Monday, July 27, 2015

Lust and Marriage: Sweet, Sexy Portraits of Steve McQueen and Neile Adams

We live in an age filled with way too much information about celebrities — much of it shared by celebs themselves: tweets, photos, press releases, you name it, blithely chronicling marriages, affairs, divorces, sex tapes, public spats and all the other sordid and exalted endeavors that flesh is heir to. And yet, despite this unending torrent of information, it’s somehow rare to see portraits of famous couples who not only genuinely like one another, but are comfortably, obviously attracted to one another.

Of course, actors, actresses, musicians and reality TV mediocrities are more than happy to flaunt their sexuality. But their exhibitions often feel either cartoonish or desperate, rising from a place of calculation rather than from good old-fashioned, grown-up lust. To quote Mark Twain (who was commenting on another subject entirely), the difference between faux, manufactured sexuality and the real deal is the difference “between the lightning-bug and the lightning.”

Consider, then, these portraits (above and below) of Steve McQueen and his then-wife, the actor, singer and dancer Neile Adams, sharing some smoldering moments together in 1963. Here are two adults — comfortable in their own skins and clearly at ease with one another’s bodies — captured in postures recognizable to anyone of a certain age lucky enough to have enjoyed an intense emotional and physical relationship with another human being.

In other words, these two people are hot for each other. And that’s cool.

Far from the studiously audacious antics of today’s stars, the casual, evident pleasure that McQueen and Adams take in one another in John Dominis’ photos comes across paradoxically, as quite innocent. Steamy, yes. Carnal, absolutely. But innocent.

That Dominis was able to make such informal, revealing pictures — especially of an actor as guarded in his personal life as McQueen usually was — speaks volumes about the photographer’s talent; about the unprecedented access that LIFE enjoyed during its heyday; and, finally, about the predictable, closely managed and utterly bogus “allure” of so many of today’s stars and pop-culture power couples.

With McQueen and Adams, through Dominis’s lens, we’re reminded of what sexual attraction feels like, and what it looks like. Unkempt. Raw. Thrillingly real.

- Ben Cosgrove is the Editor of

Steve McQueen and his wife, Neile, take a sulphur bath at Big Sur, 1963.

Original LIFE story HERE


Anonymous said...


Thanks for sharing this excellent, well presented article.

As I stated in the last post, I have been going through the various McQueen biographies to read any references to Jay Sebring, and I posted the relevant extracts from Neile Adams' biography of Steve.

I remember these Life Magazine photos being released in recent years, even although they were taken in 1963. It is to Adams' credit that she financially supported McQueen in the first four years of their marriage because she was earning good money on Broadway and he was just starting out. However, just a couple of weeks after the wedding, he was already playing around. According to Adams, there were only two of his leading ladies that he didn't have affairs with. It was estimated that he was sleeping with between 200-300 women a year. The FBI apparently has film of him at a bisexual orgy in New York in the 1960s. Sadly, the marriage descended into serious domestic violence after Adams admitted to an affair with actor Maximillian Schell. It became a pattern of behaviour. He was also unfaithful to the two subsequent wives.

With the above in mind, I look at the photos differently. They probably both had high sex drives, and they do seem to be intensely physically attracted to each other. But in the early 1960s, an arranged photoshoot like this would be done for PR reasons, to promote a certain image. Sadly, the truth was much darker.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Matt and EQ: This whole Sharon, McQUEEN, "Jay introduced our household to COCAINE" thing could be a very important clue. Any more stuff along that line you guys dig-up, please post it. If TRUE, Jay could have been THE distribtor to the "stars."

While Coke was VERY new to the scene, at that time, it became the "drug" that destroyed Tinsel-town. Remember Nicole Simpson? Irony is, there is actually an old movie about a celebrity "hairdresser" who becomes a big time "drug dealer."

Of course, with COCAINE came the MOB, where even Leno was connected.

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

Hard to believe that a film who's most memorable line was "Now that's what I call fuckin!" (Jack Warden) was nominated for several Academy Awards. Lee Grant actually got one for her role. Ironically, Roman Polanski was nominated also for Chinatown that same year (1975).

Anonymous said...


You have the Schreck book? Is there anything in it referring to McQueen and Sebring's relationship and the arrangements for that night? In the last post, I gave Neile Adams' version of McQueen not being present on the evening of 8 August. I'd be interested to see if Schreck gives a different story.

Anonymous said...

@Robert Hendrickson

Hi Mr H,

Yes, I got the impression from the interview Schreck gave to Brian Davis' Star City radio podcast that Sebring was the Hollywood 'candyman'. Schreck gave the example of Sebring being Yul Brynner's hairdresser!! I mean, Yul didn't need anyone cutting his hair, so Jay had to be supplying some sort of service. Sebring's contacts in Hollywood were 'A' list e.g. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Steve McQueen etc. He was in an ideal position for discreetly supplying. Then you have the link of Sebring employing Rostau's live in girlfriend at his reception desk.

The book I had out on loan about McQueen by Darwin Porter has an very derogatory uncredited quote about Sebring, mainly describing how he kept in with the Hollywood big names. If I took the book back out, I'd post the quote on here.

Matt said...

Equinox, we found so many misrepresentations in that book that I can't believe anything in it. I won't waste my time or yours.

Matt said...

From one of his bios:

After discovering a mutual interest in racing, McQueen and Great Escape co-star James Garner became good friends. Garner lived down hill from McQueen; and McQueen recalled, "I could see that Jim was neat around his place. Flowers trimmed, no papers in the yard ... grass always cut. So to piss him off, I'd start lobbing empty beer cans down the hill into his driveway. He'd have his drive all spic 'n' span when he left the house, then get home to find all these empty cans. Took him a long time to figure out it was me."

Anonymous said...

@Robert Hendrickson and Matt

From 'McQueen: The Biography' by Christopher Sandford, 2001, Harper Collins at p. 231

"...Steve was then decanted into his own boarded-up suite and snapped open a small briefcase, courtesy of Sebring, containing beauty supplies, hair gels, tonics and half a dozen packets of finest cocaine."

The excerpt relates to McQ during the filming of 'The Reivers' which was released in 1969, so probably filmed during 1968.

Anonymous said...

Equinox previously posted quote a from Mrs. McQueen about attending Sebring's funeral:

"Those of us who came together in one car sat in the front and second rows of the church. The group included Steve, me, Elmer Valentine, Henry Fonda, Warren Beatty, and Jim Garner."

So then II found this quote from the IMDB bio on James Garner, apparently a quote from Garner's autobiography:

"(on Steve McQueen) Steve was my neighbor for some time, I called him "Crazy McQueen", because, quite frankly, he was crazy. We were friends, but he wanted to play my part in Grand Prix (1966) and because of that we didn't talk for four years. He wasn't a great actor, but he was a star - McQueen had probably the highest amount of star quality I've ever seen in an actor."

So, James Garner shared a limo with McQueen to Sebring's funeral.

Seems like the funeral ended their feud of almost 4 years.

Garner I'm sure was the closest to Doris Day out of that bunch in the limo having starred together in big movies.

Anonymous said...

Did you ever see the Johnny Depp movie *Blow*?...the true story of George Jung.

The hairdresser turned drug dealer is an essential part of story:

"George Jung met Richard Barile for the first time after he moved from Boston to California. Barile was at that moment the most popular male hairdresser on Manhattan Beach and probably also it’s biggest supplier of marijuana."

A few years later...

"Later on, when Jung and his new business partner Carlos Lehder started smuggling cocaine for the Medellin Cartel, Richard Barile got involved in the trade as well, distributing the drugs on the West Coat. Initially Jung kept the identity of Barile a secret to his new found partner Carlos Lehder. But eventually, under pressure of Lehder, Jung introduced both of them and got betrayed by them later on, cutting him out of the cocaine trade."

Seems like back then, high end hairdressers and drug dealing (procuring?) went together hand in hand.

Anonymous said...

In the movie *Blow*, the hairdresser's name is changed to "Derek Farile"...PeeWee Herman plays the role, his big comeback after... well, you know.

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of inaccuracies in Schreck's book. However, his book is far from being valueless and to his credit, he has made it clear that The Manson File is not exactly a 100% true crime book. His is the only to properly outline all the fishy conduct of the legal establishment with this case in detail and he has a way of articulating all the things wrong with the case and the way it continues to be treated. He IS on the right track, for the most part. Even if his conclusions aren't 100% true.

No book before has pointed out the glaring contradiction that was right in everybody's face since 1969. That is, Manson's most "fierce and loyal disciple" who was supposedly "under his hypnotic spell" was the first one to sell him out in a deal sweetened with a $150,000 cash offer and quickly sat her ass before the grand jury. The smoke screen of media hoopla and titillating tales of "drug crazed, sexually enslaved" hippy girls and slaughtered starlets seemed to have completely blinded people to this fact.

OR the fact that a powerful and expensive Beverly Hills attorney, for which "call Paul" was a regular phrase for hollywood types in trouble was playing second banana to a lesser attorney for a broke hippy broke being accused of being involved in the murder of 8 people. An attorney who just happened to be the same one for all the drug dealers who's names lurked beneath the surface of this case and the LA Times!

beauders said...

Allen "Fats" Walts brother of the kid found on the road by Spahn, Mark Walts, has claimed he and Manson delivered cocaine to Dean Martin at Martin's house. I saw him say it on a video Nelson made and saw it on an A&E documentary.

Anonymous said...

58f7f4b8-1dd6-11e4-a6f1-df825d6e9554 said...

"...Seems like back then, high end hairdressers and drug dealing (procuring?) went together hand in hand."

Exactly. Who was Sebring buying his supply from? When he was burned on a deal shortly before the murders, who was it by? The value involved was far from that of purchasing a personal stash.

Robert Hendrickson said...

Thank you EQ and "Many Numbers: BLOW is the movie I was talking about.

Back in the late 80's I had a lengthy conversation with a NY attorney who told me how so many musicians, song writers and script people gave-up their entire "copyrights" for NOT $$$, but COCAINE. I also know creative folks were paid for servics via COCAINE. From what I know and what YOU are revealing, quite possibly Sebring sealed HIS own fate. "Director" is RIGHT !
THEY need to "control" and do so via COCAINE. The "candyman" ruled, back in the day. It's even possible Polanski knew what was going on and wanted NO part of it. HE was at the TOP of HIS game and apparently Sharon was buried in SHIT (losers).

Now, It's beginning to sound like THAT night was a PICK_UP your "candy" night at the Tate house.

Anonymous said...

Robert Hendrickson said...

"Now, It's beginning to sound like THAT night was a PICK_UP your "candy" night at the Tate house."

Hi Mr H,

yes, you're right on the money! There was never going to be a party (as has been alleged so many times over the years by those who are really lucky they didn't turn up). According to Neile Adams, McQueen was supposed to be going to Cielo that night for dinner with Sebring, but got waylaid ('Laid' LMAO) by a young lady he met on the way.

starship said...

so again, after the fact, who are the people who would stand to benefit from the elimination of Sebring and Frykowski?

Anonymous said...

starship said...
so again, after the fact, who are the people who would stand to benefit from the elimination of Sebring and Frykowski?

Good point, starship. Alternatively, who were their respective suppliers? There is a drugs connection somewhere in here.

Robert Hendrickson said...

In the underworld, busting a "drug dealer" for his wares and cash on hand has always been an everyday practice. It's actually the perfect CRIME because the victim can NOT go to the cops. It's also well known that the "candymen" deliver on Friday nights when all the working stiffs are ready to get high for the weekend.

This could have simply been a "bust" that got out of hand when the "leader" TEX got all fucked-up hinself. Kind'a like the HINMAN thing.

Of course, that leaves the ultimate question - WHY Helter Skelter ?
Back in the day for ANY movie folks to be mixed-up in ANYTHING to do with dangerous drugs could cause huge $$$$ damage to the industry.

THUS, did Bugliosi "create" H.S. to cover-up HOLLYWOOD's biggest nightmare.

Makes sense to ME.

Anonymous said...

@Robert Hendrickson,

Mr H,

I have heard it suggested before that Charlie's knowledge of goings-on in Hollywood could have done it a lot of damage.

Anonymous said...

How would have created Helter Skelter though? Prior to his taking the case, there was the Inyo county interview with Brooks Poston and Paul Crockett and a vague description of Helter Skelter is given.

Ronnie Howard and Virgina Graham DID mention Helter Skelter in police interviews. But their description was vague too, describing it as a "movement". She mentioned Charlie "schooling" them about "The Hole" in the desert and also mentioned "showing colored" people "this is what they should do".

It should be pointed out that their descriptions of what Atkins told them were different from what they said later, which was polished. Ronnie Howard described Helter Skelter as meaning "die to live", but later her description of what Susie told her read like a court's statement of facts.

Al Springer said nothing about Helter Skelter, but said Charlie wanted to go to the desert and "be king of the world" or something.

But still, I think it's obvious now the true nature of the crimes had nothing to do with Helter Skelter, but Bugliosi ran with it.

I think it was a slang word, a metaphorical fantasy to keep "the kids" interested and make it fun (believe it or not) to motive the move to Barker Ranch, because I don't think all of them were into the idea.

I think Charlie put the "Appeal to the Nobler Motive" Chapter of "How to Win Friends and Influence People" to good use. But that still doesn't mean he alone created the entire fantasy or was seriously attempting to brainwash people into believing such a half baked idea. I think he was "reflecting" what they liked.

As Atkins said in her last book of the Helter Skelter idea, "the kids loved it".

beauders said...

On a less serious note I new a waitress in a high end restaurant here in Portland who was tipped money and cocaine. It was everywhere in the 70's, 80's, and the 90's.

starship said...

OR, could Tate have been simply a REVENGE killing? If so, who would have wanted revenge against Sebring and Frykowski?

AstroCreep said...

It's too bad McQueen wasn't there that night. He'd likely have kicked the shit outta those skanks after he finished pulling a train on the girls... Tex was no match for McQueen.

I do believe the drug piece of the case in that I'm sure Jay was a supplier and there were users in the house. Celebs have to use a cut out to get things they can't be associated with whether it be guns or drugs or women.

I don't think that any of these facts mean that there wasn't a group of kids at the ranch that bought into the whole "it's us against the world" story from Charles Manson (IE Helter Skelter).

Also, if Manson actually knew that it was a Friday I'd be surprised.

Wouldn't it have been more dangerous to send them into interrupt a drug transaction? The possibility of there being a house full of people would have made the whole first nights goal a whole lot harder. For example, what if there had been 20 people present? It surely wouldn't have gone down the way that it did. Likely, it would've been aborted or a new house picked.

It really bothers me that Manson drove around the next night after dropping off the crew at the Labianca's and somehow managed NOT to find another house. To me, that supports him being the little coward POS I know that he is and that his plan wasn't as detailed as it should've been. If so, why didn't have more houses picked out?

Robert Hendrickson said...

You SEE folks, this is WHY I am here on this site. The COCAINE revelation and Sebring being one of the FIRST "dealers" to distribute such a "hard" drug to the movie industry is a game changer. NOT only was such distribution to an entire industry likly "mob" connected, BUT Steve McQueen was the Tom Cruise of his day. AND Warren Beatty - apparently it wasn't about beautiful Sharon Tate - it was likely all about "Oh fuck, with JAY gone - where are we going to get our shit" ?

OOOOHHH the stories I could tell from here, like the MAJOR studio VP who died at his desk upon an investigation about "mob" connections to VHS video distribution. I bet the Col is really worth listening to NOW

Matt said...

Astrocreep you paint an interesting picture. The Street tough/ Marine vs. the Methed-out momma's boy. History might have taken a different turn.

Anonymous said...

AstroCreep said...
It's too bad McQueen wasn't there that night. He'd likely have kicked the shit outta those skanks after he finished pulling a train on the girls... Tex was no match for McQueen.

Yes, AstroCreep. When I was reading the various McQueen biographies, it is detailed in a couple of them that McQueen was in fact a Black Belt in karate, but it was not made known to the studios because they had a job on their hands keeping McQ away from dangerous activities! I am confident that he would have got the knife away from Atkins, and possibly disarmed Tex. Watson had used up four bullets on Steven Parent, so he would have been running low on ammo. Yes, it could have all had a very different outcome. I would have loved to have seen McQueen giving Pat and Susan a few smacks in the chops:)

Anonymous said...

starship said...
OR, could Tate have been simply a REVENGE killing? If so, who would have wanted revenge against Sebring and Frykowski?

Their own supplier? They were getting their stuff from somewhere - possibly Mafia. Maybe they hadn't paid their dues. Frykowski seemed to be trying to get control of the MDA market. Dangerous way to live.

Anonymous said...

Motormouth Sadie testified that Linda had been burned for $1000 of MDA up in Beverley Hills. Could it have been simple revenge for this burn?

HellzBellz said...

First...Interesting post Matt, Realy enjoyd reading and watchin this about McQueen.Thankxxxx.

It now just came mind how many World-Wide Famous people, Bigg Names are somehow ,envolved, in this Manson -Circus.
Owh and Equinox 12314.
...Seems like back then, high end hairdressers and drug dealing (procuring?) went together hand in hand.
Not back just then, It still is, I mean look whats favourite in the big Fashion World/Industry, and Hair-dressers are a part of that whole scene....... Where they have a lot off Hair-Dressing and Talking to do...

Anonymous said...

Do you think Tex would have recognized McQueen at Cielo? Then what happens? Something different for sure, and not a simple dispatch of anonymous rich pigs, but Parent is already dead.

Anonymous said...

Kevin Marx said...
Motormouth Sadie testified that Linda had been burned for $1000 of MDA up in Beverley Hills. Could it have been simple revenge for this burn?


Certainly a possibility. The only thing is, you would have expected Linda to be playing a role INSIDE the house if she were one of the aggrieved parties. But it would explain why she was approached to go along that night. But yes, I see where you are coming from on this.

Anonymous said...

equinox said

The only thing is, you would have expected Linda to be playing a role INSIDE the house if she were one of the aggrieved parties. But it would explain why she was approached to go along that night. But yes, I see where you are coming from on this.

Yes thats true, if she stood to gain by getting her money back (or drugs inlieu of) you would have thought she would have played an active part and its a surprise that she was chosen to keep watch. Unless, as a result of the MDA burn, her presence in the house would have aroused suspicion with S&F?

But I suspect there's a more simple explanation and that the roles of the girls were decided very randomly - probably during a speed fuelled conversation in the car.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I've speculated whether McQueen could have kicked butt that night, but I thought Jay was proficient in karate too.
Also, I'm hoping Col. reveals his finds at Straight Satan collection the other day.

AstroCreep said...

I think Jay Sebring did right by Sharon. That chivalrous act (by telling the killers to lay off Sharon) caused him to eat a bullet. He's got class in my book.

I'd like to think that McQueen would have sprung into action rather than parse words with a group intent on taking all of their lives.

Human nature is what people like the killers pray on. People, by nature, are polite and don't want to offend anyone. When serial killers rehearse and go thru several practice runs, they test people and human nature. It's how they're able to lure people into vans etc. by praying on the good inside most people.

That scenario could have played out so many different ways. At Labianca, what if Leno had slapped around Charlie's scrawny little ass and gotten him into a headlock? He and Rosmary could have easily beaten the coward right out of Charlie. Again, human nature made him (Leno) go along with the program- "we're just here to take your money and nobody will get hurt". I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking here- just pointing out that for the most part, everyone went along with the program until it came down to business. Mrs. Labianca also seemed intent to defend her husband. She took that to the grave and she's a great woman for it.

I don't understand (if it were a drug deal gone bad/mob drug burn/etc) why the family members involved in the killings all basically came to the same conclusions and formulated the same story about what happened inside the house. It would seem like if it were about drugs, they wouldn't have all been blapping about Helter Skelter. It's tough to get a group of that many people on the same page. Why not create an alibi? They seemed proud of their actions and in Susan Atkins case, started running her mouth about it almost bragging. If the motive were other than that then I guess Helter Skelter would have to have been a cover story for the drug plot.

Anonymous said...

The Family most certainly were not on the same page. Atkins went from the motive being a crime that would "shock the world" to sending a message to Melcher to showing black people how to ignite Helter Skelter. Then later, she was very adamant that the motive was to try and get Bobby Beausoleil off the hook for the Hinman murder. Watson gave multiple motives in his book, with Helter Skelter being the main one. Leslie Van Houten and especially Patricia Krenwinkle have all been very vague.

Given the evidence, chain of events and later testimony, it seems that the motive for the girls was to free Bobby. However, I personally think it's highly, more than likely even that Watson had his own motive. I can't see him being able to do what he did simply for the sake of Bobby Beausoleil. I think if that was the only motive, he would have split in the wind.

It's not tough to get a group on the same page. It's tough to get a group on a ton of different pages where almost everyone has a different idea of why.

The various different accounts of all the crimes from Crowe to Hinman to Tate-LaBianca from within the same group is mind blowing. If Manson was in fact the ring leader and was able to put the "Appeal to the Nobler Motive" chapter of "How to WIn Friends" to such effect use, then he have supernatual ability after all.

AstroCreep said...

All good points DLC

Robert Hendrickson said...

De LaCalandra: You summed it up with great articulation, AND your mention of "supernatural powers" is actually the ISSUE which drives the MANSON mystique to this very day. OR How did HE "control" average young people to do such horrific things ?

Perhaps the "military" system of force holds a key to the answer.

When one enlists, or was drafted into the service, HE must take an "oath" to obey any and ALL orders issued by officers. In other words, one MUST swear to obey an order, without reservation, even if it includes KILLING woman and children. Otherwise, the military system does NOT work.

AND unless YOU take the "oath" you cannot enter the military. You will simply be sent home - even IF YOU were drafted.

So then the question turns to: Can the government put YOU in prison for NOT agreeing to "obey ALL orders given by a superior" ? Of course, the answer is YES.

Thus, the real question is: Am I willing to KILL even women and children in say a place like Mi Lai, Vietnam - to stay out of prison ?

Thus, IF Charles Manson actually did "control" people, HE had to have THEIR prior consent to obey HIS order(s).

YOU have to turn YOUR "free will" over to someone FIRST.

Believe it or not, only one in a thousand will say NO, when the alternative is PRISON. Of course, maybe that is the real reason "freedom" is such an important ingredient to the value of a country like America. With the threat of losing that freedom, which we have come to cherish, WE will agree to ANTTHING.

AstroCreep said...

Hey Robert, while I agree with you on some level, the current military is vastly different than that of the Vietnam era. Nowadays, soldiers seem to have more "rights" than what you may have known in the past. Nobody will do anything they don't want to do. It's a different generation. Far too many leaders have been fired for troop abuse for what was probably commonplace in the 1960's and 1970's.

As far as getting people on the same page, I'm sure there are examples to support both sides. When I read the transcripts and grand jury testimony, I tend to believe the one person at the crime scene that didn't kill anyone and actually fled the scene. And basically, most all of the evidence and other testimony supports her claims. That's what I mean by being on the same page. If there had been some greater plot, wouldn't that have bled thru at some point? If the narrative had been all about drugs and mob, we'd have some of the defendants saying one thing, and some saying something completely different.

If the girls' motive was completely different than Charlie's, they'd have all been singing different tunes. And if Charlie had a different motive for sending them in for the kill, the Helter Skelter would've been a cover story Manson created to hide the real motive.

He's NOT that smart..

Anonymous said...

Hey Astro Creep - it really depends on what you have to gain and /or lose by telling the truth. Take Tex, if he initiated Cielo as a drug burn and Charlie was only peripherally involved then he hears Manson is being prosecuted as the ring leader and he sees a way to minimise his responsibility - why would he tell the "truth"? And certainly once its gone to court he has nothing to gain by disputing the "official" version at parole hearings. If the mob were in some way involved or could be linked then, considering their reach, I can totally understand why none of the killers have ever brought it up.

Kasabian's version must be tempered with what she had to gain - her freedom. That is a massive carrot to dangle in front of someone and more than enough reason to lie or even just dilute the "truth".

As far as stuff bleeding thru during the years, there are many instances where the true story of major events has been covered up. One example that springs to mind is in 1989 96 soccer fans were crushed to death at a match in England. For the past 26 years the families of the dead have campaigned to find the truth about what really happened. Until last year it had been covered up from the public at large, and only now is there a second inquest to find the truth. Many police statements were edited, and there was a huge amount of statements and evidence kept secret. Those people died in front of the TV cameras with over 40K spectators nearby and the world watching. If the truth about such a horrific tragedy can effectively be covered up for 26 years, then convincing a few killers to keep to a story, which is in their best interests anyway, would be easy.

AstroCreep said...

The fact that we will likely never have all the facts and the complete truth is what so many of us find compelling about this set of crimes. They were a game changer and follow what many consider to be the loss of innocence of our country. I'm not very well read in all of the details of this case and most of you have ten times the knowledge that I have. I just point out the things that stick out to me and I find bizarre.

I do believe that in a group crime, there are different MOTIVATIONS but the purpose for that crime can't be different for everyone involved unless there is a cover story. For example, Jimmy Hoffa. There had to have been multiple individual motivations for those who participated. Moving up the ladder, saving ones own life, owed a favor to this crime family, etc. The purpose/reason he was killed was probably not known to the crew that was involved. They were just given orders and they carried out their orders. If the group were captured and questioned, they'd likely list their own personal motivations, not the purpose/reason for why Hoffa got whacked.

I know cover up exists. Sometimes the intentions for cover up are for good reasons and not necessarily for bad. There are far too many people involved in this case for those involved not to accidentally slip up and give away info meant to be kept private forever. I can present Pat Tillman as an example of that. All for the right reasons but looked terrible when the cover up was exposed.

Anonymous said...

Every so often I read about prison life. People being stabbed to death for not paying somebody back for a bag of cookies they gave them last week or putting knives in others hands to kill somebody for protection, favors owed (!), gang initiation, etc. and when thinking about the case, all kinds of red flags go up because the official narrative of Manson giving them orders to kill sounds like typical jail house conduct.

There is a major difference that kinda makes that null and void however. In San Quintin, you don't have many options to run from a situation like that. Tex could have drove to LA and never looked back at the Spahn Ranch and in war there isn't many places to run. It's kill or be killed.