Monday, April 12, 2021

Panamint Patty Interview

Hello there friends, long time no see. It’s been quite a year for Patty. She broke up with her boyfriend, gave all her best Manson books to George and to Matt, and gave the following interview to Paulcast to crown what has become an accidental ten years of Manson blogging and vlogging on different platforms. In the following interview she talks about how she started out on her journey into the Mansonsphere, what interests her the most, and what she sees as the difference between fandom and scholarship. And, she drinks some wonderfully smooth Willett Bourbon in the process.

Drop in and say hello, won’t you? Patty sends her best. 



Here also is The Paucast interview with Neil Sanders, author of the book "Now Is The Only Thing That's Real."




74 comments:

orwhut said...

A most enjoyable interview, Panamint Patty.
When Paul asked you about the greatest misconception he spoke over your answer. Did you say it was that Charlie was a serial killer?
Whut

Panamint Patty said...

Yes. That's the biggest misconception. Charlie gets lumped in with gacy, ramirez, dahmer. It's just not the same thing.

Peter said...

Still not buying the drug angle. Only Lotsa is a verified drug burn. Hinman, Tate, LaBianca all speculation. Shorty, clearly not.

starviego said...

The drug burn theory is a long chain built with very weak links.

Peter said...

I think their main criminal enterprise was burglary and check washing/forging probably orchestrated by Bruce Davis and Bill Vance.

Peter said...

And credit card fraud. Three things that many of them had been arrested for at one point or another. If they were dealing drugs with the Frykowski's and LaBianca's of the world they wouldn't need to steal gas cards or risk getting arrested for buying t-shirts with a stolen credit card. They got substantial sums of money from Kasabian and Rosita and ate garbage so a lot of money was coming in, but what exactly was going out? It would be interested to try and figure out the finances of the Family but probably not enough information. Bruce would know.

Matthew said...

When asked it all those at the Tate house physically stabbed and the answer was yes, where we including Linda Kasabian in that?

As far as the motive, I still think and always will, it depends on who you ask. I don't believe that it was one clear motive for all. Some may have been drugs, some revenge, maybe they were told to go just to see if they would actually do it. And some did believe in the helter skelter fireside chats. That is why I believe the motive is still considered a mystery. Because it is not a mystery but multi layered.

St. Circumstance said...

Good to hear from you Patty :)

Panamint Patty said...

Hello St my old friend

Chris B said...

Patty. Enjoyed the interview. All the best with whatever you find yourself getting into next.

Vera Dreiser said...

New shit, not from Patty or this tired blog but anyway fuckers:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CNlaZWJpRwg/?igshid=e4u5enpyx803

starviego said...

Tom O'Neill is holding onto the good stuff. He's definitely coming out with a new edition to his book, or maybe a new book entirely.

TabOrFresca said...

Patty,
Enjoyed your story about meeting Sandra Good. Thanks.

However, now I must rethink Manson’s statement, “Get a knife and a change of clothes”. Did he think that Tex was going to pick pomegranates?

TabOrFresca said...

Unknown,
Sorry for the confusion, I was being sarcastic.

In the video Patty describes visiting Sandy. Sandy gives Patty 2-3 bags of pomegranates and demonstrates how to clean them. So Sandy gets a huge knife and chops/slices away - spraying Patty’s shirt with the juice ( that stains).

The sarcasm is based in this.
It doesn’t matter what the motive was for Cielo or whether it was Manson’s or Watson’s idea. The change of clothes is key. You don’t need a change if you’re going to rob. Maybe a disguise but not a change of the same clothes you’re wearing. But if you’re going to kill with knives, then a change of clothes would be nice.

In George’s book there is a transcript where Manson (lies) and said that Tex was taking the girls on a garbage run. The knives were to clean the food. He said that they were then supposed to change their dirty clothes and wash them at the laundry mat before returning. My pomegranate fabrication makes more sense than that story. Also, look a the Life photos of Sandy in the dumpster. She’s wearing her Sunday best.

TabOrFresca said...

Unknown,
Sorry for the confusion, I was being sarcastic.

In the video Patty describes visiting Sandy. Sandy gives Patty 2-3 bags of pomegranates and demonstrates how to clean them. So Sandy gets a huge knife and chops/slices away - spraying Patty’s shirt with the juice ( that stains).

The sarcasm is based in this.
It doesn’t matter what the motive was for Cielo or whether it was Manson’s or Watson’s idea. The change of clothes is key. You don’t need a change if you’re going to rob. Maybe a disguise but not a change of the same clothes you’re wearing. But if you’re going to kill with knives, then a change of clothes would be nice.

In George’s book there is a transcript where Manson (lies) and said that Tex was taking the girls on a garbage run. The knives were to clean the food. He said that they were then supposed to change their dirty clothes and wash them at the laundry mat before returning. My pomegranate fabrication makes more sense than that story. Also, look a the Life photos of Sandy in the dumpster. She’s wearing her Sunday best.

TabOrFresca said...

Unknown,
Sorry for the confusion, I was being sarcastic.

In the video Patty describes visiting Sandy. Sandy gives Patty 2-3 bags of pomegranates and demonstrates how to clean them. So Sandy gets a huge knife and chops/slices away - spraying Patty’s shirt with the juice ( that stains).

The sarcasm is based in this.
It doesn’t matter what the motive was for Cielo or whether it was Manson’s or Watson’s idea. The change of clothes is key. You don’t need a change if you’re going to rob. Maybe a disguise but not a change of the same clothes you’re wearing. But if you’re going to kill with knives, then a change of clothes would be nice.

In George’s book there is a transcript where Manson (lies) and said that Tex was taking the girls on a garbage run. The knives were to clean the food. He said that they were then supposed to change their dirty clothes and wash them at the laundry mat before returning. My pomegranate fabrication makes more sense than that story. Also, look a the Life photos of Sandy in the dumpster. She’s wearing her Sunday best.

orwhut said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ColScott said...

star: How can O'Neill hold onto the good stuff when what he wrote was such a crate of Hog shit?

Panamint Patty said...

Col, hi. I'm sorry I called you Colonel Tate by accident!

ColScott said...

Patty- you are a lady and a scholar and can do no wrong in my book

Vera Dreiser said...

"Col Tate" brown nosin former arch enemy (grave rubber) Plenty 'o' Pancakes Patty = Delectably Delicious! Y'all a buncha asskissin frauds! And fresh as a whistle VayJay Vera LIVES FOR IT!

Panamint Patty said...

I don't care for pancakes.

Rock N. Roll said...

Poised, smart, beautiful, well spoken, Panamint Patty is a class act 100%. Looking forward to anything she does in the future.

grimtraveller said...

For some reason, Patty reminds me of Hazel Blears, who was a pretty go~ahead politician from up north in the UK in the early noughties. She was a biker woman, quite rare for England. Funnily enough, my granny was biker woman {and smoker} in Nigeria in the 20s and 30s, even more rare than in Hazel Blears' time ~ and that was just on a bicycle !

Tony said...

Don't sit on the fence say what you gotta say 🤣

Dan S said...

Comments to Ms Patty

James Craig, my guitar's players name... hard to believe that story: wife's in love with him and subsequently she gets murdered with her small child.

Sacramento! I live here too; got a pic of a couple making out on Squeaky's old stoop my first time at the Groce Out.

First audience question you had covered extensively in the body of the interview already. Y the interesting point that Melcher may have been hanging with the family after Cielo... (Pretty sure he was laying low though)

Great point about Tex liking killing. He may have fallen under some other crime boss and become a killer the rate he was going.

The host had a good point with the connection to the CIA being from LSD. A MK-Ultra thing with acid being tested for mind control or just some general research on LSD, chaos and a chance to manipulate public opinion against the counter-culture; or just a drug connection. What was the source for Charlie's acid? Also good points about all the incidents up to LaBianca being about drugs. I think it's more of a lifestyle choice and Tex's starting the whole shebang with a drug burn (was Hinman about drugs? really? there was that balance with flour on it) that brings this about than that Cielo was about drugs. It may have been about a slight in Charlie's and/or Tex's mind about an encounter involving drugs with Voytek et al but the true reason the slaughter happened is not because of a drug burn. Probably thoughts of robbery in Tex's plan though.

I believe Tex's murder spree was a tragic case of Tex trying to impress his cult leader (crime boss if you prefer, Patty, but there is an indoctrination in the Family that goes beyond a normal crime syndicate's, that goes into spiritual ideas and giving up oneself); and Charlie's true involvement in it, besides a philosophical indoctrination into a belief system that justifies it (which is not insignificant), at Waverly, the second night, was a result of Charlie's need to show off to his followers. Shorty is a result of the crime boss mentality for sure, maybe Charlie really feeling his oats as a man with a killing machine.

Finally, congratulations to you on not time burglaring yourself anymore. Now that I've QED'd the case for everybody, you can retire happy

AustinAnn74 said...

Patty, I am so glad to put a name with an actual person finally!

AndyTaylor said...

"such a crate of Hog shit?" The whole thing, Col Scott? Everything? Not one word of truth in it? Do tell.

orwhut said...

Andy Taylor,
Have you seen this post by Col. Scott?
https://www.mansonblog.com/2019/02/chaos-indeed-new-book-makes-bold.html

Panamint Patty said...

It's Sunday! That means there will be a brand new post tomorrow. Thank you all for indulging me this week. xx

Matt said...

AndyTaylor said...
"such a crate of Hog shit?" The whole thing, Col Scott? Everything? Not one word of truth in it? Do tell.


I agree with Col enough to take a second to endorse the Hog shit review. It was at BEST, a grabastic pile of freshly liberated Eastern Coyote droppings.


Dan S said...

GSK's house is a nice bike ride from here. Right along the nice river trail he'd ride his stolen bike to a victim's house.

Another infamous case from here is the gallegos. I haven't read too much about that one but it is sex slave gnarly

kraut_iznota_knotsy said...

We should buy Patty some whiskey. :)

sillyworm said...

Slightly at a tangent...Charlie's LSD connection? I would think it was fairly common on the West Coast..a new drug for sure and you'd have to find a good connection I imagine.By 1971/72 in the Midwest( I was 16/17... mescaline/LSD/ Acid was available..I'd buy a 100 for $30 to $40..some being very high quality( orange barrels( the best)," Christmas"red/ green tabs,blotter and windowpane( very strong).You just had to know the right people.

orwhut said...

Off Topic:

I stumbled onto this site about Son of Sam. http://www.sonofsamconspiracy.com/articles.html

In the ARTICLES section are messages from a Facebook group for people who grew up in Yonkers. (I'VE VERIFIED NOTHING SAID BY THE CONTRIBUTORS OR THEIR IDENTITIES) These people tell of their experiences during Sam's killing season and of seeing Berkowitz around Yonkers. Both Maury Terry fans and haters are there as well as a cop who dug up sacrificed dogs in UntermyerPark. On page 6 Wheat M. Carr joins in. I found the whole thing fascinating.

sillyworm said...

OK I guess my reply was too graphic...I would imagine that the LSD connection was just that..no exotic CIA etc escapade.Drugs are fairly easy to come by if you know the right people.

Peter said...

I grew up in Westchester during Sam and had friends from Yonkers. They said all kinds of creepy stuff went down in Untermyer after dark and took me to some cave that was supposedly used by Sam and the group for witchy shit.

I was only 11 at the time, but was fascinated because of the tabloid coverage. I used to listen to 1010 WINS News at night while laying in bed and remember the news coming over that he had been captured.

orwhut said...

OT
Peter,
Your message sounds a lot like those on the Yonkers Facebook group.
Years ago, I read Terry's book and expected arrests and more convictions at any time but they never happened.

Joe Col said...

To orwhut's off topic post:

The Sons of Sam will premiere on Netflix on May 5th. It's a documentary on Maury Terry, The Ultimate Evil & the SOS case. I think it's very apparent that there were multiple shooters. This is to delve into the conspiracy theory & hopefully shed some light on who the other shooters allegedly were.
That conspiracy site is very good, loads of information there. There is also a FB Group that was very active, though it has been less so after Maury's passing.

J Pinnacle said...

@sillyworm, acid was still legal in California up until October of 1966 and would not have been hard to come by in Charlie and the Family's day. MDA on the other hand... well, you would have had to have known somebody.

orwhut said...

OT
Joe Col,
Thank you. I was not aware of the upcoming film.
Whut

orwhut said...

Blogger J Pinnacle said...
@sillyworm, acid was still legal in California up until October of 1966 and would not have been hard to come by in Charlie and the Family's day.\Snip/

I'm glad you put that up J the date LSD was made illegal had escaped me. Wasn't Owsley handing it out for free around that time?

J Pinnacle said...

@orwhut -- Yes indeed, during its legal phase folks were handing it out for free at the corner of Sunset & Clark, right outside the Whisky a-Go Go.

orwhut said...

The first I ever heard of LSD was on an episode of Dragnet. Can't remember whether Jack Web went on a tirade against it or not. It was Jack's tirades that turned me off to Dragnet.

brownrice said...

Ah yes... the notorious "Blue Boy" episode of Dragnet... based supposedly on the night of the Merry Pranksters' Watts Acid Test when Paul Foster (later of the Hog Farm) was grabbed by the cops with a face painted half-blue & half-silver. Those were the days... :-)

orwhut said...

Thanks for that information, Brownrice. I didn't know the background of the episode.

AndyTaylor said...

orwhut sez: Have you seen this post by Col. Scott?

I have indeed. And other than airing dirty laundry, Colonel Scott provides nothing real on which to base an opinion, other than his grudges. Maybe the baseless claims of personal slights you make are enough for some to dismiss the entire book, but not for everyone.
While accusing O'Neill of providing no evidence for his claims, the Colonel returns the favor and offers no supporting evidence for any of his grievances - all of which appear to be personal and irrelevant. And a review of a 500 page book based on an 80 page excerpt? Epic fail. And my god...the smugness is unbearable. Bully, indeed.

Matt sez: I agree with Col enough to take a second to endorse the Hog shit review. It was at BEST, a grabastic pile of freshly liberated Eastern Coyote droppings.

That sounds like it should be impressive wording, but still nothing particular. Fancy wording do not a case make.

All this talk of "no supporting evidence" for O'Neill's claims smacks as hypocritical in light of the fact that within Bugliosi's book is evidence only of the personal variety. We have to take Bugs at his word which is no better or worse than O'Neill's.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

All this talk of "no supporting evidence" for O'Neill's claims smacks as hypocritical in light of the fact that within Bugliosi's book is evidence only of the personal variety. We have to take Bugs at his word which is no better or worse than O'Neill's

Not really.
There are major differences between the two books and the approaches of the two men.
Bugliosi went into the investigation with no preconceived notions ~ at all. One of the utterly overlooked aspects of his involvement is the fact that there is absolutely no opinion or thoughts from him in terms of what he had gleaned from the case prior to him and Aaron Stovitz being handed it. From that moment, everything that came to him was, well, new. A surprise. And then information began to mesh with and stack up with other pieces of information and a picture formed. A picture based on numerous evidence, the overwhelming majority of which in some way corroborates or shines a light on each other. It's actually quite interesting how so much stuff cross references, yet with no deliberate knowledge of stuff that is being referenced. Just one example among hundreds is Leslie's Dec '69 interview with Marvin Part. The way it is ran parallel with what Paul Watkins and in particular, Brooks Poston {even before the Barker arrests} had to say is fascinating. One could write an encyclopedia on this. If I didn't have many better things to do, I might !

On the other hand, Uncle Tom came to his investigation with 30 years having passed, he doesn't hide the fact that he most definitely had both ulterior motives and thoughts {"what we've been told all these years isn't it"} and by the very nature of his profession was looking to find something that differed from what was seen as the "same old, same old." He was always in the position of being able to make anything of anything he found that looked even a tiny bit unusual, dodgy, irregular.
A prosecutor trying to secure a conviction that can stand up under appeal does not have that luxury. Neither do they have 20 years to put this all together.
The difference between the two men is a bit like what some teaching assistants face in being assigned a child to support. One may be assigned a child or class that one knows nothing about so everything comes cold, you are discovering as you go. You've had no time to prepare even thoughts. On the other hand, you might be assigned a child or class that is either well known to you, that you've wanted to work with or that you will have discussed on various occasions with other colleagues so a picture has already formed before you even get into that class. For me it's impossible to pretend this has no tiny bearing on one's approach and possible conclusions.

You really cannot compare Bugliosi and O'Neill's particular schticks; they are distinctive in their own ways, valuable in their own ways. Both are products of the varying mindsets of their particular worlds ~ O'Neill's being a good example of the world that says don't trust authority blindly {good advice}, Bugliosi's being a product of the world that held in high esteem authority.

Yet, here they do differ significantly. While some of the motives he utilized were straightforward ones that most people could get their heads around, I will always maintain Bugliosi was risking much to go with the route he took in pushing HS. One only takes that route if one genuinely believes that at least the perps believed it to be so.
The evidence shows that they did.
If you want to dismiss that because it was 'personal', have at it. I don't think you can have stronger evidence. At the end of the day, Uncle Tom is left with pretty much what he had at the start of his investigation and his book[s] really don't change anything of significance.

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

Glad you saw Colonel SCOTT'S post, Andy. I thought you might have missed it.
Whut

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

other than airing dirty laundry, Colonel Scott provides nothing real on which to base an opinion, other than his grudges. Maybe the baseless claims of personal slights you make are enough for some to dismiss the entire book, but not for everyone

Col Scott pretty much does that to everyone. He's more savage to Bugliosi than he has ever been to Tommy O, he rubbishes George Stimson but without the nastiness, Simon Davies {and it is unclear if he even ever read Simon's book}, even Ed Sanders comes in for a tongue lashing every now and again. He balked at any outright praise for Robert Hendrickson ~ when it came to his book.
Although he has kind words for Patty in this thread, a cursory glance back through the archives demonstrate that he has had his issues with her; he's had issues with Matt, Dreath, St, Austin Anne......he has issues with almost everyone. It's his style, it's his calling card ~ the same way "HEALTER SKELTER" was Pat's, and by extension, Charlie's {hyuk, hyuk....}.
When Patty spoke in that interview about how people that come to this case have this overly~possessiveness about it, she could almost have had the Col in mind.
But he's often been good for the debate.

Proteus said...

We have to take Bugs at his word which is no better or worse than O'Neill's.

Leaving aside our opinions as to what each said in their various writings, Bugliosi had privileged and direct access to first hand primary sources (paperwork and people) at the time. O'Neill was writing from the disadvantage of hindsight when there was so much more to cloud his judgment.

Colonel Scott provides nothing real on which to base an opinion, other than his grudges

Back in the day, Col Scott used researchers and invested good money in assembling sources for study. Much of this is detailed in his blog, which is still on line. Yes, he has his grudges and yes, he has laid into people (including me in a previous incarnation) but he has made this his style and most of us are big enough to put the posturing aside. Despite his obsession with Bugliosi (he had a previous one with Beausoleil on which he did a complete volte-face), I would listen to Col Scott before Tom O'Neill any day.

orwhut said...

It's a shame we're about to get a new post, just when the sparks are starting to fly.😋

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

Grim sez:

UNCLE TOM IS LEFT WITH PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE HAD AT THE START OF HIS INVESTIGATION AND HIS BOOK[S] REALLY DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE.

I can't agree more. But reviewing a 500 page book on an 80 page excerpt? Some are overly-impressed with the Colonel's semi-clever alliteration and ease at creating insults with 15 words when 5 will do. All stuff and no style. I guess significance is in the eye of the reader of the whole book.

O'Neill provides the same evidence Bugliosi did: his word. We didn't actually see the evidence in either book and just take them at face value from the author. O'Neill has more credibility than Bugs if for no other reason than his absence from the club of mistress-beaters and milkmen stalkers.

I WILL ALWAYS MAINTAIN BUGLIOSI WAS RISKING MUCH TO GO WITH THE ROUTE HE TOOK IN PUSHING HS.

As a guy with an almost perfect conviction-record what was he risking? Not his job. What was he risking it FOR? Bugs really wanted to convict Manson and have the primary motive be HS. That he had Curt Gentry installed permanently in the court to write a book sheds a lot of light on his motives. A book about Hollywood types being savagely murdered over a drug burn, revenge or robbery isn't exactly stuff that can maintain headlines and secure big book sales. But the race war, Beatles, cults, Jesus, serial and mass murders, Hollywood celebrities? Jackpot. And I think THAT was the gamble Bugs was taking. He was gambling he'd find fame, money, and legendary status or stay a work-a-day prosecutor. I'm sure he believed he was doing the right thing and ultimately he did even if his motives were self-serving and legally dubious.

AndyTaylor said...

Proteus sez:
BACK IN THE DAY, COL SCOTT USED RESEARCHERS AND INVESTED GOOD MONEY IN ASSEMBLING SOURCES FOR STUDY. MUCH OF THIS IS DETAILED IN HIS BLOG, WHICH IS STILL ON LINE.

and hasn't been updated in almost 13 years and what is there reads like a BBS from the 80s when everyone congratulated themselves for using their computer publicly. Make an eternally-editable blog all you want, but nothing carries weight like a published book. I'll take a published author over a blog writer who doesn't even use his real name shouting insults from the nosebleeds any day.

BUGLIOSI HAD PRIVILEGED AND DIRECT ACCESS TO FIRST HAND PRIMARY SOURCES (PAPERWORK AND PEOPLE) AT THE TIME. O'NEILL WAS WRITING FROM THE DISADVANTAGE OF HINDSIGHT WHEN THERE WAS SO MUCH MORE TO CLOUD HIS JUDGMENT.

That's just an unavoidable fact of history 50 years on. It doesn't take away credibility, only underscores the reality that ANY writer would encounter writing for or against the first author.

I would love to put the posturing aside, but that appears to be the only bullet the Colonel has in his Buntline.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

reviewing a 500 page book on an 80 page excerpt?

Speaking personally, reviews mean nothing to me. Not when it comes to songs, books, albums, films etc. Never really have, I doubt they ever will. At best, what they do for me is to alert me that something is out there. From that point on, I'll read/watch/listen and form my conclusions. Reviews for me are of mild interest. I may be interested in what someone thinks but I don't allow them to steer where my thoughts go.

O'Neill provides the same evidence Bugliosi did: his word. We didn't actually see the evidence in either book and just take them at face value from the author

Not so. Especially since the surrounding documentation and trial transcripts have come to light.

O'Neill has more credibility than Bugs if for no other reason than his absence from the club of mistress-beaters and milkmen stalkers

That's weak Andy. That's like saying you wouldn't trust an 8 volume historical work that someone spent half their life researching because it transpires she never gave her kids love and quality time ~ in their opinion.

As a guy with an almost perfect conviction record what was he risking?

I'm actually surprised you have to ask this question, particularly given that most of us agree Vincent T was somewhat egotistical.

Bugs really wanted to convict Manson and have the primary motive be HS

I disagree, but with nuance.
He wanted to convict Manson ~ as though this is somehow unusual for a prosecutor whose job is secure convictions ! You express it as though it was weird. A farmer plants potatoes and doesn't expect carrots to spring up, mate !! Of course he wanted to convict Manson. He wanted to convict him because as he sifted through what existed in terms of the evidence {both usable and unusable}, it appeared Manson was behind these killings. Outsiders were saying it, insiders were saying it. Outsiders continued to point towards it. And significantly, insiders, as the Family imploded, continued to point towards it. They couldn't shut up about it.
But Bugliosi did not know why. Why did Charlie order killings ? As he began to glean more and more {and don't forget, unbeknown to him, Leslie had already supplied the motive to Marvin Part in 1969}, he was left with the choice of ignore the evidence and just do what Aaron Stovitz wanted which was just go for murder convictions, risk a couple of walks and be done. Give the jury something {his words} they would understand.
Your statement that he wanted the primary motive to be HS will be forever blown out of the waters by this little, completely overlooked yet intensely powerful statement he made in his and Gentry's book:
"I told him it wouldn't take me two seconds to dump the whole Helter Skelter theory if he could find another motive in the evidence."
Stovitz had another theory. He elucidated it to two Rolling Stone reporters in March 1970. Even before any Family member spoke of it, before it became the penalty trial showpiece, before Susan started using it as her "I didn't stab Sharon" defence in her books, before Bobby began mooting it as the motive before spending the last 25 years denying it, before Nuel Emmons quoted Charlie as claiming it as the reason, before George Stimson became it's foremost defender, Stovitz actively spoke of the copycat. He believed it till his death.
There was no evidence of it. It pops up as an afterthought, kind of the way the drug burn motive does.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

That he had Curt Gentry installed permanently in the court to write a book sheds a lot of light on his motives

Regardless of what happened, this case was always going to make fascinating reading. Whether his team secured a conviction but not death, whether they got both, whether all walked or some walked, it would make a fascinating book. And a view from the inside has advantages that a historical retrospective never can.
Where I live, in a little space that since 1965 has been garages {mostly unused in the 18 years I've lived here}, the council knocked them down and have been building 8 flats. From when they began in November 2019 I've been keeping a photographic record. It's fascinating seeing how a building is built. And I've been there from the start. No one will have my insight. Lots of contractors and builders come and go but only I have the whole project in its entirety. Even the council doesn't.
Having Gentry in court was a great move. Tom O'Neill wishes he'd had his own Gentry.

A book about Hollywood types being savagely murdered over a drug burn, revenge or robbery isn't exactly stuff that can maintain headlines and secure big book sales

Have you heard of the true crime genre ? There are loads of books that just keep on selling. No one can predict what successive generations will or won't find appealing.

But the race war, Beatles, cults, Jesus, serial and mass murders, Hollywood celebrities? Jackpot

B4 "Helter Skelter" came along, there was "The killing of Sharon Tate," "Five to die," "The garbage people," "Witness to evil," "Trial by your peers," "The Family" and "Reflections on the Manson trial." There was also Robert Hendrickson's documentary.
Arguably, there was already saturation coverage. In fact, both Fitzgerald and Kanarek put that forward as a reason as to why the trial wasn't fair when they lost {presumably, had the verdict gone the other way, they'd have been OK with it}.
I just fail to see why you have such an issue with the fact Bugliosi had it in mind to write a book about a unique trial involving a unique set of murders committed for a unique reason by a unique set of people in a unique situation. You don't seem to have issues with 2 of the jurors writing books and keeping notes during the trial or the wife of a juror writing a book about the trial. Or one of the arresting officers.
Furthermore, the "race war, Beatles, cults, Jesus, serial and mass murders, Hollywood celebrities" are a fact and reality of the case. Why not write a book about it ? There was no guarantee of success. After all, those 7 books that pre~date his weren't exactly raking up forests. Yet most of them are damned good. And "The Garbage People" had actual access to Manson and other Family members.
I think you are viewing this through 21st century eyes, not 1970 eyes. As Bugliosi said to Charlie "I was given this case. I didn't ask for it."

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said:

And I think THAT was the gamble Bugs was taking. He was gambling he'd find fame, money, and legendary status or stay a work-a-day prosecutor

I'll probably come over as his no.1 fan for saying this, even though I've stated a number of times that he irritated me and I rate him only in regards this case, but I don't believe that. I think it is ludicrous to imagine that he would risk killers possibly walking because of a crazy sounding motive that even his lead prosecutor was telling him no jury would understand.
Paul Fitzgerald gambled his career defending Pat. They were the two guys who really had stuff to lose. Ira Reiner later stated he took the case because of the kudos attached to it.
That Bugliosi ran for DA and then moved to defence tells one that he was never just going to settle for being a work-a-day prosecutor. Like a huge percentage of lawyers.

even if his motives were self-serving and legally dubious

Does a prosecutor want to win ? Yes.
Is there a degree of self serving in that ? Yes. Possibly.
Is self serving by its very nature intrinsically wrong ? Not by a long shot.
Is it legally dubious to want to win and even become well regarded by everyone if you genuinely believe the perp you are prosecuting is guilty ? Nope. This is the real world with real adults. As long as you the prosecutor believe the perp you're trying to secure a conviction against is guilty or to put it a better way, isn't innocent, then I should coco what your inner motivation might be.

orwhut said:

It's a shame we're about to get a new post, just when the sparks are starting to fly

This blog thankfully has a history of multiple debates going on even when there's a new thread put up.

grimtraveller said...

orwhut said...

A most enjoyable interview, Panamint Patty

I have to say, I wasn't particularly impressed with the interviewer. He strikes me as someone, all too popular in our modern world, that thinks that forever open ended matters with no answers are intrinsically more satisfying than actual concrete conclusions. And I think he is wrong on that.
I think there is plenty of scope for debate and delving in both.

AndyTaylor said...

grim sez:
SPEAKING PERSONALLY, REVIEWS MEAN NOTHING TO ME

I appreciate that and I agree. But lots of people and the entire entertainment industry and all of Amazon, eBay, Yelp etc rely extensively on reviews for the success of their business. It doesn't change the fact that the only review about a book that discloses researched and new information is reviewed in perhaps the only interesting blog about this case is based on an 80 page excerpt.

ESPECIALLY SINCE THE SURROUNDING DOCUMENTATION AND TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS HAVE COME TO LIGHT.

Well which is it? Are we looking at it through 2021 eyes or 1970 eyes? I was referring to what is within the books, not anything external. With that external information, Bugs seems to come off in a pretty unflattering light to put it mildly.

THAT'S LIKE SAYING YOU WOULDN'T TRUST AN 8 VOLUME HISTORICAL WORK THAT SOMEONE SPENT HALF THEIR LIFE RESEARCHING BECAUSE IT TRANSPIRES SHE NEVER GAVE HER KIDS LOVE AND QUALITY TIME ~ IN THEIR OPINION.

Granted. But I DID say “if for no other reason.” Meaning, if that is all we know about the authors involved.

I DISAGREE, BUT WITH NUANCE.



STOVITZ HAD ANOTHER THEORY. HE ELUCIDATED IT TO TWO ROLLING STONE REPORTERS IN MARCH 1970.

I would hardly call that an “afterthought” being that he mentioned it as early as March 1970.

THIS CASE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO MAKE FASCINATING READING

I disagree. Without HS, cult leader, hippies, Beatles, Jesus, underground cities etc this is just another seemingly drug-based murder. It can be reasonably argued the only reason it received such pre-Bugliosi/Gentry book ink was the celebrity angle. If Sharon Tate was not one of the victims, I doubt we would still be talking about it today or that all of those books would have been written.

AndyTaylor said...

grim sez:
THERE ARE LOADS OF (true crime) BOOKS THAT JUST KEEP ON SELLING.

“Loads” might be quite a stretch. The true crime section of any bookstore is quite small. Even in a large retailer like Barnes and Noble the category usually only occupies one or two display racks. But none has sold like HS. As I said, Bugliosi was gambling this would be a big seller. How many of his other cases had he installed a writer in the courtroom? Only 1 other and where is that book in the sales charts? If the motive was copycat, drug burn, robbery or revenge without all of those other headline-grabbing facets, I doubt the book would have been the sensation it was. Bugs would have got an advance and the royalties wouldn't have covered his coffee for a month.


B4 "HELTER SKELTER" CAME ALONG, THERE WAS...

All of those were written to capitalize on the celebrity of one of the victims and later the extreme lifestyle and beliefs of the killers. And none of them carried the credibility of the prosecutor who won the case. HS was the only one written after the story was told, after the verdicts. And OF COURSE there is no guarantee of success. But with all that was involved it was almost a sure-fire blockbuster, especially given the headline coverage of the story for months.

I'LL PROBABLY COME OVER AS HIS NO.1 FAN FOR SAYING THIS

I'm pretty sure that boat has sailed and you've occupied that position long before you typed that sentence.

I THINK IT IS LUDICROUS TO IMAGINE THAT HE WOULD RISK KILLERS POSSIBLY WALKING BECAUSE OF A CRAZY SOUNDING MOTIVE

What risk? The killers confessed. There was physical and other corroborating evidence that they were guilty. If Bugs only wanted a conviction for the killers the trial would have lasted several weeks, not several months. He spent most of his time and resources on getting the case against Manson. Which is fine. Manson's a creep and is the only common denominator in these crimes. A guy with a swastika in his forehead for 50 years and threatening to kill every human if he started killing people is an evil monster. Other than Tate, his physical involvement is impossible to ignore – he's got a major hand in all of the crimes in question: Crowe, Hinman, Labianca, Shea. If he was so anxious to avoid jail as he has claimed, why would he not abandon the family and Spahn's after learning about what his “friends” had done? He instead chooses to go with them the next night because “last night was too messy” as Kasabian says. Which raises the question: how would he know it was too messy if he had not seen the crime scene? But there was the consensus in the LA legal community that Manson would walk because there was such a thin case against him. And most didn't seem to care, even Younger. Bugs spent months trying to get a conviction on Manson. Why? Because THAT'S the most extreme part of the case. The payoff. If CM didn't exist and these crimes still happened by the same perps for any other motive(s), I can't imagine all the books and films being made that have been in the ensuing 50 years. Without CM and all the things attributed to him, it's nowhere near as interesting or shocking. It may be interesting, but not to the extent it has become.

AndyTaylor said...

THAT BUGLIOSI RAN FOR DA AND THEN MOVED TO DEFENCE TELLS ONE THAT HE WAS NEVER JUST GOING TO SETTLE FOR BEING A WORK-A-DAY PROSECUTOR.

We'll never know if the reason he ran for that position was because of the fame he acquired through his book and the Manson case. Would he have ran for that or any office if he never had the Manson case? We'll never know but we can't use that as a basis to assume he wouldn't always be a work-a-day prosecutor/lawyer.

grim sez:
DOES A PROSECUTOR WANT TO WIN ? YES. (etc)

Who can say what all his motives were? It's certainly not unthinkable to assume that someone can have multiple motives for a single act or group of actions. Even if only one of them has more evidence than others, no matter how outlandish and enriching that motive may be. If someone wants to win because of the fame and financial benefits it will grant them I would call that suspicious. But you're right: if you can do the right thing AND get fame and money, there's nothing wrong with that.

I am unfamiliar with the term “coco.”

AndyTaylor said...

orwhut said...

A most enjoyable interview, Panamint Patty

I agree with grim. Too often, people are enamored with celebrity - ANY celebrity. Even if it's a common-contributor to a blog and that seems to be the case with Paul. His questions weren't as probing as I would have liked and he seems to be too much of a softball interviewer, being enamored with his subject rather than inquiry.

Vera Dreiser said...

Vera fuckin LOVES: "Even if it's a common-contributor to a blog." Touche Andy Tay-Tay, says it all!

Panamint Patty said...

Vera, microcelebrity is a real thing. Just look at my ex, he uses it every other damned day to get laid by some twit who thinks he's famous.

AndyTaylor said...

Vera & Panamint Patty, just listen to that guy on TLB radio (if you can). I've never heard someone be so abusive to anyone who disagrees whether the dryer is Eggshell or Navajo White. Whatever friendships and alliances he has built over the years have been destroyed by his unraveling psyche. Yet he has hundreds of people falling all over themselves to get him to acknowledge they exist or to engage in conversation with him. They treat him like he's the greatest thing to happen to the TLB case since the TLB case that they overlook his sickening behavior to one and all. If that's not a case of microcelebrity I don't know what is.

Vera Dreiser said...

Yer absolutely right, Andy, and Panny Patty is one of them. If you saw the horrid things he wrote about her the past few years, but then just like Matt, and all the other Col Ass Kissers, as soon as he said one barely nice thing about them, their empty heads go right back up his hemorrhoid scarred ass. Guess it counts to have made shitty movies with talking trucks.

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

Vera sez:
Guess it counts to have made shitty movies with talking trucks.

I don't know what that means but it sounds interesting as hell. I've gathered Col is some sort of movie Grip or something and I know Hollywood enough to know that any bozo with their name 10 minutes into the credits of a 20 year old movie can still get free seats at a magic show in Reseda so I guess he has a similar claim to fame. I can't stomach the TLB show. Last time I listened he spent 30 minutes talking about TLB case and 2.5 hours trashing Squeaky and Stoner VH. Good thing I listened to the replay and could fast forward which took me about 45 minutes to listen to the whole show. Can't believe anyone would listen to it live. Too bad Patty had to go through that. She seems like a right lady in this video.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

Are we looking at it through 2021 eyes or 1970 eyes?

When we're trying to determine what a person may have been thinking 50 or 100 years ago, having details of what they had available to them at the time is invaluable. Going purely by the books Bugliosi's will always be the go-to because he was right in the thick of it and he is probably the only person that had interaction with just about every character involved. Yes, we only have his word for what he claims transpired, but that's how it is with authors.

I would hardly call that an “afterthought” being that he mentioned it as early as March 1970

That's my point. For Aaron, it was an afterthought for which there was not a shred of evidence. Not one Family member mooted the copycat. Leslie, who was a "Bobby" girl and who confessed to murder to Marvin Part did not mention it. If she was willing to confess to murder and land her accomplices in it, then why not just say it was a copycat ? She had nothing to lose. She could have gotten Bobby off.
It didn't exist in reality but Stovitz thought it could be the reason the TLB murders happened. The Family later latched onto it as the means for Charlie to escape ~ it was an afterthought not a forethought.

I disagree. Without HS, cult leader, hippies, Beatles, Jesus, underground cities etc this is just another seemingly drug-based murder. It can be reasonably argued the only reason it received such pre-Bugliosi/Gentry book ink was the celebrity angle

And that is why the case was always going to make fascinating reading. It was already fascinating reading before Stovitz and Bugliosi were on the case and any of the suspects had been identified. Granted, it makes for way more fascinating reading once you factor in all the actual angles ~ but before this it was fascinating. Just check out all the articles that were written prior to 1970.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

“Loads” might be quite a stretch. The true crime section of any bookstore is quite small

Not in England. And even if the true crime section is comparatively small, that doesn't mean that loads of true crime books don't keep on selling. To be honest though, I don't think that was the case in 1970.

Bugliosi was gambling this would be a big seller

I wouldn't use the term 'gamble', I'd use the term 'hope'. And don't most people that write a book hope it will be a big seller ? No one writes just for their Mum and neighbour's kids.

How many of his other cases had he installed a writer in the courtroom?

How many of his other cases commanded any real, ongoing public interest and fascination ?

All of those were written to capitalize on the celebrity of one of the victims and later the extreme lifestyle and beliefs of the killers

Which once again demonstrates that the case had a certain in-built fascination to it.

HS was the only one written after the story was told, after the verdicts

Actually, "The garbage people," "Witness to evil," "Trial by your peers," and "Reflections on the Manson trial" all came in after the verdicts, as did the Manson documentary.

And OF COURSE there is no guarantee of success. But with all that was involved it was almost a sure-fire blockbuster, especially given the headline coverage of the story for months

Again, not so. The books written while all the action was going on weren't remotely huge. The documentary "Manson" which even has quotes that were to turn up in "Helter Skelter" wasn't exactly on everyone's lips when it came out.
What often happens with a popular happening is that people forget it and move onto the next thing. There was plenty going on in America in the 2 years before "Helter Skelter" came out. In the aftermath of the Munich Olympic massacres and Watergate, to name just 2, people might have forgotten about the TLB crimes. Zamora was a jurist at the trial ~ there was no great clamour for his book when it came out, so much so they had to change the title of it eventually.
I think it's looking at it with hindsight to say it was a sure fire blockbuster. Always going to make fascinating reading ~ yes. Always going to sell in the kind of millions a rock band would be happy with ? Even God wouldn't know that beforehand.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

you've occupied that position long before you typed that sentence

The irony being that I'm not a fan at all. I recognize him as a main character in the saga and I'll point out where he was excellent ~ and where not. I actually do that for all the characters in the episode, be it Linda, Charlie, Paul W, Irving, Susan or whoever.

What risk? The killers confessed

They all pleaded 'not guilty.' That immediately extends the duration of a trial.

If Bugs only wanted a conviction for the killers the trial would have lasted several weeks, not several months

The trial lasted 9 months because of a combination of factors, none of which had anything to do with Vince Bugliosi. Remember this ¬> what you know in private and what has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law are 2 utterly different things ~ unless you can have what you know in private be corroborated. Also, it was a conspiracy case and there were multiple defendants and lawyers.

He spent most of his time and resources on getting the case against Manson

It was a conspiracy case because investigations showed that Charlie was heavily implicated.

Which raises the question: how would he know it was too messy if he had not seen the crime scene?

It does raise that as an interesting question. And brings this answer ¬> he got a good detailed report from Tex as to what transpired which is why Pat {who killed}, Susan {who baulked but may yet have killed} and Linda {who didn't kill and who ran away} were along the next night. Pure speculation on my part, but I think Charlie was competitive and wanted to be seen, as the architect of HS, to be playing a leading role that went beyond just selecting a house for victims.

there was the consensus in the LA legal community that Manson would walk because there was such a thin case against him

Not that any of the legal community of LA were actually privy to what was coming the prosecution's way. I wouldn't want any of that lot defending me if they treated crime so nonchalantly. Say what you like about Bugliosi, he was tenacious.

Bugs spent months trying to get a conviction on Manson. Why?

Simple. Without Manson these crimes would not have occurred.

If CM didn't exist and these crimes still happened by the same perps for any other motive(s), I can't imagine all the books and films being made that have been in the ensuing 50 years

I completely concur.
Prior to this case, we didn't know much about perps of crime, partly because much of the time criminals didn't go shouting from the rooftops about themselves and what they had done, partly because the powers that be didn't want to seem to glorify criminals and by extension, crime.
But the 1960s was the decade in which young, long haired people became increasingly interesting and their thoughts and opinions were highly sought. So a young, long haired criminal with great communication skills, a very visible and iconic look {regardless of how much he changed his look} and of whom it was said had gotten people to kill, well, that was gold dust.
I think Bugliosi's realization of this was gradual and progressive, rather than deliberately carved out beforehand. That it later became more deliberate is not in question.
I still maintain that wanting a fact checker and author in court each day because you intend to write a book makes sense and isn't necessarily in conflict with genuine motives regarding the job at hand.

grimtraveller said...

AndyTaylor said...

We'll never know if the reason he ran for that position was because of the fame he acquired through his book and the Manson case. Would he have ran for that or any office if he never had the Manson case? We'll never know but we can't use that as a basis to assume he wouldn't always be a work-a-day prosecutor/lawyer

I think it's fairly clear from his escaping Hibbing on a tennis scholarship and his reputation for being intense and thinking he knew best, even above and beyond Aaron Stovitz, his head, that just being a work-a-day prosecutor wasn't going to be something he'd be doing for 50 years.
I don't think there is much doubt that the experience of and victory in, the TLB case propelled him to new heights and probably hastened his decision to try to be top dog. But lots of people go into their chosen field with an eye on the top prize. Not everyone sustains it, in fact, most don't. Looking at British Prime Ministers over the last 50 years, I can only think of 2 that set out to be so. Even long lasting ones like Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair didn't necessarily set out to be that. Barak Obama didn't set out to be president of the USA. Historical accidents often bring into position someone that didn't set out to be in that position. And the person finds themselves in the right place at the right time. Sometimes the opportunity presents itself and people take the chance and land the plum.

Who can say what all his motives were?

That runs both ways though.
I guess one can really only go by the motives a person presents unless there is sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise.

It's certainly not unthinkable to assume that someone can have multiple motives for a single act or group of actions

I agree with that. In fact I'd say this is much closer to the norm than a singular motive.

If someone wants to win because of the fame and financial benefits it will grant them I would call that suspicious

So would I but that wouldn't necessarily impinge on the result or change it in any way.