many are left open to more than just doubt ~ some are demonstrably untrue. For instance, the post informs us:
On page 485 of The Manson File, Schreck writes of a robbery against Rostau that he believes was conducted by Bruce Davis and Charles "Tex" Watson on April 13, 1969.
Now, a central part of Shreck's attempts to deflect attention away from Manson is to put more of it on Charles Watson {and in this instance,Bruce Davis}. He is so keen to have Watson front and centre and Manson less so that he puts the hat on Watson and Davis for a string of drug burns, including this 13th April '69 one at the apartment of Joel Rostau. Unfortunately for him, it is a matter of international record that Bruce Davis was not even in the country until 25th April. Anyone that has read "Helter Skelter," even if they hate the book and think it's a load of crap will be aware of that. And thus Shreck discredits himself and forces the knowledgeable reader to start asking questions such as "if he will disregard facts that we know can't be shaken in his pursuit of sullying the name of Bugliosi and others, how much can actually be believed that he writes ?"
The answer is, "not much of importance."
If Helter skelter as part of the motive for the murders is to be discredited, real facts that stand up and not red herrings are going to have to be found and if you ask me, you can't find what does not exist.

Chris Ruskoff said...

All you guys on here need to know that it was operation, "Chaos", A false flag event to discredit the antiwar movement. There is a lot to reveal, here, but one important thing to remember is that Tate's father was military intelligence, and had just relocated to So Cal from Italy where he was involved with operation, "Gladio". Same with the "family". All those girls' parents were high military. It was all just theater and a kangaroo court.

Kenneth Irked said...

Isn't it supposed to be Charlene Cafritz ? As in the DIA Cafritz building in DC ? As in Pam Cafritz from the latest Stupid hoodwink, i mean nxivm cult expose ?

grimtraveller said...

No, that's a different Charlene. In the 2nd Tate Police report McCaffrey is actually listed as Karlene Ann McCaffrey.

grimtraveller said...

Chris R said...

Same with the "family". All those girls' parents were high military. It was all just theater and a kangaroo court

"All" ? How many of the girls' parents were high military ?
Substantiate, Chris R.

Les said...

I'm kinda new, I've been reading this blog for a few months and this is my first post. Manson did appeal his right to represent himself and it was denied on appeal as it was no an absolute right(?) at the time he requested it. From the appeal court: "ight to Counsel

[41] Only Manson contends on this appeal that he was erroneously denied the fundamental right to proceed pro se. However, all appellants early in the case applied to the trial court to so proceed. The ultimate decision of the lower court was that no appellant was capable of self representation. At the time counsel was appointed for each appellant, there "[was] no constitutional right to proceed pro se at trial." (People v. Sharp (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 448, 451 [103 Cal. Rptr. 233, 499 P.2d 489].)

While this appeal was pending, Sharp was invalidated by the United States Supreme Court. (Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L. Ed. 2d 562, 95 S. Ct. 2525].) However, our own Supreme Court has concluded that "the Faretta decision is not to be given retroactive application. ..." (People v. McDaniel (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 156, 163 [127 Cal. Rptr. 467, 545 P.2d 843].) Consequently, Faretta has no application to this appeal. No other error is attributable to the fact that no appellant was permitted to proceed pro se. Manson's contention that he was prejudiced by not being permitted to represent himself is not supported by the record." As you can see, if I'm reading this correctly, they made quick of denying his appeal. This is the link:

Leftcoastghost said...

My hat goes off to Shreck, whether or knot his information is/was valid or not. The further we get from the 60's and counter culture, the more we discover how much the mob and our culture of glorifying crime had a choke hold on the "baby boomers" and pretty much all of its luminaries. Schreck has made a very pungent argument and has put together a quite valid piece of "what if" for the record. It may be a tad off in findable links, but it shows great insight and talent at speculation on the part of the investigator. The author of "The Manson File" is to be commended and admired for his work. Thanks, Nick. We ALL know that Charley never had a fair trial and was convicted in the media by everyone's favorite used car salesman, Tricky Dicky. This only enhances that supposition. THE FEDS can't be trusted.