Friday, April 10, 2020

Charles Manson: Portrait in Terror

Recently liberated., this only aired once on TV and has been a missing jewel ever since. The Kanarek interview is pure gold:




Deb here......

A few of you, in the comments, have asked when this video aired.

It was first shown February 13 1975 in Los Angeles at 11:30 PM on a program titled ABC's Wide World of Entertainment.  Wide World of Entertainment, later called ABC Late Night, was a series of programs hosted by various "stars" of the day and encompassed a variety of subjects.

Because it was aired late at night and not in "prime time" it was at the affiliates discretion as to what particular day it was aired.  Not all aired the program on the same day.

IMDb page on Wide World.  This particular show is not listed in the various episodes.







71 comments:

Torque said...

Matt, thanks for this. Excellent stuff. Brooks and Paul speak very plainly here, incorporating plenty of examples for their points. This is true of all the interviews I've seen them in.

Also excellent are the commercials included between guests--its 1974 all over again! And how about those boots that Paul is rocking? Awesome!

starviego said...

A cogent comment by Brooks Posten near the end, which goes a long way to understanding Manson: "Charlie got power hungry, and he saw that it worked--the games that he learned. And he went crazy with power."

Doug said...

Thanks for uploading this. Was it a nationally televised program? Or, was it only a regional broadcast? Where was this television station located?

One thing that I really liked about this feature is that Brooks was captured as being articulate and, pretty much as a normal dude. In prior interviews he came across as a really timid and, somewhat simple guy who was fortunate that he managed to excise himself from the Family by riding the coattails of the 2 Pauls.

Paul was often referred to (within the Family's circle) as one of Manson's "pimps" due to his ability to successfully introduce "fresh" female recruits fairly regularly...well, here he is certainly looking pretty flash - some might say that he is "pimped out" bwahahahaha!

Super interesting archival film. Seems to be from around the same timeframe as the Danny/Sherry interview and, likely just after The Bug's "Helter Skelter" was released...so Vince was just starting out with his self-gratification/I'm a genius phase that he would pummel the public with until his death.

Fun times!

Cheers

Be healthy
Stay safe
🤘💖⚡

Doug said...

I forgot one thing...

Manson had a verified IQ of 121?

I can get behind that number...but I've never heard that number in reference to Charlie before.

Has anyone else heard that?

Doug said...

I wanted to strangle Kanarek after 4 minutes of this interview...imagine 9 months of his act?!?!

Gorodish said...

Thanks for posting this, it was great! And for someone 64 years old like myself, the commercials were pure nostalgia. The retrospective irony of them (re Charlie) was not lost on me either. The opening plug for "The Stepford Wives". The ad for Jello with that other great champion of women, Bill Cosby, at 31:23. The plug for Robert Blake's "Baretta" at 1:06:03. The subservient role of women in well over half of the commercials. It all ties in perfectly with the Manson ethos. Peter Lawford seems to get a big kick out of Paul Watkins, and seems a bit annoyed with the buffoonish Kanarek. Brooks was pretty cool, too. Great stuff!

Charlie Higgins said...

Some great footage there alright . Going off topic, can I ask a question please ? In both Lis Wiehl and Ivor Davis recent books on Manson , they both claim that the shooting of Bernard Crowe took place after the killing of Gary Hinman . I contacted Mr. Davis about this and he maintains that this is correct. I always thought it was the other way around and that the shooting of Crowe occurred at the beginning of July and the Hinman murder was a few weeks after this. Can anyone put me right on this ?

Gene Aquamarine said...

Great footage, a blast from the past! Unfortunately, the sound got glitchy after Paul Watkins mentioned CM using scientology techniques on family members, I would have liked to hear his complete interview. I agree with Gorodish's comment, the 'time capsule' commercials help to give an idea of how different things were then, especially with male/female relationships.

beauders said...

Well now we know why Manson had people murdered it was because he was short.

Matthew said...

According to the trial records, Bernard Crowe was shot on July 1.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Thanks Matt.
It's interesting, people have made fun of Brooks a lot regarding his trying to die for Charlie, so it's interesting to hear an explanation from him that the only thing he had to relate to was the literal death of his father and that was his focus. I got the feeling his father had perhaps died suddenly and it was traumatic for him. He said Charlie may or may not have been referring to literally giving up the ghost, but that's how he ultimately took it. Each individual in the group had his own frame of reference to interpret Charlie's words, and came up with their own actions and outlook based on that.

I remember seeing some of those commercials dozens or hundreds of times, especially the Karl Malden and Ella Fitzgerald ones.

It's intersting also to try to hear what the people watching the show were saying, the commercials they were commenting on. I wondered if Matt had any connection to the recording and the story behind it's liberation.








Gorodish said...

Charlie Higgins typed:

Some great footage there alright . Going off topic, can I ask a question please ? In both Lis Wiehl and Ivor Davis recent books on Manson , they both claim that the shooting of Bernard Crowe took place after the killing of Gary Hinman . I contacted Mr. Davis about this and he maintains that this is correct. I always thought it was the other way around and that the shooting of Crowe occurred at the beginning of July and the Hinman murder was a few weeks after this. Can anyone put me right on this ?

You were right. Tex burned Crowe on the dope deal on the evening of June 30th 1969. The next morning, July 1st, Manson went back with TJ Walleman and shot Crowe. Hinman was murdered on July 27th. You will find that many books and articles on TLB are very poorly researched.

GreenWhite said...

Paul was prettier than the girls. And an awful liar/actor. Can I offer you a nice room temp glass of Libby's? Perhaps you have some tp to trade?

Gorodish said...

beauders typed:

Well now we know why Manson had people murdered it was because he was short.

That shrink was a joke. That was the only crappy segment of the show.

DebS said...

Charlie Higgins said...
Some great footage there alright . Going off topic, can I ask a question please ? In both Lis Wiehl and Ivor Davis recent books on Manson , they both claim that the shooting of Bernard Crowe took place after the killing of Gary Hinman . I contacted Mr. Davis about this and he maintains that this is correct. I always thought it was the other way around and that the shooting of Crowe occurred at the beginning of July and the Hinman murder was a few weeks after this. Can anyone put me right on this ?
------
Charlie, this was discussed throughout the comments on this post.

https://www.mansonblog.com/2017/01/bernard-crowe-criminal-charges-and.html

Igor Davis and Lis Wiehl probably claim that Crowe was shot after Gary Hinman was killed because it was misrepresented in court and that's how it was presented in court testimony.

orwhut said...

Blogger Doug said...
I forgot one thing...
Manson had a verified IQ of 121?
I can get behind that number...but I've never heard that number in reference to Charlie before.

Has anyone else heard that?

Doug- Try here https://www.quora.com/What-is-Charles-Mansons-IQ

AustinAnn74 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AustinAnn74 said...

Paul was, by far, the most beautiful person in that family. A genuine good soul....

AstroCreep said...

For someone above who asked- K-ABC Los Angeles is the station it was broadcast on in the video. I’m not sure if it was nationally televised but my guess would be YES because the reporter is not a K-ABC reporter. Likely an ABC special that was broadcast nationally.

I love the brands from back then. It’s always interested me in those that maintained and those that went by the wayside. I remember taking “Contac” cold medicine many times.

In terms of broadcast date, Stepford Wives released February 12th, 1975 so this would have been after that date because it says “now playing in a selected theater or drive-in near you”.

DebS said...

AstroCreep, you pretty much nailed the broadcast date. I added the information at the end of Matt's post.

Monica said...

Wow! Good stuff.
- Brooks' demeanor was so unexpectedly normal.
- I was too busy checking out Paul's flashy outfit and boots that I didn't pay attention to what he was saying.
- That Bill Cosby commercialat 31:12. Loved it as a kid as well as anything Cosby-related (Fat Albert, etc.). He looks like such a creeper now.
- That psychologist blaming Manson's shortness: "We don't like short people." Wth?
- Peter Lawford as the host. He was such a big star then. I wonder if Brooks and Paul were star struck.
- I cringe every time Bug says "annals of crime" in these interviews. Ewww.
- Hamburger helper only cost $0.35 a serving?!
- That Pledge commercial used to give me the willies. I was only a child in the early 70s, but I would have nightmares of the Pledge lady breaking into my home to clean things.
- Neat to see a Kanerek interview.

Nice find, Matt!

AstroCreep said...

Monica- agreed on the Bugs/annals comment. The first place I think of the word annals being used in conjunction with the word crime is in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre... which pre-dates Helter Skelter.

Cooltide said...

Yep,The Bug pummelled his schtick right up to his death. I've heard/read it that many times I could probably recite it verbatim.
Just like "It was so quiet,you could hear the sound of ice in the cocktail shakers....blah blah"

orwhut said...

Cooltide said...
Snip"It was so quiet,you could hear the sound of ice in the cocktail shakers"snip

My favorite line in the whole book.

If someone didn't call some of the TV appearances, "The Vince and Linda Road Show", they missed a good opportunity.

Doug said...

Thanks!

Doug said...

Thanks!

Boots said...

First time commenting on the blog, but I was blown away by this video so I felt compelled. I was interested in the Manson case in my 20s and then got burnt out and haven’t returned in many years until the 50th anniversary. The whole case is interesting - young girls, LSD, music, the Beatles and the Bible, etc etc. I even dig much of Manson’s philosophy - at least what I can grok of it. Anyways, I have never seen this which leads me to ask you all: out of all the media out there on Manson / the family, are there other hidden gems like this? I’ve seen or read most stuff, but if anyone knows of something that is maybe somewhat obscure plz let me know!

John Seger said...

"Texas Chainsaw Massacre" did not "pre-date" Helter Skelter.Both were released in 1974.

AstroCreepApril 12, 2020 at 9:58 PM
Monica- agreed on the Bugs/annals comment. The first place I think of the word annals being used in conjunction with the word crime is in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre... which pre-dates Helter Skelter

orwhut said...

Blogger Doug said...
Thanks!

Doug,
You're quite welcome.

AstroCreep said...

John Seger- other than the script being written in 1972 and it being filmed July 1973, with the release date Oct 1974. Not sure which month HS released. Maybe Toby Hooper stole the line from Bugs. That would almost make it more cool!

DebS said...

Checking the newspaper archives and IMDb, Helter Skelter, the TV 2 part mini series was first broadcast April 1 and 2 1976. The book Helter Skelter was published October 28 1974. There were articles telling of the upcoming mini series that was going to be filmed by CBS within a couple of weeks after the book was published.

Mr. Humphrat said...

It looks like The New Yorker magazine has had a column called Annals of Crime going back at least to 1939. Maybe a common phrase.

Doug said...

Going a bit off the board today...

I'm not usually one to enjoy the teflon perfection of television reality talent shows at all...but, in these volatile and, troubling times of profound anxiety, grief, dischord and uncertainty...isolated from the world and, sometimes helpless to help those we love...we could use a motivational/uplifting musical moment to allow us the opportunity to exhale - this blew me away. The dead silence of the assembled audience at the song's conclusion is epic.

Be healthy
Stay safe
Love the people you love
🤘💖⚡

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2273996749362946&id=580277028734935

David said...

Astounding, Doug.

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

Gorrodish on Charlie Higgins
You were right. Tex burned Crowe on the dope deal on the evening of June 30th 1969. The next morning, July 1st, Manson went back with TJ Walleman and shot Crowe. Hinman was murdered on July 27th. You will find that many books and articles on TLB are very poorly researched.

Yeah... You might presume as a pro in Law, that at least Lis Wiehl would set the dates right. I mean She even did a Video on Youtube where Stoner v Houten takes Her to all places Manson related, So She could get the ,Vibes,of all what went on back in 1969. She even went to Gary Hinmans House for that ....

Great Old TV Footage here !! LOVE those Old stuff, like the Shoes Watkins wearing and what about those long pointy colars on the shirts ?? Incredible !!
Brooks Poston always came to me as He got his mind back when outa touch with Charlie.
Also growing Up has a lot to do with that I guess. He was a Young Kidd when realy ,Into, Charlie.
Sometimes I just think a lot of those Youngsters then saw Charlie as a Pop Idol,Movie-Star kinda Character... You know, Like when You 17/18 years Old
and Idolise Your Hero, and when seeing the Movie Premiere or TV Premiere ...
We all wanted to Be the Hero, and acted like that, Dressed Up like Your Pop-Idol ..and all that stuff.
Manson could smell that ...and took them in verry easy.
Some never realy got ridd of that ,Gripp.
Some just Grew up later when parted from Family
The Ones in Jail though, All got stamped with the ,,Mark of The Beast,, forever.
No matter wether they wanted that or not...

Doug said...

I hope nobody was offended. I usually shy away from the formula crap...hit a spot though. As did the John Prine video from Newport. Met Prine...via Alejandro Escovado...what've winder human being (RIP)

Doug said...

wonderful
Not winder

Doug said...

Yikes

Fayez Abedaziz said...

I wonder if perhaps we may see, hopefully, a post here about William Garretson, our friend in the cottage at the Tate house grounds, as he sat and "I was writing letters."
Or, "I was listening to the radio."
I think that he heard and probably edged to the window here and there and knew that something was quite amiss next door: as in screaming, gunshots and so, what then?
The ice in a shaker can be heard, but not four bullets in the air?
Come now.
Voytek screaming in front of the house.
Linda (what violence are you talking about, I was kinda in the neighborhood) Drouin.
That being her real last name.
That she supposedly yelled at Susan, as if dear Patricia and crazy head Watson couldn't hear,"make it stop."
William, my dear fellow, you didn't hear any of that?

Aside from further studies of ole William's excuses and fear, which I strongly suspect was great and I can understand that, it would be nice, aside from debating his actions, or lack of, as the murders went on: how about a detailed look at the house, the cottage and a very detailed layout of just about every yard at the Tate
compound, so to speak?
It was, however no excuse for Willy boy not to get out and sneak away, run through the bushes and trees to a house, to call the police.
I would also say, as far as Bugliosi, though I have been critical of some of his statements, to the press and to the jury/court, as he spun some truths, as it were,
it was obvious that he was prosecuting those that were responsible for terrible
violence that was the pain and outright murders.
He knew that Charlie knew that he knew Charlie sent the four 'geniuses' to the Tate house. Or, put another way, Charlie knew that Bugliosi knew that Charlie all but admitted that. Charlie told Bugliosi, at the end of the trial, that "you won, man."
Another note I have about Bugliosi is that, later, he wrote a book about the mass murders committed by President Bush and the criminals with him, advisers, that brought the deaths of so many in the immoral, illegal invasions of nations overseas.
This is not, by me, to change the subject. It is proof to me, that Bugliosi had a heart and really cared about people suffering and that gave me a somewhat better view of him and of the court proceedings, in the fun year of 1970.
Dig?

AstroCreep said...

Fayez-

I’ve always had the sneaking suspicion Garretson did hear something and either dismissed it or flat out hid. I’ve been curious if the police helped him out and kept that matter private- had it been reported, he’d have been branded a coward, nationally. The media would have crucified him for having the ability to “possibly stop” the crimes from happening, even if that’s not realistic. A recent example would be the sheriff in Florida who didn’t enter the school when a shooting was happening. With that thought in mind, the only way that could work is if he ‘heard’ something and chose not to investigate. Had he seen something, there is no way that the police could have kept that from the prosecutor or the public.

All that said, Garretson doesn’t seem like the type that could sit in jail for a few days after having been shown bodies laid out on the yard, and after being roughed up by the cops as the prime suspect, and finally polygraphed and still hide information. I don’t think that’s plausible at all.

Matthew said...

I guess that since Garretson is dead we will never really know. He did change his story in the 1990's saying that he thought he heard firecrackers in the direction of Steven Parent's care and thought he was goofing around. As far as him going for help, I don't think that you can go from the guesthouse to the gate without running directly in the front yard, the way the hills and cliffs are. I also wonder if they ever did sound tests. How well could you heard gunshots coming from the other side of the property or the screams of Voytek in the front yard from the guest house.

starviego said...

Why would someone fund an expensive lawyer(Tarlow) for Garretson? Who was this person?

Gorodish said...

starviego typed:

Why would someone fund an expensive lawyer(Tarlow) for Garretson? Who was this person?

I believe Tarlow and Robert Cohen, another high-powered L.A. attorney, were defending Garretson. In 1969 however, Tarlow and Cohen were young guys just starting to build their practices. They weren't quite high-powered yet, and the publicity was probably irresistible.
Sorry, I just don't see a Reeve Whitson slipping into Tarlow's office with a bag of CIA money for Garretson's defense.

orwhut said...

Matthew,
The Kindle version of Helter Skelter says that criminalist DeWayne Wolfer conducted sound tests. The information and conclusions are 12% of the way into the book. I can't find a page number.

Torque said...

The question of what Bill Garretson may have heard will no doubt continue to haunt. What astonished me about his LAPD interview, was that he claimed to have heard nothing. Yet Mrs Kott claimed to have heard firecrackers, or four shots fired in rapid succession.

Moreover, some 1,500 feet away(my approximation via Google Maps), at the Harvard Westlake School, Ireland clearly heard screams that are basically attributed to Voytek.

Yet, perhaps 100 feet away, Garretson heard nothing. We know he claimed he was listening to music, with the volume at approxinately half of full capacity, and the windows closed.

The question is: could the music have drowned out the screams of Voytek at 100 feet away, when they were clearly heard 1,500 feet away by a man supervising sleeping children in ostensibly quiet surroundings? And what of other neighbors in houses in the immediate vicinity--by which I mean a couple of hundred feet?

In his LAPD interview, Garretson makes an interesting point. When asked where he might have gone if he had, in fact, left the guest house during the crime, he said he might have gone to a "little place". Where that is, he did not say.

If he did go there, I think it would have been behind the guest house, and down toward the backyard of an adjoining house. This property is at the end of a cul-de-sac, and down a steep embankment. A photo of this area is available at cielodrive.com.

It would have been easy to have slipped out to this area through the sliding glass door. This is no doubt the same door that Garretson let Christopher out.

This door, and what I think to be the "little place", are conveniently positioned away from and in the opposite direction of where the killing was taking place.

Thing is, after the trials, Garretson sued for false arrest. He lost the suit, but the court did sympathize with him. It may be argued that if Garretson truly heard the killings taking place, or even saw them,and claimed to have seen and heard nothing, he probably would not come back to sue LAPD.

Gene Aquamarine said...

Does anyone in this group have experience with creating text transcripts from a video file such as this one? This interview would be a great source for future researchers. I have a feeling that due to certain topics that are discussed (Paul's comments on CoS), this video might be hard to find again in the future. Thanks Deb for providing the newspaper clip that shows when and where this interview was broadcast.

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

Myself, my GF and the person Matt (who bans and deletes me) got this from, did the leg work to obtain this documentary he had no clue existed prior...now tries to front and make it appear as if he made it public.. after being told to NOT put it online by my friend who trusted him enough to put into his thieving hands. - D.

Fayez Abedaziz said...

Astro,
you have a good, general idea of William's character.

And, I say:
who was that boy hiding behind that door and afraid of getting too close to the windows
why it's silly Willy the kid who's supposed to be 'care taking' and doing some chores

ha ha, what a weasel
but wait,
if I was in his place, you can bet that I would be scared as hell too after I heard gunshots and... several minutes later shouting and screaming
however,
I would not be sitting there, for hour after hour, after all was quite again.
From, say, 12:30 until the scene was discovered and the boys in blue came knocking?
I woulda gotten outta there, at least 2 or 3 hours after the noises when it was all quite and called the cops.
dig?
So, the detectives arrive and,
well, well, who are you?
I'm William Garretson, the care taker.
Later, he was said to have told the truth: he didn't kill anyone there.
But, the polygraph people said that he didn't do good as to: did you see or hear anything. We think he did.
There is no way he didn't know that there were violent attacks going on, now and in a matter of some minutes later.
Also, some points to be made.
1- When one reads that a .22 makes a noise like a firecracker, from some, I'm thinking, are you kidding? I went to indoor shooting ranges and practiced with a .22 and shot at targets outdoors. Of course, it's loud.
I shot an old English army rifle in a canyon once.
People from around half a mile away looked down and yelled. I quickly handed the gun to the fella that said,"take a shot" and I hoofed outta there, Ha

I say that because:
2-We keep hearing that sounds are weird in the hills and canyons-spare me.
That's a feeble excuse for the benefit of William and of the neighbors, as to excuse them. If anything, the shootings would have sent a reverb or five on the ears of someone nearby.
3- The detectives looked and found nothing at all to tie William to the crimes, as in, no physical evidence leading from the house to where the cottage was and,
how was unimposing William gonna go and overpower the victims and why in the world would he shoot Steve Parent and if he was guilty, why would he hang around and where's the motive and so, why bother anymore.
They knew that he heard but, again why bother, the guy was gonna collapse at any second from fright and shock.
Now, silly Willy went on to sue the police. Say what? What for William, you should thank your lucky California stars that you were not attacked like poor Abigail-RIP- and Voytek,-RIP- you saw them laying there, you lazy ass dummy.
Go home you poor old sod and don't come back.

David said...

Fayez said: a lot of things

But be careful who you judge for how you expect others to act when fight or flight kicks in. I have a second cousin who 'fled' in Vietnam when he had nowhere to go. It's not just motion. It can be forever a part of you. Hell of a mechanic, but a very damaged guy.

I did a lot of research on flight-flight-freeze-negotiate about a year ago trying to figure out why Sharon didn't run (and am still not convinced she didn't) and I think it was Astrocreep who I chimed into a discussion back then about the subject...if not I apologize to whomever I was.

You don't know what you will do until it happens.

I was never attacked by a knife wielding psycho or shot at by a nut job but a guy with a chain at a drive in because a friend 'stole' his girl and I was convenient way back when showed me what I might ('might' is the key word) do and there is no machismo about it. It doesn't happen the way you think. It's not a choice you make because 'I am a badass'. It's a reaction and one you cannot 'control'.

It is highly probable 'William' lost himself that night and likely never found himself again when it came to what he heard or saw and what he did or didn't do. And like my relative he likely lived his life struggling with what he didn't do explaining it to himself and anyone who would listen with this or that justification.

It is much easier to either come out the other end having fought or looking at it from the easy chair never having been there.

Judge not lest you.....

Stay safe and healthy everyone. Its not going away.

David said...

D said: "after being told to NOT put it online by my friend who trusted him enough to put into his thieving hands."

Because God knows we don't want to share our research since we are all writing the penultimate book on the subject....in our other life.

Proteus said...

D said: "after being told to NOT put it online by my friend who trusted him enough to put into his thieving hands."

Anything that has been broadcast nationally is by definition in the public domain. If D's friend had not made the material available it could equally have come from elsewhere. D's friend has no authority to prevent its republication.

D. said...

First of all, it's not public domain and involved actual time and leg work in order to obtain it. That it's out there is not the issue. The issue is Mansonblog creating an illusion they unearthed it for accolades and "hits" on their useless blog.

AstroCreep said...

David- it was me. And yes, everyone says what they think they would do in a given traumatic situation but until you live that situation, what you say means literally nothing.

Having survived and participated in too many engagements to count, I can say that the only real advantage I might have in a fight or flight situation is that I know how I will react. That’s about it.

Killers/murderers/serial killers prey on human nature. Sharon et al, initially dismissed the intruders for robbers, tried reasoning, and when all else failed, some ran, some fought, and some did nothing. What I take away from the encounter is that Voytek was a bad mf’er. That guy fought to his death. I believe Sharon thought because she was so blatantly pregnant, that surely nobody in their right mind would murder a pregnant woman, and that of course was not the case.

Dan S said...

Still working my way through this. Wow. What an amazing document! Just finished the little paul segment (not so little with those shoes!) Look like a duck, act like a duck, but no, not a procurer/pimp...

can't wait for kanarek... My wife hates this shit so i have to sneak it in...

BTW, this blog has provided me much entertainment, so that's one way it's useful

grimtraveller said...

Fayez Abedaziz said...


The ice in a shaker can be heard, but not four bullets in the air?
Come now...William, my dear fellow, you didn't hear any of that?


I'll never forget the major storms we had in London and south east England one night in October of 1987. Or rather, I'll never forget the aftermath of the major storms we had in London and south east England one night in October of 1987. The results of that storm are still visible now; trees that fell and were uprooted that night were just left in many areas. Some were cut into great chunks and slabs and have been used as seating areas and landmarks ever since. Some have become part of the natural landscape as foliage has just overgrown them and sometimes people trip on or bang into them because they're covered and they break bones.
At the time, thousands of people were rife with their memories of hearing the winds, seeing bins flying, cars moving, trees bending from side to side, roofs flying into the streets, windows breaking etc. It was carnage. I was out at 5.45am the next morning and apart from a power cut {not unusual because the guy I shared the house with hadn't paid his share of the electric bill so we were on card meters which, if the card ran out thus went the electricity} didn't even notice anything amiss until I saw this huge tree blocking three quarters of a road and this large bin flew across my path. loads of people I knew heard those storms and couldn't believe no one else could have missed them.
I missed them. Didn't hear a thing !
I once heard an explosion. A bomb had gone off not even half a mile from where my wife and I were living. It shook the house and was not quite deafening but it was loud enough to make my head rattle.
My wife never even heard it.
Be careful what you project of your desires onto others, Fayez.

Linda Drouin. That being her real last name

That was just the name she was born with. She ditched that name at 16 when she became a Peasley then ditched that one when she married Bob.



Aside from further studies of ole William's excuses and fear, which I strongly suspect was great and I can understand that

I don't think that you actually do. If he had truly been aware that people were getting attacked and shot and possibly murdered then everything that followed in terms of his own self protection is not only understandable, but normal.


It was, however no excuse for Willy boy not to get out and sneak away, run through the bushes and trees to a house, to call the police

Well, when you've found yourself in a similar situation where your very life is at risk and gone on to do just that, come and tell us about it !

grimtraveller said...

Gene Aquamarine said...

Does anyone in this group have experience with creating text transcripts from a video file such as this one?

Yes. You just play a bit at a time and write what you hear. It's long, it's laborious, it's a pain in the patootie and it takes ages and that is why very few people are prepared to do it without being paid.
I did it for myself on a radio interview with Stephanie Schram {if it actually was her} once, that a guy called Brian did. The transcript of the interview had what turned out to be 4 pages missing so I did and it was so boring. I was tempted to do it for the infamous Harold True phone call with Judy Hansen and the Mike McGann interview from November '69 with Leslie because the transcript misses so many of the significant things she says but thus far, I've not been able to face going through that again !

Gene Aquamarine said...

Thanks for the feedback, grimtraveller. I did a quick lookup of the Producer of the segment, Al Ramrus, he was also involved with the 1963 television program "Hollywood and the Stars", which had an episode that featured Sharon Tate.

Dan S said...

"Less than half of the union army was engaged in the fighting, while a freak combination of wind and topography (known as an acoustic shadow) prevented the right wing and Buell himself from hearing the battle..."

Dan S said...

It's unbelievably tedious. Maybe a court transcriber would be ok with it

AstroCreep said...

Without the aid of a diagram, this is difficult to explain but I’ll try given I’ve got the time. The gunshots have always been a sticking point in regards to Garretson and his “not hearing them”. If the gun barrel was inside or close to inside the car, and the windows of the car are down, and the car is facing the closed gate, then the sound waves travel (mainly) out of the passenger side window and away from the house. Additionally, those sound waves aren’t capable of bending around the house to reach Garretson. It’s 1000% plausible that someone half a mile away or more, but in direct line of the origin of the sound waves, would hear the rapport of the weapon more easily than someone much closer but 90 degrees to the rapport of the weapon.

Dan S said...

Kanerek! He seemed concise and didn't object once.

Cooltide said...

Ha Ha ,

Bug; Please state your name for the Record
LK;. Li....
Ol Irv; OBJECTION.

Judge,Jury,Courtroom......Groaaaaan!

Charlie; Shut the F**K UP, this man does not speak for me.

You gotta love Ol Irving Kanarek

Wouldntyouliketoknow said...

Fuckin Puke City

Matthew said...

I had those exact same shoes as Paul. Probably 73 or 74.

The Surf Bat said...

Brooks cements once again the "Helter Skelter" motive, which so many people dismiss these days despite the overwhelming amount of testimony given by Manson's followers supporting it, from the central followers to the peripheral.

Charlie might not have believed it, but his followers definitely did. Or is Brooks wrong too?

The Surf Bat said...

Anyone know what Brooks is up to these days?

dawnn said...

Amazing just when you think you have seen it all you guys bring this.I like Brooke I wonder what happened to him.

beauders said...

If Garrettson was on the property what about the dogs? Those dogs would have been going nuts. Maybe the dogs were drugged. If the dogs were drugged, was Garrettson also
drugged? Maybe Garrettson and the dogs were off the property after Garrettson was picked up hitching up the hill and warned not to be on the property.