 |
| Reeve Whitson - Freshman Year of High School |
Did photographer Shahrokh Hatami doom Sharon Tate and her friends one March morning in 1969 after a confrontation with Charles Manson at the Cielo front door? Were Rudi Altobelli's tenants cursed that evening when the Rudi told Charlie he'd be in Italy for a year after Charlie stood in front of the guesthouse and said he'd like to talk more in the future?
Was Manson even there that day? Hatami wasn't sure. Mighty Max Frost, I am reaching out with my mind. Beep boop tell me what Rudi said.
Today, we're exploring Tom O'Neill's claim that a possible CIA agent named Reeve Whitson has been left out of the Manson study history. According to O'Neill, after hearing Hatami's story, Whitson delivered his friend Hatomi (and his Ides of March tale) to Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, and then sat in on the unrecorded interview.
- Here is Hatami's backstory in case you think he's some hanger-on with a fancy camera who took a two year degree at Santa Monica College after UCLA laughed at his high school GPA and asked him to jump through hoops before achieving main campus status. Hatami was no state school guy.
- Here is Bugliosi's closing argument in the Manson, et al, trial. Photographer Hatami is mentioned fourteen times.
During the trial, Bugliosi argued that Hatami's high-handed dismissal at the Cielo to the guesthouse sent Charlie over the edge. Bugs asked about Hatami's aggressive posture, tone, and had him describe how he jabbed an index finger toward the guesthouse when dismissing Manson.
- Here's a newspaper article from a courtroom reporter (via the almighty) if you are new to our study or desire a quick refresh on Hatami's testimony.
Others weren't so sure about the encounters. Filmmaker and author Robert Hendrickson smelled a rat and believed Bugliosi needed those March 1969 confrontations to convince the jury Charlie visited Cielo before the murders took place and had an axe to grind after the Hatami and Altobelli brush offs. Hendrickson was so passionate about about Bugliosi's duplicity that he continued his argument across two Hatami posts in our blog library.
- This video in Matt's post from 2014 shows Sharon and Hatami in better days. Hatami is the shirtless hunk. Sharon is as pretty as pretty gets. Hatami's girlfriend is hanging around because she's no fool.
That fateful day in March, Hatami takes the chivalry route when an uninvited man reaches the Cielo front door. Not shocking. Manly man exhibitions in front of attractive women have always been a thing, even if sometimes it's only pretend.
According to author Tom O'Neill, Hatami first shared his Charlie encounter story with possible CIA agent Reeve Whitson. The son of an actress and a circus acrobat, Whitson enters our story when Tom O'Neill has Whitson phone Hatami early that Saturday morning we all know so well before anyone else discovered the bodies up on Cielo.
In O'Neill's Chaos, Whitson claims to friends he was the CIA surveillance team watching the Cielo house. He was supposedly on the scene early that fateful Friday but didn't stick around. According to his friends, Whitson forever lamented his inability to prevent the killings.
We need to back up a bit because things are already not making sense. How does Reeve Whitson, a rumored CIA super spook, find his way to the Cielo crowd?
Bugliosi never mentions Whitson in his book, but Chaos provides insight. According to O'Neill, Whitson might've bonded with Sebring over race cars. And Whitson's mom was good buds with Doris Tate. Third, O'Neill writes, Paul Tate told him Whitson was a friend to himself, Sharon, and Roman.
So there's three hows. Whitson maybe became a family friend after meeting Sebring at the track. Unfortunately, answering my first question created a second. Why was Whitson surveilling his good friends?
Reeve Whitson was an archconservative on an anti-drug mission. By some accounts, an ounce of blow was found in Jay Sebring's Porsche the morning following the murders. That's more than a personal stash, Idgaf who you are. An ounce was enough to get half the houses on the block trembling while searching for the man through their bedroom blinds the night of August 8th. Was Sebring doing deals out of the Cielo parking lot?
English Major Math time:
* In 1969, one gram of cocaine cost $100-$150 dollars in Los Angeles
* We know Jay sold little baggies out of his briefcase
* Sebring would be a fool to give rich people his lowest price - let's err on the bigger side this time
* Twenty-eight grams come out of an ounce - more if Sebring stepped on his dope
* $150 x 28 = $4200
* $4200 in 1969 money is more than $32000 today
** Let's pause for reader corrections on the amount of cocaine found in Sebring's car, and also to give others a chance to describe how much blow they snorted some random Friday night in the 80's at a Huey Lewis concert.
-------------
Discussion Materials:
In addition to what is linked above, we're using newspapers articles, Helter Skelter, and Tom O'Neill's Chaos. Feel free to add links to any supporting or counterarguments in the comments below the posts.
Most of O'Neill's research we're discussing in this piece is found in Chapter Six of Chaos, titled Who Was Reeve Whitson? I'm using the Kindle version. You should explore digital searching if you don't already. Yes, chopped down trees feel great in my hands, but they are garbage when I wonder how many times Whitson is printed in the text (150).
Or Hatami (43). Btw, O'Neill doesn't care which version you buy. Both cost about the same.
An 'ounce' of cocaine was found in Sebring's car?
ReplyDeleteFrom the 'Property Report Cielo Drive Victims':
--(One) - tube containing white powder, found in blue jacket(Sebring's)
--(One) - Vial containing white powder, found in Sebring's car.
My third cousin's neighbor's mailman was Mary Neiswender's archery instructor. He told me in a private interview that Mary never lied.
ReplyDeleteGreenWhite said: “ounce of cocaine”
ReplyDeleteMcGann testifies in Volume 65.
Page 8588, from memory “once ounce”.
Page 8595, “thought it was two ounces”, “but it was one gram when checked the property report “.
On page 8596 the amount of cocaine is stipulated as “one gram”.
Thanks, ToF.
ReplyDeleteToF:
ReplyDeleteThere's a very simple explanation for the discrepancy between 1-2 ounces estimated, and one gram when checking the property report, and the property clerk is driving a new 911.
;^)
HA! Shoe, I thought the same thing. Party at the cop bar Saturday night!
ReplyDeleteG. G-W:
ReplyDeleteRampart didn't come out of a vacuum, you know!
I'm searching online for an LAPD patrol officer's salary in 1969 but coming up with snake eyes. An ounce might be a month's salary in a job where you risk your life every day.
ReplyDeleteI probably would've taken it. Not to go all gallows but Jay didn't need it anymore.
GreenWhite said:
ReplyDelete“LAPD salaries 1969”.
LA Dodgers second baseman Ted Sizemore was 1969 NL “Rookie Of The Year”. He made $9,000 (baseball-reference.com).
The following link is an annual report for Chicago PD. Look at the Salary page (27).
https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1969-Annual-Report.pdf
Haven't read Pt II yet, but I find that common sense guides me on this one.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so unbelievable about this story?
Absolutely nothing.
We well know that Manson had an interest in connecting with Melcher - and why he was eager to do so. Heading back to Cielo makes perfect sense, that's where Melcher lived.
Or so Manson thought.
So he learns that Melcher has moved and he heads back to the guesthouse to learn more. Perhaps he does so immediately, perhaps he returns to Cielo later and finds Altobelli at the guesthouse. Whatever, doesn't really matter.
We also know that Manson told Watson on 8 August that Melcher no longer lived in the house. How did he know this? Well, this story explains how.
We also know that Bugs didn't really need some kind of concocted story to bring into the trial. He had fingerprints, forensic ballistics results, he had Atkins (via Graham) and Linda and Watkins and months and months of people delivering first-hand accounts of all that happened. "Manson had a Cielo grudge" probably didn't hurt the case, but it was hardly vital stuff.
On the other hand, we have O'Neill and Hendrickson - two conspiracy chasers who arrived to the story after the fact.
Unless one is completely bored or overeager for a little Manson murder gossip, there really isn't much "there" here.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDelete"Manson had a Cielo grudge" probably didn't hurt the case, but it was hardly vital stuff
The funny thing is that Susan had already mentioned this to Richard Caballero and Paul Caruso in 1969 {"The reason Charlie picked that house was to instill fear into Terry Melcher because Terry had given us his word on a few things and never came through with them. So Charlie wanted to put some fear into him, let him know that what Charlie said was the way it is, just what he said. the way it is and his philosophy, most people call it."}. She actually said something similar about the True house next door to the LaBiancas {"We knew the people next door but we didn’t know if they were still living there or not. And if they were, it would probably be to instill a lot of fear in them because they just totally blanked out on us – they were people who had given us their word and then backed out on it"} but she put it in a kind of weird trippy way that Bugliosi, at the time, didn't quite understand, and which Caballero just accepted. As Bugliosi became more familiar with the way certain Family members communicated, he found things connecting, so when he heard from Terry Melcher and then Rudi Altobelli that Charlie had been to the house, he must have been having braingasms. It made Atkins' statement about the fear to be instilled in Melcher suddenly make sense.
It also provided him with a major motive to bring to a jury ~ and he brought it. He went on about HS till he died ~ but he also dined on the hitback/anti-establishment motive right to the end, though hardly anyone talks about that.
Whether the grudge thing was vital, who can say ? Point is, he used it, used it well in conjunction with many other elements, and in doing so, sealed off every possible escape route for Charlie Manson. It becomes, in retrospect, almost laughable when Charlie praises Bugliosi to the hilt and says he has everything a fine lawyer could want ~ except a case.
He wasn't saying that by the 21st century !
So he learns that Melcher has moved and he heads back to the guesthouse to learn more. Perhaps he does so immediately, perhaps he returns to Cielo later and finds Altobelli at the guesthouse. Whatever, doesn't really matter
It does and it doesn't. He learned from Altobelli that Melcher had moved and according to Altobelli, that happened that evening. But what matters is Bugliosi's assumption that the guy that turned up and had a 'discussion' of a heated nature with Hatami, was Manson. As CieloDrive.com once pointed out, it was interesting that straight after Hatami's scheduled testimony at trial was Altobelli's. Hatami did not positively ID Charlie, but it didn't really matter in the end, because next up was Rudi ~ and he did. So it leaves the impression that "the man" Hatami had a pop at was Manson, especially when Rudi said that Manson said he'd been sent from the main house. And Bugliosi still spoke about it as though it was established fact that Hatami and Manson had had a stand-off.
O'Neill says Whitson called Hatami ninety minutes before the bodies were found on Cielo. O'Neill also says Hatami did not know Whitson well. First of all, why is Whitson upset when the people he is surveilling to jail are killed? Second, why would he call someone he barely knows and spill the beans like that?
ReplyDeleteG. G-W:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, why is Whitson upset when the people he is surveilling to jail are killed? Second, why would he call someone he barely knows and spill the beans like that?
Pardon me, but following this discussion, it seems to me that that simplest explanation for all this is that it might simply help to sell books.
I mean, if subsequent authors followed verifiable facts, the book would be real short, so...
BTW, this is also the underlying impetus for the entire field of graduate-level study of history, and it's what has driven the movement toward revisionism for the last fifty years.
If you don't find something new, you're SOL and unemployed...
Same in English Departments. What did Chaucer etc say that anticipated my life right now even though no one ever noticed before?
ReplyDeleteI will say that O'Neill presents Whitson in a way of "look at this crazy stuff I found" as opposed to asserting it's all true. Props for that. Unfortunately, there's no independent verification.
ReplyDelete" . . . as though it was established fact that Hatami and Manson had had a stand-off."
ReplyDeleteI think some folks overstate the nature of the exchange between Hatami and Manson. While it does appear that the former could have a temper, his description of this very brief encounter implied that things were far less heated than you suggest. Speaking here just from memory, Hatami's stated attitude toward the intruder seems more gruffy dismissive than outright hostile or angry.
Also, Hatami did not fail to ID Manson as the intruder. He did pick the correct picture from the choices he was offered, but when pressed he said that he could not be absolutely certain. There's a difference there.
"Unfortunately, there's no independent verification"
ReplyDeleteWell that's kind of the whole point of O'Neill, isn't it?
Tobias:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking here just from memory, Hatami's stated attitude toward the intruder seems more gruffy dismissive than outright hostile or angry.
I read Hatami's testimony last night and FWIW, I came to the same conclusion that you did.
Then subsequently I read exchanges where posters mention a heated exchange, and I thought: "Nah, they must be talking about something else, another encounter...".
It was brief and dismissive, at most.
Volume 132-133, I think...
https://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/
BTW in reading these transcripts, one notices three prominent characteristics:
1) They are incomplete; some of the files in the sequence are missing.
2) They are marked-up with hand-written notes.
3) Each of the files I've seen, at the top of the first page, there is typed "Mr. Bugliosi".
To me, this suggests that the source of these files is Bugliosi's personal copy. Perhaps the missing files are testimony that he deemed of sufficient significance to put them aside for more thorough study.
Does anyone know anything about this?
Oh my garsh thank you for that index. I search the old fashioned way like some dumb Luddite.
ReplyDeleteThey did belong to Vince. All of these were haphazardly stored in random boxes for 5 decades with various people going through them throughout the years. I wouldn’t read anything into whatever is missing. You can always go through the court of appeal for the complete set
ReplyDeleteThanks due to Peter for his spreadsheet. It makes everything more do-able!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cielo!!!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Peter. Thanks, Almighty.
ReplyDeletetobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteI think some folks overstate the nature of the exchange between Hatami and Manson
My stance is that I simply don't know if Manson and Hatami ever saw one another. And that Vincent T. ramped it up to be more than it actually was. When he first heard of Altobelli speaking to Manson, there wasn't any 'incident' to speak of. It was Altobelli that said he was sure Hatami was there that day. But even then, he didn't say there had been any confrontation. The way the story is relayed in HS is really fascinating and we see Bugliosi in the space of a few lines make the jump from talking about "a man" to talking about having proof of Manson going to the house, even though nothing concrete actually bears this out.
his description of this very brief encounter implied that things were far less heated than you suggest
I was being sarcastic, hence me putting 'discussion' in quotes and talking about Hatami having a pop. Hatami says he felt protective of Sharon, a perfectly understandable response.
Hatami's stated attitude toward the intruder seems more gruffy dismissive than outright hostile or angry
I've long felt that the whole speculation and story was something of a damp squib. Even Bugliosi had to admit {in the book} that it wasn't as abrasive a happening as he'd anticipated.
Hatami did not fail to ID Manson as the intruder. He did pick the correct picture from the choices he was offered, but when pressed he said that he could not be absolutely certain. There's a difference there
He picked the picture of Manson and said that it most closely resembled the man he saw that day, but he could never say it was him. In my book, that is not an identification. Bugliosi said he showed Hatami photos of some of the men in the Family like Tex and Clem and let's face it, none of them looked like Charlie.
"even though nothing concrete actually bears this out."
ReplyDeleteSorry, but what on earth are you talking about? Altobelli describes a Manson encounter quite clearly and decisively. This is not concrete proof to you?
I suppose some other hairy little man might have visited earlier in the day and spoken with the photographer but that notion seems rather silly to me. It's not conclusive, but it certainly does make common sense.
"Bugliosi said he showed Hatami photos of some of the men in the Family like Tex and Clem and let's face it, none of them looked like Charlie."
Sure, but none of them looked much like each other, either. Except that all were relatively young and "hippyish" I suppose.
Hatami did not boldly point at Manson's photo and declare - "yes, that is the creepy-looking man I spoke to that day!" but seriously questioning this relatively minor incident seems like hair-splitting at its worst to me.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDelete"even though nothing concrete actually bears this out."
Sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? Altobelli describes a Manson encounter quite clearly and decisively. This is not concrete proof to you?
You misunderstand me. I wasn't talking about Altobelli. I know he describes talking with Manson. I've pointed it out often enough. I believe him.
That's different to the scenario that occurred with Hatami. There's nothing concrete to say Hatami and Manson met and talked ~ but Bugliosi assumes it as fact.
I suppose some other hairy little man might have visited earlier in the day and spoken with the photographer but that notion seems rather silly to me
When you consider the number of long haired guys in LA in March 1969, it doesn't seem silly to me. Especially given the photographer couldn't say it was him.
seriously questioning this relatively minor incident seems like hair-splitting at its worst to me
Well, I won't state as fact, something that I don't know to be fact, even if I suspect it's true.
For example, I suspect that the Waverly targets were Harold True's former housemates. I think I have good reason to have reached that conclusion. But I don't know it for a fact. So I never state it as a fact.
Mind you, if it was Manson, with his history of rejections, it might not be such a minor incident. Which is why Bugliosi was keen that it be him.
Right, and wasn't Irving creating a stink about the other photos making the choice of Charlie's more likely?
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time clowning O'Neill over Whitson. Imagine seeing Whitson's name in the transcripts and starting to gather information. Circus performer father. Society pages. NBA team owner advisor. I'd be like whoa here we go.
ReplyDeleteRight, and wasn't Irving creating a stink about the other photos making the choice of Charlie's more likely?
ReplyDeleteThat's innuendo, G. G-W, and it's fun, but non-definitive. Nowhere close...
True
ReplyDeleteHah!
ReplyDeleteThat's what sets you apart!
Lol, I definitely pick my spots. I'm having fun learning and reading.
ReplyDeleteWRT Hatami's encounter, here's what I think, FWIW...
ReplyDeleteI think that it's statistically certain that Hatami had an encounter with *someone* who looked something like Manson in March 1969, and that may/may not have been Manson. That person may/may not have continued back to the guesthouse.
I think that it's statistically certain that Altobelli saw Manson in the guest house around March 15-19th (I think).
It's not certain to me that that these two encounters were the same, and that Manson was involved in both. I think there is a significant probability that they were the same. but I'd not want to bet on it.
Let me interject a contemporaneous observation: a giant shitload of young males in CA looked like Manson: longish dark hair, hirsute. I looked like that at the time. Stature, in addition to general scruffy appearance, would be a big help, but...
On the ground level, I've wondered if Hatami embellished a bit and his big mouth got him in front of Bugliosi with Senor Whitson. And then maybe he doesn't want to doom anyone and somewhat holds to it. Which is brave. A lot of people would just go along with it to get out of trouble themselves and get the experience in the rearview mirror.
ReplyDeleteOppositely, Hatami is also some type of spook along with Whitson, Joan Huntington, and Karate Dave, and they all meet at the Munch Box for root beer floats and sinister planning sessions.
ReplyDeleteTheir ghostly apparitions I suppose.
ReplyDelete"There's nothing concrete to say Hatami and Manson met and talked ~ but Bugliosi assumes it as fact"
ReplyDeleteI am not aware of Hatami denying that he encountered a man on the front lawn, are you? It sounds very much to me like such an encounter - with Sharon briefly present in the front doorframe, did occur. Sharon's referring to the visitor as a "creepy guy" or a "creepy little man" certainly seems to match Manson's general description. And the fact that Altobelli also indicates that Manson was on the property . . . I mean, question away I guess but this one doesn't seem to be very questionable. At least not to me.
"For example, I suspect that the Waverly targets were Harold True's former housemates"
I will read the piece you linked for me, but I do have to say that Kasabian's testimony seems to negate this possibility. Unless you're suggesting that Kasabian was mostly lying, in which case all kinds of different things could be true.
G. G-W:
ReplyDeleteI think that that Hatami subtly played up the protective attribute of the confrontation with the scraggly stranger.
It was, indeed, the *right* thing to say...
WRT to Kasabian and Bugliosi...
ReplyDeleteMy imperfect understanding is that Atkins could have gone state's witness, but backed out the end...and if so, she must have spent many a sleepless night in her cell over this decision.
So what I use as a "most likely case" scenario in judging Kasabian's testimony, working to an acceptable degree with Bugliosi (whom I judge to be a basically honest, but personally ambitious, individual) is that her testimony reflects a somewhat trimmed back description of her actual involvement, and added to this an exaggerated horror at what took place at Cielo.
I've never for a moment bought all the "make it stop" horseshit, have you? If you felt that much aversion, would you have gone out the next night?
So I tend go think that Kasabian's tale is accurate, but edited. No lies, but deletions.
ReplyDeletetobiasragg said:
I am not aware of Hatami denying that he encountered a man on the front lawn, are you? It sounds very much to me like such an encounter - with Sharon briefly present in the front doorframe, did occur
Yeah, it occurred. I've never doubted it, not from when I first read the book in '78 till now. And until 2016, despite reading the book many times, I assumed "the man" in the encounter was Charlie. I never regarded that as a particularly important part of the story so I never looked at it too closely. Then we were having a debate here back in 2016 when Ed Sanders' book on Sharon came out {it's a poor book, by the way. It's the only Manson related book I've ever chucked, apart from when I first read "The Garbage People" back in 1995, and I only tossed that because of the death photos} and I looked at the incident closely and realized I'd missed out for decades on what may have really happened because, like VB, I'd assumed.
I ask myself, if Manson had been the one in the Hatami scenario {and I'm not saying he wasn't. I just don't know that he was. There are good reasons to conclude he was, there are good reasons to conclude he wasn't; ironically, the only person that could have known was Charles Manson !}, would he have gone to the main house again in the evening, having already been told that the person he was looking for didn't live there ? Wouldn't he have gone straight to the guest house ? If he was looking for Melcher and he went to the main house that evening, wouldn't whoever sent him to the guest house have told him that Melcher no longer lived on the property ? Hatami was not there in the evening.
Sharon's referring to the visitor as a "creepy guy" or a "creepy little man" certainly seems to match Manson's general description
Yeah, but that description could fit Danny DeCarlo or Roman Polanski. It could fit Bruce.
Furthermore, if she was in the main house that evening, with Gibby, Wojiciech and Jay, wouldn't she know if the creepy little guy came back ? Why ask Rudi ? He hadn't been there when the encounter with the creepy guy occurred.
I will read the piece you linked for me, but I do have to say that Kasabian's testimony seems to negate this possibility
That case is made in the linked piece. It's also answered. As one would expect, some things come out in the Watson trial that wouldn't come out in the first one and what she says about this particular matter is one of those things. It's not as clear cut and slamdunk as it appears.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteshoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteI've never for a moment bought all the "make it stop" horseshit, have you?
Yeah. With caveats.
If you felt that much aversion, would you have gone out the next night?
If you'd seen a guy try to rape a 15 year old {Sherry} in front of everyone and then ordered Bobby to do his thing after hitting her in the face, beat up a 16 year old {Snake}, see off your husband {Bob} and his friend {Charles Melton} who have come to get back $5000 you've nicked, order a group to kill and that group had gone out and killed 5 people, and it's made the news, and you've got a daughter with you whom you can't readily get to and this guy you're in love with, that you thought until some hours previous was Jesus, who seems to have the ability to not only boss his cohorts, but psyche them out and, more importantly, you too, and you've seen Tex in murderous action and no one seems to be particularly bothered about what has gone down not even 24 hours ago ~ you might be scared enough to go when told to.
However, whenever this point is raised, I counterbalance it with what Linda actually did on the 2nd night; questioning Charlie about whether he was going to kill in a house she recognized, refusing to commit murder when ordered and shown how and openly thwarting the plan to kill Saladin Nader and then 2 days later getting the heck out of town, even to the extent of leaving her daughter there.
That's aversion.
Thanks for the Chicago PD link, ToF! Imagine looking at almost half a year's salary in a dangerous job sitting in a lunch bag in a Porsche trunk, and you're in your 20's or early 30's.
ReplyDeleteI'd leave it there now, but back then me and my partner would've been drunk, high, and offering bumps to pretty LA women drinking in bars on the strip. Sad but true.
I hope my partner and I got lucky that night.
"If you felt that much aversion, would you have gone out the next night?"
ReplyDeleteAlways dangerous to apply normal sensibility to some of these Manson-related decisions.
Linda was only one of many, many family members who have indicated over the years "you didn't say no to Charlie, you never asked "why?", etc.).
One imagines that Kasabian was already trying to think of a way out of the Spahn situation by 9/10 August, but in that moment what exactly were the options? To say "no" was to risk being slapped, punched, or worse.
G.T.:
ReplyDeleteWRT to the fear and intimidation factor, there's that, granted, but there's a clarification I need to make.
When I referred to the "make it stop" quote, if she didn't say this, the converse is not true: that she wholeheartedly participated. I think she was there, saw about what she said she saw, was becoming increasing shocked and reluctant, but never told Frykowski that she was "so sorry" as he bled out on the porch, or pleaded with Atkins to "make it stop".
The following night Manson had his choice of whom to take--he had four veterans, and besides himself also took Van Houten and the dim-wit whose name escapes me (ironically, the dim wit walked though--it's a strange world, huh?). Would he have needed to take Kasabian if she showed any reservation, at all? Why toss in a weak link into the mix, if she exhibited reluctance?
And my point is that after all of the "I'm so sorry", and "make it stop" of the previous night, if she was able to hide these deep feelings of shock and horror that she wished to portray to the jury from Manson--a great master is the art of sizing people up--she was a great, great actress. Far better than Tate.
I currently think that she was both scared and somewhat fascinated, and wished group acceptance and Manson's acceptance, too. But in her testimony she made herself into a caricature of a decent young mother drawn by circumstance into a scene of depravity, unable to escape it. This is just the persona the prosecutor would want for his star witness, the one granted immunity from prosecution.
I think the actuality is more murky. Not a major participant, but...
Does anyone else besides me think that the first photo of Whitson in this article looks disturbingly like Pee Wee Herman?
ReplyDeleteAnother link in the chain of conspiracy?
While on the subject of Kasabian's involvement, there are interesting wrinkles, aren't there?
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying that I don't view her with any particular malice or revulsion. I see very odd inconsistencies in the testified evidence as to where she was, and when, and I see what looks to me like a sort of character buffing on the witness stand. All this amounts to is her not always being where she claimed to be--she was perhaps a bit closer to the action, and less repulsed by it, and to her portraying herself as something that she wasn't--a deeply shocked and horrified witness to the crime, who tried, but was unable, to stop the action.
But if anyone else is game, let's examine her involvement in the Cielo crime. Much of my recollection is based on unsystematic reading of this blog and others, and now influenced by her testimony--as much of it as I have read. It'll be flawed, for sure.
I can recall that she was said to have been selected, her, a relative newbie, because she had a valid DL. Does this sound a bit odd to anyone else? On a mission to kill as many strangers as are present, does it make any sense to make sure that he driver has a valid DL?
...and especially when Watson seems to have driven much of the time?
It seems consistent with the testimonies/narratives that she was never actually expected, as part of Watson's tactical plan--such as it was--to have her actively involved in the killings. She was to have been a look out, as I understand it. That's how she tells it, and it's consistent with what Atkins and Watson have said.
So we know she went up the embankment and down onto the property, carrying a change of clothing, I'd suppose, like the others. Watson says he sent her around back to look for any open doors, etc. and she may/may not have actually done it.
Then at some unspecified point, she was to watch for any approach, as I recall. But let's think about this: where would she post herself? Thinking about it, if she wanted to watch the approach and remain hidden, one of the best places would be the inside stone wall, near the interior button. This would also be near Parent's car, with him dead in it.
If she wanted to watch further up the shared driveway, she'd maybe go as far as the right side of the gate (as you face out from the property), but that's somewhat exposed. It would depend of how nervous she was, I suppose.
Then at some point she came back toward the walkway, saw Frykowski on the porch, apologized to him, and saw Krenwinkel chasing Folger, saw Watson finishing off Frykowski, and had a chance to tell Atkins to make it stop.
She could have also done all this if she had never gone on guard duty, too--just kind of circulated at the periphery of the action, neither apologizing nor pleading. Dumbstruck, maybe.
Then at some point she ran away, and to hear it, ended up waiting in the car.
Let's see: if she went down to the car before the other three, she must have opened the gate, which then closed automatically. Then the others would have come out when Watson pushed the button. They then grabbed their extra clothes, but were they also provident enough to grab Kasabian's too?
These are just questions I have at this point. All of this could be fairly well covered if she had never gone on watch but had stayed close to the front of the house, running away just before the others, opening the gate, and grabbing her clothes. This would fit other versions of the story.
More on Kasabian's version of gthe action, from the first trial:
ReplyDeleteK: "I came around from the back, and Tex was standing at a window, cutting the screen, and he told me to go back and wait at the car, and he may have told me to listen for sounds, but I don't remember him saying it."
B: "While you were down by the car do you know where Tex, Sadie, and Katie were?"
K: "No, I didn't see them."
B: "Did either of those three come down to the car?"
K: "Yes, Katie came down at one point."
B: "Did Katie say anything to you?"
K: "Yes, she asked for my knife, and 1 gave it to her, and she told me to stay there and listen for sounds, and I did, and she left."
B: "When she left, did she walk in the direction of the residence?"
K: "Yes."
According to this, Kasabian went back out to the car (thru the gate #1), then Kasabian came to the car for her knife (thru the gate #2 and back #3), then Kasabian went back up to see Frykowski and the other action (thru the gate #4) then back down to the car (thru the gate #5).
Then the rest of them came down to the car (thru the gate #6).
It seems like they used the gate a lot. Does anyone see this as implausible? Not impossible, but implausible? Is it likely that on any of these putative trips they would have climbed back out around the gate, the reverse of coming in?
Looking at Cielo like a numbers game, I kinda feel like Linda was in on the plan until she wasn't.
ReplyDeleteshoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteIt seems like they used the gate a lot
The car she's talking about is Parent's car, not the one they came in. There was no to~ing and fro~ing through the gate.
but never told Frykowski that she was "so sorry" as he bled out on the porch
She never did apologize to Frykowski verbally. It was a silent prayer to God.
Just my opinion, but I think you'd be better off reading her entire testimony before asking questions. There is so much information that doesn't come forth in Bugliosi's questioning, but which comes out from the other lawyers' questioning. And many questions you have will be answered from there, at least initially.
G.T.:
ReplyDeleteI'm reading it now. There'll be that big hole in the night of the 809th looks like (vol 31-33 missing). Thus far I had not seen clear evidence that the car she went to was Parent's. It does make sense to stand watch at that location, however.
I'm at the point in Vol 34 where she is at her mom's in Boston and has turned herself in.
The 14 days of Kanarek x-exam ought to be informative.
Vol 35 not 34...
ReplyDelete@ G-W
ReplyDelete"and also to give others a chance to describe how much blow they snorted some random Friday night in the 80's at a Huey Lewis concert".
LOL - You'd actually gave to give me lots of whatever dope was available to go see Huey Lewis!!
G.T.:
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of Kasabian's credibility...
I'm continuing to read thru he testimony (it would be nice to have the missing volumes, 31-33 and 40, for sake of detail) and trying to be as objective as I can be--since I know or care for none of the people involved, and it's essentially a settled issue--what I see in Kasabian appears to be this.
She is rigorously honest and straight-forward, with a winning portion of openness, in all matters that can be checked.
She is straightforward and open, but possibly not completely honest, in areas where there may be other conflicting testimony.
She is straightforward and open, but not above revisionist fabrication that will help her, in areas in which she is the only source of information. Included in this is personal reaction and motivation.
Given that she always comes off as open and straightforward, when she established credibility in areas that can be corroborated, if she chooses to be less truthful in the other classes of testimony, she is much more easy to believe than if she had seemed guarded at times.
She tells the truth when it can be checked independently against fairly unambiguous sources.
She is selectively truthful, staying *close* to verifiable fact, when there are ambiguous sources.
She may well say anything when her statements cannot be checked independently, and her internal state of mind is within this category.
Again, I think she saw just about what she has testified to, but that her internal reactions and motivations may not be as she portrays them. And since all we're after is accurate information as to who/what/where, her motivations/reactions don't matter.
Anyway, that's how I see it, so far.
Back to the idea that she stood watch near Parent's car, I agree that this makes perfect sense to me, but I have yet to see where she, or anyone, has made that concrete. I *do* think it happened that way, but the lack of definitive testimony, or interview narrative, is annoying and nagging. Can you supply any ideas of where, specifically, to find a definitive description of her waiting near Parent's car?
Q: Then what?
ReplyDeleteA: I don't know, I left.
Q: Where did you go?
A: Back to the Parent car.
Q: Did you see Sadie and Pat as you went back to the Rambler?
A: No.
Q: Did you shout any warnings or make any noise at all as you walked back to the Rambler?
A: No.
https://www.cielodrive.com/charles-tex-watson-trial-08-17-71-pm.php#lk
Thanks!
ReplyDeleteBTW,
ReplyDeleteVolume 40 is there. Cheat sheet labels it as missing and different witnesses
I’m just catching up with this thread and see all the argument about whether the guy that Hatami saw was Manson. A lot of store seems to be placed on Hatami not saying definitely that it was Manson at the trial. But let’s face it, it was a bit of a fleeting exchange when he saw Manson/whoever outside the house, he had no need or thought process to remember the face and it was months later when he was asked to id Manson as the guy he saw at Cielo. Is it any wonder he wasn’t sure after such a passage of time and such a short encounter. I’m pretty sure that’s it was Manson as circumstance tends to suggest that it was (ie Manson returned later) and I think Tate’s description of “creepy little guy” fits Manson perfectly! Fair enough to say that LA was full of hippies at the time but that in itself tells you that Tate would have been used to the look without ordinarily thinking of it as creepy. But add Manson into the mix and you can see why she thought creepy!
ReplyDeleteTorF:
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'm finishing 38 now.
It's really odd to hear Kasabian use colloquial terminology of that era, like I would have been using at that time, but have forgotten all about it.
The use of the word "heavy" in the sense of importance or gravitas or any amplifying modification. Like "that dope was some heavy shit".
And she said "oh, wow" once.That was extremely common.
I'm waiting for someone to say "far out".
Or "get your shit together"...
:^)
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of Kasabian's credibility...
She is straightforward and open, but possibly not completely honest, in areas where there may be other conflicting testimony.
She is straightforward and open, but not above revisionist fabrication that will help her, in areas in which she is the only source of information
Bear in mind, that at the point that Bugliosi was questioning her, she had no idea what the defence lawyers would ask, nor what the defendants might say when they took the stand. So she didn't really know what could have been conflicting testimony.
A lot of store seems to be placed on Hatami not saying definitely that it was Manson at the trial
Part of the reason for this is that there is, with some people, an underlying narrative that Vincent T either coached or leaned on witnesses to say particular things, implying dishonesty. Now, in Ed Sanders' shitty book on Sharon, he says Hatami told him that the memory of seeing Manson was suggested to him by Reeves Whitson, and it led to comments on this blog from Manson Mythos, who is now D. {"The book has two valuable features:Hatami admitting he lied under preasure from Bugliosi and Col Paul Tate's private investigator"}, Robert Hendrickson {"Could you be so kind as to comment here after you READ the part where Hatami confesses to lying at the Manson trial? It is likely the most significant THING to have EVER been revealed on this or ANY internet site / blog."} and Unknown {"there is a bracketed paragraph which states that Hatami, whilst being interviewed by Sanders for the book, said he has no memory at all of Manson coming to Cielo. He says this "memory" was suggested to him by an investigator called Reeve Whitson, working for Colonel Tate and VB. He testified under this pressure, but still maintains he has no memory of Manson coming to Cielo"}.
The actual paragraph in the book is:
For his part, in an interview with Mr. Hatami while researching this book, Hatami told me he has no memory at all of Manson coming to the front door of Cielo Drive, but that the memory was suggested to him by an investigator named Reeve Whitson, who worked for both Colonel Paul Tate and the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Under this pressure, recalled Hatami, he went ahead and testified at the trial that Manson had in fact come to the front door that March day-something he continues not to recall.
That in itself is inaccurate information {Hatami was consistent from April 1970 till his death. he never deviated from what he said}, it led to inaccurate conclusions and as we know, legends and falsehoods, if not challenged and if allowed to go on long enough become facts that people will defend with clubs, swords and pitchforks !
Mind you, I blame Vince for this one in particular. His keenness to nail Charlie got the better of him and he got a smackdown from the judge as a result.
G.T.:
ReplyDeleteBear in mind, that at the point that Bugliosi was questioning her, she had no idea what the defence lawyers would ask, nor what the defendants might say when they took the stand. So she didn't really know what could have been conflicting testimony.
What I'm seeing as I work thru her testimony is that her testimony regarding events and facts in relation to Cielo seem very solid. By this I would then conclude that what she says happened is very close to the actual events.
I question the way she characterizes her state of mind and motivations and actions after the event(s), however. Therefore, what I think I see is that because of her ideal level of involvement (accompanied both crimes, but did not participate directly to the killings), she'd be favored as a witness over Atkins, her only serious rival for immunity.
Her credibility would of course be attacked, and her motivation for testifying would be attributed to self-interest--making it like a quid pro quo--but her lack of actual involvement and her flight from Spahn two days after Waverly could be portrayed to her advantage.
She was the best that Bugliosi could hope for, if he wanted to get Manson as well as the others.
Immunity was never considered as an option for Susan Atkins.
ReplyDeleteKasabian's actions over those few days were very much in line with her state of mind as descibed. Realistic doubt must be based on something tangible to be taken seriously and Linda Kasabian provides very little wiggle room there.
Tobias:
ReplyDeleteKasabian's actions over those few days were very much in line with her state of mind as descibed. Realistic doubt must be based on something tangible to be taken seriously and Linda Kasabian provides very little wiggle room there.
I see her repeated failures to contact law enforcement after she had possession of her daughter, and was out of state, to be inconsistent with her declarations that she was intent on telling the truth even immediately after the killings.
I think she was scared and repulsed after the first murder, but I'm not certain how she was induced to supply Nader's address as a potential victim. If she was coerced to do it, that would be one thing, but if she volunteered it, then sought to negate this by supplying the wrong address purposefully that would be another thing--but ever volunteering it is a bit questionable.
And do we KNOW going to the wrong address was purposefully, and not a simple mistake that later proved of value in her rehabilitation by the prosecution? I think after the second murder scenario she decided to bail out, leaving her daughter--which also seems inconsistent with someone who purports to care more for others than for her own survival.
I confess to not having information about the Nader incident: I'll have to read more.
So far as Atkins and immunity, I believed that I had read that she considered testifying--which implies to me that she would have done this only if offered and granted immunity--which she was not, but that she backed out supposedly in fear of Manson.
But I cannot link this, so it's simply over the fence gossip at this point.
Atkins' offer was that the prosecution would not seek the death penalty against her. That was it.
ReplyDeleteShe returned to the family fold out of love and comfort, not out of fear. Manson was locked up at that point.
As for Kasabian, the cops were the last people you wanted to turn to back then. They were the enemy. She has explained all of this, and a lot more, in her testimony and after the trial.
The Nader matter is also explained in detail.
Yes, you've a lifetime of reading ahead of you (wink)
Tobias:
ReplyDeleteAs for Kasabian, the cops were the last people you wanted to turn to back then. They were the enemy. She has explained all of this, and a lot more, in her testimony and after the trial.
You know what, though? The basic underlying opposition to the police, in that era--and bear in mind I was a draft-dodging, dope-smoking college student at that time, I felt that I could be arrested at least twice a week for possession of small amounts--is nowhere as reflexive and outright hostile as it is currently.
I'm mentioning the comparison so that you can see that while it's easy to say that you'd never go to the cops back then--they were the enemy--would you say the same about a person today, who said, in good faith, that they wanted to report that they'd run over a pedestrian, but instead left the scene because "the cops were the last people you'd want to turn to--they are the enemy," and did not report it until their license plate was identified and linked to them and a warrant was issued. And then they turned themselves in.
I'm suggesting not to buy the standard stereotypical explanations wholesale.
Besides, if indeed she wanted to tell the truth about the killings, as she has testified, who exactly might she tell it to, if not to legal authorities?
FWIW, I took a break to read about Harold True, the former occupant of the house next door to the La Biancas. At that time frame, I was more like that than like the Manson group, who were, indeed, true hippies--decadent hippies, true, but of the proper mold.
So I'm saying that thus far, reading her entire testimony, which will take several more days, so far it looks really pretty straightforward.
Her information as to details is excellent, trustworthy. It can stick to the truth without need to lie/distort because she did not actually kill anyone, and had likely been led to believe that given the truth of her statements, Bugliosi would recommend her for immunity, and that she might very likely get it.
But to have her testimony accepted as factual by the jury, she had to be seen by the jury as basically *good*--a victim of circumstance--and this speaks to human nature, as you can well see on this forum: people want to disbelieve anything a bad person says, even the demonstrably true parts.
You see it ALL THE TIME here: "Oh, I don't believe a word of what Watson says...". Parts are demonstrably accurate, though, so how can you say that?
So Kasabian's factual testimony as to events appears to be good, trustworthy, but her attempts at character building are very questionable. For some reason, she seems to have a lot of apologists out there willing to help her out.
Who said anything about how some people feel about the police or authorities today? I am speaking of Kasabian's thought process after these events as she has described them. Hasn't to do with stereotypes or holding bits of weed.
ReplyDeleteAs for her character, Kasabian was pretty upfront about all of that and as I stated her actions are in line with the thought processes she describes herself as having gone through.
All of the answers you seek are out there to be discovered. Talk less, read more maybe.
Tobias:
ReplyDeleteOK, let's start with the original statement:
As for Kasabian, the cops were the last people you wanted to turn to back then. They were the enemy. She has explained all of this, and a lot more, in her testimony and after the trial.
First, it seems like *you* are saying "the cops were the last people you wanted to turn to back then. They were the enemy", and that Kasabian gave you this information (and more), and you apparently take it as fact.
Unless you were there, you're basically taking Kasabian's word for it, right?
I WAS there, and I'm telling you that it was not as simple as you've phrased it. It was actually more of a word game--to say the right thing so as to identify yourself as hip.
Too, you don't need to believe me, or Kasabian. But I have no actual interest in portraying the sentiment of the time in any way other than as I recall it, while she does, since it explains why she did not go to the police--which is pretty difficult to explain if you also want to portray yourself as devoured by guilt for the killings and strongly desiring to "tell the truth" about it.
And again I ask: if she wanted so badly to tell the truth about it, to whom would she tell it to set the moral balance straight, because clearly it's her intent to do so. A priest? A clergyman? A close friend? The way she tells it, would that do the trick, do you suppose?
She's not a monster: she's just a normal human trying to get out a very bad situation as best she can. And it was real simple: tell the factual truth about the events, and distance yourself from the actual killers.
We Can Be Together
ReplyDeleteWe can be together
Ah you and me
We should be together
We are all outlaws in the eyes of America
In order to survive we steal cheat lie forge fred hide and deal
We are obscene lawless hideous dangerous dirty violent and young
But we should be together
Come on all you people standing around
Our life's too fine to let it die
We can be together
All your private property is target for your enemy
And your enemy
Is we
Da da da da da da da da da
Da da da da da da da da da
We are forces of chaos and anarchy
Everything they say we are we are
And we are very
Proud of ourselves
Up against the wall
Up against the wall fred (motherfucker)
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Come on now together
Get it on together
Everybody together
We should be together
We should be together my friends
We can be together
We will be
We must begin here and now
A new continent of earth and fire
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Tear down the walls
Won't you try
https://youtu.be/cxA3Q96a8XE
A statement of the times probably written during the TL trials...
DeleteI wasn't really there myself (born May 1965) but the members of The Jefferson Airplane sure were and, had a fairly large following too
jefferson Airplane Revolution album, right?
ReplyDeleteI have it. It's a very poor album musically FWIW, but useful in showing how they went from Jefferson Airplane Loves You, in 66-67, to this in 69-70, I'd say.
As I recall, the liner notes and back cover are a time capsule of the amount of posturing, and its style, of the era.
Look what's happening out in the streets
Got a revolution (got to revolution)
Hey, I'm dancing down the streets
Got a revolution (got to revolution)
Oh, ain't it amazing all the people I meet?
Got a revolution (got to revolution)
One generation got old
One generation got soul
This generation got no destination to hold
It was pretty silly, bombastic horseshit, which I ate up avidly with a spoon at the time.
Ah, such is youth!
Just wanted to illustrate the tension/lack of trust between the youth and the establishment at that time.
DeleteYour comment on the marked difference in album titles/political stance is telling too!
grimtraveller said the wrong person said...
ReplyDeleteA lot of store seems to be placed on Hatami not saying definitely that it was Manson at the trial
This was actually said by Speculator, not Shoegazer. Apologies to both.
shoegazer said:
I see her repeated failures to contact law enforcement after she had possession of her daughter, and was out of state, to be inconsistent with her declarations that she was intent on telling the truth even immediately after the killings
I don't think she majored on "it was always my intent to tell what happened" as opposed to "I always knew I would be the one to tell what happened.."
There's a subtle difference.
On top of that, she has said that she didn't want to go through all of that while she was pregnant. As it turned out {thank you, Vera !! 👋} she ended up having to anyway. She did, however, tell her husband and two guys, Joe Sage and Jeffrey Jacobs, about the killings. Sage actually phoned up Spahn to ask Charlie about it and Pat had a go at Linda for opening her mouth. This was before she got her daughter back. Interestingly, I've never come across anyone that is critical of Sage, Jacobs or Bob Kasabian for not going to the police, nor have I ever heard anyone commend one Steve Zabriske, for going to the Portland police at the start of Nov '69 {before Atkins even began speaking to Virginia Graham} and telling them a "Charlie and a Clem" were responsible for the killings.
leaving her daughter--which also seems inconsistent with someone who purports to care more for others than for her own survival
Over the years, I've incurred the ire of people across several sites by saying that actually, Linda leaving her daughter, under the circumstances, made sense and I can see precisely where she was coming from.
Firstly, it was partly thinking about her daughter that prevented her doing anything when she fled 10050 Cielo. Secondly, she did try to leave with Tanya. She had her stuff packed and hidden and was going to get them and her but because the children were not kept with their mums, she couldn't get to her without arousing suspicion and she'd seen what had happened at Cielo and she'd been the recipient of an order to murder at Ocean Front Walk and she was scared of Charlie and some of these people.
I think sometimes, as commentators, some of us display a real lack of the willingness {not ability} to actively and deliberately put ourselves in someone else's position and attempt to see things through their mindset.
I remember times at school when I was genuinely scared of certain kids or teachers. Whether it was warranted or irrational is as relevant as whether or not Miles Davis wore socks, the day he finally kicked heroin. The important thing is that the fear was there. And it influenced actions.
But Linda played it smart in the end. She was confident that even though some of the Family were murderous, they would not hurt children. And as life is a continuum, she knew there would arise opportunities where she could reclaim Tanya. She went to her husband, rejected his idea of just going to Spahn to get Tanya, but ploughed on, seeking a solution. It arrived in the form of Joe Sage, what we'd call in the UK, a "dirty old man." 😸 She had to sink a bit low to accommodate Joe....but the reality is that she felt Tanya would be safe ~ she was. She knew she's get her back ~ she did. And it was at this point that Gary Fleischmann came into her sphere, which ultimately was instrumental in her walking away with immunity.
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteI think she was scared and repulsed after the first murder, but I'm not certain how she was induced to supply Nader's address as a potential victim...but even volunteering it is a bit questionable
I'll say it again, when you've been part of the Cielo slayings and seen one troupe dropped off to kill the occupants of a house, and you've been out driving this guy around while this guy is looking for random people to kill and he brings up the actor and asks if he's a pig/piggie, your fear just might push you into saying where he lives. You don't know what the guy might do if you refuse to reveal the address.
Fear is a great leveller.
Anyway, it's coming up in the transcript.
And do we KNOW going to the wrong address was purposefully, and not a simple mistake that later proved of value in her rehabilitation by the prosecution
Well, obviously, we don't know for sure. But on the other hand, why even tell the story ? She's the only one that speaks of going with Charlie into the apartments. It makes no sense to talk of going to someone's door if it was a mistake.
So far as Atkins and immunity, I believed that I had read that she considered testifying--which implies to me that she would have done this only if offered and granted immunity
I have never heard this. In fact, her lawyer, Richard Caballero, repeatedly said that he thought she'd never testify and that it was only a matter of time before she went back to Charlie. He was pretty accurate on that one.
but that she backed out supposedly in fear of Manson
It's a bit more nuanced than that, but she was scared of what might happen to her son. Plus the fact that she didn't like the negative flak from the other Charlie girls.
her attempts at character building are very questionable
This was one of the places where a Bugliosi gamble paid off handsomely. Her character was revealed to be selfish, yet simple. She lied where she had to. Had sex with almost anyone. Spent 4 years in a drug induced haze, looking for meaning to her unsatisfactory life. Stole from friends. She was the last person you'd want as a friend. And as I've said before, if she was my mum, I wouldn't be singing it from the rooftops. In his testimony, even Charlie commented that she had "only taken every narcotic that is possible to take. How she has only stolen, lied, cheated, and done everything that you have got there in that book."
But that is why she was believable. And the more the defence tried to impugn her, the better she looked because, at least as it appeared, she had nothing to hide. Ironic that the worse she was shown to be, the better and more truthful she looked. Bugliosi summed it up well when he said she was repulsively frank.
For some reason, she seems to have a lot of apologists out there willing to help her out
I have a fairly good memory. I've been involved in 5 TLB sites over the years. You don't even need the fingers on one hand to count the number of people that have anything supportive to say about Linda. She is almost universally detested across the TLB sites I've been involved with. Tobias, Astrocreep and myself are among the few that have anything positive to say about her and her contribution. Maybe Austin Ann too, though I can't recall what she may have said.
A Linda Kasabian apologist is almost a contradiction in terms !
Excellent research and questions you are posing regarding Reeve J. Whitson. I have an article dropping in the next few days that will offer some new details on Reeve Whitson's "missing" careers, beginning in Hollywood around 1954. I also have some new photos of Reeve from 1974 on, as well as timelines on several of his purposefully failed business ventures, handlers and sponsors. For those of you who ever doubted that the stories about Reeve Whitson were made up or too fantastic to be true, you should come away with a new appreciation of why he was called a "walk-in" by some, and why Captains, Colonels and Generals where always eager to take his call!
ReplyDeletehttps://zodiackilleridentified.com/2021/07/29/reeve-whitson-builder-seller-and-driver-of-race-cars/
Above and below is a link to an article I wrote last year on William Weston's excellent website/articles about The Zodiac Killer (who by the way is correct about Robert Linkletter).
This article details Whitson's incredible involvement from 1968-1977 in Auto-Racing (aero-dynamic breakthroughs sponsored perhaps by a program within the Department of Defense?) with Ford British racing research and Carroll Shelby, as well as Reeve's "cover story" and "corporate cover" as a global-licensor and builder of beautiful Mini 1/43rd scale models cars and slot car racing. His cars have few equals in precision in the kit industry, even today. as you read the article, you will quickly understand WHY WHITSON WAS NOT BLUFFING when he threatened to deport Hatami after the Tate contract/operation. Whitson employed and then hired out independent contractors to build and design an advance children's pedal car, and this was built by AAR's Phil Remington. Whitson also worked with James Garner's automotive race team, American International Racers (AIR), and they co-owned one of less than 15 street legal prototypes of the Ford GT40-MkIII. The car sells for over $5 million dollars today, and another fun fact is that their car was used in the final racing scenes in George Lucas'1971 film "THX1138". A picture of the car and a picture of Reeve in slight disguise from 1975 at the Indianapolis Speedway, about to present a licensing idea for the Eagle Car that had just won the Indy 500.
Whitson knew EVERYONE that was someone in racing, and he sub-contracted workers to Parnelli Jones to work as design engineers for Vel’s Parnelli “Super Team” among whom were Joe Leonard, Al Unser, and Mario Andretti as drivers for advanced Indy cars. Whitson also employed and sub-contracted workers to Cox Hobbies in Santa Ana, California, and along this journey is where he became close with key individuals who collectively made up what I call "The Ties that Bind" in 1960's and 1970's- They were the real decision-makers in and around Los Angeles, San Diego and Hollywood (led by Art Linkletter, who never properly revealed that he had a plant in the front row of all the Manson trials keeping Art informed of the progress- It was a quid pro quo, as that gentlemen who monitored every minute of the trials was later rewarded with contracts for 2 biographies to write about the life of Linkletter:
https://zodiackilleridentified.com/2021/07/29/reeve-whitson-builder-seller-and-driver-of-race-cars/
"I think sometimes, as commentators, some of us display a real lack of the willingness {not ability} to actively and deliberately put ourselves in someone else's position and attempt to see things through their mindset."
ReplyDeleteThank you, grim. You have nailed everything perfectly. Linda describes her thoughts and mindset during these events quite clearly during the trial, and she was questioned on all of this repeatedly over her days on the stand. And she was pretty clear about why she did not go to the police:
“I thought police were pigs. I didn’t know how to go to them. I thought they would say I was crazy and take my little girl away. I didn’t know where Charlie was. It was possible they would find me and kill me. I was pregnant and wanted to go to my husband and tell him first,”
As I said, the police were the last people you wanted to go to, if you were Linda Kasabian. Without her, it is easy to imagine convictions not happening in these cases - perhaps that's what gets these Manson fans bunged up.
Hi, Doug.
ReplyDeleteI got the album wrong...it's either "Volunteers" or "Volunteers of America."
Yup, they were quite popular, especially early on, then later as they changed to Starship. But popular even then, as you say.
RLParents:
ReplyDeleteHoly shit...
Tobias:
ReplyDeleteThe context of this:
"I thought police were pigs. I didn’t know how to go to them. I thought they would say I was crazy and take my little girl away. I didn’t know where Charlie was. It was possible they would find me and kill me. I was pregnant and wanted to go to my husband and tell him first,”
The context of this pretty clearly indicates that these were her thoughts about why she didn't go to the police immediately after leaving Spahn, and before she had reached New Mexico and her husband. What I'm mainly talking about would be later--in Miami, then in Boston.
Grim:
ReplyDeleteLet me try to clarify my thoughts and speculate how they may differ from yours.
I see Kasabian as a tag-along but not truly attached to Mason, like many of the other women. She seems somewhat detached so far as personality as judged by her actions. Then she seeks to portray herself as morally offended--which is above all an emotional response.
She acts detached, but professes emotional involvement.
All of this impugns her professed state of mind.
But as a practical, fact-finding matter, her state of mind is unimportant when she relates, with some level of accuracy and detail, what she witnessed at the crime scenes, and just before and after, maybe.
I have a problem accepting anything at face value where she relates her state of mind because first and foremost, if she successfully distances herself from the others in terms of state of mind--which she cannot do WRT to the physical involvement, beyond claiming no part in the actual physical attacks--she has a good chance of saving her own life.
Possibly like you, I have a kid (grown now), and so far as I understand the parental instinctive motivations--and for a dad, I was extremely protective and alert--walking away from your kid and trusting to fate is out of the question. None of what she says on the stand about feeling that her daughter would be OK is convincing. At best, it 's a spaced out 60s chick, and more likely a self-serving excuse to cover why she ran away at that time. Basically, she was scared, had a good opportunity, but that opportunity excluded her taking her kid, and so she decided to leave her daughter.
I think that telling Sage and her husband is indeed in her favor--that she might very well have wanted to alert society against what she'd seen. It's a plus...
(BTW, there's a character from the era--Mr. Natural. That's who Joe Sage is... ;^) ).
I do think that your view of Kasabian's state of mind is possible and defensible, it's just that as stated in common jury instructions as regarding how to judge testimony, I don't accept her portrayal of state of mind.
I am also curious if the prosecuton attempted to put any character witnesses on the stand in support of Kasabian. I am aware that Emmer, a defense character witness, was not heard in open court, nor was she an exemplary witness anyway.
So far as apologists, I understand that Kasabian is often attacked, bt most often it seems to be by those sorry individuals who come to these forums to defend Manson, usually as across between Robin Hood and an eastern guru. To paraphrase his own words about another historical figure "A tuned-in dude with a lot of good ideas."
I'm not attacking her credibility in any area except state of mind as she portrays it, nor do I do it to strengthen the idea that Manson got screwed.
Kasabian answers those questions too, she is asked about it all during the course of her testimony. What answers are to be had can be found there.
ReplyDeleteKasabian answers those questions too, she is asked about it all during the course of her testimony. What answers are to be had can be found there.
ReplyDeleteWhat questions specifically?
In 1954, Reeve Whitson was in LA working as a Public Relations Manager for the new Kaiser- Darrin car, and he is in the spotlight then, dating Hollywood starlets, such as Joan Weldon. Yet Reeve was supposed to be married shortly after that period, so the context of why he was "reported" to be seen about the town with Reeve Whitson, had to do with his role at that time as a PR man for the Kaiser Darrin automobile. That story will be discussed later in my article, as it is the launching point for the cover story and beginning of Reeve's cover role as an experienced PR man and photo-journalist during crucial moments of technological advancements in fiberglass and aero-dynamics within the automotive/racing industry worldwide. It is why Reeve is credited with a photo shoot of The Miss Universe pageant with one of his long-time contacts, the founder of International Pancakes and SOOOO much more in Hollywood and beyond.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.barrett-jackson.com/Events/Event/Details/1954-KAISER-DARRIN-ROADSTER-137561
A consistent theme here for a Reeve Whitson business venture, with the Darrin Car company ending up in financial ruin with very few production cars or prototypes.
And like Whitson’s later specialty in late 1960's early 1970's auto-racing, the Darrin was one of the first fiberglass bodies, just before the Corvette was introduced.
I also believe Reeve Whitson used the alias Walter Kern during his time in Sweden, because he may have then worked in a capacity with Walter Kern, or “became” Walter Kern, as Kern invented a radically new Saab sports car that ended up in ruins, low production, AND may have given Reeve a cover when he was in Sweden, where he met his Swedish “wife”.
The Walter Kern company worked out of Massachusetts and built a fiberglass body and new suspension dynamics with magnetic-infused engineering (Reeves supposedly specialties with Fords GT-40 Mach111).
At the time (late 1950’s), SAAB was also in the Aerospace business!!
And a fun fact is that Robert Linkletter was driving a SAAB when he was killed in 1980:
https://www.saabplanet.com/the-saab-quantum-v/
Again, to BE CLEAR, I am not suggesting that Reeve Whitson was the actual IBM genius Walter Kern, but at the very least, I believe Reeve used it as an alias himself, and it was not given to him randomly by Lt. Heller during the Tate murder investigations. - Peter
Here is the September 22nd, 1954, Los Angeles Daily News gossip column "plant" about Reeve Whitson and actress Joan Weldon... This blurb gave Whitson the entree into the Miss Universe Pageant as a PR/Photo shoot man with one of his infamous business connections, a business operator, named Al Lapin from Beverly Hills... who among other ventures, was the founder of IHOP pancake house.
ReplyDeletePlease also take note in the link below of the movie theatre listings below the article, because one of them is for the movie "Brigadoon", which was supposed to be one of Reeve's fantasy business ventures, "The Scotland Brigadoon Amusement Park" fiasco he participated in for the money laundering opportunity!
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=DNLA19540922.1.23&srpos=1&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-Reeve+Whitson+public+relations+man-------1
The final part of my upcoming article will detail the head-shaking role that Reeve Whitson played as a sports agent/business manager in the NBA with the LA Lakers. Reeve was nearly invisible in the background and intersected with the NBA's player/ownership gambling and drug scandals, and an unaccredited role in nefarious financing schemes that led to the ownership exchange of the Los Angeles Lakers NBA team, LA Kings NHL team, and the largest ranch in California at the time! That success may "perhaps" have then led to the ownership exchange/real estate transactions of the Cleveland Cavaliers and MAYBE the Indiana Pacers.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to search for a motive here, considered the billions of gambling dollars and alleged referee/owner/gambling debt ridden and drug-addled underpaid NBA basketball players who were rip for allowing the "point spread" or the "over-under" to go a certain way. Same formula was also used during that time period with NFL football point spreads being controlled by a handful of individuals who would know about a "fix" that has been documented to include owners, players and sadly, a few coaches, who were also compromised... The list is long, and I will not name names here, but a great documentary from PBS frontline in 1980's can be found on YouTube at the following link:
Again, some of this has been previously mentioned in Tom O'Neill's book, but curiously, he fails to give the proper details when mentioning individuals who thought they "knew" Reeve
Whitson. For example, O'Neil mentions Neil Cummings as an attorney for Whitson. OK... great. but why did he not reveal that Neil Cummings was also an attorney for Oakland Raiders Al Davis's mafia linked challenges, and was the point person in Reeve Whitson's failed attempt to bring the Maglev train from Las Vegas to Los Angeles, AND was the attorney extraordinaire for Carrol Shelby and Shelby Motors... these details matter, and here I am trying to offer them to the community, but most of you fail to hear "the signal within the noise" that saturates this topic surrounding Reeve Whitson.. in the proper forum, I would be happy to share WHO and WHAT Reeve Whitson was, wo his handlers were, and why he was involved with not only the Tate "operation", but many other seminal moments in intelligence history, like "Remote Viewing" and Astral Projection experimentation. - Peter Heitmann San Jose, CA
Here is that link from comment above to PBS's 1980's NFL gambling report with southern California football owners and players in late 1960's and early 1970's:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKqswD4z9b0&msclkid=f664b242a5d911eca34fb14c12288966
RL, did you find anything more to Whitson's first marriage that lasted seven months? I notice Whitson would've been a sophomore in college at IU just out of first semester exams at the date of his Los Angeles wedding.
ReplyDeleteDoug:
ReplyDeleteIt was funny though, as compared to now, this antipathy between youth groups and the establishment.
Back then it was almost entirely college-based opposition, and in part this was catalyzed by ideological, activist profs. So, as in my case, you might have an history prof at SD State use part of his lecture time to criticize capitalist economic systems in terms of wealth distribution. This might segue into the "military-industrial complex", a favorite bugaboo of the era.
Then, after some dramatic event in Vietnam (Tet, Mai Lai), you might have a student firebrand (every campus had some, in the mold of Mario Savio) get up and give an impromptu speech in the student union, and call for a boycott of something--classes, maybe.
If the boycott came to pass the administration would order campus police to clear the protesters, so that classes could continue, and it could escalate from there.
It is impossible to overstate how much of the oppostion sentiments was driven by fear of the draft. When that went away, so did the reflexive opposition to all things Establishment.
So what you had at that time was a broad range of upper-middle class kids being somewhat in opposition to the domestic police, the main enemy being US foreign policy. Economic ideology, such as a switch to collectivism, was only skin deep--basically we were like our parents, but didn't want to go to war.
Now, however, the opposition "the system" is concentrated in largely under-educated, unprepared white males, who band in communities called homeless encampments. They have been informally introduced to the ideals of political anarchism, as a system (or non-system) and are therefore "anti-system", anti-authority. There are well-placed apologists fulfilling the role of activist profs of the 60s, and these homeless deeply hate all authority, blaming it for their present circumstances. They would kill strangers--police, members of he establishment--and each other readily at minor provocation or simple opportunism.
To me, the homeless I describe--and believe me, I know much more about them than I ever wanted to--are much closer to Manson's group, so in a sense those here who excuse Kasabian's reticence in going to the police as being a sort of counter-culture thing havd a point. But again, the antipathy and the ready resort to violence are much, much worse now than then, in my opinion.
Wouldn't it just be better to start a new blog at whitsonspook.com?
ReplyDelete;^)
LOL!
ReplyDeleteIt is like a bad game of Telephone when suddenly a gram becomes an ounce...no wonder everyone assumed Sebring was a kingpin. I enjoyed this post GW!
ReplyDeleteshoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteTo me, the homeless I describe--and believe me, I know much more about them than I ever wanted to--are much closer to Manson's group, so in a sense those here who excuse Kasabian's reticence in going to the police as being a sort of counter-culture thing have a point. But again, the antipathy and the ready resort to violence are much, much worse now than then, in my opinion
I wouldn't disagree with that. In fact, it makes sense that it may well be worse now.
But the point Tobias was making is that even if it's worse now, it existed then. With strength.
That whole anti~cop thing existed all over the western world, among students, hippies, Black people, musicians, etc. Check out songs like Nazz's "Meridian Leeward." Even the Beatles were saturated by it ~ in "I am the walrus" there are 2 sarcastic lines in different parts of the song taking something of a swipe at the police. As Manson pointed out, people picked up on these sorts of things in the songs of their heroes and it informed, then influenced their behaviour.
That it has become worse now is entirely logical because 50+ years down the line, there has been a lot of time and many events that have gone into building on what was around then.
Also, not everyone's experiences, thoughts and actions were identical. Different people behaved in different ways. Fayez, that sometimes posts here, sometimes makes statements about there wasn't this or that among students on campuses in the USA in the 60s because he was there and I often ask him, how does he know ? Did he know every one or every student group ? Was he on every campus ?
I see Kasabian as a tag-along but not truly attached to Manson, like many of the other women
I agree. But she was trying. Which tells you a lot about her pliable character. And because she was trying, in the 5 weeks she was with them, she engaged in a surprising amount of Family activity and it's not hard to see why Charlie thought she'd be game for a little bit o' murder.
G.T.:
ReplyDeleteBut the point Tobias was making is that even if it's worse now, it existed then. With strength.
The point I'm making is that it was not as deep a sentiment as you seem to perceive. It was a talking point, really. A shibboleth; a tribal recognition ritual.
I'll repeat it: the draft board was what young men *hated*, and for good reason: it could apparently get you killed or maimed, or at the very lease removed from girl friends and shouted at by a red-neck authoritarian with an IQ only slightly larger than his belt size.
The police were simply a minor nuisance--a symbol.
Fayez, that sometimes posts here, sometimes makes statements about there wasn't this or that among students on campuses in the USA in the 60s because he was there and I often ask him, how does he know ? Did he know every one or every student group ? Was he on every campus ?
I know you're not trying for sophism, but your position wants to assume that if there is only one peer of my era that I did not know, my points about the general sentiments of the era are basically worthless for any information. That's far more than my claim.
My claim is this: I live in Portland OR currently. I don't know everyone but I've been here damned close to 35 years, have read papers, watched news (somewhat), socialized, sent my kid to school, been aware of local political issues. There's a lot I don't know in detail, but on the general tenor, the sensibilities of the undifferentiated population, I've got a decent working grip.
I'd suggest that unless you, GT, are also from PDX, I know much much more about these factors than you do, and would be at first amused, then shocked by your arrogance, if you came to me claiming to know as much, or more, than I do.
To put it in the parlance of the era: Can you dig it?
Thanks, Monica :)
ReplyDelete"The police were simply a minor nuisance--a symbol."
ReplyDeleteGrim (or green - I get handles confused here sometimes) makes a good point, here. To YOU the police were slightly annoying - a nuisance - sure. But you seem to be suggesting that your personal experience and attitudes apply to everyone.
For a Mansonite or an African American person, or a young person not comfortably tucking him/herself into a dorm bed each night, the police were far too real and in-your-face to be thought of as symbolic. "The pigs" were constantly surveilling, harassing and plain-old arresting Manson people. They'll haul you in simply for sleeping naked out in a field after your bus has broken down. They take your vehicles away, which forces you to have to steal more - which leads to a raid on your home ground and arrests of you and all of your friends. The pigs will lock you up just for trying to buy some things with a stolen credit card. They'll smash your guitar into pieces against a wall for absolutely no reason. Hell, they'll even seek to ruin your perfectly innocent dune buggy games out in the desert by rolling in their shiny new earth mover to place boulders in the way. And when you deliver just one little fuck you by burning the offending machinery, they'll raid your ass again, shove your face into the dust as they handcuff you, take your children away.
It's very lovely for you that the cops were a slight bother back in the day, but this was not the experience many young people enjoyed.
Tobias, Part 1:
ReplyDeleteI'll concede that the Manson group felt much more hostile toward the police, and had greater mistrust. That's never been the issue. The issue is that there are people here who wish to ascribe a sentiment to the general population of young folk back in the 60s. And these same people, I get the feeling, had no direct contact with the situation, but have read about it or have listened to others who also possibly had no direct experience.
Also, I wish you'd be less purposefully dismissive, as in:
For a Mansonite or an African American person, or a young person not comfortably tucking him/herself into a dorm bed each night, the police were far too real and in-your-face to be thought of as symbolic.
My room-mate for two years was black. I had two: one black, one white. There were instances where I could see that he had it harder than me from the police, but I also was involved where we were both stopped and questioned for running thru the streets of downtown San Diego simply to catch a movie that was going to start soon. This was quickly resolved, but I feel that the reason the police stopped us was that they thought it was some kind of racial conflict--crime, perhaps. It was based in racial perceptions.
And this is sorta odd:
They take your vehicles away, which forces you to have to steal more - which leads to a raid on your home ground and arrests of you and all of your friends.
This seems to say that if you lose your vehicle for perhaps equipment violation or lack of registration (or heaven forbid, no title!), you have no choice but to go out and steal--what, so that you can go to work? Did the Manson folk hold down jobs, and felt they needed a car to make a living?
Oh, wait...I see. You're coming at it from the Family's POV, those who believed that they had every bit as much right to use my car, or my camera, or my guitar, because no one actually owns anything, so it's there for the taking, right?
I mean, that's your point, right? If so, it's understandable--and remember: I'm arguing that the entire generation did not think like that by a long shot. Between 65 and 70 I attended junior college or state college in Marin county (near SF), Sonoma, SF, San Diego. I worked full time in a variety of unskilled jobs. I was OUT THERE, in general, but was never very actually either a true hippy (Mansonites were, but decadent ones) or an activist. I reflexively sympathized with those groups, but it was relatively superficial. I was a pretty fair representative of the middle of the Gauss curve of the US youth of that era.
And nowhere during that time did I meet with people who felt the way you describe the Mansonites felt toward the police. They would rhetorically and reflexively agree with what the more hip would espouse or say in opposition to the system, but if you had your car stolen, you'd go right to the police, for example. If your apartment was broken into, the same. The Mansonites would not, as you suggest--but nor would they have an apartment, either.
But why do you feel you need to add this?
It's very lovely for you that the cops were a slight bother back in the day, but this was not the experience many young people enjoyed.
That's laughably broad--much more than my statements, and unless you actually experienced this either first hand, or direct word-of-mouth, I have to shake my head, Tobias. The vast, vast majority of urban middle class youth were as I described. The rural segment, where I grew up until I graduated HS, were far more authority friendly than what I described. Really, you had some racial/ethnic minorities (not Asians, mind you), and people who were quite a lot like the homeless today--obeyed social norms only so far as they were forced to.
Tobias, Part 2:
ReplyDeleteI'd also respectfully ask: where do you get your information about what the general mood of the lates 60s was, especially among the Boomer cohort? I will add that up to 1965 I lived in an agricultural community, and many of my then-peers volunteered for the military. Then to lower-middle class, mostly Irish descent peers in Marin, then a general middle class mix from then on. In the mid 70s I taught grade school for 7 years in a predominantly Hispanic area in CA.
I switched to DoD software in LA, and later automated test equipment software in Oregon, and these were some very bright and bookish folks.
I mean, I've seen some things, and find it laughable to have people who haven't tell me about what I just lived thru correcting my silly misconceptions. I make the claim that I know just as much more about the 60s youth (and to a lesser degree, older adult sentiment) as a devote Catholic knows about the church as compared to a non-Catholic who simply has read about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe genesis of this conversational turn was your stating that you did not understand, or perhaps didn't believe, that Kasabian was upset over the murders she'd participated in and yet did not go to the police.
ReplyDeleteKasabian said that she did not go to the police, in part, because the police were pigs and she'd never even think of going to the pigs. They'd probably call her crazy and persecute her for having done so, because that's what the pigs did. They could take her child away from her, she thought.
This experience has little in common with your kegger party life at junior college and this is the point I, and others here, have made in our responses to you.
Yep, I'll concede that this was likely going on in her mind.
ReplyDeleteI thought I made it pretty clear that my gripe was about people who had no direct experience of the era, making boldly general statements about what the vast majority did or thought.
I now accept that she probably did feel as you suggest because she was a part of a marginal social group, led by a lifelong charismatic criminal whose outlooks they tended to accept.
Aging Gen X'er here. One thing I am sure of about your era is that every time a Huey flies over a rice paddy, Fortunate Son or Gimme Shelter plays.
ReplyDeleteHah!
ReplyDelete...or Ride of the Valkyries...
Did you ever hear Still's "Treetop Flyer"? Not a war song, sort of a devil-may-care vet song from the 70s.
Last interjection.
I try as a policy to avoid hyperbole when passing along an experience. It helps long-term credibility. Speculative observations for comic effect, no such inhibition exists.
In 1971 I worked in a sort of assembly factory in Santa Maria, CA. It had just opened and almost everyone was new to the job, except a few transferees from the East Bay (Oakland, Richmond, etc.).
A guy I worked with was a vet; he was really detached, rode a Harley. I drank with this guy after work a number of times, and smoked dope some.
At one point after a while he loosened up and told be that he had been the door gunner in a Huey. Then, considerably later, he talked about it again, and I had every every indication that he didn't particularly like this, but it need to be out.
He said:
"You know, after I did it for a while, I realized that being a door gunner was like having a hunting license for humans...".
I don't think he ever brought it up again. And he was, in my opinion, a thoroughly decent individual.
I try not to let stuff get to me, but that came pretty close.
BTW, G. G-W, the last genre of pop music I really connected with was grunge.
ReplyDeleteIt went like this:
teenage doowop to surf to English invasion, to Dylan/ SF psychedelia, to country rock, to...long time...grunge.
Nothing much since then in pop. If I can find it, it's bebop to 1970 jazz, or classical.
Nothing quite like Lithium, is there? The irony is just great... :^)
Wow that's powerful for sure about the door gunner. Stories like that are consistent with what I've heard from veterans and police in my own family. Maybe once or twice over the years they've opened up, and each time it was something that seemed nearly impossible to carry around. In a roundabout way, your story makes me further doubt Whitson as a CIA employee. People in those lines of work keep it to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm all over the place with music but would definitely enjoy one of your playlists.
tobiasragg said:
ReplyDeleteGrim (or green)
Actually, it was Shoe ! 😁
shoegazer said:
I know you're not trying for sophism
I'm glad you recognize that.
The point I'm making is that it was not as deep a sentiment as you seem to perceive
To whom ? To you ? Your friends ? Your particular peer group ?
When I say that "That whole anti~cop thing existed all over the western world, among students, hippies, Black people, musicians, etc" that is not inaccurate. I didn't say everyone thought it. I didn't say it was the overwhelming majority view or even that the majority felt that way. I didn't go into the reasons why some thought it or whether many of them were posing to seem hip. I simply recognize that it existed in sufficient enough numbers to explain why some people would not go to the police with information about murders and this was not just confined to Manson's group. Linda didn't pick up that sentiment in 5 weeks. She had been in cop trouble over a 3 year period up to then.
Also, in saying "not everyone's experiences, thoughts and actions were identical. Different people behaved in different ways", there is a tacit recognition that that runs both ways. Are you honestly going to argue with that ?
It was a talking point, really. A shibboleth; a tribal recognition ritual
For many people, it was. Nobody's arguing against that. But it does not apply to all people. You say that I'm making it out to be much more widespread than it was. No I'm not. I don't have to do that.
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteyour position wants to assume that if there is only one peer of my era that I did not know, my points about the general sentiments of the era are basically worthless for any information
That's ridiculous. I know we don't "know" {in that sort of cyberspace way} each other well or are too used to one another's styles, but that is 1000 miles removed from my way of doing things. And I am critical of posts that adopt that approach. I think you've somewhat overreacted to someone whom you perceive as not having been of your time and place, having the audacity to say something that's not in full agreement with your thoughts about your time and place.
Funny thing is, I actually welcome your side of things because, in my somewhat limited experience of human living, �� I tend to think that very few places, peoples or eras are a river flowing one way. History can have a tendency to leave that impression, because it is generally penned by the winners.
I live in Portland OR currently. I don't know everyone but I've been here damned close to 35 years, have read papers, watched news (somewhat), socialized, sent my kid to school, been aware of local political issues. There's a lot I don't know in detail, but on the general tenor, the sensibilities of the undifferentiated population, I've got a decent working grip
And I would not knock that, unless you came out with statements like "the women here don't want to work. They want to be housewives and have the menfolk bring home the bacon..." But no human being knows the thinking, motivations and sentiments of everyone in their sphere. I might be able to tell you a heck of a lot about Black kids in South Kilburn in the mid 80s to early 90s. I might be able to tell you a heck of a lot about the people of Enugu in Nigeria in the late 70s/early 80s. I might be able to give you a fairly accurate general picture. But I'm always aware that that can only go so far and that even if it were possible for me to give an accurate impression of 70% {and that's being generous}, that remaining 30% still would comprise of a huge amount of people.
I'd suggest that unless you, GT, are also from PDX, I know much much more about these factors than you do
Of course you do. How could you not ?
But if I knew a few people from Portland, and had read, over the years, things by other people from Portland, and they mostly said the opposite to you, do I just dismiss them and their years of experience that have led them to think what they think ?
and would be at first amused, then shocked by your arrogance, if you came to me claiming to know as much, or more, than I do
I never claim to know as much as anyone. My mind is not even wired that way. That's lame. I sift the information that I've accrued through many years and use that, as appropriate, in coming to some further understanding or conclusion in whatever it is that we happen to be talking about.
To put it in the parlance of the era: Can you dig it?
About as well as Peter Tork did !
"Playlist"?
ReplyDeleteWTF's that? I just crank up the old Victrola...
His master's voice, indeed...
;^)
shoegazer said...
ReplyDeleteAnd nowhere during that time did I meet with people who felt the way you describe the Mansonites felt toward the police
Does that mean that none existed across that vast nation the USA ? Even in small patches here and there ? Even though over the last 50 years quite a few have written about theiir experiences and thoughts and mentioned it ?
You know, in England, over the last 15~20 years, there's become this identifiable class known as the underclass. You know how the UK and especially England has been a class ridden nation for so much of its history, right ? Well, in addition to the upper, middle and working classes has emerged this class that are beneath even our working class; the underclass. They didn't just emerge overnight and in actuality, have been around for longer than when they were first identified.
But lots of people, myself included, had no idea of their existence. And it was mainly because my jobs, first as a playworker, working with kids aged 5-16, then as a delivery person, brought me into contact with a very wide variety of people, that I really began to have some idea of just what differing mindsets existed here. And I've been here all but 4 years of my life. There are so many differing beliefs and mindsets that I'm aware of now. Many of them aren't really new though. But they were to me when I first came across them.
The vast, vast majority of urban middle class youth were as I described. The rural segment, where I grew up until I graduated HS, were far more authority friendly than what I described
I've never disputed this. I haven't disputed this at all in this thread.
my gripe was about people who had no direct experience of the era, making boldly general statements about what the vast majority did or thought
I'd have to assume that some of that is directed at me, so in the spirit of fairness and curiosity, I have to ask, what did I say that spoke of what the majority thought ?
I have an almost allergic reaction to statements about what the majority of people think about given subjects, either in history or now. I very consciously use words like "many" or "some." So I'm genuinely curious to know what has given that impression.
GT:
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I like/respect you and your thought processes for the most part. You don't refer to yourself in the third person while doing an impression of Calamity Jane from the Deadwood series, not are you a self-proclaimed Colonel--although I'm still not sure if it's a colonel in the sense of the Kentucky Fried Chicken colonel was, or in the sense that Charles Manson' putative father was a colonel.
But you now need to convince me that you have anything like the depth or breadth of knowledge of that era that you seem to imply that you have.
Did you read it from a book, or a series of magazine articles, or maybe a Ken Burns series?
I've had the distinct pleasure of posting to forums, trying to explain what racial relations were like in the 1960/70s, of going to all night parties and such, getting loaded, drinking cheap wine, and have the current crop of college age people tell me that no, my friends were faking it, they were too oppressed to ever have fun with a white guy. I was totally and completely wrong--although they had never been there, being born 20+ years too late for that--and that no one but me liked each other and enjoyed each other's company.
It could not, by definition, have happened, not even once.
Ante up, GT.
GT:
ReplyDeleteI'm not asking for an either/or: either you take my word on not. I'm reacting STRONGLY to telling me that they know more about what people were thinking then than someone who actually lived through it.
It was no magic time, but just like now, when people shit all over themselves in self-righteous outrage because I used a word that's marginal--which I should have seen coming by I misread my audience--just like today once can make a general claim that there is little popular tolerance for terms such as I used, it was entirely possible--and probably more valid in that era--to make broad claims about popular attitudes. And why?
It was simply because with the lack of social media, which makes it possible for smaller groups to find support for non-majority ideas shared within that group, you could not find support without a great deal more social compromise. Right now, people don't compromise, and they seem unable to conceive of hiw disunified the present society is compared to pre-social media days.
Look, I blew up--I know it, but what I'm saying is that it was different in ways that are hard to understand now. It makes it almost impossible to really "get" what it was like.,
I can recall going to a movie premier of a big show, maybe Fiddler on the Roof, and people had to wait in line outside--and even this is pretty unheard of now. But the big part was that several hundred people were waiting outside, in S Cal decent weather, a good mood, and one person had brought a rare battery operated portable TV and was sharing it with everyone.
And what was he sharing? It was the heyday of All in the Family, and when I say "everyone watched it" of course I don't mean it literally, but such a large percentage did, that this was a sort of popular bonding moment seldom seen today.
...and right then, it dawned on me what FDRs fireside chats were, to US people in the 30s: it was a period of time where most of the people were doing exactly the same thing, and the next day they could relate to one another over the content of the speech.
Things have changed so much within my lifetime that when I think about it, it completely blows me away: it's like falling asleep for a brief nap and waking up among a herd of talking horses. I don't long for the good ol days, but sometimes the words of that great social prophet and sage, Grandmaster Flash, come to mind:
It's like a jungle sometimes, it makes me wonder
How I keep from going under
g.t.:
ReplyDeleteMy apologies. You can see that I have a sore spot.
I've actually had interlocutors tell me that what I passed to them in openness and honesty *as an anecdote* not a pervasive measure, could not have been true, and these same people could have only gotten this information from n-th hand sources--they were not alive to have even had a whiff of what I was saying.
And the reason I often relate these things is precisely because they may be either non-intuitive, or at odds with "common wisdom"--which is simply a sort of euphemism for rigid dogma. i think it's supposed to act as a counter-balance, a sea anchor against emotional currents.
I could probably go back and find stuff, and maybe much of it was not yours directly. I just get really tired of hearing this kind of thing.
Of course there is an underclass. Here they are called "homeless" and the default, reflexive dogmatic response is that that must somehow be a victim of the shortcomings of society, and I suppose that this is because many of the empathetic hand-wringers cannot conceive of voluntarily living the way that they seem the homeless living. They must be classic underdogs, deserving of help.
All this during an extended period of low unemployment and a moratorium on rental evictions. So they cannot have been evicted from an apartment by a landlord, although their room-mates could have thrown them out.
And at no time in the past, in the US, would any significant minority, like the current homeless, be so devoid of self-esteem to permit themselves to fall to this.
I live where, unless take great pains, I can see them every day. I've observed the growth of the phenomenon. I can most economically describe them like this:
An expanding population who settle covertly by night, in places where any sort of camping is illegal. They then create something akin to favelas, joining together ramshackle structures made of tenets, tarpaulins, shipping palettes and non-functioning cars.
If COVID was anywhere near as virulent as it was originally portrayed, they should mostly be dead, since I've never yet seen a mask among them, and dollar-to-a-dime few, if any, got vaccinated.
In person, they look like characters from Mad Max, and apparently live a lifestyle resembling what little I know of Irish Travelers, although there seem to be almost zero domestic situations, the population being at least 8 out of 10 male, ages 20 thru 50.
Observing them, reading interviews with them, seeing the wanton graffiti and filth, they are probably the same kind of people, who, in the 1800s, in Britain, would have been transported to Australia or America.
Maybe blood tells, huh?
Shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteBut you now need to convince me that you have anything like the depth or breadth of knowledge of that era that you seem to imply that you have
Well, if you'd like to start at May 5th 2015 and go through every thread I've posted comments in......I don't particularly care either way because it's pretty obvious to me that I have an interest in the era, having been born in it {1963} and been reading about it since about 1975, watching more programmes than I could ever hope to remember on it and having spoken with and communicated with so many people from the times, from different parts of the world.
I don't even know what we're arguing about !
You started by saying;
"I see her repeated failures to contact law enforcement after she had possession of her daughter, and was out of state, to be inconsistent with her declarations that she was intent on telling the truth even immediately after the killings".
Tobias explained her reasoning and you came back with:
"You know what, though? The basic underlying opposition to the police, in that era--and bear in mind I was a draft-dodging, dope-smoking college student at that time, I felt that I could be arrested at least twice a week for possession of small amounts--is nowhere as reflexive and outright hostile as it is currently."
No problem with that. I agreed. I went on to say something to the effect that it was logical that it would be worse now, but existed then, the implication being that there has been a build up over time. It had to start somewhere and it didn't start in the 1960s. Depending on who one was, that view was alive and well, well before that. But it did gain ground in the 60s. And it began to be portrayed on TV and in the movies {such as Sinatra's "The Detective"}.
I'm not telling you that you weren't there. I'm not telling you that you couldn't have had good Black friends. It's infantile for me to even get into "I know more than you" arguments. Now, if we were talking about members of the Family and what they knew about Black people, I could tell you a thing or two about that, based on their own words and actions and assumptions.
I don't doubt anything you've shared from your experience. I don't even doubt that it caught the majority vote. And neither did I say it didn't and that your observations weren't valid.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2/2
ReplyDeleteAll I said, and I stand by this, is that they are not the sole representative of what was around in those days. Don't argue with me, argue with all those people that joined the Black Panthers. Argue with Linda Kasabian and her ilk. Argue with Keith Richards and Brian Jones, John Lennon, George Harrison, Donovan, Ian McLagan, the White panther party members and the people that were motivated enough to join the Weathermen. Argue with Nile Rogers who, when asked if he was shocked at George Floyd's death, said not really ~ it was pretty much a regular occurence where he grew up. Have a word with James Brown or Nichelle Nichols or the folk living in Watts by 1965. Have a look at various underground magazines of the period. Even Bugliosi went on write "There were, of course, other reasons, the most important being her distrust of the police. In the drug oriented world she inhabited, police were considered neither friends nor allies." In his book "Death to pigs", Robert Hendrickson is none too complimentary about the police and some of their corrupt ways, pointing out that as they were permitted to lie in order to extract the truth, it was natural for some people not to trust them...Look into the experiences of your contemporaries who did not house the same attitude you and those you knew did. I don't doubt they were the minority overall ~ same as those housing that kind of outlook are the minority now. But they were there, they existed and I still haven't found where I said or even implied that an anti~cop rhetoric was the dominant view among young people in the 60s. All I've said is it was there. And it explains, in part, some of Linda Kasabian's actions.
"My apologies. You can see that I have a sore spot."
ReplyDeleteYou've several dozen sore spots, seemingly, and you constantly apologize. For everything. "I'll behave this time!" you swear and then you turn around and prove yourself annoying all over again. One wonders if it is simple senior-citizenry at play here or if you've always been this annoying. But guess what - none of that matters and, try as you might to make it so, talking about *you* isn't particularly interesting. Or at least, not as interesting as the murderers and victims and associated people we gather here to discuss.
Yes, you were alive and young in the mid sixties. If there were questions surrounding the life experiences of junior college students out in podunk-never-heard-of-it NW U.S. or wherever, you're our guy. Hands down, you're the expert on your own life experience and your memories of it. The notion of someone actually dodging the draft whilst comfortably enrolled in junior college is a head-scratcher, but honestly I don't care enough to even inquire. Yawn.
But let us please can the entire holier-than-thou "back in by day" insulting bullshit. It is loathsome and boring and it really impedes the (very real) enjoyment that conversing with you can actually be at times.
I spent a lovely bit of time with Michael Brunner (aka "Poohbear") a few years ago. I could type paragraphs on his nature, the twinkle in his eye (not at all unlike the one his father enjoyed), how he expresses himself, etc. And guess what? You could go out there and watch the extended interview he sat for a year or two before my meeting him and you could relate the exact same things about Michael Brunner as I could. No, you were not perhaps in his presence as I was, but you could easily gain the same measure of the man that I did simply by viewing him online.
This principle applies to folks who were not young teens/adults in the 60s. Yes, you know your own experience, but very little of that experiential memory seems to translate to the people we are speaking of - Manson and his followers - so the boring "you weren't there, you couldn't possibly know" droning falls flat here. It is a waste of time and a waste of words. If you do have memories or experiences to share that you think might be of interest to folks who were born later than yourself, why not simply share those things and leave it at that? Those things are actually kind of interesting sometimes, but good lord man - this lording it over others as if no one else could possibly be correct about this factoid or that observation is just ridiculous.
As for the dago thing, look - that word was just as offensive back when AITF writers put it into Archie Bunker's dialogue as it is today. It was as fucked up to label people in such a way back then as it is now - which was rather the entire point of AITF, doncha know. For you to say "oh, I misjudged my audience" simply reads the same as if you had said "I didn't realize that my private language and dismissive attitudes toward other ethnicities would be so offensive in this crowd, from now on I will reserve that language for people who "get it."
ReplyDeleteYou're a likable chap and you can be fun to chat with, but my god you seem to have a way of turning every thread you participate on into a personal drama that is all about you. Maybe just chill out a little bit and share cool stuff and - as someone much newer to this saga than most posting here - sit back and learn a little. There's great wisdom and info to be had in these comments, actually.
P.S. Yes, we still stand in line together and we share things with each other as we do so. I've done it plenty of times. Often it is for a new Star Wars film or the release of a popular video game, and usually the sharing involves cell phones rather than battery-powered TVs. The Floyd protests are akin to the Rodney King riots, which were akin to those happening in Watts back in the day. As much as we like to kid ourselves sometimes, society really hasn't changed that much at all, you've just grown older.
Tobias, I'd prefer not to turn this into something personal, but I wasn't apologizing to you, you feckless narcissist. I wonder what your intent was in referring to "junior college students out in podunk-never-heard-of-it NW U.S. or wherever, you're our guy." This shows how little you know about any of the stuff I mentioned by way of context, and here's the kicker--by your assured statements it seems that you think you do.
ReplyDeleteI mean, by your own admission you were what...in pre-school when these events took place? And you seriously purport to have some intimate feeling of the zeitgeist of the time? To try to gauge this, I thought real hard: it would be like me purporting, with a straight face, as you do, that I had a good grip on the mood of the nation at Ike's first term inauguration. I'm unable to delude myself to that degree, however.
And that's the whole of it, in everything. You don't know, but you think you do.
No matter. I came here to this group to find put more, through discussion, about the specific events of the 08-09 Aug 69. When Peter supplied his spreadsheet, and shared the index of the transcripts, then I started reading them, I came to discover that most of everything I wanted to learn by asking people here, I can learn with a greater degree of a greater degree of accuracy and much less distaste, by simply reading straight through the volumes.
Unlike some here, I have very little interest in the associated characters: I have little interest in adults who allow themselves to be called Poohbear, for example.
I was pretty reluctant to post back here after the interval in 2019, but got bored and started lurking a bit. It seemed like the more marginal posters who were here before, and others who are even less savory denizens of the cyberspace sewers had dropped away and there was a different sort here.
But I again misjudged my audience, because most of the posters here look to the rest of the world like...
Cielo fanboy club
Yep, a place where an oddly high percentage of participants adopt what they take to be a colorful persona, and refer to themselves in the third person. Go figger, huh?
I believe you'll recognize yourself as the guy with the cup, Tobias.
Ta-ta for now!
Well Poohbear was Poohbear when he was a baby. He is Michael now.
ReplyDeleteWe talk of Linda Kasabian and her attitude toward the police back in the day and your response is a dismissively sniffing "meh, they were but a minor annoyance - I was there, I know."
Except we are not talking about the comfortable and protected lives of young college lads when we speak of Ms. Kasabian and her experience, are we?
Keep reading your transcripts.
Gooble, gobble, Mr. T.
ReplyDeleteGooble, gobble.
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeletemost of the posters here look to the rest of the world like...
Cielo fanboy club [Freaks]
Such is the weight that comes with specific interests, eh ?
Such is the weight that comes with specific interests, eh ?
ReplyDeleteIn a general sense true, but the interest itself contributes.
I cite NAMBLA as an example.
When you put it like that, I see what you mean !
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete" To me, the homeless I describe--and believe me, I know much more about them than I ever wanted to--are much closer to Manson's group, so in a sense those here who excuse Kasabian's reticence in going to the police as being a sort of counter-culture thing havd a point. But again, the antipathy and the ready resort to violence are much, much worse now than then, in my opinion."
The poor are literally being priced out of a living by the wealthy and elite so I suppose they may be just a little pissed off and afraid.
The poor are literally being priced out of a living by the wealthy and elite so I suppose they may be just a little pissed off and afraid.
ReplyDeleteHow and why are the wealthy and elites doing this, do you think?