Monday, March 18, 2019

Movie: Charlie Says

Opening in theaters May 10 and VOD May 17

Charlie Says is a 2018 drama film directed by Mary Harron and starring Matt Smith as infamous killer Charles Manson.

It had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival on September 2, 2018. It is scheduled to be released on May 10, 2019, by IFC Films.



Thanks to Amy for the tip...

59 comments:

Goo said...

Something different! This may actually be worthwhile viewing.

cielodrivecom said...

Gilly!

grimtraveller said...

Ha ha, from Dr Who to Prince Philip to Charles Manson. That's the versatility of the actor that knows how to guard against being typecast !
Unlike the characters he played in those three instances....

Doug Smith said...

For some of you who may not know much about Karlene Faith's backstory and, her life achievements (aside from her MF/LVH related work), here is an obit from a British Columbia Writer's Page written by her sister. I went to Simon Fraser University (SFU) during the time Karleen taught there but didn't take classes that she taught. However, I was friends with her youngest daughter (at one point we were a couple) and, I got to know quite a bit about the depth and breadth of her life's work as an advocate and, as a feminist - with regards to gender and class inequality both in society and, in a variety of institutional settings.

Have a look if you'd like to get to understand who she was a bit better.

https://bcbooklook.com/2017/07/26/karlene-faith-obituary/

Monica said...

Interesting obit. I'm always fascinated why a woman would want to counsel other women in prison who have perpetrated heinous crimes. To me it feels sad and mama-bearish. (They need to reform without too much kum-buy-ya hand holding IMO) But, Karlene certainly made it her life's work;her research and background are very impressive. I hope the movie paints an honest picture of her.

David said...

The critics seem to be split on the film.

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/charlie-says-review-1202924704/


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/charlie-says-venice-2018-1139256


It also appears that the primary source for the film is Ed Sanders' The Family. He is also listed as an executive producer.

Although the historical accuracy seems a bit off. At 1:31 of the trailer Sharon Tate opens the door at night to Manson. This follows a moment when a car is shown on a secluded road at night. This may be a spin on the Hatami incident, which occurred during the day and was one of the weakest, although creepy, pieces of evidence Bugliosi presented. It may also be placing Manson at the scene of the crime.

Here are couple more clips.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F3jQuBwDdc

We shall see.

Peter said...

I thought somewhere, possibly in Heler Skelter, the idea was floated that Manson may have gone to Cielo and that Sharon encountered him at the front door.

Peter said...

Or maybe she just saw him, or someone with Manson saw her. I cant remember exactly. But the implication was that their was some kind of contact or knowledge of her presence in the house before the murders.

David said...

Peter,

That is the Hatami incident.

I asked Hatami, “What tone of voice did you use?” He illustrated, speaking loudly and angrily. Roman was away, Hatami said, and he felt protective of Sharon. “I wasn’t happy that he was coming on the property, and looking at people he doesn’t know.” How did the man react? He appeared upset, Hatami said; he turned and walked away without saying “excuse me” or anything. Just before this, however, Sharon came to the door and said, “Who is it, Hatami?” Hatami told her that a man was looking for someone.

*****

There could be no question that Charles Manson saw Sharon Tate, and she him. Sharon had undoubtedly looked right into the eyes of the man who would order her death.


Bugliosi, Vincent. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (25th Anniversary Edition) (p. 284). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Peter said...

Got it.

That Bugs sure has a penchant for the overly dramatic. "Sharon had undoubtedly looked right into the eyes of the man who would order her death."

starviego said...

In fairness, it should be noted that Hatami later disavowed that story, saying Bugliosi put him up to it.

Gorodish said...

starviego wrote :

In fairness, it should be noted that Hatami later disavowed that story, saying Bugliosi put him up to it.

I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. While Bugliosi may have "coached" Hatami into dramatizing the event to get a Sharon/Manson connection, there is no doubt in my mind Manson went to Cielo, met Hatami and Altobelli, and felt the sting of rejection from "the beautiful people", therefore filing 10050 Cielo Drive in his mind for a later date.

Gorodish said...

I guess that's supposed to be Tex with short hair and a beard in the preview: 1- Eating with the girls 2-Cocking and aiming a shotgun. 3-Burning his drivers license. 4-Assaulting a hooded man on the floor (Leno Labianca). Also, the girl at 0:17, who apparently plays Krenwinkel, is more of a Dianne Lake lookalike. Oo-ee-oo !

grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

In fairness, it should be noted that Hatami later disavowed that story, saying Bugliosi put him up to it

Except that that is not fair.
Hatami didn't have to disavow the story because it was never established that Manson was the "man" that he and Sharon had seen. Bugliosi assumed it was Manson, based solely on the words of Rudi Altobelli who said that that evening when Manson came to the guest house, he had said that "the people" in the main house had sent him to the guest house. He was then asked who was at the main house and when it was discovered 4 of the 5 victims had been there, it was asked if there was anyone who could verify who had been there. It was then that Altobelli mentioned Hatami. Here's an interesting thing too; Hatami was supposed to verify who exactly had been at the house that evening and Bugliosi never asks him the question so we never get from Hatami whether Abigail, Jay and Wojiciech were also at the house. If you look at Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" account of the incident, not once does he state that Hatami identifies Manson. In fact, it's a superb exercise in assumption because you can see the point where Bugliosi assumes it is Manson being talked about, even though all Hatami did was describe "the man" he'd sent to the house. Sure, it could have been him, but this has never been established and the only person that could is Hatami and he never did. So what Ed Sanders said was, to quote ol' Shakey, much ado about nothing.
When it came to court, Hatami never identified Manson. He said that the guy in the photo of Manson he is shown resembles the guy he'd sent to the guest house. He never saw Manson during the trial. We never knew, either in 1970 or subsequently, whether "the man" he sent to the guest house in the afternoon and Manson were one and the same person. We also have never known which person from the main house sent Charlie to the guest house that evening, as per Rudi Altobelli. Altobelli was sure Manson turned up in the evening. Hatami was sure "the man" turned up in the afternoon. He doesn't mention any of the other 3 victims being there. It's a good bet they weren't because he specifically mentioned that with Roman having travelled, he felt protective of Sharon.
But Hatami couldn't have "later disavowed a statement that he was put up to making" that he never actually made and for which it is in both the court record and the book co~written by the prosecutor that he never made !

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

That Bugs sure has a penchant for the overly dramatic

You said it ! The opening sequence of "Helter Skelter" should have tipped us off to that.
He seems almost disappointed that there wasn't something explosively meaty with the Hatami incident and had to spike with strong drink what was actually rather warm beer.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

Although the historical accuracy seems a bit off

Earwig.

grimtraveller said...

'Ere we go again.

Doug Smith said...

Grim said - "If you look at Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" account of the incident, not once does he state that Hatami identifies Manson. In fact, it's a superb exercise in assumption because you can see the point where Bugliosi assumes it is Manson being talked about, even though all Hatami did was describe "the man" he'd sent to the house. Sure, it could have been him, but this has never been established and the only person that could is Hatami and he never did."

Sounds like effective lawyerin to me. If Vince was a master at one particular "skill/technique" it was this ability to weave bits of evidence and, related/unrelated statements into arguments that were often no more than "a superb exercise in assumption."

Ultimately, his ability to have the jury and, a majority of society buy his motive and the supporting facts that would make HS believable enough to convict...not too shabby...in some respects Vince and Charlie were quite similar

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"But Hatami couldn't have "later disavowed a statement that he was put up to making" that he never actually made and for which it is in both the court record and the book co~written by the prosecutor that he never made !"

OK then, why does everybody keep claiming that Hatami was there and made that statement?

Peter said...

I'm just going to leave this here.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/movies/a26872489/charles-manson-movies-tv-shows-documentaries/

Peter said...

Grim is right,

If you go to the transcript, the reason Hatami doesn't identify Manson, is because Manson - when presented with the opportunity to confront the witness by the judge - declines to be present in the courtroom during Hatami's testimony. During a sidebar, Bugliosi admits that he showed Hatami the "Family Album" months ago, and he thinks Hatami identified Manson as the time.

Peter said...

But later, Hatami identifies a photograph of Manson as the person who came to the house.

"This one has the closest resemblance, but the man did not have a beard.... Not the hair so much back, but long hair. Not pulled back. But that kind of clean face around the eyes."

Peter said...

But he also admits that he had seen the LIFE magazine cover photo of Manson.

orwhut said...

If Vince and the family's attorneys had argued points as tenaciously as some members of this group, the case would still be in court.

Milly James said...

Hi Doug, sorry to be off topic, but you've previously mentioned a musical background. Are you THE Doug Smith. No sleep til Hammersmith etc?

Cielodrive.com said...

Star, the reason everyone thinks Hatami said that is because Vince was smart enough to always present Hatami's and Altobelli's accounts together. Hatami describes a man fitting Manson's description, then Altobelli describes Manson actually coming to the guest house. Vince allowed yours and everyone else's brains to do the rest.

DebS said...

Peter said...

That Bugs sure has a penchant for the overly dramatic.
------------

Yes, Peter, even in death. The epitaph on his headstone reads:

In the eyes of the world

The great majority of men are

Neither indispensable nor irreplaceable

A small minority are irreplaceable

But not indispensable

Our muched loved husband and father was both

Forever enshrining him in the rarefied

Pantheon of greats

Let my work speak for me

Doug Smith said...

Milly - Motorhead, Hawkwind, Deviants, Girlschool, Tank, etc manager?

I've met him and when I was 15.5 in '81 I got ripping drunk with him and Lemmy and Brian Robertson after a Motorhead gig. We have many mutual associates too...but, not me.

Nice catch though.

I am in Vancouver Canada and, not the UK. Interestingly enough is that a few of the musicians he managed from these bands ended up retiring near me and, I cross paths with them in the "real world"

Cheers

Peter said...

The great majority of men are
Neither indispensable nor irreplaceable
A small minority are irreplaceable
But not indispensable
A small minority are indispensable
But not irreplaceable
Those that are indespensable are never irreplaceable
Those that are irreplaceable are never indespensable.
Separately they make up only a small minority
Together they make up a great majority
A majority of those that are indispensable would also be irreplaceable had they not already been indispensable
But only a minority of those that are irreplaceable be indispensable

Let my works speak for me.


O

David said...

Cielodrive said: "Vince was smart enough to always present Hatami's and Altobelli's accounts together......Vince allowed yours and everyone else's brains to do the rest."

Bingo!

Note the order of the witnesses, Vol 133: Hatami followed by Altobelli.

Pretty damn fine lawyering.

Milly James said...

Doug - that's Artic enough! Love Vancouver. And the islands. My claim to fame is meeting John Wayne on Quadra. Cheers!

Milly James said...

An anti-terrorism joke for you: No point blowing youself up son. Lemmy's passed so there are no virgins left in heaven.

grimtraveller said...

Peter said...

But he also admits that he had seen the LIFE magazine cover photo of Manson

Which is, in itself, interesting. He couldn't identify Manson despite this.

Bugliosi admits that he showed Hatami the "Family Album" months ago, and he thinks Hatami identified Manson as the time

Naughty Vince. His book is notable {well, it is now !} for the absence of any identification of Charlie by Hatami.
At one point in the trial, Charlie wanted to confront Hatami but the judge pointed out that Hatami hadn't positively identified him and he'd be putting himself in possible trouble if he came out and Hatami said he was "the man." As far as the jury was concerned, there was no evidence that "the creepy looking guy" and Manson were the same. So Manson relented.
I made this point a while ago, that both Bugliosi and Manson were possibly fortunate that the confrontation didn't take place. Manson, because Hatami might've recognized him and said, "Ah yes, that is him," Bugliosi because Hatami might have been positive and said "Ah no, that is not him."

Doug Smith said...

Ultimately, his ability to have the jury and, a majority of society buy his motive and the supporting facts that would make HS believable enough to convict...

I'm often curious how Gregg Jakobson's testimony never gets him any flak regarding HS but that of Watkins and Poston gets them heaps, Bugliosi gets it in spades and people just say Van Houten was trying to get off as crazy with hers to Marvin Part. Forget Bugliosi, Jakobson's is cyclone standard.

in some respects Vince and Charlie were quite similar

Yeah, both born in 1934, both found their way to LA though neither was native to the city, both died mid way~ish through the same decade, both are remembered primarily for their effective usage of Helter Skelter though they'd rather be remembered for other things......

orwhut said...

If Vince and the family's attorneys had argued points as tenaciously as some members of this group, the case would still be in court

My 2nd favourite statement anywhere thus far in 2019.

grimtraveller said...

Hatami was supposed to verify who exactly had been at the house that evening and Bugliosi never asks him the question so we never get from Hatami whether Abigail, Jay and Wojiciech were also at the house

In the book that is. He does ask the question during the trial.

He doesn't mention any of the other 3 victims being there

Although he does during he trial. He says they came along later in the afternoon though he couldn't recall exactly when. It was after "the man" appeared and left, though.



grimtraveller said...

starviego said...

OK then, why does everybody keep claiming that Hatami was there and made that statement?

The issue isn't whether Hatami was there or not. He was. Actually, it was pure chance that he came out with his story because Bugliosi was supposed to enquiring whether 4 of the 5 victims were at the house that evening that Manson did come. Altobelli establishes Manson being there and also Manson saying that the "people at the house" had sent him to the guest house. Rudi thought he'd seen Hatami earlier that evening so he mentioned that he was sure he'd been there and could possibly verify that the victims had been there that day. That's how Bugliosi came to look for and talk to Hatami.
All the stuff about Hatami's not recalling this and that years later comes from Ed Sanders in his book on Sharon. Given that that very section contains sentences like "Since Gregg Jakobson, a close friend of Melcher, testified at Manson's trial that they were recording Manson while the Family was still at the house on Gresham Street" {he never says Melcher recorded Charlie, let alone at Gresham} and "In an interview with Mr Hatami while researching this book, Hatami told me he has no memory at all of Manson coming to the front door of Cielo Drive, but that the memory was suggested to him by an investigator named Reeve Whitson, who worked for both Colonel Paul Tate and the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Under this pressure, recalled Hatami, he went ahead and testified at the trial that Manson had, in fact, come to the front door, that March day - something he continues not to recall" {He said the opposite on the stand, that "the man" didn't come to the front door}, it's pretty clear that Ed is making something out of nothing ~ rather similar to the way in his closing argument, Vincent T stated that Sharon looked into the face of Charlie ~ and no one picked him up on it, even though no evidence had been produced of such a happening.
It's rather interesting that Manson's height in Police photographs is around 5ft 6 or 7". Hatami said he was 175cm which is 5ft 8-ish and he also said the man came up to his chin.
I think people continue to say Hatami made that statement because in the eagerness to blow holes in the case and show Bugliosi to be crooked in some way, shape or form, the information staring one in the face isn't always read correctly. I happen to think the prosecution case was right, by and large {some of the minutiae was faulty}, yet I find, 40, 30, 20 years on that there have been things I've assumed, just through not reading one word of a phrase or sentence or quote which has entirely altered my understanding of what the particular sentence actually says. The entire Hatami episode was a good example of that. There's a thread from around early 2016 about Sanders' book in which one can see it unfold.

Doug Smith said...

Milly - awesome! Quadra is cool. I had the pleasure of playing a few of the islands in the 80s and 90s. So much fun. Once with the legendary DOA. You'd feel a real sense of community and, appreciation for the musicians - regardless of the community member's own personal tastes...and, folks from 3yrs old to 93 yrs old dancing together.

PS - Did/do you live here? I kinda thought you lived in the UK

Doug Smith said...

Grim said "Vincent T stated that Sharon looked into the face of Charlie"

Could this be in an abstract way...like, via Tex, Pat and Sadie as they brutalized her and the others? Or, even deeper as in the oft mentioned "I am you/mirror-we are all Charlie" kind of way?

And, David said, "Pretty damn fine lawyering"

Yep

Peter said...

I think Bug means literally looked in Manson's face. He asks Hatami how long she was on the porch, how far away she was from Manson and if it was possible they saw each other.

grimtraveller said...

Doug Smith said...

Grim said "Vincent T stated that Sharon looked into the face of Charlie"

Could this be in an abstract way...like, via Tex, Pat and Sadie as they brutalized her and the others? Or, even deeper as in the oft mentioned "I am you/mirror-we are all Charlie" kind of way?


Nah. He meant it as a literal, historical, actual happening.
Buglosi jumped on certain things that made for good drama but weren't particularly important to the mechanics of the case, like his timeline dramas or the Cielo Hatami incident. While it's true that Bugliosi placed Hatami and Altobelli's testimony back to back, it's equally true that he stated blatantly that the Sharon/Manson look happened. I shouldn't be, but I am surprised that no one picked him up on it while belting out that it assumed facts not in evidence !
I noted that during the long argument at the bench or in chambers about Hatami, Bugliosi could not say "Yes, he positively identified Manson." He danced around it every which way and even the judge in the end was critical of him.
But it was all much of a muchness.

starviego said...

My gut feeling is that Altobelli was a bit of an opportunistic snake. I can see him offering to perjure himself to Bugliosi, just to ingratiate himself with the DA's office.

AstroCreep said...

I hope we’re not going down the old ‘Bugs framed them and invented Helter Skelter’ road... again.

Bugs presented as much info as he possibly could. I’ve always felt this story is plausible as even the killers themselves said that Charlie selected 10050 because he was familiar with the layout of the property, as was Tex.

I also think ‘the man’ being described as ‘creepy’ also makes the inference of it having been Charlie more plausible. To describe ‘the man’ as long haired could have been half of LA at that time.

Bugs had a job to do. His job was to secure a conviction for the people of Los Angeles. His job wasn’t to present underwhelming, non dramatic, and plain information. It was to secure a conviction (which he did) and I think he was brilliant for his ‘death by 1000 cuts’ approach. It worked.

christopher butche said...

. In his 1992 autobiography, “What’s It All About?,” Michael Caine, no hippie to be sure, recalled being introduced to a “scruffy little man” named Charles Manson at a party at Cass Elliot’s house. (Also in attendance: future Manson family victims Sharon Tate and Jay Sebring, the celebrity hairstylist). From NY Times.

Peter said...

Perjury in a capital case is itself a capital offence. As I would assume suborning perjury would be. I doubt either Altobelli or Bugliosi would skate along that edge over such a trivial piece of evidence.

David said...

Peter said: "Perjury in a capital case is itself a capital offence."

Not exactly. The law is over there to the right: http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/The%20Law.

It is only a capital offense if the defendant is executed and your perjury led to the execution.

Milly James said...

I've just borrowed that book. Haven't read it. Will report back.

Milly James said...

Thank goodness we don't have execution in the UK. I understand that people like me, never brought up with it, are more 'anti' than those who take it for granted that it is part of the justice system.

Milly James said...

Bobbed about a bit Doug.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

It is only a capital offense if the defendant is executed and your perjury led to the execution

True, but that kind of highlights the thrust of Peter's point. This was a case in which the DA's office was going for the death penalty and that was known from the start. So any perjury leading to Manson's execution would risk becoming a capital offence. Therefore, with
starviego said...

My gut feeling is that Altobelli was a bit of an opportunistic snake. I can see him offering to perjure himself to Bugliosi, just to ingratiate himself with the DA's office


in mind, for Altobelli and Bugliosi to perjure themselves over the Hatami incident would be little short of insane. To put it another way, it is totally irrelevant to the case whether that information is there or not. It does not add to the case against the 4 defendants and it's absence would not have weakened the case.

AstroCreep said...

Bugs presented as much info as he possibly could...I think he was brilliant for his ‘death by 1000 cuts’ approach

Agreed. He made well and sure that each one of the defendants was stitched and sewn tightly from every possible angle. Mind you, he was only able to do that because the defendants themselves provided the masses of needle and thread. They left themselves so wide open from so many directions that Bugliosi had the luxury of being able to leave out some stuff and they still sutchered themselves.
That said, I think he did emphasize some things that simply weren't important. They made for good drama though and juries are human ~ we respond to drama.

I also think ‘the man’ being described as ‘creepy’ also makes the inference of it having been Charlie more plausible

I have no doubt that it could have been Charlie. I also don't dismiss that it might not have been him ! Thing is, Sharon described the man as 'creepy' and Rudi doesn't appear to have elaborated as to whether it was Charlie that Sharon may have been talking about.

To describe ‘the man’ as long haired could have been half of LA at that time

That's the difficulty. To Hatami, the photos he saw of Manson were the closest resemblence to "the man" but he only said he resembled him, not that it was him. And as Ed points out, to this day he has no recollection of ever having seen Manson at Cielo.

Bugs had a job to do. His job was to secure a conviction for the people of Los Angeles. His job wasn’t to present underwhelming, non dramatic, and plain information. It was to secure a conviction (which he did) and...it worked

Even Charlie had to acknowledge that Bugliosi did a fantastic job in convicting him. Among the more fascinating elements of Bugliosi & Gentry's book are those conversations that Bugliosi and Manson had during the trial. I believe them because Manson has said so many things that jibe with what he is supposed to have said to Vincent T.
One of the real eye openers comes from their first conversation where Manson asks why Bugliosi thought he was guilty. That's so Charlie. Vincent T couldn't just present plain bland facts because Charlie wasn't a plain bland criminal.
George Stimson often presents the view that because the murders were seen as so bizarre, it was felt there had to be weird motives and people attached to it but the whole case was arcane.



Peter said...

But at the time, there was a very real possibility that the defendants would be executed. You're never going to know for certain if the execution is going to take place when your testifying during the trial. But you would certainly have to budget for it if you're going to take that chance.

starviego said...

I don't think Altobelli would have feared perjury charges. How would you prove Altobelli perjured himself? The only living witness to his ID of Charlie is Charlie, and who's going to believe him? Realistically, Altobelli had nothing to fear from that quarter.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
"... it is totally irrelevant to the case whether that information is there or not. It does not add to the case against the 4 defendants and it's absence would not have weakened the case."

Au Contraire, my friend! Putting Charlie on the grounds provided the answer to the crucial question of why he chose that house to attack(he was familiar with the layout). If you don't have that, then you would have to look for other motives.

Anyway Bugs knew that Charlie had been to the house (via Deanna Martin and Terry Melcher) but I suspect he was ordered to minimize the Hollywood connection, so he felt justified in 'suggesting' this alternative scenario. It may also explain why the defense attorneys didn't challenge Bugs on that.

David said...

Starviego said: "Putting Charlie on the grounds provided the answer to the crucial question of why he chose that house to attack(he was familiar with the layout)."

I have to take exception to that. As you point out he had enough evidence from other sources that Manson had been there, (perhaps even inside the house). What he wanted was the same thing he wanted from the Ireland testimony (hence his obsession with the timeline), "Sadie Make It Stop", "I have no mercy for you bitch", etc. He was trying a death penalty case he wanted exactly what he stated as fact in his book (it did not go as well in the trial).

He wanted the jury to believe Sharon Tate looked into the eyes of the man who ordered her murder. More importantly he wanted Manson looking in to her eyes to show how little regard he had for her life.

From a conviction perspective the incident adds nothing, as Grim stated. But a death penalty requires that something more.

My comment about the law on perjury was not intended to disagree with Peter's comment. his comments are absolutely correct. It was made by me because that concept "perjury in a capital case is a capital offense" is not what the law states.

grimtraveller said...

David said...

My comment about the law on perjury was not intended to disagree with Peter's comment. His comments are absolutely correct. It was made by me because that concept "perjury in a capital case is a capital offense" is not what the law states

I know ~ and I'm glad you brought that up. Loads of people lie in all kinds of cases but how often does someone's lies lead to the death of the accused ?

starviego said...

Au Contraire, my friend!

I saw what you did there !! 😱

Putting Charlie on the grounds provided the answer to the crucial question of why he chose that house to attack(he was familiar with the layout)

The Terry Melcher connection alone, plus the stuff purported to happen over the music {including Gregg Jakobson testifying that Charlie told him he'd nicked Melcher's telescope from his new pad}, does that.
The following night, he picked out a random car and a number of places to hit, none of which needed any previous encounters on his part. Specific motivations weren't important to Bugliosi's case in terms of convicting the perps.

If you don't have that, then you would have to look for other motives

No reason was ever given for why the LaBianca house was selected but the house, the householders and the area the house was in fell nicely into all of the motives.
When AstroCreep mentioned a while back, 'death by 1000 cuts,' the motives presented {there were 5 ~ 4 of them Charlie's} were part of that and gave Manson pretty much no wiggle room. Where it may not be HS, it's an extreme anti-establishment frame of mind. Where it's not that it's a lust for violent death. Where it isn't that it's a hitback against society's pigs etc.

Anyway Bugs knew that Charlie had been to the house (via Deanna Martin and Terry Melcher)

It was no secret that Charlie had been to the house. Susan Atkins had told the Grand Jury that Tex mentioned that he and Charlie had been there. In fact, the whole newspaper reading world knew it because it was in her LA Times "2 nights of murder" story back in 1969.

but I suspect he was ordered to minimize the Hollywood connection, so he felt justified in 'suggesting' this alternative scenario

How can a Hollywood connection be minimized when one of the victims was a Hollywood actress and one of them was a major hair stylist to the stars ?
But even if one chooses to bite, what Hollywood connections were smoothed over ? What "connections" existed between anyone of that ilk that had anything whatsoever to do with the 7 murders that weekend ?

Realistically, Altobelli had nothing to fear from that quarter

I don't think "law abiding citizens" with plenty to lose think that way and where they may do so, it generally stays within their heads rather than something they'd actively pursue. People used to butting heads with the police and other law enforcement agencies and who have scant value for the lives of those they want to mess up, might.

starviego said...

grimtraveller said...
The following night, he picked out a random car and a number of places to hit...

I suspect that was all deflection. They, after all, weren't hit.

No reason was ever given for why the LaBianca house was selected ....

Isn't it part of the conventional wisdom that the Waverly house was chosen because Charlie knew the area?

It was no secret that Charlie had been to the house. Susan Atkins had told the Grand Jury that Tex mentioned that he and Charlie had been there. In fact, the whole newspaper reading world knew it because it was in her LA Times "2 nights of murder" story back in 1969.

Bugs could not have used any of that evidence in the trial. He had to get the info to the jury in another way.

How can a Hollywood connection be minimized when one of the victims was a Hollywood actress and one of them was a major hair stylist to the stars ?
But even if one chooses to bite, what Hollywood connections were smoothed over?


I think the local Powers That Be weren't comfortable mixing the names "Doris Day" and "Dean Martin" and "Charlie Manson" in the same breath. Dino had a hit prime-time show on NBC at the time, and nobody was happy with the prospect of ratings points being shaved. In a company town, you don't mess with The Brand.

grimtraveller said...

Charlie Says is a 2018 drama film directed by Mary Harron

I wonder if having a female director will have a significant impact

starviego said...

I suspect that was all deflection. They, after all, weren't hit

That's rather missing the point. Your original remark was about reasons for choosing a location.

Isn't it part of the conventional wisdom that the Waverly house was chosen because Charlie knew the area?

And what of all the other houses ?
I think the reasons that David gave for the inclusion of the "Hatami call out" are the accurate ones. You seem to be trying to shoehorn in an establishment conspiracy that ultimately leads to the murders being the responsibility of someone other than the people convicted and as is often the case, in order to do so, one has to dance around many houses and open many back doors that only take you to the front entrance.

Bugs could not have used any of that evidence in the trial. He had to get the info to the jury in another way

That's not the point. The point is that the information that Charlie knew and had been to the house and was familiar with the layout was already old, tired, stale news that had been in the public domain for almost a year before Hatami got on the stand. Therefore, it didn't advance the case, nor would its absence detract from the case. As such, Bugliosi's reasons for trying to get it in bear examination.

I think the local Powers That Be weren't comfortable mixing the names "Doris Day" and "Dean Martin" and "Charlie Manson" in the same breath

Yet, that is precisely what happened because their children were witnesses in the cases against the murderers.

beauders said...

I wonder if Bugliosi’s mistress felt this way about him after he beat the crap out of her because she didn’t want to have an abortion or the milkman and his family who he terrorized believing the man had fathered Vince Jr. I wonder if Bugliosi ever went to a shrink, those files would be interesting reading if they exist.

beauders said...

For those not on a phone my comment above is a response to what was written on Buglios’s grave stone.

grimtraveller said...

Monica said...

I'm always fascinated why a woman would want to counsel other women in prison who have perpetrated heinous crimes

Some people don't want to consign another human being to the eternal rubbish dump, in spite of what they've done. They see people as being of intrinsic worth and if you have a 20 year old that might live to be 100, if that person can be turned around and acknowledge the errors of their ways, all the better than 80 years of negativity.

To me it feels sad and mama-bearish

I'm all for Mama bears. They make sure everyone gets good tasting porridge that's not going to scorch their mouths !

They need to reform without too much kum-buy-ya hand holding IMO

Sometimes, it's that kum-buy-ya hand holding that brings the need for reform into sharp focus. It also supports the offender, knowing that someone is there to help them through some of those difficult stages.

beauders said...

my comment above is a response to what was written on Buglios’s grave stone

Did Bugliosi choose the gravestone and did his family have no say in whether or not to have that stuff on it ?

AustinAnn74 said...

Hmmmm? A movie intended to show the girls as victims too? That's laughable, but in this day & age of feminism & the constant victimhood mentality, not surprising. The true victims, other than the people murdered were the families left behind in the wake. How much pain the Manson Family caused is beyond our understanding.

beauders said...

Knowing Bugliosi's ego I think he probably wrote it out himself, but of course I don't know for sure.