Monday, July 22, 2019

What Linda Kasabian Read

Linda Kasabian was a very good witness. Before every trial I tell my witnesses several things: tell the truth, treat the judge like Christ, don’t argue with opposing counsel, and answer only the question you are asked. Listen to the question and answer only that. After I do that I pick some recent event like a football game and say to the client something like ‘Hey, did you see that catch last night?’ Invariably they will respond ‘Wasn’t that an amazing catch?’ I will then respond ‘That’s not what I asked you.’ And to her credit, Kasabian is a very, very good witness in this regard. 

Here is what she said under the less than scintillating cross examination of Daye Shinn. 

Remember, most of what Kasabian read or saw before December 5, 1969 is irrelevant. Until Susan Atkins testifies before the Grand Jury almost everything she read was, factually inaccurate, and not likely to have had any impact on her testimony. 

If we assume Kasabian was either coached or picked up her story from the official narrative that narrative does not exist until Susan Atkins testifies before the Grand Jury or her story makes it into the press. We can quibble on when Atkins told Bugliosi her tale but as a practical matter until that story comes to light there is very little to fill in those missing memory jigsaw pieces.

Q (Shinn): Now, before you talked to anyone about this, did you read about these two events in the newspaper?
A (Kasabian): No, I don’t think so.
Q: You did not read about it in the newspapers, in New Mexico or Miami or Boston?
A: Oh, yeah, when I was in Miami I saw something about Sharon Tate.
Q: Did you read it?
A: Yes, I think I did.
Q: Were there any pictures in the newspaper?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you look at the pictures very closely?
A: It was just a picture of Sharon Tate when she was pregnant.
Q: Did it show pictures of the house?
A: No, just Miss Tate.
Q: Did you see this on TV?
A: No.
Q: Did you not see these events on television?
A: When I was at the ranch?
Q: At any time.
A: When I was at the ranch I did, yes.
Q: And what did you observe on TV as to the Tate incident?
A: Just their names and faces.
Q: Did it show the house?
A: It probably did, yes.
Q: Now, do you recall what part of the house they showed?
A: No.
Q: Is that the only time you saw it on television?
A: Yes.
Q: And you did not see it on television any other place?
A: No, no.
Q: How about magazines, did you read about this in magazines?
A: Yes, just before I turned myself in.
Q: What magazine was that?
A: Life or Look,
Q: Is that the edition where it had Charlie’s picture on the front?
A: No, it was just a small article and it had a small picture of Miss Tate.
All I remember is that they thought it had something to do with homosexual killing, or something.
Q: And is it your testimony that is all the news you read about?
A: Yes.
Q: About these two incidents?
A: Yes.
Q: only the two items?
A: Yeah.
Q: Are you sure or you don’t remember?
A: I think I’m pretty sure, yes. 

(Testimony of Linda Kasabian,

We thus have three occasions where Kasabian admits seeing something about this crime.

1.    The TV the day following the Tate murders.
2.    Something she read in Life or Look magazine that had a small image of Sharon Tate and discussed a ‘homosexual’ angle to the case shortly before she turned herself in.
3.    Something she read in Miami Florida that had an image of a pregnant Sharon Tate.  

[Aside: There is a fourth media exposure identified by her mother when her mother showed her the headline of a newspaper that indicated she was being sought by the authorities after her indictment. Kasabian in that same article responded that she had heard the news on the radio. Mother Tells How Linda Kasabian Changed, San Antonio Express, August 30, 1970.) 

TV The Morning After

We know the killers and others watched the news the morning following the Cielo Drive murders. We don’ know which channel or what they watched. At that point no one reported anything of substance about the crime so it is highly unlikely that would have had any significant impact on her later testimony.

Life or Look Magazine Before She Turned Herself In

The article she describes appeared in Life Magazine, November 7, 1969. It is set forth below. There is nothing in the article that could have influenced her testimony because, again, the ‘facts’ discussed in the piece predate the Grand Jury and are inaccurate. There is only one image and as she testified that is a very small image of Sharon Tate. 

Something She Read in Miami

Although the exact dates that Kasabian was in Miami are unclear, she was there sometime after the murders and arrived in New Hampshire (via Boston) before December 1, 1969. 

In an effort to find this article I scoured every newspaper archive I could access from Key West to Tallahassee. This included both the Miami Herald and the Miami News. I looked at every article that mentioned Sharon Tate or any search term I could think up related to Sharon Tate or the murders. I did not find any image of a pregnant Sharon Tate. 

I then shifted to New Mexico and finally California. I chose the former thinking she got the location wrong and the later because it has the most articles and any UPI/AP article that I might have been unable to access in Florida I thought would likely show up in California. My search ran from August 8, 1969 until December 5, 1969. These dates, obviously predate the murders and extend past Kasabian’s stay in Florida. 

I found nothing. Now, that does not mean I didn’t miss something and if someone knows about this article I’ll add it. But my search revealed no images of a pregnant Sharon Tate in any newspaper. 

The contemporary images of a pregnant Sharon Tate originate from two sources. One is the film in the camera found at Cielo Drive and taken a few days before the crime (left). The other images, such as the two to the right, were taken by Terry O’Neill in England in early July 1969 shortly before she returned to the United States, arriving in Los Angeles on July 20th. Some sources claim they were taken “days before the murders” or on “August 6, 1969”. That, of course, is nonsense.  

Then I reread Ms. Kasabian’s testimony. Notice Shinn never directly asks her where she saw the image. He should have asked that. This entire line of questioning exists because Shinn has some vague understanding that her testimony could have been influenced by outside sources. Actually, that’s giving him too much credit. What he was trying to create was the impression that Kasabian had read the story of the crimes in the press and made up her testimony. He would have been better served
following the ‘false memory’ chain. 

Q: You did not read about it in the newspapers, in New Mexico or Miami or Boston?
A: Oh, yeah, when I was in Miami I saw something about Sharon Tate.
Q: Did you read it?
A: Yes, I think I did.
Q: Were there any pictures in the newspaper?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you look at the pictures very closely?
A: It was just a picture of Sharon Tate when she was pregnant.


Notice that Shinn assumes it was in a newspaper. All Kasabian does is indicate she saw “something”. Kasabian previously indicated that she had not read the newspapers. But she does say she saw something. said it wasn’t. 

Q: Shinn: Now, before you talked to anyone about this, did you read about these two events in the newspaper?
A: No, I don’t think so. 


I don’t believe it was in the newspaper, in part, because I couldn’t find it and in part because it doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think Terry O’Neill would have turned his photographs over to the daily press. In fact, this is the most frequently appearing image of Sharon Tate at the time which I think tells us something about the press. But he did turn them over to others and that is where I believe Ms. Kasabian saw the image. 

I found two possible sources. Both contain an image of a pregnant Sharon Tate. 

Kasabian previously indicated that she had not read the newspapers. Well, she at least pulls the dodge of saying ‘I don’t think so’. And, to her credit, what she read wasn’t in the newspaper. Shinn is the one who places it there. Kasabian doesn’t do that. 



[Aside: As to the Screenland article since I could not find a complete or readable image of the article. It is set forth in full at the bottom of this post.]

I don’t think Kasabian would have read Screenland, even if she could find it in Miami. But, since she read Life I believe it is likely the Polanski returns to Cielo article is what she saw. After all, she read the other article in Life. The Polanski returns article was joined by Life’s coverage of Woodstock and that may have triggered her interest. 

I believe Kasabian is referring to this Life magazine article about Polanski. But I also don’t think she lied when she said it showed no images of the house. I am aware it does show images of the house.  I believe the only memory of the article that she held onto was the image of a pregnant Sharon Tate, which may have stayed with her because of the shock of realizing/seeing who she actually helped to murder. 

Notice, unlike the other Life article she doesn’t mention the content. Remember she too was pregnant. Given what she had experienced all of that is consistent with how eyewitness memory works. But, if I am right, it does make her testimony, inaccurate on this fine point. 

Another problem with her testimony on this issue is another Shinn problem. Notice he doesn’t set any timeframe. He never bothers to specifically ask her the simple question if she read anything after December 5, 1969 and like a good witness she doesn’t offer anything. 

Pax Vobiscum


Screenland - November 1969 Interview with Sheliah Wells by Marcia Borie

Sharon Tate

"She Was So Generous, So Trusting, She Never Shut Her Door To Anyone."They tell you that Sharon Tate was involved in a sex cult. Or a drug cult. Maybe it was the hippies. Or maybe it was witchcraft. Whatever-the Sharon Tate of the headlines is a little bit lurid and very far out.

But somewhere there was a real Sharon Tate. What happened to her during her years in Hollywood? Why had she ended tragically, so grotesquely? What was Sharon Tate really like? We turned to her closest girlfriend, actress Sheliah Wells, for the answers.

We think this exclusive interview is the truest, most loving thing you'll ever read about Sharon Tate."Sharon Tate was my best friend. Once, we were roommates. She introduced me to my husband. She was the godmother to my baby daughter who is named for her.

"In the six years time that I knew her, she never said an unkind word about anyone. In all the thousands of words that have been printed about her since her death, none really told about my friend - about the Sharon Tate I knew.

We were introduced six years ago by a man who was my agent as well as hers, Hal Gefsky. We got along so well that the first week we met we decided to try and find an apartment together. And that's how it all started - our friendship.

The place we shared was a nice one-bedroom apartment on Clark Drive. It was tastefully decorated in early actress. And there were all these people always dropping in. Sharon really loved being hospitable.

From the beginning, my friends used to tease me. 'How can you wake up in the morning and look at that face of hers?' It was a good question. Sharon was so over overwhelmingly, so incredibly beautiful that anyone not knowing her might think it took a lot to live with such a beauty. But you see that was another thing about Sharon. With all her beauty, everyone loved her. I never heard anyone say a bad word about her, not even another actress. And in this town that's not only a rarity, it's an impossibility!

I think the greatest thing I could say about Sharon was that she was for real. I mean really for real. Like I said, I haven't heard any stories or news reports that tell about Sharon the way she really was. Even I, who loved her, find it hard to say what I mean so that she doesn't come out sounding all spun sugary. Sharon was the type of a girl who had no defenses, no pretenses, she was just herself all the time. Like if a friend said, 'Hey, that brand of toothpaste you're using is no good. It hurts the enamel.' Most people would answer back, 'Well, maybe you think so, but my dentist recommended it, so there.' You know, on the defensive. But if you said the same thing to Sharon, she'd say, 'Oh really? No kidding? Gee, bad for the enamel? Then I guess I'd better change brands.' It was this incredible talent of hers for believing everybody, for being so easily persuaded, that may have eventually done her more harm than good.

She was so trusting, so eager to accept people as they were, so generous. Why, there were times, this past year or so, when a whole bunch of people would be at her house and she'd come up to me and say, 'Hey, I wonder who so and so is.' Just like it wasn't her house and she wasn't entitled to know. Sharon never shut her door to anyone.

Anyway, we shared an apartment for a year. Then Sharon left. For a while she dated Jay Sebring and then she went off to Europe to make a film. She met Roman over there.

You know something funny. I've never seen Sharon on film. I know that sounds strange but I just never did, even as close as we were - or perhaps because we were so close. It's like if a friend said to you, 'I did something yesterday and it wasn't very good, so don't tell.' If you were a close friend, you wouldn't. Well, that's how Sharon felt about her movies. Always she'd tell me, 'Oh, Sheliah, the movie I just made was so awful, don't bother going to see it.' And because I had such love and respect for our friendship, I never did.

As far as Sharon and her relationships with people, she always had a way of finding such goodness in others. If someone hurt her, she'd say, "Oh, Sheliah, I'm sure they didn't mean to.' She'd always make excuses for others. Sharon was just totally loving and also totally vulnerable. She was just a remarkable person, she never gave up on anybody.

Sharon used to say that Wende Wagner and I were her two closest friends. Wende is married to Jim Mitchum. She's a darling girl. Both of us, I think, represented a kind of security and stability that Sharon never seemed to find. We were her touch with the real world. Both Wende and I make up our minds to do a thing and then go ahead and do it. But Sharon was always so easily persuaded, so vulnerable. I keep using that word but it's one that fits her so well. Vulnerable.

There's one thing some people have wondered about. Whether or not the baby could have been saved if the police had come in time. I don't know about that, but all I can tell you is that Sharon wanted that baby more than anything else in the world. That baby belonged to her. Now he will always be with her. They will have a headstone together. It will say: Sharon Tate Polanski and Baby Son Paul Richard Polanski. Yes, they gave the baby a name. He was named Paul for Sharon's father, and Richard for Roman's father.

As far as Sharon's marriage was concerned, all I can tell you is that Sharon and Roman were in love. They were a combination of beauty and genius. She tried so hard to please him.

You know it's funny, but all the time we were roommates, Sharon and I never went out on a double date. Sharon liked one kind of boy, I liked another. In fact, all the time we shared an apartment Sharon never tried to fix me up on a date. Then one day, after she'd moved out, I was really surprised when she called and wanted to introduce me to someone. She had been working on a film called 'Don't Make Waves' with Robert Webber. They'd had lunch together with an actor friend, Fred Beir. Suddenly Robert and Sharon decided that Fred and I would be perfect for each other. Fred and I fell in love on our first date. We were married in January, 1967. Sharon and Roman were married a year later, in January, 1968. My baby, Amanda Tate, was born March 16, 1969. And five weeks later, Fred and I started to have serious problems.

Although Sharon was in Europe at the time, she heard about Freddie and me. So when she came home, just three weeks before she died, Sharon called Freddie and invited him to come up to her house. He went over and she talked to him. That was Sharon. She was always going out on a limb for everyone. Everyone but herself.

There was an ethereal quality about her. She had this thing I sometimes wished I'd had, even though I knew that eventually it might be bad for me. Do you understand? She had this kind of beauty and fragility, and you just knew she was bound to get hurt because of it. But still you couldn't help but admiring that quality in her. She was just such a special person.

Early on the night she was murdered, my phone rang. It was Sharon. She asked me to come over. I told her I couldn't, that I was having a few people in for dinner. Then she said, 'Can I come over to your house?' I said, sure, of course, come on over. But a little while later she called and said she wasn't coming. She was too tired, she said. She'd decided just to go over to a local drive-in and get a hamburger. I told her that was silly. In the time it took her to drive to the restaurant she could come over to my place. And I asked her to spend the night. But Sharon said no. She had to do her hair. She thought she'd better stay home. She was so lonely, she said, she missed Roman and she was so tired. She decided not to come.

The next morning my phone rang. It was a girlfriend of mine named Mary Ann Gordon calling. She had met Sharon and she knew how close we were. She just said, 'How are you?' But I could tell she had been crying. I said, 'I'm fine. What's the matter?' She couldn't talk. She handed the phone to her boyfriend. And he told me.

I couldn't believe it. I just hung up and I was totally in shock.

Fred and I went to the funeral together. When the day was over, we talked about our problems and discovered that they were nothing compared with our love for each other. Without saying it in so many words, both of us realized how precious life together was. And how precious our baby was to us. It was Sharon's death which brought us closer. It was almost as if, in death, she was telling us all how much it meant to be able to live.

I never really stopped to think about it until now, but for the past six years so many good things have happened to me were because of my friendship with Sharon. She was always there. When I went to the hospital to have the baby, Sharon was the first person to come see me. She was so thrilled when I asked her to be the godmother and when she knew the baby's middle name was for her.

And when I got home, Sharon sent so many things for the baby. Come, I'll show you." Sheliah took me into Amanda Tate's nursery. She pointed to the mobile over the crib, a big candy clown standing on a tiny white table, a stuffed dog. "There's just so much of Sharon here." She opened the bottom drawer of the baby's dresser and pulled out a tiny yellow-flowered outfit. She took it. 'See it has bells on it that jingle. Sharon brought that over just two weeks ago. She got it for the baby in Europe.

The same day she brought the baby's dress, she came loaded down with swatches of fabrics. She was decorating her own baby's nursery. She wanted me to look at the colors she had picked out. She had selected red, white and blue.

She was just so anxious that everything be right for her baby. That's all she talked about. She used to kid about it. She's say, 'Won't it be terrible if the baby is born with my brains and Roman's looks!' Then we'd giggle"

The red, white and blue nursery colors reminded this reporter of reading about the murder scene and how there was an American flag draped over Sharon's sofa. I asked about it. Sheliah nodded. "Yes, it's true, there was a flag draped over the back of the sofa. It had been there ever since Voityck and Gibby (Abigail Folger) moved in. It belonged to them. Whenever I went over to Sharon's and I'd see the flag there, I'd tell her it wasn't right. She'd nod and say she knew, but that Gibby and Voityck thought it was funny.

That was Sharon. She knew that the others were making fun of the flag, of the establishment. She didn't go along with it, but felt she might hurt them if she took it away.

That's what I mean about Sharon being so impressionable, so vulnerable, so easily swayed. She'd just accept people for what they were. She got involved with some very odd types because she thought she could help them. But all the while it was Sharon herself who needed the help.

You know, in just the last few months Sharon was beginning to come into her own. She never cared about being beautiful. She never even really cared about acting. She just wanted to love and be loved. And have her baby.

I know that if she'd lived and had the baby everything would have been different for her. Because that is what Sharon really wanted. She was just a little girl from Texas who was so incredibly beautiful that she got swept up in all of the Hollywood nonsense. But all she ever wanted was what every woman wants - a man to love and a baby of her own.

I can't believe that the murderers knew her. To know Sharon, to really know her, was to love her. There is just no way that anyone who knew her could have hurt her so.

Sheliah picked up little Amanda Tate and walked me to the door. She hugged her baby tight. "You know, Wende Mitchum has a little baby, and I have Amanda, and all Sharon was waiting for was the day when the three of us could bring our babies up together. They would have been friends, close friends. Just like we were.  


putabibonme said...

This might sound like some kind of crazy conspiracy theory, but...

HOLY FUCKING SHIT the homosexual killing thing is right. You can go straight to the FBI about this, but killing Sharon Tate wasn't Manson's idea. Dean Martin was a professed homosexual according to his FBI report and he started a relationship with Manson back in 1967. If you watch The Wrecking Crew it's obvious Dean already knows she's going to die a year later.

Deana Martin lied in her book about Terry Melcher being her boyfriend because Melcher already had a girlfriend that he was living with at the Tate house before Tate moved in the next year. She says her father was upset when he found out that she knew Manson from a party, but what he was really upset about was that Manson gave her the ring that DEAN had given Manson. Manson even said to Deana, "You're Dean Martin's daughter, aren't you?" She's obviously trying to cover up for her dad.

To be fair, though, I think Dean was very high on LSD.

Here's Dean acting high on the Tonight Show a few months before Sharon's death:

Sharon wasn't the first either. The mafia helped start Dean Martin's singing career. While he was partnered with Jerry Lewis, they were pals with the mafia. One of Dean's first loves was James Dean. You can tell James' death in 1955 wasn't an accident because in the photos leading to his death you can see Sam Giancana's mob car following in the background. Giancana was one of the biggest Chicago mob bosses.

Upset about James' death, Dean asked his mobster boyfriend Lucky Luciano back in Italy to knock off Marilyn Monroe.

Here's Dean yelling at Marilyn:

Some people have theories that the Kennedys used the mafia to kill Marilyn and covered it up using the CIA....BUT THAT'S EVEN CRAZIER THAN MY THEORY. Giancana was already considered to be linked to Marilyn's death. From Manson's FBI report, there's someone on the outside still carrying out Manson's orders. One guy who tried to make a movie about Manson even got killed.

Anyway, I know practically all of the guys that Dean hooked up with if anyone cares.

putabibonme said...

sorry I forgot to use past tense in my comment since almost everybody I mentioned is dead

AstroCreep said...

Great stuff David. I still go back to the 17 days on the stand (or was it 18?) with ZEEEEROOOO INCONSISTENCIES fact to support her credibility.

shoegazer said...

Another meticulously researched and assembled article, David.

WRT consistency of narrative, I'm new to the group and trying to get my head around the entire phenomenon of the 10050 Cielo intrusion and murders--my admittedly unattainable goal is to have a minute0by0minute timeline of events from roughly the arrival of Steve Parent (and any direct communications leading to his visit), to when the bodies were discovered and the scene was investigated, along with subsequent reports on the physical evidence.

This will never be possible to know for certain, but it's interesting to try to create a scenario that matches both the narrative (Atkins/Kasabian/Watson) and the physical evidence.

Thus far, while I'm still no expert on this (probably will never be)I find that the combined narrative as tod by Atkins at the grand jury, at her trial, and to her attorneys (I hope I'm remember correctly here) is in agreement with Watson's 1978 recollection from his book Will You Die for Me?" and with Kasabian's basic story, as well.

This does not match significant portions of the blood evidence, however, and this can imply that the narrative is substantially false, or that the evidence gathering and subsequent analysis is deeply flawed t certain key points.

That's where I am now.

Peter said...

Sandy, Squeaky, Snake, and Gypsy will be on the Estrogen Network August 10.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks for the post David.
On a different subject, I heard part of an interview today with Ivor Davis, who wrote Five to Die, and now has another book coming out on the Tate LaBianca murders. I looked up his name on this blog and jogged my memory that George Stimson did a post about going to his presentation in Ventura (or Santa Barbara?) and challenging his ideas afterward.

Unknown said...

Why was Daye Shinn eventually disbarred? Anybody know? I can find lots of evidence about it but no specific reason. Anyone? Thanks.

orwhut said...

I just spent some interesting minutes following your links. I was not aware that, Something's Gotta Give was a remake of My Favorite Wife. However I was aware that Move Over Darling, starting Doris Day was a remake of that very movie. We all know who Doris Day's son was and where he lived. OOO EEE OOO.

Doug said...

Was this why?

AustinAnn74 said...

BYW, I too just saw a preview of an upcoming television interview with Catherine Share, Lynette Fromme, Dianne Lake & Sandra Good. Catherine & Diane seem to have genuine remorse & disgust (guilt by association) for the murders, but Lynette and especially that loon Sandra have not a care in the world. They keep spouting off that same stupid comparison: war. Sandra even said something to the effect of, "just because you kill someone, doesn't make you evil." Uhhhhh....okay.....To read about how good & trusting a person as Sharon was makes it even more horrifying what the killers put her through before murdering her. She had to sit and watch everyone die before they did the same thing to her.

David said...

Doug said: "Was this why?"


G. Greene-Whyte said...

Shoegazer said: "the combined narrative as told by Atkins at the grand jury, at her trial, and to her attorneys (I hope I'm remember correctly here) is in agreement with Watson's 1978 recollection from his book Will You Die for Me?" and with Kasabian's basic story, as well." Hi, Shoegazer, Tex admits to going along with their stories to try to minimize his involvement/leadership role in hopes of someday getting out. He also had time down in Texas to watch things play out for the others before he was brought to trial himself.

shoegazer said...


I respectfully disagree that the Watson's version, as related in "Will You Die for Me?" (WYDFM), absolves him of legal culpability in any fashion. One the contrary, he admits unambiguously to being the principal actor in the Tate murders.

I just finished reading WYDFM two days ago. I think that if there's any areas in which he's overtly trying to influence positive opinion, it's in his description of his ministry and in-prison activities.

Again, his version agrees in substance with Kasabian and Atkins, and what's more, there are fairly minor variations that one might expect from those who were present re-telling an incident at a later date, and in comparing earlier and later versions provided by the same defendant (Atkins at Grand Jury, attorney interview, trial) you find the same thing--the story remains relatively consistent. It's good to recall that for Watkins, at least, the affects of drugs can add further confusion over minor points.

I think it's important to strip away personal feelings about those involved. On a personal level, I find them deeply flawed and I'd want nothing whatsoever to do with them, even if they had committed no crimes. But the narrative is damning as told; the jury agreed and convicted them and sentenced them to death. So I see little to be gained by them by giving us a substantially falsified "official version" because on the surface of it, it makes them primarily and directly responsible for murdering 5 people on the night of 8-9 August, 1969.

But I could certainly be persuaded otherwise! It would be useful to see serious discrepancies being the eyewitness accounts. As I've said, I just started looking at this stuff, and to some degree, it's all running together.

Peter said...

I tend to agree with Kanarek, who said in a subsequent interview, that the closest thing to the truth was probably Sadie's GJ testimony.

Sandra has always struck me as pretty dopey. Which you would think she would be the opposite because apparently her sister was pretty sharp if you ever read "Ginny Good" and both were pretty well educated. But Sandy's inability to recognize the obvious contradictions in just about everything she says even to this day makes it hard to take her seriously. It's like when Hendrickson points out to her that Tate's baby died and yet her baby got to live and Sandy just stares at the camera for a few seconds with those blank eyes, and you can almost here the squeaking of the gerbil wheel in her empty head while she tries to reconcile that.

Matthew said...

It always seemed to me that Sandy was just mimicking lines that Charlie said to them. The only problem is that those lines sounded much better on acid and in the sixties. When she is questioned about one of her comments she never has any idea what to say. Something dumb like I am you and you are me or we are a reflection of you. and blah blah blah. A good example of this is when she was on the Ronnie Reagan show. It is on youtube.

Matthew said...
This is the link to the reagan show with Sandy

starviego said...

Unknown said...
"Why was Daye Shinn eventually disbarred? Anybody know? I can find lots of evidence about it but no specific reason."

I read somewhere it was due to misappropriation of a client's money, but sorry no source.

Doug said...

I posted the source link a little bit above ^^^^^ FYI.

You are correct about why Starviego

DebS said...

The LaBianca home has been sold. The link is in the comments of the "LaBianca Home For Sale" post. Please comment there.

Ajerseydevil said...

Labianca house sold to ghost hunter Josh Baggins any relation to BoBo Baggins ?
Story on
Jersey Devil is going to see Once upon a time in Hollywood today 5 pm Jersey time from what I've read it's almost 3 hrs run time like Pulp Fiction

Peter said...

Ed Sanders had a piece in the NYT yesterday.

Unknown said...

Thank you Doug and Star for answering my Shinn question so thoroughly.
Great research, much appreciated.

On the OTHER hand - the over-commercialization of next month's "50th anniversary" is in full swing:

How bad can SOME of these be?

As someone here sarcastically put some time ago:
"stabby Stabby STABBY!!!!"

Peter said...

50 years ago tomorrow is the anniversary of Hinman's murder.

Ajerseydevil said...

Once upon a dissapointment in Hollywood I believe 90% of the good people on this blog will feel the same if you're expecting a Manson movie you'll be very unhappy

Doug said...

But, what about those billboards/bus shelters/benches???


Brilliant guerrilla execution and, timing!!!

Doug said...

Unknown said...

Agreed flop like all tarintino movies. Comedy I think?

Unknown said...

Its zac bagans

FrankM said...

"...... flop like all tarintino movies"

Not so sure how to define a flop, but with a lifetime [so far] Gross Total of $649,242,647 spread over nine movies and averaging $72,138,072 per movie this seems a curious evaluation. His numerous Palme d'Or, Academy, Golden Globe, BAFTA and other awards would also seem to suggest his films have achieved some degree of success. Now, whether you like his movies or not, well, that's something else ...

Peter said...

I'm old enough to have seen all the film's he's stealing from. And in most cases the originals are better.

Ajerseydevil said...

I definitely wouldn't comsider Tarintino movie's flop's
Honestly I've liked every other movie that I'd seen of his from
True Romance to The Hateful Eight
All fantasic in my opinion
I wonder how Once upon a time will do at the box office once the word is out
It was 10 minutes shy of 3 hrs & honestly I couldn't wait for it to end people actually got up & left the theater I was in

Ajerseydevil said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shoegazer said...

I, personally, don't care for his films due mainly to the unrelenting violence and his seeming fixation with ghetto coolness. This gets repetitive, for my tastes.

But he can write some very clever, if gratuitously rough, dialog, and he can capture some truly horrendous scenarios. Like The Rolling Stones in music, he is easily recognizable and almost as unmistakable--although it's a lot easier to clone cinema styles than with music, I think. There was a swarm of copycat films after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and some of them were very close in style/tone.

If you subscribe to the auteur theory of cinema, he's definitely an auteur.

For whatever all that's worth...

shoegazer said...

Matthew Record said...

It always seemed to me that Sandy was just mimicking lines that Charlie said to them. The only problem is that those lines sounded much better on acid and in the sixties.

For what it's worth, I think there's a lot in your point, Matthew.

First, I was an adult at the time of the murders, roughly a contemporary peer of Watson, Atkins, et al, and was in college in SCal. I can remember the ethos of the time quite clearly.

I spent the last few days watching many of the subsequent TV interviews with Manson, Krenwinkel, Atkins (while alive), and Van Houten. After a few years away from Manson, the family, and the drugs, all three women seemed rational and thoughtful--although Atkins projected a tendency to fall into a sort of C&W ethos of "ah'm a sinner"; she was probably from a much different background than Krenwinkel or Van Houten--I'll have to check. She could be, too, quite manipulative, in my opinion.

In a sense, Atkins strikes me as Charlie Manson LIte.

Krenwinkel and Van Houten seemed moderately bright, a bit above average, and thoughtful.

All of them mentioned the use, and effects, of hallucinogens. Watson did, as well. They emphasize how repeated use created disassociation from their egos, and all of their learned values, and in the subsequent moral void, Manson's ideas sounded like brilliant revelations. And at the ranch, he mixed all this up with role playing, kid-like adventure, a sense of outlaw camaraderie, and sex.

Manson, himself, was quite a ball of contradictions. Thinking about it, he was as narcissistic and egotistical as anyone I've ever seen. He was insecure because of his physical size and his upbringing, but like Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost, he had decided that it was better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.

What stands out, loud and clear, is his complete and adamant refusal to take any responsibility for anything that he did not want to. It was comical at times, because while he didn't want to admit to any instances of personal violence, he still desperately wanted to portray himself as a rough and capable male, and he'd get stuck both admitting and denying the same actions. This didn't trouble him for long, because he had a million ways to rationalize all of his behaviors.

My guess is that his IQ was about 95.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I want to see Once Upon A Time In Hollywood tomorrow. I read there is an extra scene in the credits. Did you guys stay to see it?

Jeff Harper said...

Rest in peace Gary.

JC said...

Red Apple cigarettes

Unknown said...

Well I personally I'm always dissapointed in Tarintino movies.Flops to me I should've said. Same as M. Shamaylan horrible story telling in my opinion. Not a fan personally of either

shoegazer said...

On 28 July 2019, Unknown said:

Not a fan personally of either

For the discussion of the actual crime it probably doesn't matter much, since these films are to entertain, not instruct.

Unknown said...

I bet it'll do great at the box office. I suspect anything with his name will. Personally just wasn't for me. I've tried several a few times just not a fan. To each there own. But this certainly isnt a movie about Tate/ liabianca spelling probably wrong ? I am more of a true story fan not stuff like this. At the same time many will enjoy it I'm sure

Unknown said...

Agreed perfectly said

Unknown said...

Understood I thought I was clear I don't find him entertaining. It's not my cup of tea that's all if you enjoy this type of story I get it and hope you like it. Most of the people I know either really like his stuff or don't no middle ground. I wasn't looking for an instructional video lol! I somehow thought it was going to be a look at the crimes through Hollywood's eyes that app I was expecting nothing more. I'm not going to say anymore because many haven't seen it yet. It wasn't for me.Hard sitting through it.

shoegazer said...

"True Story"? "True Romance"?

The latter was directed by Tony Scott, Ridley Scott's brother.

Nah, I can't blame you for not likely Tarantino. There are things not to like and maybe the biggest thing about Taratino is that you're ***supposed*** to like him if you want to claim to be cool...


Not me, I'm afraid. I got tired after Pulp Fiction.

Unknown said...

Probably 15 people left the theater I was at. I had a hard time length wise but I didnt know how much I didnt care for it until the end. It was a humorous scenario and I did get a chuckle out of it. Just weird like those old sitcoms filmed for live studio audience? Reservoir Dogs was ok I guess.

Unknown said...

Yes again we'll said.

starviego said...

Ajerseydevil said...
... people actually got up & left the theater I was in,

Not a good sign.

Gloop said...

Shoegazer--True Romance screenplay was written by Tarantino...some truly memorable dialog in that one.

Gorodish said...

Gloop typed :

Shoegazer--True Romance screenplay was written by Tarantino...some truly memorable dialog in that one.

Would Manson have appreciated the dialogue between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken, about from whom Sicilians were spawned?

Jeff Harper said...

I saw it Friday night. It was good. It was Tarantino. With that said, once again this story deserves a better accounting than this. American Crime Story could be the better way to tell the story like they did with OJ.

Bobby D said...

On the documentary The final words Lindas own lawyer said when bigliosi first question to Linda was did she know what Helter Skelter mentioned she responded NO and that he from her lawyers mouth

Bobby D said...

On the documentary The Final Words a interview with Lindas lawyer said he and Linda was o the bugs office first question from the bug to her was what was helter Skelter she said didn't know and that came out her lawyer mouth WTF