Monday, June 5, 2017

Witold K.

Sometimes you just can’t get away from it.

Recently I was at a large organized estate sale held to benefit the Music Academy of the West in Santa Barbara, California. Among the offerings in the Art section was a print by an artist named Witold K. The name rang a bell, of course, and examination of K’s Wikipedia entry printed and attached to the print confirmed the reason why, because a highlight of the short entry was “In 1969 he relocated to California and briefly occupied the home of Abigail Folger and Wojciech Frykowski (both later murdered at 10050 Cielo Drive by the followers of Charles Manson), and opened his first studio/gallery in Beverly Hills.”

The print on sale at the estate sale

The name Witold K should be familiar to any serious student of TLB. He was, in fact, Witold Kaczanowski, a Polish artist who moved in the Cielo Drive circle in the summer before the murders there, and he appears in the case literature not only in books about the case but also in the official law enforcement files.

In the earliest stages of the police investigation into the homicides committed at the Roman Polanski residence officers were checking all possibilities, including whether the killers might have been among Polanski’s social and business circles. One possibly relevant incident within those circles was an altercation that occurred at 10050 Cielo Drive just before spring of 1969. According to the First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report:

“In mid March of this year, the Polanskis had a large catered party which included over 100 invited guests. The persons invited included actors, actresses, film directors and producers, business agents for the above-described people, and the Polanskis’ attorneys. Most of the people invited came to the party along with several people who were uninvited. The list of uninvited guests included William Doyle, Thomas Harrigan, and Harrison Pickens Dawson. They came to the party accompanied by an uninvited guest, Ben Carruthers and an uninvited male.

“During the party, a verbal altercation ensued involving William Tennant, Roman Polanski’s business agent, and William Doyle. Doyle apparently stepped on Tennant’s foot during this altercation. Dawson and Harrigan joined in the verbal altercation, siding with Doyle. Roman Polanski became very irritated and ordered Doyle, Harrigan, and Dawson ejected from the party. Ben Caruthers and the unidentified male that had accompanied him to the party escorted the three men from the property.”  (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, page 8)

Vincent Bugliosi recalled this party incident in Helter Skelter (using pseudonyms for some of the individuals involved; thus does the real life Harrison Pickens Dawson become “Jeffrey Pickett”), and this is where Witold K. enters the picture:

“From William Tennant, Roman Polanski’s business manager, LAPD learned that in mid-March the Polanskis had given a catered party at Cielo with over a hundred guests. As at any large Hollywood gathering, there were crashers, among them Herb Wilson, Larry Madigan, and Jeffrey Pickett, nicknamed “Pic.” The trio, all in their late twenties, were reputedly dope dealers. During the party Wilson apparently stepped on Tennant’s foot. An argument ensued, Madigan and Pickett taking Wilson’s side. Irritated, Roman Polanski had the three men evicted.

“It was a minor incident, in and of itself hardly cause for five savage murders, but Tennant had heard something else: ‘Pic’ had once threatened to kill [Voytek] Frykowski. This information had come to him through a friend of Voytek’s, Witold Kaczanowski, an artist professionally known as Witold K.

“Not unmindful or the similarity between ‘Pic’ and the bloody-lettered PIG on the front door of the Tate residence, detectives interviewed Witold K. From him they learned that after the Polanskis had left for Europe, Wilson, Pickett, Madigan, and a fourth man, Gerald Jones [pseudonym], were frequent visitors to the Cielo residence, Wilson and Madigan, according to Witold, supplying Voytek and Gibby [Abigail Folger] with most of their drugs, including the MDA they had taken before they died. As for Jeffrey Pickett, when Gibby and Voytek took over Cielo, he moved into their Woodstock residence. Witold was staying there also. Once, during an argument, Pickett tried to strangle the artist. When Voytek learned of this, he told Pickett to get out. Enraged, Pic swore, ‘I’ll kill them all and Voytek will be the first.’”  (Helter Skelter, pages 65-66, Bantam paperback edition)

A bit more information about Witold K. can be found in Ed Sanders’ The Family:

“A Polish artist named Witold Kaczanowski aka Witold K. had been brought to the United States through the kindness of Roman Polanski. He naturally came to live in Los Angeles where he cultivated the Polanski’s circle of friends. He was staying, during the summer of murder, at the Woodstock Road home of Abigail Folger and Wojtek Frykowski. He was a frequent house guest at 10050 Cielo Drive during the spring and summer of 1969.” (The Family, revised and updated edition, page 200)

Witold K. on August 27, 1969

The “First Tate Homicide Investigation Report” further elaborated on K. and his relationship to the Cielo Drive circle: “When Frykowski and Folger moved into the Polanski home, they invited Witold Kaczanowski to live at their house on Woodstock Road. Kaczanowski accepted their invitation as he was an artist and at that time was unemployed. Kaczanowski was a friend of Frykowski. They had met in New York some years prior.

“During April, May, June and the first part of July, Frykowski and Folger had many impromptu parties. And open invitation policy existed at the house. Drug use was prevalent. They used hashish, marijuana, mescaline, cocaine, and MDA.

“William Doyle, Tom Harrigan, Pic Dawson, John Deturo, Charles Tacot, Ben Caruthers, Cass Elliot, Witold Kaczanowski, along with several other narcotics users, were frequent visitors and party goers at the Polanski residence.”  (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, page 9)

A later investigative report also included some information from Harrison Pickens “Pic” Dawson as to his recollections of his experiences in the summer of 1969:



“Dawson admitted drug use since a teenager and stated that his worst experience with drugs was during the period he spent in Los Angeles. At that time he was on heroin and “was out of it” most of the time. He indicated that this was the reason he was unable to recall some incidents. Dawson stated the Cielo address was always full with people who were under the influence of narcotics. He gave a videotape to investigators, indicating the tape pictured Abigail Folger, Witold Kaczanowski, Wojiciech Frykowski and an unknown female under the influence of narcotics. (This tape was reviewed at Scientific Investigation Division and does in fact show the above-mentioned people smoking marijuana. The tape is in Evidence, item No. 74).” (Second Tate Homicide Investigation Report, page 14)

(And as an aside, isn’t it interesting how many different ways there are to render the first name of the male Polish victim of the Cielo Drive homicides?)

More information from the official police investigation:

“Kaczanowski was present at the Polanski home in the early part of July and overheard Doyle and Harrigan tell Frykowski they were going to get him the drug known as MDA. Kaczanowski did not see Doyle and Harrington after this meeting.” (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, page 10)

The following official summary of Voytek Frykowski’s activities on the afternoon of the day he was murdered shows just how tightly Witold K. was entwined with the Cielo crowd:

“Investigation disclosed that when Frykowski departed from the Polanski residence at approximately 1505 [on August 8, 1969] he drove directly to the Jay Sebring residence. At that location he picked up Miss Suzan Peterson, who had been Sebring’s companion for the preceding night. Frykowski drove Suzan to the art gallery operated by Kaczanowski at 9406 Wilshire Boulevard. The purpose of this trip was to obtain a key for the Woodstock house; Abigail Folger had Frykowski’s key at the time.

“At the gallery there was a short conversation between Frykowski and Kaczanowski and Kaczanowski was invited by Frykowski to come up to the Polanski residence that night. It was ascertained that Kaczanowski did not have the key to the Woodstock house in his immediate possession, but the key was at his girl friend’s, Christina Lerewska’s, house.

“While Frykowski and Kaczanowski were conversing at the gallery, Suzan Peterson was browsing in a dress shop adjacent to and connected with the gallery…. [Then] Kaczanowski and Suzan were driven to Christina’s house by Frykowski. The key to the Woodstock house was obtained from Christina and Kaczanowski was returned to the gallery.

"[At the Woodstock house] Frykowski [explained] to Suzan that Kaczanowski was an artist but not a businessman and there were some disparaging statements made by Frykowski as to the key to the house not being readily available….

“At a time (estimated about midnight) Friday night, Frykowski called, presumably from the Polanski residence, to Kaczanowski’s art gallery and asked Kaczanowski why he was not up to the house. Frykowski in the conversation admonished Kaczanowski that he was spending too much time at the gallery, working too hard, etc. Kaczanowski declined the second invitation and stayed on at the gallery.  He returned to the Woodstock house at approximately 0300 hours, 8-9-69.” (First Tate Homicide Investigation Progress Report, pages 13-14)

Many people have claimed that they were planning to be at the Polanski house on the night of the murders there, but Witold Kaczanowski might be one person whose claim was actually grounded in more than just a desire to bask in a macabre limelight. As such, he became involved in the case after the murders as both a potential target for further violence and as an assistant to the police. Again, from The Family:

“Around this time [just after the murders], artist Witold K., speaking nervously in Polish, called a friend in New York from a phone booth in Los Angeles. He claimed that he knew who the killers were and that he was afraid.

“Friends in New York then called a New York Times reporter in Los Angeles and related the development. The reporter thereupon called the Los Angeles police.

“Since Witold K. expressed fear for his life, the police promised him twenty-four hour protection if he would talk. Then his friends called Witold K. back at the phone booth where he was waiting and he agreed to the guard. Three police cars picked up Witold K. and took him to the apartment at Paramount Studios where Roman Polanski was in seclusion.

“Witold K. told police that Frykowski was offered an exclusive dealership to sell the drug MDA, evidently in the Los Angeles area. Subsequent friction developed, he claimed, and one of the suppliers threatened Frykowski’s life. Witold K. claimed not to know the names of the possible killers but to know them by face only. And that they were Canadian. One close friend claims that Witold K. went around, escorted by police, to many prestigious addresses in Frykowski’s notebooks to try to locate the killer — always leaving behind his business card. Witold K. claimed that the identity of the killers was contained perhaps in these notes and diaries but he seems to have said that ‘it would take two weeks’ for him to decipher the killers’ identities from Frykowski’s notebooks….

“Witold K.’s painting career was enhanced by his revelation. One newspaper account showed a picture of Witold K. posing with several of his paintings on the Polanski front lawn. A friend has claimed that Witold K. even sold a couple of his paintings to two policemen investigating the case.” (The Family, pages 288-289)

From the Los Angeles Times, August 28, 1969

During this tour of duty K. volunteered some evidence he believed might be relevant to the case:

"Officers were working a security detail for homicide division at 2774 Woodstock Lane for Kaczanowski, Witold, who lived at the residence. At approximately 1300 hours 8-15-69, Kaczanowski walked into the living room and handed officer Newell [badge number]11529 the below described brown bag and narco. Kaczanowski stated he found the the bag behind a dresser in the right rear (s/w) bedroom of the house. Kaczanowski further stated that he had never seen the bag before and he did not know who owned it or put it there.
"The bedroom in which the narco was found was formerly occupied by Miss Folger, Abigail, who was a victim of a 187 P.C. under DR# 69-059-593.
"There is an additional property report under the same DR# 69-059-593.
1 Bag, paper, brown, containing item # 2
2 Bag, clear plastic, containing a brn/grn leafy substance resembling marijuana.
Above items were marked “R.D. N. 11529” for ID.”

The police report wherein Witold surrenders a pot stash

Of course none of the information provided by K. was any help in determining the identities of the Cielo Drive killers. Still, it is interesting to examine this aspect of the police investigation into the homicides if for nothing else than that it gives the student of the case a more thorough view of the comings and goings at 10050 Cielo Drive in the months preceding the murders there.

After his exciting brush with “Manson Family” fame Witold K. closed his Beverly Hills gallery and moved to New Mexico where he settled in the Santa Fe area and kept working on his art. Eventually he relocated again to Denver, Colorado where he resides today.

Witold K. in 2013

Back at the estate sale, just as it was closing up I took a friend over the the Art section to show her the print. The price had been reduced by over half, into the affordable range, so I got it. And why not? It was for a good cause. And it was also a good reminder to have of the infinitely layered and complex nature of TLB, a case that is so intertwined with the American experience that even today you can find some kind of link to it just about anywhere.

Signed print, # 46 out of 60, Witold K. 1973, Tesuque, New Mexico 

Witold K.’s web site is here.

Witold K.’s Wikipedia entry is here.

In a 2012 interview K. did not mention his TLB connection.

335 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 335 of 335
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
cielodrivecom said...

Dave, are you that guy who went to Leno's grave wearing the 'Free Leslie' shirt?

starviego said...

"simon davis said...
Now your question : why did it stop? Good question, with respect. Curiously, it is a question that has been seldom asked. The answer is at Tex Watson's book at page 151. If you don't have the book, i'll cut and paste it for you. Let me know."

I'll take you up on that offer, as I am curious as to why HS stopped after TLB,

Paul Maul said...

Dave, you really give conservatives a bad name. I consider myself a conservative, and let me tell you- Manson is absolutely guilty of murder, and conspiracy to commit murder- 10 counts of it! (I'm including Paul Tate Polanski too- he was murdered as well)

You make no compelling arguments, and only parrot the old line "But, but, MANSON NEVER KILLED ANYONE!!!" When Dave (lawyer Dave) here just showed you one example- he didn't even go into the other murders.

But let me ask you this- if I broke into your house, tied you and your wife up, told my friends to go inside, then left because "I'm not here for no murders" and then my friends do in fact kill you and wife- am I guilty of conspiracy to commit murder? Of course I am. Manson went along that 2nd night. We can pretend he didn't orchestrate Cielo, but he definitely knew about it that night he went to Waverly Drive, which now makes him a conspirator on the 1st night. Would it be hard to convince you that Hitler is guilty of murder, even though he "didn't kill anyone personally"??

You can launch your childish, personal attacks now. They make me laugh.

David said...

Starviego,

I think Simon is referring to this:

"I wondered what would happen this next night and the night after that. Although Susan Atkins's later claim that we had a death list of famous Hollywood stars was untrue, Charlie had made it clear that two nights would not be the end of it, that we would do more and more killing until either the blacks or the whites took matters into their own hands and Helter Skelter would begin.

I have no doubt that things would have continued just as Charlie planned-for another night, for three more nights, ten, however long — if later that Sunday afternoon my mother had not called Willis Carson in Los Angeles and asked him to get in touch with me because she hadn't had a word from her son in six months.

That call, and Willis's to the ranch that followed, set up my lie about the F.B.I. having come to my parents' home in Copeville, accusing me of murder. And that lie stopped the killing and sent us all to the desert where, nearly two months later, I refused to murder again for Manson and headed home to Copeville, with its peeling white wood and railroad, home to the store and the gas pumps and the kitchen — back to the world I thought I'd blasted out of my mind forever."

starviego said...

David,

Thanks for the info.

"..nearly two months later, I refused to murder again for Manson and headed home to Copeville.."

Interesting. Charlie wanted Tex to murder again? Who? Miner Paul Crockett is my guess.

grimtraveller said...

simon davis said...

your question : why did it stop? Good question, with respect. Curiously, it is a question that has been seldom asked. The answer is at Tex Watson's book at page 151

I don't believe Tex on this. He claims that he pulled a stroke in getting the murders stopped {I'd love to believe him on this} and in the Family fleeing to the desert. But look how long it was before they actually went to the desert and 2 weeks after this supposed deception, Shorty was killed. And as we know, Bruce, Clem, Mary and Kitty all place Tex in that crime.
I think there's a simpler set of reasons for the murders stopping after a couple of nights.
But before I get into that, the question must be asked, why should HS have continued on through multiple and consecutive nights ? Because Cielo was followed the next night by Waverly ? We are perhaps so stuck on the proximity of the TLB murders that many of us that don't believe that HS played a major part will look at the cessation of action and use that to bolster the assertion that HS must be crap. The murders stopping after 2 nights seems so abrupt.
Until you factor in a few things. Firstly, there was a greater conscious Police presence and effort. Shock accompanied Cielo's discoveries. Fear and the demand for action accompanied Waverly's. I believe that had an effect on Charlie because not only were Black people not being talked of in connection with these killings, the Police temperature increased 100fold. Cruising around LA at night simply felt harder.
Then there was Linda and her disappearance. It was a while before anyone knew what had happened to her. It would have been after the August 16 raid. So no one knew where she was and what made it doubly difficult was that her kid was still at Spahn. So having been involved in 2 {well, 3 if you think of Nader} murderous episodes, suddenly one of the protagonists was gone. Had she been arrested ? Where the hell was she ? To compound matters, Joe Sage then rings up the ranch and asks Charlie if the tales she told him about the Cielo murder are true ! So they all now knew Linda had been talking. Pat had ago at her and became very paranoid. Who else had she told ? Would they grass ? Would the person{s} she told tell others ?
That made it pretty difficult to go out and commit more murder. As well as that, there was no guarantee that someone wouldn't use the LaBianca credit cards that Linda hid in the loo in Sylmar {Charlie wasn't to know she hadn't just dropped it on the floor} and kick off HS.
There was actually no compelling reason for there to be a 3rd, 4th & 5th night. They could always pick up and carry on later, especially if the Police had no idea it was them.
I also think that Charlie found the reality of murder wasn't just something one could toss off every night just like that. His attempts on LaBianca night that didn't lead to deaths weren't the sort of thing one would want to have to face every night. Killing often gets to someone in ways that one doesn't necessarily foresee when they are thinking about it.

grimtraveller said...

Who would've thought that a post about Witold K could inspire such sounds and fury.
I hope he's pleased with himself !

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

Manson didnt kill Hinman

There is though, a chance that he might have had Bobby not done the job first. That sword whack to Gary's face was written up by the medical examiner as "possibly fatal." During Bobby's first trial, he was asked about this and he said that had Gary not received proper medical attention, he could have bled to death. That he didn't at the time is neither here nor there. The wound, if not sown together properly, could simply gush open again. Bobby simply made sure that the whole matter became academic.
But it was Charlie whacking Gary that ensured that he died because, if Bobby's story is to be believed, it was the desire to get proper medical attention that necessitated Bobby killing him because he couldn't afford to have the cops drawn in, which would have been the case had Gary turned up at hospital with such a wound.
Bobby claimed that he sewed up Gary's wound. Allowing for the fact that he wasn't qualified to do such a thing, if he did sew it, there's no guarantee that he did a decent job {Gary wasn't a guitar that needed a string change}. But conspicuous in its absence in Bobby's story is him attempting to persuade Gary that a visit to hospital was unnecessary as he'd stemmed the bleeding from the wound with his surgical skills.
Bobby's story is designed to focus attention on the Straight Satans as pressure bearers and Gary Hinman as mescaline maker. Actually, what comes out of it is that Gary Hinman would be alive today {barring nature taking its unpredictable course} were it not for Charles Manson.
Whether it's because Charlie "ordered" the murder or because he set into motion the events that led to the murder is really just a game of "take your pick."

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

all the witnesses on Shea they say Charlie was in the car behind Clem, Bruce, Tex and Shorty and pissibly witnessed him being beaten and dragged from the car

Charlie himself admits cutting Shorty with a knife during the murder. That alone makes him guilty.

it was only "proven" to 12 idiots who bought Boooooogeee loooseees PT Barnum act

I don't know if you've ever read "Trial by your peers" by William Zamora, one of the jurors in the trial. It came out a year before "Helter Skelter" and as far as I'm concerned, should be required reading for anyone that wants a rounded view of the entire saga.
The jury were not 12 idiots. They debated long and hard about the guilt of the defendants and in particular some of them tried hard to find reasons not to have them condemned to death, even though they were themselves convinced they deserved death.

"rational people" dont believe that 7 murders happened because an ex con one day heard the Beatles tell him to start a war between blacks and Whites and that the blacks would win but because he and his group of 30 or so followers all under the age of 25 except Davis, escaped to the desert in dune buggies and climbed into a big hole in the desert and when the war was over the blacks would be too stupid to rule anything and would need him and his followers to take over

It really isn't a matter of whether rational believe that's why 7 murders happened, but rather, did they believe that a group of people believed in this. Human beings all over this planet, in every era, even right now, have believed things every bit as strange as HS and have acted upon it. Here in the UK in the last 3 months we've had 3 terror attacks by people that believe stuff that is on a par with HS and are not backward in coming forward about it.
Although some of your description is something of a cartoon version, according to both Bugliosi's book and Charlie himself during his trial and in his 1970 Rolling Stone interview, he espoused the view that a]the Beatles were speaking and b}their music and LSD were responsible for the murders.
Even in his 2013 Rolling Stone interview, he said "HS wasn't a lie, it was just Bugliosi's perspective."

simon davis said...

Grim is the only one who has answered my question about what it would matter if Tex did NOT say those things. Grim appears to think it wouldn't matter because it doesn't really need an explanation. That would be my preliminary view too. Any other thoughts ? Opinions ?

(Grim, Aust got humiliated 4-0 at home by Brazil last night, embarrassing, they just toyed with us, but was great to watch !)

The boy wonder said...

Both full of excellent recipes but your probably going to need a degree in chemistry and lots of jam jars to make anything. Shulgin should be more highly honoured than he is. Anyone interested should track down "Hamiltons pharmacopia" on vice or something like that. It's about a dude who built an underground lab near nevada inside a dead volcano churning out MDMA late sixties, v good and illuminating.

grimtraveller said...

@ Dear 71 old mate: when you're replying to particular people could you be so kind as to either name them or put something of a quote of theirs so that we know exactly who your replies are aimed at.
I wasn't being facetious when I said you sound like you're talking to yourself sometimes. Arguing with yourself would be more accurate but you get my drift.


brownrice said...

My instincts and life experience tell me that "dodgy drug-dealing" makes a lot more sense

I would have to agree to some extent with this. Something rational and rooted in the everyday world of criminals makes a lot more sense.
Yet, though I can see that it makes more sense, that in itself is a tacit admission that there is at least some sense in HS.
One of the reasons why we keep talking about Charles Manson is because he really is no ordinary mundane criminal. Much of what he's said over the years, and I mean a good 4 decades and more, has concerned otherworldly pursuits. I think there's a load of manure in Shreck's book but other aspects of it that most other writers have never really taken seriously or looked at in intelligent depth, are truly fantastic and give a window into him and his spiritual dimension. For someone like myself who lives with that spiritual dimension as an everyday reality and has done so for the last 32 years, it resonates with me and I have no problem whatsoever in seeing how such thoughts and visions, possibly spurred on by events in his early life that were out of his control, could bleed into a philosophy and mindset that leads to murder.
He wouldn't be the first one.
So although a dodgy drug deal makes more sense, HS also makes sense ~ if looked at through the right lens.

Manson Mythos said...

the idea Rostau said he was at the house that not to "impress his GF" is groundless. In fact, he simply denied, according to the homicide report that he was there and no, no alibi. In fact this lead was continued to be looked into

You say it's groundless about impressing his woman ~ well take it up with Matt because the team reported that being the case in this thread. The post states that he was interviewed and polygraphed and thereby any interest in him disappeared. Obviously it was looked into.

The boy wonder said...

Sure fucked up his face though.

The boy wonder said...

Daves gone very quiet.

grimtraveller said...

Manson Mythos said...

@Joel Rostau delivering drugs the night of the murders....a dope dealer with prior convictions and a pending trial would totally be honest about being at the site of a bloodbath hours before it happened

What would he have to lose either way if he had an alibi for the time of the murders like all the other drug dealers, one of whom had been at Cielo the day before ?

starviego said...

Charlie wanted Tex to murder again? Who? Miner Paul Crockett is my guess

According to Tex, it was a couple of park rangers out in the desert. Every so often some might show up at their hideout asking questions so Tex says he was told to wait for them with a shotgun and blow them away. He ran off from the Family after this. It's in his book "Right hand man speaks out."
I think at one point Tex was part of a party that creepy crawled Crockett's cabin though.

David said...

Buy the way, George, it's a very good post. I was always intrigued by him and the police protection/ attention he received for a short time.

If the call was at midnight does that effect the timelines?

starviego said...

"simon davis said...
Grim is the only one who has answered my question about what it would matter if Tex did NOT say those things"

Sorry, but what do you mean by 'those things?'

simon davis said...

Starviego,

Not sure where to start. Dave1971 asked me what do I make of the cessation of HS hostilities after LaBianca, implying (I think) that that meant that HS was bullshit. I think Dave 1971 asked specifically "what's the explanation for that?".

I said "Tex provided the explanation", referring to Tex's explanation that the killing stopped because he, Tex, told a fib to Charlie to the effect that the FBI were onto them and this persuaded Charlie to not do any more HS murders and instead move out to the desert. That was the "those things", pardon the grammar there, hopefully Col Thingamybob is not watching because won't I get a gobful if he is, and probably rightly so.

I then asked to the effect "does it really matter what the explanation was?", implying that it really could have been anything but it doesn't invalidate HS.

Grim was the only one who answered my question ( I think) by saying, in effect, it didn't really matter, could have been anything, who knows, who cares. (I'm sure grim will correct me if I'm wrong there.)

In summary, I think Dave1971 made an important point against HS (one of the best actually), but equally I think Grim and I more than adequately answered it - either Tex explained it, or it didn't really matter.

Hope this helps rather than further muddies the waters.

David said...

Isn't the question a bit narrower then simply why did it stop?

It seems to me it is why did it stop between August 11th and 15th. On the 16th when dozens of police suddenly descend on Spahn in the early morning that may have had an impact on the plan. (imagine that sphincter pucker). The warrant likely would have been presented to the land owner- Spahn and not Family members. They likely did not have had a clue at first why it was happening (imagine Manson's sphincter pucker in those first minutes).

Afterwards they now know they are not only 'on the radar' but that LE had enough information from some informant or surveillance to get warrants (even if LE screwed it up). It would also seem likely they lost some of the means to accomplish their plan- confiscated guns, knives, cars.

So who is missing from Spahn when the raid happens. That may be a clue why nothing happened between the 11th and the 15th- as Grim pointed out Kasabian, at least.

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...


Weird coincidence that the Tex Watson murder spree ended* at the exact same time as Helter Skelter. What are the odds?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


*Shorty who?

David said...

Ziggy!

Bobscamarumbump said...

The police interview of Ronnie Howard is the first recorded documented of what Susan Atkins supposedly said about the Hinman ordeal. She told Howard, that they went there because Hinman "owed" Bobby money. She said nothing about a robbery. Owed is a keyword, because if it was a thugish robbery, that word would have been used.

Susan also told another woman in the prison that she killed Hinman because he couldn't maintain an erection while they were making love until she started to torture him and it got out of hand.

If you look at each murder and even Crowe. Multiple people gave multiple different motives. Often, many accounts applied a noble motive, as crazy as they were. Paul Watkins said Charlie shot Crowe because he was fucking white girls and wanted to protect them. Which is evidence nothing most of these people said should have been considered evidence in a court of law.

When that happens, you have to be a moron to think there isn't a deeper, more realistic one they are trying to keep you in the dark about.

David said...

Manson Mythos said:

"Which is evidence nothing most of these people said should have been considered evidence in a court of law.

When that happens, you have to be a moron to think there isn't a deeper, more realistic one they are trying to keep you in the dark about."

Help me understand this. Are you saying because there are inconsistent statements by witnesses those shouldn't have been used in court? Or are you saying because there are these inconsistent statements by Atkins (Howard), Watkins and whomever you throw in the mix that there must be a different motive then HS? Or both? Or something else?

I'm truly trying to get my head around this one because my initial reaction is wouldn't the same argument apply (work the same) as to every possible motive? Example: because LVH said the reason people had to die was HS and that's inconsistent with a drug burn then the drug burn motive must be wrong and we should look for something else? Otherwise aren't you just picking who to believe?

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

So Dave1971 in your opinion did Manson know they were going to either house to kill people before the murders? or only after?

Did he know a crime (any crime) was going to be committed before the events of either night?

Did he tell them to take the car or the knives or the gun either night or did he help them in any way either night?

Did he go along the second night to personally commit a robbery (get money)? And did he try? Is that why he went into the home?

Did he go into Waverly at all? and if he did was it with the intent to either commit a crime or knowing one would occur? And what crime if 'yes'?

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
simon davis said...

Yes it is. Given by ten people in this case. Cross-examined on. Uncontradicted evidence.

simon davis said...

Loads of other evidence too, quite apart form the oral evidence. Fridge door. Walls. Front door. Door at Ranch. Do you really want me to list all of it ?

David said...

Dave1971 said,

“i think he went into Waverly to possibly get some money”

You just put Manson in prison for life or in the gas chamber. Oh, and you don't need HS to put him there.

This is the actual instruction read to the TLB jury by the court at the end of the trial- from the transcript. This is a statement of the law in California in 1970. No one made this up, created it as a fairytale or coerced anyone into telling a lie by threatening to take their kids away:

"The unlawful killing of, a human being, whether intentional, unintentional or accidental, which occurs as the result of the commission or attempt to commit the crime of burglary or robbery, and where there was in the mind of the perpetrator the specific intent to commit such crime or- crimes, is murder of the first degree, The specific intent to commit burglary or robbery and the commission or attempt to. commit such crime or crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every person who enters any house with the specific intent to steal, take and carry away the personal property of another of any value with the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of his personal property is guilty of burglary.

The essence of a burglary is entering such a place with such specific intent, and the crime of, burglary is complete as soon as the entry is made, regardless of whether the intent thereafter is carried out,

Robbery is the taking of personal property of any "value in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear and with the specific intent permanently to deprive the owner or his property.

If a human being is killed by any one of several persons engaged in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate) the crime of burglary or robbery, all persons who either directly and actively commit the act constituting such crime or who- knowingly and with criminal intent aid and abet it its commission, or, whether present or not, who advise and encourage its commission, are guilty of murder of the first degree, whether the killing is intentional, unintentional, or accidental."

In 1969 the penalty for murder of the first degree was (1.) death following the penalty phase or (2) life in prison.

Can we stop saying 'Manson is innocent'?

simon davis said...

Manson Mythos (?) talks up above about what Atkins told Howard etc. All valid points I'm sure. BUT the assumption seems to be that the Family members actually knew why they were killing people. I think that might be a wrong assumption. For example, in Tex's account of Manson's pre-Tate instructions, nowhere is there mention of Manson saying why he wanted the people at Cielo killed. And apparently Tex didn't ask "why?" Apparently, no-one asked Charlie "why?" about anything. So when the Family members say anything about motive, should we not be asking ourselves: "well does s/he really know that, or is it something s/he has read, heard or other wise inferred ?". My preliminary impression with all Family members is the latter. It is important, isn't it ?, to try to work out the origins of statements by witnesses. Certainly is when you cross-examine people. Can make all the difference.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
simon davis said...

What does that mean ? I think I know you're saying CM is innocent (?). If so, fair enough. But what do you think about my principal question: did the Family members know why they were killing people? Or did they, for example, simply assume they were killing for Helter Skelter ? Not necessarily anything to do with CM. Forget him. Did the Family members actually know why they were killing people (or was it something they assumed, or speculated about, or read or heard from other sources, including each other?).

Just be so kind as to bear down on my question. Forget about Charlie, he could be innocent or guilty, at this point I don't care either way.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

They still had 5 days to commit more murders before the Spahn raid

I think Linda's disappearance, as someone involved, threw a spanner in those works. It was a little too reminiscent of Bobby's scenario except this time, there was no phone call to say what was happening, yet Tanya, her child was still at the ranch. They didn't forsee that she would just leave her kid and flee.

the stories are that Charlie was going from place to place trying to raise money, if im not mistaken this was when he went to Dennis Wilsons a couple of times and threatened him after he refused to give him any money, more proof that there was a money motive in the killings as well

As far as Cielo was concerned, neither Atkins or Watson denied that money played a part. However the money aspect was incidental not instrumental.

Im kind of a strange conservative, im pro choice but anti death penalty

Bugliosi was a liberal but pushed for the death penalty. Conservatives and liberals are able to think for themselves and not strictly adhere to stereotypical parameters.

simon davis said...

Grim appears to think it wouldn't matter because it doesn't really need an explanation

That's more or less it. The fact that the killings stopped after two nights doesn't invalidate Charlie thinking that he needed to kick off HS so his prophecy would begin rolling. Him needing to show Blackie how to do it didn't prescribe any specific plan of action other than killing. It could have been one night. It could have been 10 spread apart. It seems only Watkins and Poston remembered that they were supposed to happen that summer and they weren't around Spahn.

grimtraveller said...


David said...

If the call was at midnight does that effect the timelines?

According to the Tate report the call was only estimated to be midnight. As such, it gives a general idea of the kind of time as opposed to an exact one.

Manson Mythos said...

The police interview of Ronnie Howard is the first recorded documented of what Susan Atkins supposedly said about the Hinman ordeal

Well, if we're going with what other people said about Susan, fair enough. According to the pre~trial book "Five to die" and the infamous "HS" she told Sergeants Whiteley and Guenther that she and Bobby were sent to Gary's to get some money he had inherited {$20,000} and when he wouldn't give it over, Bobby slashed Gary's face. They stayed for two days and she was clear that Bobby killed Gary. This is from two cops and although Susan wouldn't repeat the statement on tape, their statements were entered into the record at a preliminary hearing. The preliminary hearing was on November 12th. The Ronnie Howard interview was on the 25th.

She told Howard, that they went there because Hinman "owed" Bobby money. She said nothing about a robbery. Owed is a keyword, because if it was a thugish robbery, that word would have been used

What she actually said was:
MS. HOWARD: "I asked her, I said, 'Well, why did they do it?' She said, 'Well he owed them some money or something. He owed this Bobby and her some money and some other girl. I heard them talking on the telephone. I heard them trying to kill him. So they got him out for a ride. He thought he was just going out for a nice drive'."
which puts a somewhat different spin on it.

Susan also told another woman in the prison that she killed Hinman because he couldn't maintain an erection while they were making love until she started to torture him and it got out of hand

Still beating that old Roseanne Walker drum ? Susan gives an interesting window into her methods some years later when she said that the objective was to mix truth with lies. But it backfired on her and meant that when {if} she did come clean with the "truth" she was not believed and left prison in a box, dead, as a result.

If you look at each murder and even Crowe. Multiple people gave multiple different motives

Interesting point. However, HS came up with almost all of them at various points and in various ways, which does not apply to any of the other angles.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
simon davis said...

Thanks Dave1971. The answer to your question is "No". I think it is good we are now asking questions of each other rather than communicating in positive assertions. Questions are good because then the questionee (answerer) gets to feel empowered, and we get along a lot better. The barriers come down. We feel better about talking. Godo cross-examiers do that when they want to trap people, but that's not my intention. It is just a better way of learning, which I know I'm here for.

Ok, your answer to my question was effectively this: "the Family members knew why they were killing, they knew they were killing for drugs and money" and, as I understand you, - sorry back in a sec

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

Im saying you should believe statements that are backed up by some type of evidence and "Charlie told me to kill because the Beatles told him to" isnt evidence

Charlie stated in court during his own trial that the music of the day was telling young people to rise and kill.

personally i believe Charlie when he said he went in and saw Leno sitting on the couch and said "hi i wasnt expecting to see you here, last time we were here no one was home"

I don't actually disagree with that. But that's actually not important. What is important is the preamble to all that.
I don't believe that house was the initial target. I believe the former True house was. But no one was in. And it was a dog in the yard next door and a light on that attracted Charlie's attention because, as you say, he'd always known the house to be empty.
Bear in mind, that he was supposed to be showing the "messy" Cielo killers how to do it and at that point he had done nothing of the kind.

Sorry about the typos

So you keep saying.
The typos aren't really a problem, it's the out of context replies that are. Can you not just let us know who you're replying to or put some part of their quote in so we all know.
So many of your points float in the ether like disembodied spirits !

all indications are that Tex and Rosemary left Waverly, she had a dress on over her nightgown

It could just as easily be that it indicates what the killers said Charlie stated ¬> that the LaBiancas were calm and not expecting anything to happen to them other than robbery. By getting the woman to put on a dress, it's an attempt to placate her and bring her defences down. Few people will make you dress nicely then kill you.
As for the car and boat, they'd just come back from a long journey and were tired. Some accounts have Leno initially asleep with the newspaper sprawled about him which is probably why Charlie was able to get in so easily.
And how many people have broken a habit and said to themselves when tired, "Oh, I'll deal with that tomorrow ?"
The interesting thing is that Leno's gambling predilections were seemingly paramount in his mind because that's where his focus was, the horse racing page rather than the boat. "Gotta check the form guide !"

simon davis said...

OK, where was I ? And the Family members . . . OK I get the bit about the money/drugs - they knew, or assumed, or thought they were killing for money/drugs. Have I got that right ? Let's get that before we move on. Let's look at this like a judge or jury has to. To narrow it down - they thought they were going to kill people for money/drugs. Is that your position ? (don't worry I won't hold you to anything, no tricks, no hidden agenda, no ambush etc). Just is that what you say ?

grimtraveller said...

Dave1971 said...

how do you know what "cruising around LA at night" at that time felt like?

Any major city where Police are on a particular alert increases the chances of those identified as "undesirables" being stopped or picked up. Not always cool, not always fair, but real nonetheless.

Id tell you to start writing cheap romance novels but youre a shitty writer so theyd never sell

I wouldn't write them to sell. I'd write them just for you, dearest. You could keep them with that private collection that you think will be worth something, one day.

remember there are numerous witnesses who overheard Linda talking about being burned for 1000 bucks there

Like Brenda and Sandy ? People that couldn't get their lies straight and whose Charlie alibis are even contradicted by Charlie ?
The major pusher of the $1000 burn story is someone of whom you just said:
told so many different things to different people, she tasted Sharons blood, she sucked off her son, blah, blah, blah, she was crazy as the day is long
and she did say for a good 32 years that that penalty phase stuff was lies, bullshit and crap. And she wasn't the only one.
But, if you wish to keep swimming in quicksand, free will allows you to sink yourself if you so desire.

Charlie knew they were going there but not to murder and his statement to Susan "you stupid cunt you just put me back in jail" when she got back and told him what happened bears this out,

Why would Susan murdering put Charlie back in jail if Charlie had nothing to do with anything and didn't know they were going to murder ?
Nonsense makes no sense make no sense where no sense makes sense.

simon davis said...

Have to go out. Dave1971 would you be so kind as to confirm your position that as far as they knew they were going to kill for drugs/money.

While you're at it, we'll move on to HS. Now I am having trouble here. Are you saying "they knew they were not killing for HS" or are you saying "they didn't know they were killing for HS?" Two very different things. Again, we're just probing the killers' state of mind. What were they thinking when they did it (if anything)?

starviego said...

"Dave1971 said...
..., remember there are numerous witnesses who overheard Linda talking about being burned for 1000 bucks there"

Now you'd think the defense attorneys would have jumped all over this statement in their cross-examination of Kasabian. Because if she then denied it, they could use that to impeach her other testimony. Did they ever do so? Not that I know of.

starviego said...

David said...
"(Tex): if later that Sunday afternoon my mother had not called Willis Carson in Los Angeles and asked him to get in touch with me because she hadn't had a word from her son in six months. That call, and Willis's to the ranch that followed, set up my lie about the F.B.I. having come to my parents' home in Copeville, accusing me of murder. And that lie stopped the killing and sent us all to the desert..."


Watson's version from his 2016 Parole Hearing is a little different:

http://cielodrive.com/charles-tex-watson-parole-hearing-2016.php
INMATE WATSON: ..-- the day after the murders my friend called the ranch, okay. My friend David that I told you about when I came to California initially and my mother had called him and said that she was worried about me. So I told Manson, I said my mother called and said the FBI was at her house looking for me and so what happened then was that's when I went to the desert because he wanted me to leave.

In the later version he says nothing about the FBI looking for him because of murder. Anyway the story doesn't make much sense from Charlie's perspective. Would Manson not have wondered how the FBI could have been on to Watson just a day after TLB? And in the second version note Charlie only sent Tex out to Barker, not the whole family. So why couldn't HS have kept on going?

If anything, the news about the FBI should realistically have spurred on even more murderous activity, since Charlie must have believed it was then only a matter of time before they fingered Charlie, too.

Unknown said...

Ok Class lets review one last time... I have a minute ;)

Ann did an amazing post and I did one not as good, but also very detailed as to a closer look at the Hinman motive.

Here are the facts for all you newbies to absorb and review on your own.

There was absolutely zero evidence of drugs or drug dealing at Gary's house. There was a scale with white powder residue,- but it was tested and found not to be drugs. Now maybe a scale would give some a reason to speculate. But as it was being used, and proven not to be drugs it was used for- you really cant try to use it even to speculate...

That is it. There was a coupe of friends ( Go back and read my old post) who were questioned in court about every possible angle of Gary's life. from political affiliations to sexual orientation. Every rumor anyone ever heard about him ,and every connection to an group. But never once did drugs come up.

Bobby has changed his story multiple times and even our own legend the Col who tried to help him will say is a liar, and is the only one who says ( today) it was over a drug burn- as that is the ONLY way he can distance himself from the stigma of the Manson Family- which is his only way out. I dont blame him for trying- but it is what it is...

Every other person who was involved at the crime and every one who was immediately told of the crime over 30 years says the same story and gives the same testimony as to what happened and why.

Go read my old post. I put all the quotes in there from the actual people who were there. And the story they all told- matched even parts of Bobby's current story, and were verified by the police who first showed up at the scene.

Every single person who was there from Mary, to Sadie, to Bruce and even Bobby himself described how they left him dying and grasping for air. Bleeding to death.

Charlie - as usual - did just enough for his supporters to say he was not responsible- but he went there. Sliced a persons head with a weapon, and left him knowing he was in dire straights.

You wanna defend that as ok????

I do not get it. Sorry. And I must say again. Who cares what Gary sold. The entire family and all their friends and bikers sold drugs, did drugs, and stole drugs. Who were they to get holier than thou?

They viciously killed and guy in the most heinous way.... A guy who helped them and by every singe account- didn't like violence.

Go read the [police accounts and read the way and condition police found Gary's Body. Then go read Susan and Mary's account ( which are identical) of how it got that way...

Shameless if you ask me :(

ColScott said...

No new posting for a week and Troll Dave 1971 running rampant. I intended to out this blog out of its misery but did it commit suicide while I was busy?

starviego said...

"Manson Mythos said...
...you have to be a moron to think there isn't a deeper, more realistic one(motive) they are trying to keep you in the dark about."

OK then, but why keep everybody in the dark about some mundane conflict between drug dealers/buyers?

starviego said...

"St Circumstance said...
Go read my old post."

Could you link us to it?

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ColScott said...

NONONONONO we don't censor serious researchers and leave fucking trolls like DAVE1971 on here


Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
simon davis said...

OK so I think the answer to my question is your comment at 9:12 pm: they may have believed in HS but no way was it a motive on TLB nights. It was not at all in their minds in any way, shape or form those nights.

What was on their minds about why they were doing it (if anything) was drugs and money.

Just to test that, to play the devil's advocate, do you think it is possible there was no thought in their minds at all about why they were doing it ? i.e. no thoughts about drugs, money or HS. For example, when Krenwinkel was asked at the trial was she thinking about Hinman's death when she slayed people at TLB, she said: "nothing was in my mind".

I know there is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between people about whether there can ever be motiveless crimes. I don't want to get into that. Just want to know your view about whether it is possible that these particular killers (Tex, Katie, et al) were completely on a sort of mental auto-pilot those nights, automotons as it were. Not brain-dead as such because clearly they had their wits about them for killing, cutting phone lines etc, throwing clothes out of car, Kasabian swore Tex appeared clear headed and calm and not hallucinating etc. So they were clear headed for killing, but was it a sort of auto-pilot clear-headedness going in only one direction - killing. So they didn't have to think about killing. (BTW some researchers suggest that is precisely how most killers are able to do it - minimalising thought about it helps to turn off moral inhibitions about killing other humans).

No hidden agenda, no trick questions, not leading you anywhere, just like to know for my own purposes (partly to to avoid making a fool of myself in my book LOL!).

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Dave1971,

In addition to apparently being a homophobe and proud misogynist you are also apparently obtuse. I'm done here. 'Twink'? Like I said I don't need this. Bye all. This clown accounts for about an hour of my time I will never get back.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
simon davis said...

Priceless ! Gold ! Love it ! Not even Col Stott came up with so much ! I think I was a reptile, lizard, Simple Simon, Pulitzer Prize for Stupidity. Can't remember the rest, but they were good too. Now add "twink", racist, islamophobe, something about an SJW rainbow, clown and social justice warrior.

Not even my clients disliked me this much !

Anyway, so is it possible, in your opinion, the Family members had absolutely nothing "in mind" about why they were doing what they were doing ? i.e. no drugs in mind, no money in mind, no HS in mind. Just a "yes" or "no" or "undecided" would suffice. Look at this way, it would be less tiring for you to just type one word.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Guida Diehl said...

'''''''"(By the way, It's my understanding that PCP, which I am told is relatively easy to synthesize, used to be sold as LSD/DMIT/STP/mescaline/psilocybin by unscrupulous dealers. Back then, there was not the extensive literature that there is today on the difference between all the various psychedelics and disassociatives.)

I don't know who told you this, but it's more bullshit. PCP popped up as a street drug in the late '60's. It was known as "Angel Dust". It was put on weed or whatever and smoked to produce a strange high. no acid head would buy from somebody that sold that shit or "confuse" the buzz with a righteous acid trip."''''

This isn't bullshit. You've misunderstood what he said. There's plenty of evidence that PCP was often sold to people falsely as something other than what it was. This is because after the original 'PeaCe Pills' emerged they developed a bad reputation... so it became common for dealers to unload batches onto people who weren't looking for a dissociative experience by lying about what they were getting. Waldorf et. al. in 'Angel Dust In Four American Cities : An Ethnographic Study of PCP Users' found evidence dating back to the early '70s of people being sold PCP as 'synthetic THC' or 'mescaline.' People who were unfamiliar with mescaline or whatever would have no idea they'd been ripped off; people who were familiar would take their own retribution or find a better dealer.

I imagine in the period before PCP solidified its reputation more solidly into the drug culture as 'Angel Dust' there was a lot of confusion about what it was, same with STP- according to Sanders someone was conned into buying a 'witchy' tent off of the Family while high on a drug called 'Steam,' which Sanders explains is phencyclidene. It was probably being sold under a variety of different names at the time, which it still is today (sherm, tic, dust, hog, etc.).

simon davis said...

Hey Dave, I showed 2 of my kids your work, they love it, want to meet you ! They agree with you !

But anyway, I actually don't know where you stand. This was a relatively simple case but its not as simple as "he didn't do it and that's all there is to it". I'm not playing games either. Can't you tell me your opinion about this: were they positively thinking "we're not doing this for HS" or were they simply not thinking one way or another about HS (or anything) when they killed people ? It can't be that hard to answer without making a speech. Look at it this way: when you go to vote in an election, you just tick a box, or say "yes". They don't ask you to deliver the sermon on the mount do they ? Or make declarations of undying love for whoever you choose. So come on mate, just a simple : "yes", "no", or "undecided". I know you're tempted because you say you're never coming back to the blog, then a little while later you're back again. Go on, give it a go ! Stop playing hard to get. you're just playing with me, I'm sure.

Now, on another front (not you Dave), I must have seen about 100 adamant drug/chemistry experts on this site, often disagreeing with each other. But it is uninformative really unless you can state your qualifications. Who are we dullards to know is right until we at least see your qualifications ?

Furthermore, I have interviewed, examined and cross-examined highly qualified pharmacologists, chemists, toxicologists, scientists over the years and never known one prepared to opine about many of these types of issues without knowing some basic factual parameters, e.g. dosage, mode of administration, physical characteristics of person, half-life of drug, precise make-up of drug.

Without some ground rules like this, it is all a schmozzles, sorry.

Can you experts please state your qualifications and what factual assumptions you are making ? That's the way to mount persuasive evidence ad argument about these things. He says, expecting complete silence and being lost in the wash once again.

simon davis said...

davo are you there ?? Come on mate - its just a wafer thin little eeny weeny teency weency little question . . .

Jenn said...

Dear Dave1971:

Your posts would make more sense if you quoted what you are responded to. Would you please consider doing that?

Thanks.

Matt said...

Dave1971 is a thing of the past. His comments will be deleted from now on, even if he behaves. There are other blogs that accept that behavior, we do not.


Matt said...

Welcome back, Zigster!


Anonymous said...


Thanks, Matt.

Who knew that Witold K fans were so rowdy? And the Dave/Dreath/David/Simon Davis thing was getting quite confusing.

Any update on Mario George Nitrini 111's search for the secret construction site?

starviego said...


"simon davis said...
Just want to know your view about whether it is possible that these particular killers (Tex, Katie, et al) were completely on a sort of mental auto-pilot those nights, automotons as it were."


One of the shrinks who examined Tex clearly thought the killers were in some kind of disassociative state:


From Dr. A. Tweed's interview of June 15, 1971, pg4,7,8:
.... Every night, while they were under the influence of various drugs, Manson would work through their fear and resistance against killing. ... He(Tex) became so confused during that period that he began to see imaginary people which were being "killed" in these situations which Manson was creating for them to visualize. .....
...Thus, Watson, while in a highly suggestible state of intoxication was gradually desensitized to believe that to kill was not wrong and robot like he was able to carry out the wishes of his master and dissociate his feelings from the action. This seems borne out by the cold, detached manner in which the acts were accomplished. All the while only hearing the voice of Manson within him computing his every action. He actually believed at the time that they were really imaginary people. It was in such a drug induced psychotic condition that the acts were carried out.
....At the time of commission of the alleged offense, while he did have the mental capacity to form the specific intent to commit murder, this was only because he had been brainwashed, programmed and desensitized to believe that such acts in themselves were not wrong and that what he was doing was right."

Matt said...

ziggyosterberg said...

Any update on Mario George Nitrini 111's search for the secret construction site?


Funny you should ask. I was so distraught after the Schwarber shot over Shea Bridge that I contemplated organizing a search party to find that answer. I opted for ice cream.


Anonymous said...


Ice Cream tastes even better after Tommy John surgery, I'm told.

Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Suze said...

Thanks for banning him. What an ass!

grimtraveller said...

Matt said...

Dave1971 is a thing of the past. His comments will be deleted from now on, even if he behaves. There are other blogs that accept that behavior, we do not

I think you should have left all of 71's comments up because now this thread looks completely unbalanced and is anything but a smooth read. Despite some of his attitude, he threw up a series of points that elicited some interesting responses and made for what I thought was a good session.

Matt said...

Point taken, grim and I considered it. I came to the conclusion that it was better to just wash our hands of him. The "twink" comment tipped the scales.


Dave1971 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
simon davis said...

I'd never heard of that term before until I asked one of the kids about it, and he burst out laughing that somebody had called me that.

I apologise for contributing to the hijacking of George's post. I was genuinely interested in the dialogue with Dave and (briefly) thought I might be getting somewhere. It is an issue that concerns me in the case generally - what exactly the killers were thinking. I've had private discussions with David about it, and am still formulating thoughts.

Panamint Patty said...

Patty always laughs when the trolls complain about censorship and free speech. Get yer own damned blog, nobody's stopping you.

Unknown said...

http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/Hinman%20motive

Star- check out Anns post as well- between the both there is so much testimony, quotes and research....

Unknown said...

by the way ... Sorry for the shameless self-promotion on your post George lol

But I never got 300 comments on a post, so give me some slack ;)

Really well done again

David said...

Pananmint Patty said:

"Patty always laughs when the trolls complain about censorship and free speech."

It might also help if they actually read the First Amendment.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Simon said: "could some tell me what Austin Anne said in a post in May 2015 ?"
Simon, I can't find it either, but I'm pretty sure she put a case together for the Hinman motive being inheritance money.

simon davis said...

OK thanks for that Mr Humphrat. I've found St Circumstance's post, congrats on that one too St.

brownrice said...

Simon Davis said:
“Can you experts please state your qualifications and what factual assumptions you are making ? That's the way to mount persuasive evidence ad argument about these things. He says, expecting complete silence and being lost in the wash once again”

Qualifications? You do realise Simon that they don’t teach that kinda chemistry at university, don’t ya? For a start, it’s against the law. As for “factual assumptions”, I don’t think anyone really made any… least of all to do with “dosage, mode of administration, physical characteristics of person, half-life of drug,”. The “precise make-up of drug” was I believe what was being discussed… and whether the average mug punter would know the difference. Vermouth Brilliantine settled it pretty well in the post above and even cited a source which (IMO) is way better than “qualifications”.

David said...

Brownrice, I somehow thought that answer was coming. Well said.

simon davis said...

Brown Rice, science is not against the law at all.

Lawyers, especially in the areas I worked in, worked with science most days of each week. We tried to understand it. That's all I'm trying to do.

I don't want uni student science. Scientists and court cases and lawyers deal with these sorts of drugs all the time. Drug legislation is based on scientific research. If you want to not know about, that's OK I'm sure. But I'd like to know about it. Can't you just not read it ?

Anonymous said...


I don't need to be a psychologist to tell that someone has a superiority complex.

Know what I mean, Vern?

brownrice said...

simon davis said...
Brown Rice, science is not against the law at all.

Lawyers, especially in the areas I worked in, worked with science most days of each week. We tried to understand it. That's all I'm trying to do.

I don't want uni student science. Scientists and court cases and lawyers deal with these sorts of drugs all the time. Drug legislation is based on scientific research. If you want to not know about, that's OK I'm sure. But I'd like to know about it. Can't you just not read it ?


You're putting words in my mouth now Simon... or misunderstanding me. I didn't think I was being that abtruse. The science we're discussing is "Underground Chemistry" and yes... it is very definitely illegal. And... oh yeah... in my experience drug legislation is based more on ignorance & moral panic than any genuine scientific research.

Unknown said...

Wow! Can you explain more. Sounds very interesting.

Matt said...

To you readers who use mobile devices: when you reply to a particular comment please make it obvious who and what comment you are replying to. Larger devices like laptops and desktops don't show the comments in multi-threaded format so most people cannot tell who you are responding to or what comment...


grimtraveller said...

Panamint Patty said...

Patty always laughs when the trolls complain about censorship and free speech. Get yer own damned blog, nobody's stopping you

On the other hand, you should seize the compliment of the awkward and the troll wanting to be in your party because it's the hottest gig in town. Sure, they could have their own party with their own music and dry snacks but not many people honestly enjoy dancing on their lonesome and chewing on butterless crackers........

Matt said...

Point taken, grim and I considered it. I came to the conclusion that it was better to just wash our hands of him

I remember going systematically through the Col's blog, every thread there. Took me a few months. One of the most frustrating aspects of an otherwise thrilling journey is the amount of comments sections that tell you there are 84, 150, 259 comments but huge numbers of those comments are
Comment deleted

This comment has been removed by the author.
.

I once asked Cats Cradle77 why she removed so many of her posts from Col's site and she did tell me but while I understood her reasons, I felt that she should have left them. It would have helped the other posts that were in response to hers have their correct context and make greater sense.

While it's true that a thread is very much "in the moment," each one carries a life way beyond its immediate immediacy. There will be loads of people all over the world over many years that may be lurkers, just trying to get to grips with what's being talked about and it's kind of discouraging them by cutting out so many comments. They lose a sense of the fullness of the debate/discussion/argument and equally important in my view, they lose a sense of the people behind the comments.
Because most of us don't really know each other, we learn about who we are through the words, ideas, jokes, cusses, fights, mistakes, rambles etc that come through our posts. When one has something of a handle on the character behind certain posts, it makes for some riveting discourse. I guess it's like any relationship; there are certain things one may say in particular ways when one feels one knows better where the other is coming from. And it also gives everyone reading some window into different relationships that already exist and that are being formed.
No offence but sometimes I think blog owners/administrators underestimate the value of their blogs and the high esteem in which they are held.

grimtraveller said...

St Circumstance said...

Ok Class lets review one last time... I have a minute ;)

Ann did an amazing post and I did one not as good, but also very detailed as to a closer look at the Hinman motive


The topics have been flogged to death yet keep having life breathed into them because people still find them worth talking about. New {and old} generations of people keep throwing in comments that, if not countered lead to urban myths becoming viewed as facts when they may be anything but.
Also, past discussions may lead to one having a modified or clearer view this or next time round. Also, rather obviously, should the fact that something has been extensively covered last year and the years before mean that all conversation on said subject should cease ?

Unknown said...

Thanks Simon :)

No Grim - in my opinion they should not....

Anonymous said...


grimtraveller said...

"I once asked Cats Cradle77 why she removed so many of her posts from Col's site and she did tell me but while I understood her reasons, I felt that she should have left them."


She took it a step further when she removed her entire website. My pet theory of why she did that was that she was running out of people to ban.

David said...

Ziggy said: "My pet theory of why she did that was that she was running out of people to ban."

I missed you.

starviego said...

So someone tell me why Bobby went back a couple of days later and attempted to erase the paw print and the words 'Political Piggy' written in blood on the wall.

'Bad drug' theorists, you're up!

'Inheritance/Robbery' theorists, you're up!

Don't disappoint me.

David said...

Grim,

That said, I have to say this.

I have no issue with opposing opinions or ideas or arguments or even being called an idiot, snowflake, stupid, wrong, etc. I don't even have a problem with how the Col. expresses that to me from time to time.

I have a problem with comments about abuse of women or that insult blacks, whites, browns, greens, pinks, oranges, purples and reds that are inflammatory, unnecessary and have nothing to do with the post or the comment but are used to respond to a comment one disagrees with when one lacks any actual, intelligent, response.

I have a problem with those that are offered as if such statements or viewpoints are 'normal' or generally acceptable in conversation, thus lowering the bar of civilization on here to the sewer.

The fact current events in our world are reminiscent of the Dark Ages doesn't mean we should embrace the visceral reaction to those events.

My 'filter' isn't based on some notion of 'political correctness' and I'm not a 'loopy lefty'. My filter is based upon how my mom expected me to behave so if Dave1971 thinks verbally assaulting women is appropriate then perhaps that is where our differences lie.

In my world it's called being a gentleman, which includes opening doors for women (and maybe 400 years ago throwing my cape over a puddle)- regardless of the gender, color or orientation(s) of the subject person. The alternative is barbarism and the lowest common denominator. If the 1971 in his handle is his birth year then it's something I have been doing since before he was born.

Frankly, I'd vote to let Dave1971 return if he could understand 'my mother doesn't want to read that'. His problem is his response would be: 'then don't'. Then I don't want him here.

And the 'thread' isn't that important.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

And the 'thread' isn't that important

Perhaps not. Mind you, there aren't many on here that have run to over 300 comments. We gave it our time didn't we ?

Frankly, I'd vote to let Dave1971 return if he could understand 'my mother doesn't want to read that'. His problem is his response would be: 'then don't'. Then I don't want him here

He had 114 comments deleted. I have read worse stuff that Col Scott has said to people than anything "71" said although in fairness, each person knows what goads them so I'm not qualified to speak for anyone else's sensibilities. There are many things said in these archives that are still up for all to read that one could argue are way more inflammatory or rude or insulting than anything 71 said.
As I write this, there have been 315 comments. Take 114 out of that and you're left with the equivalent of a redacted transcript, made all the more awkward because many of the replies are to 71.
Sometimes, when a sufficient number of posters tell an inflammatory contributor that they aren't tolerating their style and why, they tone it down or disappear on their own. Why, despite the odd lapse, even the Col is most gentlemanly these days.

Matt said...

It's been quite a while since I've thought about WK. Like Saladin Nader, he dodged a bullet

Witold K certainly plays a part in the early part of the investigation but to be honest, he's simply not that interesting once you get beyond his police protection scam and the call that establishes that Wojiciech was alive around midnight.

Unknown said...

Dont know how this post got diverted off into Bobby B land

We were on Bobby 5 comments in. Look at comments 5~12. Ironically George accounts for 4 of them. 'Ironically' because later on David says "Sorry George. I helped derail your post."

Just out of interest, when someone has put a lot of research and writing effort into a post, what is the general feeling of matters running off topic for loads of comments ? Is it like a slap in the face or is there just a general recognition that conversations go that way much of the time ?

David said...

Grim said,

"Just out of interest, when someone has put a lot of research and writing effort into a post, what is the general feeling of matters running off topic for loads of comments ? Is it like a slap in the face or is there just a general recognition that conversations go that way much of the time ?"

I expect/accept it and just assume whatever I wrote either didn't trigger much comment interest or someone's comment triggered more.

Bobscamarumbump said...

As for the paw, people laugh at the idea that Bobby claimed did it to throw police off and lead them into the direction of "radicals" he knew from UCLA. BUT Hinman DID have a phD in Sociology from UCLA. Sociology....UCLA. That goes without saying, that Hinman was to the far left of Karl Marx and most certainly was buddy buddy with a motley crew of radicalized Bolsheviks.

It was also done, in part, with Crowe in mind. Manson was in a state of paranoid hysteria over that and the idea was that if the Black Panthers got the blame, the cops would round a great deal of them up and the chances of reprisal would be slimmer.

As for why they went back and tried to remove it, that has never been explained. It's possible that wasn't the real reason they returned to the place.

starviego said...

"As for why they went back and tried to remove it, that has never been explained"

That's the problem, because it's not consistent with any of the popular theories on Hinman's death. Though BB took considerable risk to do it. So there must have been a compelling reason.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

BB took considerable risk to do it. So there must have been a compelling reason

If you look at the picture of the paw print, there may be a possibility of getting finger prints or the top of a palm print from it.
The Police did find a print of Bobby's in the house {I think the kitchen} but I'm not sure when it was matched to Bobby. But Bobby needn't have bothered because when it came to the arrest he slithered himself into a murder rap in a way that's quite unbelievable with his driving the car of a murdered man, stating he bought it from a Black man named Gary Hinman, saying he saw Gary alive with his face all sliced because 3 Black guys had jumped him, carrying a knife, suspected blood stains about his person etc.

Manson Mythos said...

As for the paw, people laugh at the idea that Bobby claimed did it to throw police off and lead them into the direction of "radicals" he knew from UCLA

I don't. I've just always found it interesting that the radicals that he tried to lead the Police to just happened to be Black radicals, the very same MO that Manson is alleged to have employed in bringing on HS.
These days, Bob says he wasn't thinking specifically of the Panthers or Black people, just radicals, but again, he's demonstrably lying. Every single finger he pointed when first arrested was at Black people. They say the Family at the TLB murder scenes left clues so incomprehensible that no one could have suspected Black people of committing them {not strictly true, but that's another story}; well that certainly doesn't apply to Bobby.

BUT Hinman DID have a phD in Sociology from UCLA

MM, can you verify that in any way ? A phD is a piece of big babayaga that enables you to be called "Doctor." And what of his science degree ? Did he have one ? I find all of this a little strange because his employer said he was often broke.

starviego said...


grimtraveller said...
"These days, Bob says he wasn't thinking specifically of the Panthers or Black people, just radicals.."


Beausoleil changed his tune again? He said this in 2008:

cielodrive.com/bobby-beausoleil-parole-hearing-2008.php
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And why would the inmate(BB) tell the police that he bought it(the stolen Fiat) from a Black man?
INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Possibly for the same reason that I tried to make it look like it was a Black Panther -- the Black Panther Party ... had problems with Gary.

If Hinman actuslly knew the BPs, that would really throw a wrench into the whole official version.

Anonymous said...


IIRC, police did get a palm print from the paw print.

As for why he returned to Gary's and attempted to remove it, I assume that someone with a functioning cerebral cortex tipped him off that the bloody paw/palm print that he left there could be used to identify him.

Why he was unable to remove it - because it had dried - is something that, like making a print of part of his own hand in blood at a crime scene, can be ascribed to sheer stupidity. Or laziness.

starviego said...

"...the bloody paw/palm print that he left there could be used to identify him."

Bugliosi strongly implied that Beausoleil did it with his own palm, but didn't quite come out and say that. Certainly there were no usable prints taken from the writing on the wall. Probably because BB used the bloody sheets/towels seen in the same photo frame that shows the writing, like they did at the TLB scenes.

Anonymous said...


Excerpt from Helter Skelter :

DeCarlo went on. Before leaving the house, they wrote on the wall “‘white piggy’ or ‘whitey’ or ‘kill the piggies,’ something along that line.” Beausoleil also dipped his hand in Hinman’s blood and, using his palm, made a paw print on the wall; the plan was “to push the blame onto the Black Panthers,” who used the paw print as their symbol. Then they hot-wired Hinman’s Volkswagen microbus and his Fiat station wagon and drove both back to Spahn Ranch, where Beausoleil bragged about his exploits to DeCarlo.

Later, apparently fearful that the palm print might be identifiable, Beausoleil returned to the Hinman residence and attempted, unsuccessfully, to wipe it off the wall. This was several days after Hinman’s death, and Beausoleil later told DeCarlo that he “could hear the maggots eating away on Gary.”

As killers, they had been decidedly amateurish. Not only was the palm print identifiable, so was a latent fingerprint Beausoleil had left in the kitchen.


starviego said...

Ziggy,

Thank you for the clarification. However, Bugs doesn't give a source for his claim:

"Beausoleil also dipped his hand in Hinman’s blood and, using his palm, made a paw print on the wall"

How did he know this?

"Not only was the palm print identifiable..."

As far as I am aware, the palm 'print' was never used as evidence against BB in court. It was the fingerprint left on a door post that got him. This leads me to believe there never was any 'palm print.'

But if you're info is better, I'd like to hear it.

Anonymous said...


The implied source in the first paragraph is Danny DeCarlo - "DeCarlo went on".

A palm print was used as evidence against BB in court. Whether it was from the bloody Panther paw or not, I can't tell you with any certainty. It's possible that Bugliosi/Gentry mislead the reader in HS (from CieloDrive.com):

Link to Beausoleil trial transcript


Q: What portion of the hand or palm or fingers does that represent?

A: It represents a portion of this section of the right palm.

Q: You are indicating the right palm there over by the little finger.

A: That is correct, beneath the little finger.

Q: How many points of comparison do you have there?

A: There are in excess of 35 on this one.

Q: They are just numbered 1 through 12 there. What does that indicate?

A: Usually we feel that on a palm impression, two is satisfactory for a positive identification.

Q: By positive identification, what do you mean?

A: That means that there would be no question that both were made by the same person.

Q: I have heard about fingerprints being the same or different on all people. Is this true of other prints on the hand?

A: Absolutely.

Q: In that one, you said you counted in excess of 35.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is there any question that they were made by one and the same person?

A: There is no doubt in my mind.
"

starviego said...

OpenID ziggyosterberg said...
A palm print was used as evidence against BB in court. Whether it was from the bloody Panther paw or not, I can't tell you with any certainty.

Thank you for the link. I did notice the location of this palm print is not named. Actually, it's never made clear that this print even belonged to BB, as I read it.

Whenever I read of the physical evidence against Beausoleil at the crime scene, it was the fingerprint on the door frame is what nailed him.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Beausoleil changed his tune again?

Perhaps what I should have said was that Bobby said he had no specific knowledge that Gary knew any Panthers and kind of veers between saying he was not shifting the blame one particular way and something else:

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: So, you're saying Hinman was involved with the Black Panthers?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know specifically that he was involved with Black Panthers. As I said, he was involved with radical groups at UCLA, which usually, at that time, included members of the Black Panther party.


In the same hearing you've quoted from, he says:
PRESIDING COMMISSIONER ANDERSON: And why was there writing on the wall for?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: It was an attempt to, to throw the police off the trail, to make it look like it was one of Hinman's revolutionary cohorts.

ANDERSON: Being who? What revolutionary cohorts?

BEAUSOLEIL: Well, I don't know what, who his cohorts were. I just knew that he had affiliations with radical groups at UCLA, so I tried to make it look, you know.....like it was something political

and later on :
DDA SEQUEIRA: Earlier during the hearing the inmate mentioned that they staged the crime scene to look like it may have involved Mr. Hinman's radical associations. What radical associations was the inmate referring to?

BEAUSOLEIL: I've already answered that question, Mr Sequeira.

SEQUEIRA: Which group?

BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know. You know, I answered that question as to the best of my knowledge, was that he hung out with radicals at UCLA.

SEQUEIRA: And what particular radical group were you referring to?

BEAUSOLEIL: I don't know, sir. I don't know.

SEQUEIRA: Why was..

BEAUSOLEIL: It was, you know..I knew very little about Mr Hinman and his associations with other people.

SEQUEIRA: Why did the inmate put a Black Panther paw print in Mr Hinman's blood on the wall?

BEAUSOLEIL: I already answered that question as well...for the same reason. I answered that question.

SEQUEIRA: What was the answer.
ANDERSON: He said he didn't know

and even later still:
DDA SEQUEIRA: Was it the inmate's intention to blame the murder on the Black Panther Party?

BEAUSOLEIL: Not specifically, no. I did want to make it look like it might have been someone else. I did want to try to make it look like, you know, try to disguise my own trail, you know. And it didn't make any sense. You know, it was stupid

grimtraveller said...

Then after saying that he wasn't trying to blame the murder on the Panthers, this exchange takes place:

SEQUEIRA: When you were arrested by the police in Mr Hinman's car, what did you tell the police as to how you got the car?

BEAUSOLEIL: I told him...I told him, I think, I bought it from someone.

SEQUEIRA: From whom?

BEAUSOLEIL: To be honest with you, I don't remember.

SEQUEIRA: Did the inmate tell the police when he was arrested in Mr Hinman's car that he bought it from a Black man?

BEAUSOLEIL: Oh, that's possible, yes.

SEQUEIRA: And why would the inmate tell the police that he bought it from a Black man?

BEAUSOLEIL: Possibly for the same reason that I tried to make it look like it was a Black Panther..the Black Panther Party was..had problems with Gary


It makes me go hot just to read how all those years later Bobby tangles himself like he did back in '69. I can't help feeling sorry for him because he does himself no favours at all.

Anonymous said...


"BEAUSOLEIL: Possibly for the same reason that I tried to make it look like it was a Black Panther..the Black Panther Party was..had problems with Gary."


That's the type of stuff that people read, and then falsely conclude that Gary had problems with the Black Panther Party. And then develop an entire theory based on that false premise. Or use it to support some other bullshit theory.

starviego said...


Interestingly, the 'using a palm to put the writing on the wall' claim was first made in the TLB case:

CharlesMansonFBIReportFull pg14of64
Aug 11, 1969 newapaper article
In the latest murders(LaBianca), the killer dipped a hand in his victims' blood and smeared the words "death to pigs" in foot-high print across the living room wall. Police said the killer used the heel of his hand apparently in an effort not to leave any fingerprints.
The same method was used on the earlier murders. On the door of Sharon's home--smeared in the blood by the heel of a hand--was the word "pig."

However, I don't remember any 'palm' prints from Atkins and/or Krenwinkle(who admitted doing the writing) found at the TLB scenes being used against them in the trial, How could BB's palm print have survived with a 35 point match even after being wiped down, yet there were no prints being lifted from the bloody writing on the wall at the other scenes?

I am getting the feeling the cops just made up this whole 'palm print in blood' meme.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

Interestingly, the 'using a palm to put the writing on the wall' claim was first made in the TLB case

Maybe so, but look when it was made and who it was made by:
Aug 11, 1969 newspaper article

Linda hadn't even fled the ranch on August 11th which shows just how early it was. The LaBiancas had only just been found.

In the latest murders(LaBianca), the killer dipped a hand in his victims' blood and smeared the words "death to pigs" in foot-high print across the living room wall. Police said the killer used the heel of his hand apparently in an effort not to leave any fingerprints.
The same method was used on the earlier murders. On the door of Sharon's home-smeared in the blood by the heel of a hand-was the word "pig."


At this point the cops knew virtually nothing so there was bound to be much speculation. By the time of the first LaBianca report they wrote A ravelled piece of paper was found in the dining room, stained with blood and frayed on one end, indicating the paper was probably used as the instrument to print the above words.

The papers wrote a lot of stuff that was in retrospect false, misleading and/or speculative.

However, I don't remember any 'palm' prints from Atkins and/or Krenwinkle(who admitted doing the writing) found at the TLB scenes being used against them in the trial

None were, but when Atkins told all to her cellmates, she mentioned leaving a palm print and because the police hadn't found it, that was why she concluded they weren't much cop {pun intended} which was how she got to talking to Virginia Graham about her involvement in the murders in the first place.
Krenwinkel didn't need a palm print to be used against her even if there had been one, for obvious reasons.....

How could BB's palm print have survived with a 35 point match even after being wiped down

If you mean the bloody one, because the heat over a few days had baked the blood solid. If you mean just his regular palm print, obviously it was missed during the grand Brunner wipedown.

I am getting the feeling the cops just made up this whole 'palm print in blood' meme

Think about that logically, Star. That could be a potentially disastrous move if they were called out and found to be lying.

starviego said...

"At this point the cops knew virtually nothing so there was bound to be much speculation."

I doubt very much that the news media would have just made this factoid up. The quote must have come from some police or investigatory source. It would be interesting to see how widely this bit about 'palm prints in blood' was reported, or if anybody cited a source.

So then Bugliosi makes the same claim years later in his book, but still doesn't cite any sources.

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

I doubt very much that the news media would have just made this factoid up. The quote must have come from some police or investigatory source

Actually the news media reported a number of things that were inaccurate precisely because there was nothing forthcoming from the Police. So certain things by certain rags were sensationalized, like the baby being cut out of the womb or Sharon Tate's breasts being cut off. On the other hand, the odd leaked statement would also have made its way into the paper.

It would be interesting to see how widely this bit about 'palm prints in blood' was reported, or if anybody cited a source

An interesting snippet from Bobby's first trial with Paul Whitley as the witness:

Q:Back to the house again for a moment-and I show you Exhibit number 16 showing the area inside of the location where the words "political piggy" are written on wall there-did you take a pretty good look at that?

A:Yes, I did. Can I correct you, by the way? That is "politically piggy."

Q:It didn't come out too well on these. What does it say?

A:It is "politically piggy."

Q:There is a Y on there?

A:There is another L and Y.

Q:I see.

A:They are very faint.

Q:They didn't come out too well on this photograph?

A:That is correct.

Q:What was the amount of blood there, large or small?

A:Very small.

Q:Did it appear to be put on by a finger?

A:I really couldn't tell. I couldn't tell if it was a finger.


Nothing from the trial incriminating Bobby came from the bloody paw print. They did find his fingerprint and part of his palm print elsewhere though. Bobby's lawyer Salter, made a really good point though in the original trial when he tried to get the case thrown out. He pointed out that actually, there was nothing with which the prosecution even tried to tie Bobby to the murder. It was the article in one paper about Susan Atkins and the emergence of Danny DeCarlo that turned this case on its head. I think Bobby would have been acquitted otherwise. The things that pointed to his guilt weren't leaned on at all.

David said...

I was always intrigued by him and the police protection/ attention he received for a short time

Witold K, outflanked by Bobby !

The Surf Bat said...

Interesting that actor Ben Carruthers was at the party. He was close friends with John Cassavetes, who used him in the movies he directed and I believe got him the role in "The Dirty Dozen". As is well known, Cassavetes and Polanski despised one another due to the "Rosemary's Baby" experience.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 335 of 335   Newer› Newest»