Monday, May 23, 2022

Manson family specter looms over local mystery

Jen Lawson

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 | 9:12 a.m. | Las Vegas Sun

The last time anyone saw 78-year-old Ruby Dorman she was leaving the Flamingo Laughlin after finishing her shift as a buffet hostess.

More than a year later, Metro Police consider her a likely homicide victim, and they believe that her daughter, Juliann White, may know what happened to Dorman.

White, whom police haven't been able to find since January, has for years believed Dorman had followers of Charles Manson kill White's aunt in 1969, police said.

That strange twist is just one aspect of a disappearance that "has all of us puzzled," Metro Homicide Detective George Sherwood said. "We've never located what we believe to be a crime scene or what we believe to be her (Dorman's) body."

Police believe White could provide more information to police, if they could find her.

White, 46, had driven from Las Vegas to her mother's mobile home in Laughlin the morning of April 30, 2003, according to Dorman's roommate, Jane Rugge, police said.

Dorman had already left for work when White arrived, Rugge told police. Rugge then fell asleep and awoke just before 5 p.m. to see White pull into the driveway in her mother's white Honda. Rugge said White then drove away in her Jeep Cherokee without coming inside or saying goodbye, according to police reports.

About 2:30 p.m. that day, Dorman had punched out after her shift at the Flamingo Laughlin buffet, then went to the women's locker room and changed out of her uniform and into a black sweater, slacks and shoes, investigators determined.

Investigators believe something happened to Dorman between the time she left work and the time White dropped her Honda off at her home.

Police examined Dorman's car for evidence but found nothing pointing to foul play. Dorman's purse and keys were left in the car, Sherwood said.

Detectives interviewed White twice, and her statements were inconsistent, but she denied driving Dorman's car or seeing her that day, Sherwood said. Police haven't been able to find White since last speaking to her in January in Reno.

Police do not have an arrest warrant for White.

"We don't work in the theory business, but Juliann somehow got the Honda and Ruby somehow disappeared," Sherwood said. "Ruby was never seen after work. She just fell off the face of the earth."

White, described by Sherwood as "mentally troubled," had a history of arguing with Dorman and had threatened her in the past. Based upon interviews with people who knew the family and based upon White's statements and writings, she apparently held her mother accountable for everything that went wrong in her life, Sherwood said.

White's family told investigators that during her childhood and adult life White blamed her mother for the death of her aunt, Rosemary La Bianca, who was the sister of White's father.

Rosemary La Bianca and her husband, Leno, were stabbed to death in August 1969, in their Los Angeles home. Followers of Charles Manson were convicted of the murders.

In a letter to a Los Angeles investigator, White wrote that Dorman had sent her away to camp that summer so Dorman could plot the La Biancas' murders.

"Rosemary La Bianca let it be known that she wanted to adopt me so as to save me," White's letter read. "Ruby Dorman made the decision to get even with Rosemary La Bianca and sent ... her address to the Manson family."

When Dorman read about the murders the next day, "she let out a phony scream," the letter continued. "I knew that by tolerating her evil presence I would eventually get each and every detail about the day my aunt was slain."

Evidence didn't support White's allegations, however, and Dorman was never charged in connection with the La Biancas' deaths.

The Dorman case, meanwhile, can only be investigated as a missing person at the moment, but "we believe it to be a homicide because of the abruptness of her disappearance," Sherwood said. "She hadn't missed a day of work in 20 years."

Police searched the Laughlin area and they have checked with police in California and Arizona to see if they have any unidentified bodies. So far they've come up with nothing.

Complicating matters is the fact that Rugge, Dorman's roommate, who had been providing police with valuable information, has died of natural causes.

An 80-year-old Las Vegas woman, who asked that her name not be used, said White was staying with her during the time that Dorman went missing last spring.

The woman was like a second mother to White, who lived with the woman part-time when she was between the ages of 18 months and 6 years old. White, whose given name was Juanita and later changed it to Juliann, stayed with the woman in Las Vegas during the week while Dorman worked in Laughlin.

She said she remembers White rambling about the connection to the Manson family during her most recent stay but she tried not to pay attention.

"I just can't imagine her (harming Dorman), but the circumstances say otherwise," the woman said. "I'm sticking my head in the sand. I'm trying not to think about it."

Recalling April 30, 2003, the woman said she didn't notice White behaving any differently.

"She stayed in her bedroom so much and I finally told her she should get herself a job," the woman said.

Before long, White packed her bags and moved out. White visited the woman about a month or two ago to see if she had any mail and said she had gotten a job at a pickle factory.

"I wonder if we'll ever know about Ruby," the woman said.

White, who in 2002 wrote a book on Jimmy Page of the band Led Zeppelin, is divorced and believed to be moving around the country living off the profit of the sale of her home, Sherwood said.

Anyone with information about the case can call Sherwood at 229-3521. 

32 comments:

Torque said...

Thank for this article. Another twist in this complex story.

shoegazer said...

This story is a great example of what I find difficult to understand.

Let's start with the important fact that I don't know very much about the LB murder, and that I'm essentially coming at this story with an open mind, but also with the necessity of triaging the incoming information to decide how much energy to expend in following it up for possibility/plausibility/probability.

To start, trial testimony exists that the selection of the LB home for invasion came after a protracted and seemingly indecisive drive around LA looking for appropriate/available victims. There's reason to believe that as with the Cielo selection, they eventually went to Waverley because some of them had a degree of knowledge about the neighborhood thru passing contact with True, who had lived immediately next door.

So, from my POV as essentially an evaluator of claims, it looks to me like the LBs, like the Cielo inhabitants, were unknown to the attackers, and were simply the occupants of a house that they knew somewhat, but not as well as they knew Cielo.

This indicates a sort of weariness in searching on the night of the 10th, and simply jumping at the best immediate choice, simply to "get it done".

The selection trip around LA seems pretty well documented and tested, without a lot of contravening testimony. It seems possible and plausible as it stands.

Again, there's a lot I don't know, but...

Now comes a belated claim by a lady named White that Manson's group selected the LB's by design, based on some kind of identification/request by a lady named Dorman, White's mother, who would have been 44 years old in 1969, to Manson and/or his group.

And that apparently Manson hopped to it and made it happen.

Stopping here for an intermediary evaluation, does this seems possible?

Well, everything's possible, yes.

Does it seem plausible, even disregarding the testimony? We know that the claimant, White, says that Rosemary LaBianca was her aunt, her father's sister. Granting even this (we really need verification, too), what's the connection between the 44-year old Dorman and the Manson family? Is there any independent and convincing evidence of such a connection?

Given a connection, does it seem plausible that Manson would drop everything and kill both LBs?

Now, consider the testimony, which sounds a lot like the LB house was chosen almost at random, simply to fulfill Manson's commitment to "show you how to do it". The White story is at odds with this in almost every major detail.

All this disregards that the story of was told by a missing woman, described as "mentally troubled", who claims that the motive was because Rosemary LaBianca expressed a desire to adopt White away from her mother, Dorman, whom White blamed for all the troubles in her (White's) life.

Again, anything is possible, but does this even approach plausibility in any sense, on any level? To me, without a whole lot more information, it is worth no more effort.

The actual story is that White may have murdered her mother, Dorman, and in searching for a motive, we're told that White thinks that Dorman had Manson kill Rosemary LaBianca 34 years previously. It is not, per se, a TLB story.

starviego said...

No, not worth the effort. Everybody wants to bask in Charlie's glory, even the nutcases:


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5348599/Rocker-describes-Victoria-Vetri-shot-back.html
Former 1968 Playboy centerfold Victoria Vetri shot husband Bruce Rathgeb in 2011, allegedly thinking she had shot cult leader Charles Manson
Rathgeb, a Los Angeles rock musician, even heard her mutter: 'No more Charlie, no more Charlie.

AndyTaylor said...

According to the Sanders book, on the aimless drive on LaBianca night, CM kept stopping the car, getting out by himself & then returning minutes later with an explanation for not acting on a particular house or building.  Then, after one such exit, returning to the car & driving directly to the LaBianca's.  Could CM have been calling the LaBiancas from pay phones, driving there after they answered?  Didn't CM et al arrive shortly after the LaBiancas returned?  No way to know, but pretty curious.  The seeming lack of direction then an immediate purpose is interesting.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

So the mom knew where to send the LaBianca's address? Her crazy daughter totally killed her.

Doug said...

When dinosaurs riled the earth...

The 6 degrees of crazy with the TLB case is Mach 5 level

Doug said...

Probably just tossed her into the desert...

Her 78yr old mother who haven't missed a day of work in 20yrs...hopefully her horrendous karma caught up with "daughter dearest" in the subsequent years!

What a total POS

Doug said...

*hadn't

tobiasragg said...

This is silliness. Seems very much like a case of yet another mentally teetering individual seeking connection to the whole Manson thing.

The very obvious, though unasked, question is: why would this person even think to write a letter (did I read that right? I might have to go back . . . ) to Mister Manson c/o Spahn Ranch to say "Hi there. Please murder this person in another state for me" when, at the point such a letter would have had to be written, Manson and his "family" had as of yet murdered no one that we know of. They were simply a bunch of errant slippies homesteading on a semi-forgotten horse ranch.

Shouldn't this be obvious to most everyone . . . ?

For Shoe, we actually know about everything that can be known about the LaBianca affair, and in some ways, we know quite a bit more than Cielo. Obviously, Tate got more attention because it came first (Hinman merited little attention at the time) and because of the victim profiles. But there is an arena worthy of fun investigation, though what can be known is already known on this...

It has been fairly established that Manson relied on "knowns" when choosing the victims associated with his murderous directives. Hinman & his home, the Cielo house, Shea and the desert - these were all somewhat familiar people/environs to Charles Manson. There is fairly strong evidence (for me, anyway) that Charles Manson was also quite familiar with the Waverly home too, though perhaps not with the occupants. And this has little to do with the True visits. Most reading this will be way ahead of me here, but for those few who are not, I will say that the LaBiancas were mildly terrified to be living in that house and they were speaking with non-family members about moving away from Waverly ASAP. Both LaBiancas were well aware that someone had been inside their home when they were away (and possibly while they were asleep), as they had noticed changes in the house that could not be explained. Rosemary had described to a friend how the dogs would be found outside when they should have been inside the home, and vice versa. Leno told his daughter, who wanted to drop off some Xmas gifts to them while they were away, that she should not do so, stating "it isn't safe" . . .

I add to this the Manson family member (I believe it was Watson, but it could have been someone else - the observation is out there online) that on the evening of the 10th, Charlie knew to use a credit card to jimmy the lock on that back door. The Labs had a set of those old-school French doors out back that led to the rear parking area, the kind of doors whose locks were quite easy to circumvent. You slide the card in, give it a little jolt to one side, and the lock releases like butter. My father had doors with a lock like this a few decades ago and, when I showed him how easy it was to bypass the advice, he & his wife upgraded all of their exterior locks. At any rate, Manson knew how to do this and, of course, he and many of the other family members had crashed at the True place back when the house was empty and possibly when Leno's mother still lived there (I am unsure of the corresponding dates of it all).

LVH and others along for the car ride on the 10th speak of Manson taking over the wheel after the incident with the sportscar driver. They describe Manson as driving with purpose, as if he knew where he was headed. LVH had fallen asleep during this last leg of the drive, but they ended up, of course, parked across the street from the True home. When Kasabian asked doubtfully, "you're not doing THAT house, are you?" (meaning True), Manson replied, "no - the house next door" and he headed up the True driveway with Watson, where they hopped the fence over to the LaBiancas. He produced the needed credit card to get inside (which is why I am thinking this observation came from Tex, either in one of the books or in testimony somewhere), and what happened then happened.

(con't)

tobiasragg said...

It seems pretty clear to me, given all of this, that the LaBianca home had been "creepy crawled" at some point - perhaps multiple times. Very possibly by Manson himself. There is zero solid proof of this, but all available evidence points to this as a probability - at least in my mind.

Another, much more assumptive, item on this point is the fact that the LaBianca's rather sizeable dog was present in the home at the time the killers entered and conducted these murders. Watson makes little mention of the dog, other than to say that he patted it on it's happy head as they exited the place. One would think that the presence of a large dog might have scared off a possible intruder - unless that intruder already knew that the dog was passive and unlikely to bark or attack or react protectively. This would have been the dog that was left outside/inside by an unknown someone mentioned by Rosemary, so while this added point is one of my own conjecture, it does fit like a puzzle piece into what I am suggesting here.

Side note: there is also evidence that Charlie had visited the church that was stopped at on this meandering journey in search of a victim. Have I (or someone else) shared that here, yet? I ran into this story just 2-3 months ago online, it came from Gypsy or one of the girls. Whoever it was described a Manson visit to a Pasadena church, where Manson and the story-teller had stopped in and rapped with the pastor or priest there. Apparently the nature of the conversation was a not-unfriendly debate over Christianity, the Bible, or somesuch - I don't remember whatever was said about the conversation. Whichever Manson girl it was who related this tale did not draw a direct correlation between that visit and the Pasadena church stop on the night of the 10th, but of course my mind went immediately there. It was a bit of an "ah-ha!" moment for me. Perhaps someone here can recall or conjure up a link to whatever it was that I read. If not, I can go in search ...

Anyway, I think that once the search for new victims proved to be frustrating, Charlie took the wheel and targeted places he was familiar with - just as he had done with the previous murder sites. This is one of those things that is ultimately unknowable for sure, but it certainly does make sense.

tobiasragg said...

Corrections: "device" instead of "advice" on the Labianca lock . . . "crashed at the True place back when the house was empty" was meant to say that the TRUE house was occupied, the LaBianca house was empty at the time.

Sorry, it's time to bed for me . . .

Doug said...

The ole CM "we're not Hippies...we're Slippies" fits in nicely with the paranoia and fear of the LaBiancas.

Quite a few sketchy kids in the neighborhood too (investigated early on) but I totally hear what you are saying TobiasRagg.

The Bill Vance course "Introduction to Home Robbery/Home Invasion 101" with a buck knife for everyone who reaches Theta Slippie Clear!

Torque said...

Andy, concerning Charlie calling the LaBianca's by phone that night, I have to believe police would have obtained phone call records. I have not seen a record of phone calls to and from Waverly in any published police reports, but would be surprised if it did not exist. Of course we know that such an investigation was conducted at Cielo.

Peter said...

The Manson Family
Spahn Ramch
12000 Santa Susana Pass Road
Chatsworth, CA 91311, USA
Attn: Charlie

Dear Mr Manson,

My name is Ruby Dorman. And I work at the Flamingo Luaghkin as a buffet hostess. Maybe you remember me from "all you can eat" salad bar on Wednesdays? Anyway, I would appreciate it very much if, when you decide to start killing people, you would please kill my brother in law Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary. They live at 3311 Waverly Drive in Los Feliz. You. You would really be doing me a big favor.

Best regards,

Ruby

P.S. the house is kind of hard to find and you may have to drive around a little. It's the one with the boat in front.

G. Greene-Whyte said...

LOL, Peter! I also tried to construct a letter but failed. Thank you.

starviego said...


tobiasragg said...

When Kasabian asked doubtfully, "you're not doing THAT house, are you?" (meaning True), Manson replied, "no - the house next door" and he headed up the True driveway with Watson, where they hopped the fence over to the LaBiancas.

I thought Manson initially wanted to target anybody in the True house, but came back when he realized the residence was empty; and only thereafter took Tex up with him to the LaBianca house?

tobiasragg said...

"I thought Manson initially wanted to target anybody in the True house, but came back when he realized the residence was empty; and only thereafter took Tex up with him to the LaBianca house?"

Yes, I heard that one, too. I can't remember who it came from originally; I think someone did a piece on this here on the blog recently, perhaps there is some substantiation to be had there. What I related, of course, came from Kasabian.

One of the more interesting new (to me) finds recently was the whole Manson-debates-Pasadena-priest thing. That one seemed to explain the church stop detail from the LaBianca night. I should try to dig that one up, it was a mildly interesting story.

Mavric said...

There is a story told by Manson, I don't remember from where it came unfortunately, that he attended a party at True's that was a total flop.
So he and some of his entourage broke into the as yet vacant LA Bianca house and had a party of their own.
Could it be that he chose the house because with the car and boat parked there, he knew it to be occupied, and he knew how to easily break in?
Could it be that his original intent was the True house, but from the interaction in the car with his cohorts about the True house, and seeing the LaBianca house occupied, switched his target?
After all, he knew the layout of the house (echoes of Cielo).

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:
This is silliness

That was polite !

we actually know about everything that can be known about the LaBianca affair, and in some ways, we know quite a bit more than Cielo

While I wouldn’t say that we know everything there is to know about the LaBianca affair, I’m in agreement with your underlying premise that we know a lot more about it than is generally supposed. Comparing the Family reaction in the aftermath of Waverly with that of Cielo is instructive though; while one might expect Cielo to get more mileage {for understandable reasons}, that doesn’t explain the absolute paucity of reaction towards, or reflection on, the LaBianca murders, from the Family. Susan Atkins commented back in ‘69 that she was sick of hearing about the “Tate murders”, but she said virtually nothing about the LaBianca murders once they’d been committed.

PAUL CARUSO: Did you ever read in the paper about the LaBianca murder?
SUSAN ATKINS: No
PC: You didn’t hear it on TV or see anything at any time?
SA: No
RICHARD CABALLERO: Didn’t you try and listen to the news to hear about it again?
SA: I was tired of listening to the news. All I heard on the news was Tate, Tate, Tate. I just shut it off.

It’s almost as though it just never registered with the Family. Even Gary’s and Shorty’s deaths got some traction, as did Lotsapoppa’s supposed death.

Obviously, Tate got more attention because it came first...and because of the victim profiles

I think that’s true. Yet ironically, it’s the murder of the LaBiancas that constitutes the most significant piece of evidence that kicking off Helter Skelter was, indeed, the main motivation for the timing of the murders.

It has been fairly established that Manson relied on "knowns" when choosing the victims associated with his murderous directives

Interestingly, it’s only the bookends {Gary and Shorty} that are “knowns” in terms of people and their murders were very specific from the kick off.
One of the things that makes TLB separate from the others and which has ignited many a shitstorm since, is the motivation. Whereas some would like to tie all the murderous events together, in the sense of Crowe leading the snowball charge, in reality, that simply hastened the onset of HS. And TLB fits so snugly into HS ~ the others do not.
Yet, in the overall scheme of things, they are not, and never can be, separate. Crowe and Hinman act as that marker in time when Charlie began to edge towards that infamous moment where he could say in all seriousness that “Now is the time for HS.”

tobiasragg said...

"Interestingly, it’s only the bookends {Gary and Shorty} that are “knowns” in terms of people"

I was thinking more of location back when I said this than about the victims themselves. We know Manson had been TO Cielo (though some dispute, of course) and there is decent evidence that he'd been inside. Regardless if the Manson-as-party-guest story is true or not, we know that Watson had been inside, which is at least part of the reason that location was chosen.

On Waverly, Manson is of course tied to the True house and I believe that he'd been inside the LaBianca place at least once, given the relative easy backdoor break in Tex described.

Shorty was a revenge murder, but I do feel like Crowe & Hinman are pretty closely tied in to the whole HS/TLB matter. Crowe was a more spontaneous affair, but his imagined status as a Black Panther fit right in with what Manson had been preaching in the months prior. The bloody writing at Hinman and Bobby's attempt to place the blame on the militant black types via his statements to police also fit in well with this whole race war notion. So yeah, I feel they all somehow fit pretty well with TLB.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

There is fairly strong evidence that Charles Manson was also quite familiar with the Waverly home too, though perhaps not with the occupants..he and many of the other family members had crashed at the True place back when the house was empty and possibly when Leno's mother still lived there (I am unsure of the corresponding dates of it all)

There’s no evidence whatsoever that he had had any contact with the LaBiancas but there's more than strong evidence that he had been in the house before they had moved in there. That evidence comes from Charlie himself, who, on at least 2 separate occasions, stated that he’d been in the house when it was empty. He told David Lopez of Vanity Fair “LaBianca’s house was always an empty house. We used to use it to go there to have sex because nobody lived there. It was an empty house for a long time.” And he told Rolling Stone “Yeah, I went to the LaBiancas. I went in there and seen an old man on the couch & I said, 'Hey, man, I didn't know you was in here, sorry. There was nobody here the last time I came.' I used to go there whenever they had big parties at Harold True's house next door. It'd be empty. It was the crash camp where everyone would go to fall on girls. I'd live in there for a couple of hours at a time, that's all.“

the LaBiancas were mildly terrified to be living in that house and they were speaking with non-family members about moving away from Waverly ASAP

Can you link to anywhere where there’s evidence that they were mildly terrified of living on Waverly ?
I suspect that part of the reason they wanted to move from the house was to do with Leno’s embezzlement and getting found out. He wanted to get away and have a fresh start, if you ask me.

I add to this the Manson family member (I believe it was Watson, but it could have been someone else - the observation is out there online) that on the evening of the 10th, Charlie knew to use a credit card to jimmy the lock on that back door

Although Watson may have said that, Manson says the back door was open. Now, being Charlie, it could all be bullshit as he was not above lying or obfuscating when it suited him, but in alignment with the previous point about being “mildly terrified” of living on Waverly, I don’t see that as being viable because Rosemary used to leave her keys {including the house keys} in the ignition of her car. They were in the car on the night of her murder. She couldn’t have been that worried to do that habitually.
As an aside, I also found it interesting that Frank Struthers said the family never really used to use their front door, rather, they used the back one. It stands out to me because that rarely happens here in England, even back in the 60s.
Going back to the method of entry, Frank also said that there was a side door that was left open all the time, a door for 2 of the dogs to come and go as they pleased from inside to outside and vice versa. It just wasn't a very well secured house, whether someone lived there, was in or not at all. Neither there nor Cielo seemed set up to keep intruders out.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

I was thinking more of location back when I said this than about the victims themselves

Yeah, I know, and I agree with you totally.

The bloody writing at Hinman and Bobby's attempt to place the blame on the militant black types via his statements to police also fit in well with this whole race war notion. So yeah, I feel they all somehow fit pretty well with TLB

They do, but not in terms of actually kicking it off, consciously. There's a more abstract connection with HS.

LVH and others along for the car ride on the 10th speak of Manson taking over the wheel after the incident with the sportscar driver

Linda Kasabian said that both going into and after the sports car incident, she was driving. Watson’s description of this event and Linda driving afterwards is straight out of Bugliosi & Gentry’s “Helter Skelter” ! I've not heard anyone other than Linda recall it.

They describe Manson as driving with purpose, as if he knew where he was headed

I’ve long thought that this was because he knew at that point exactly where he was headed. I think, as he said to Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone and George Stimson, that he was heading to Harold True’s place.

But not to see Harold because he knew that Harold no longer lived there.

This is actually one of the places where he was clearly caught in a lie. It’s interesting to me that George, in his book, said that Charlie didn’t lie to him and in general didn’t lie, yet, by saying that he went to see Harold, he was lying and by saying that he went to see if Harold was in the house next door {because in times past, sometime in ‘68, they had gone in the house} he was lying.

He produced the needed credit card to get inside (which is why I am thinking this observation came from Tex, either in one of the books or in testimony somewhere)

Tex never says this in any of his books. I’ve never seen that before I saw it here.

It seems pretty clear to me, given all of this, that the LaBianca home had been "creepy crawled" at some point - perhaps multiple times. Very possibly by Manson himself. There is zero solid proof of this, but all available evidence points to this as a probability

I’d call it, at best, a possibility rather than a probability. And a pretty remote one, at that. If the LaBianca house had been creepy-crawled by the Family or even Manson, wouldn’t they have had an inkling that there was no one living in the True house ? And would they creepy crawl a house that was actually next to someone they knew ?
I doubt it.

grimtraveller said...


tobiasragg said:

Another, much more assumptive, item on this point is the fact that the LaBianca's rather sizeable dog was present in the home at the time the killers entered and conducted these murders

All the pictures I’ve seen of the LaBianca dogs wouldn’t merit the description of “sizeable.” Remember, Ruth Sivick, Rosemary’s partner, let herself in {with a key that was under the mat at the front door, incidentally} to feed the dogs on the Saturday, while Leno and Rosemary where up at Lake Isabella.

One would think that the presence of a large dog might have scared off a possible intruder - unless that intruder already knew that the dog was passive and unlikely to bark or attack or react protectively

To a large extent, the perps were animal lovers, especially Pat and Charlie. Pat's Dad said she loved animals and even in prison, she was a dog trainer.
But aside from this, the dogs, although they barked when someone would approach, were wimpy dogs. A laborador, a poodle and what Frank described as a ‘dog dog’ that was a year old. None of them would be scaring off anyone. People that love dogs generally have a handle on how to deal with dogs and how to calm them by staying calm. Paul Caruso actually makes a sort of sarcastic joke about how the dogs weren’t much of watch dogs, when interviewing Susan. Her recollection of Pat's description was "She said the dog just sat and watched the whole thing and the dog came up to them and wagged it's tail, and she reached down and patted it on it's head." Interestingly, Charlie's recollections to George Stimson 29 years later involved him patting one of the dogs on the head. This was the 'dog' dog that only lived outside.

Anyway, I think that once the search for new victims proved to be frustrating, Charlie took the wheel and targeted places he was familiar with - just as he had done with the previous murder sites. This is one of those things that is ultimately unknowable for sure, but it certainly does make sense

It does. The moment I stumbled onto the Jan '70 interview on Cielo’s site, with Harold True, the pieces fell into place for me. I still think the “Room-mates revenge” post on this site is one of the meatiest that one can find on the net, but then, I’m obviously biased.

tobiasragg said...

The credit card lock slip came either from Tex in a parole hearing or possibly it was from Emmons, I can't remember which.

On who was driving, I do recall Linda describing herself driving and Charlie becoming very specific with his directions, and yes, I think this is more believable than the Tex version.

As for not creepy crawling a neighboring house, why not? Charlie was a pretty reckless fellow.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

Side note: there is also evidence that Charlie had visited the church that was stopped at on this meandering journey in search of a victim. Have I (or someone else) shared that here, yet? I ran into this story just 2-3 months ago online, it came from Gypsy or one of the girls...Perhaps someone here can recall or conjure up a link to whatever it was that I read

During the trial, this very interesting exchange between, in the main, Judge Older & Bugliosi came up, with a little help from the supporting cast of Fitzgerald, Hughes, Kanarek and Shinn. It provides an interesting insight into how bits of evidence can be worked into or excluded from a trial.

JUDGE OLDER: You have other witnesses ?

BUGLIOSI: Oh, yes, I will have to bring other witnesses in. Now, the next witness, here, creates a very interesting problem. He is a Father. I think perhaps the Court could look at the statement here and read it. It depends how the Court wants to proceed...It is Father Ryan. There’s never been a line up; he was shown some photographs of Manson in San Diego and apparently he picked out a picture of Charles Manson.
Apparently he was the Father at a church, Our Mother of Good Counsel Church, 2060 North Vermont, which is only about 12 blocks from the La Bianca residence, July 6, 1969, he recalls a conversation with a man who came to the door, who fits the description of Manson, and who told the Father that he was Jesus Christ. And the Father told me that he recognized the man was an imposter. He shut the door in the man’s face.
Now, the position that I would take would be that there is no sense to having him testify to any of this if he can't identify Mr Manson.
I would like to call him to the stand and have Mr Manson approach him.
He says Mr Manson's hair at the time that he saw him was long - it is not like it is right now, it was long.

JO: I think we had better go in to chambers. We can't try this case here at the bench, We have a courtroom full of people and the jury in the box and everyone present, and apparently we have some preliminary matters here that require some open discussion rather than a whispered conference at the bench...I think we'd better recess for a few minutes and take up these matters, if he is going to be your next witness...

grimtraveller said...

2/2

VB: Do you have a copy of the statement of the Father?

PAUL FITZGERALD: Yes,

VB: Let's give it to the Court and let the Court read it to get an idea of what he will testify to.
(A document is handed to the Court.)
(Pause while the Court reads.)

JO: What is the relevancy of it? Even assuming it to be true.

VB: Again, your Honor, I think it is little more than a speck of circumstantial evidence, but at least it is a speck. Number one, we have Manson saying that he is Jesus Christ. Number two, we place Manson very close to the...

RON HUGHES: How close ?

JO: What is the address of the church ?

VB: 206 North Vermont.

JO: What was the LaBianca address ?

PF: 3301 Waverly Drive. North Vermont is approximately at the intersection of Franklin and Vermont. 3301 Waverly Drive is approximately...

JO: A mile and a half about, isn't it?

PF: Anywhere between a mile and a half and two miles.

VB: Those are very short blocks up there, very short blocks.

JO: Well, the miles are the same length.

VB: It is like the guy that is working long hours, you know, there are 63 minutes or something in
an hour.

PF: It is simply that I happen to live in the area and I am more familiar with it.

VB: That is the area that you live?

PF: Yeah.

RH: I lived in that area, and I agree, it is somewhere between a mile and a half and two miles.

VB: I will draw your attention to the fact that on the night of the LaBianca murders we have Linda Kasabian’s testimony that he knocked on the door of a church in Pasadena, and the unmistakable inference is that he intended to kill the priest.

IRVING KANAREK: Oh, Mr. Bugliosi.

VB: All right, no, He was going to ask about a rosary. Do you want me to stipulate with you?

grimtraveller said...

3/3

RH: We would ask that the defendants be present, especially if there is going to be some in-chambers identification.

JO: What is that?

RH: I believe we asked one of the marshalls or one of the bailiffs to have the defendants present in chambers, especially if there were going to be some in-chambers identification by this priest. We were discussing it outside.

PF: Apparently the priest is not going to be present in chambers.

JO: Not as far as I am concerned he isn't. What was the address on Waverly Drive ?

PF: 3301. It is near the intersection of Waverly Drive and Hyperion.

JO: I am just trying to find it on my map. Yes, I see it. Well, it is a considerable distance from Vermont.

VB: The investigator here says a half a mile.

PF: No, no.

JO: He is wrong. I know that without even looking at the map. I know the area generally. It is more than a half a mile to Hillhurst and Hillhurst is a good haIf mile from Vermont...What was the procedure used with respect to the priest? Did he make the identification before he was shown photographs? Did he make it from a picture in the newspaper ?

VB: He tells me that he saw Mr Manson’s photograph in the newspaper, and after he saw the picture in the newspaper, he gave at least one sermon - I think he said two - but he was talking to his parishioners about "Where is Jesus Christ?" and he mentioned Charles Manson's name in his sermon, that Charles Manson came to his door and said, "I am Jesus Christ." This was before he was even contacted by the police. Apparently a parishioner called the LAPD and told them about the sermon. So Sergeant Sartucci went down to San Diego and showed him the photographs, and apparently he picked out the photograph of Manson.
But apart from that, as I say, it was his opinion that this was Charles Manson even before he met Sergeant Sartucci.

JO: What was the date of Mr. Manson's appearance at the church ?

VB: In the report here, he told Sartucci it was late July or early August. He just told me recently it could have been July 6th.

IK: Your Honor, there is an aspect of freedom of religion to this and freedom of speech. Free speech, your Honor. I was going down the freeway and there was a man with a swastika selling a magazine called..

JO: What does that have to do with this?

IK: White power. We do have it in our country, your Honor. We are proud of it.

JO: We have a number of other provisions in our constitution too, but what does that have to do with this ? No one is denying Mr. Manson the right to say he is Jesus Christ.

IK: But I am saying that type of right is actually being fettered by what Mr. Bugliosi is doing in this case. I would be scared to talk about certain things for fear I may end up as a defendant in a murder case.

JO: Let' s not waste time. I really don' t see how you, in good faith, can make an argument like that with a straight face.

grimtraveller said...

4/4

IK: I make it in the utmost of good faith, your Honor. I believe that there are some things, your Honor, human beings talk to each other, there are certain things, there is a certain, distribution curve to all of our characters, and some of us talk about some unusual things.

VB: There is a certain amount of humour involved here because the priest said, with a straight look on his face, he told me “When Mr Manson told me he was Jesus Christ, I knew he was an imposter," he said, and he closed the door on him.

IK: I bet the original Jesus Christ got the same kind of reaction.

VB: The second crucifixion up here, is that right?

JO: I have a difficult time seeing what the relevancy of this evidence is to the issues in this case.

VB: Admittedly, your Honor, it is not powerful circumstantial evidence, but the speck of evidence is that he is in the vicinity. After all, geographically, Los Angeles is probably the largest city in the entire nation. He is in the vicinity of the LaBianca residence about a month before the murders. He is saying "I am Jesus Christ," which, alone, would seem that we could call the witness alone to the stand to say that he had a conversation with Manson and he said, "I am Jesus Christ." I think that, alone, apart from when and where it took place, has some relevance that this man thinks he is Jesus Christ.

JO: Why ? That is the point I’d like to hear from You. Why does it have relevance if he made that statement?

VB: The relevance goes toward many issues. It goes toward his power, his charisma, his domination over the Family.
The defense is making a big issue out of the fact that Linda Kasabian thought that Charles Manson was Jesus Christ. Maybe one reason why she thought that he was Jesus Christ is because he said so.

JO: It is one thing for a defendant in a case to believe, or an accomplice, or a member of the Family so-called, to believe that Mr Manson is Jesus Christ. That is one thing, but for him to go tell a stranger that he is Jesus Christ would seem, to have no relevance, to my mind.

VB: But he told other people that he was Jesus Christ, too.

JO: All right, perhaps he did, and perhaps you should put on that evidence if you have it. What we are talking about now is assuming an identification can be made - which is another matter - it just wouldn't seem to have any relevance.

VB: Well, he is showing an animosity toward the priest.

JO: How ?

VB: How?

JO: How does it show that ? And even if that is true, why is that relevant ?

VB: Again, on the night of the La Bianca murders, he intended to kill the priest at the church - or whoever was inside the church - in Pasadena.

JO: I don't know about that.

grimtraveller said...

5/5

VB: We put on evidence of that, that they were out looking for people to kill. Linda Kasabian testified to that.

JO: Are you talking about the statements of Linda Kasabian?

VB: Yes. And that they stopped at some church in Pasadena.

JO: That is another matter.

VB: That Mr Manson got out of the car and knocked on the door - or I don't know if he knocked on the door, but he came back to the car and said that the door was locked. So he has this animosity toward established religion.

JO: I think all you do is create a host of problems with no probative value whatever. My present feeling is it is completely irrelevant.

IK: With Halloween coming up, Mr Bugliosi may be able to get some defendants and witnesses, your Honor.

VB: I don't go outside when the goblins are out, Irving. I might bump into you.

JO: I just don't see it, Mr Bugliosi.

VB: All right, your Honor.

DAYE SHINN: He tried anyway.

VB: I wanted to get into the record, though, about the imposter bit.

RH: I believe the other defendants don't have any objection to his appearance.

VB: He told me he knew he was an imposter and he closed the door on him.

IK: The same thing happened on the original Christmas Eve, Mr Bugliosi. The door was closed at the inn as I recall, something like that, and Christ had to go somewhere else to be born as I recall.

PF: Now you have got the story straight, Mr Bugliosi.

IK: Isn't that true? He was refused admittance, his mother ?

VB: Were you there, Charlie ?

IK: Are you deprecating that story ?

JO: All right, gentlemen. Anything else ? Do you have another witness you can call ?

VB: Yes, Harold True.

THE CLERK: What is the name of the priest?

VB: Father David H. Ryan, R-y-a-n

It’s quite funny in places. But I get the feeling that what this priest was saying wasn’t an unusual occurrence in the western world from the mid to late 60s and beyond, come to that. Paul McCartney tells a story of how, the night he was going to record “Fixing a hole” at Abbey Road, a guy turned up at his house and announced himself as Jesus. So he took him to the session on the proviso that he be very quiet and the guy was. They never saw him again. And John Lennon in ‘68 famously called the Beatles and their entourage together to announce to them that he was Jesus. Ella Jo Bailey testified in court that she had a crucifixion experience under the acid influence. Leslie Van Houten told Marvin Part back in ‘69 that the same thing had happened to her. It wasn’t uncommon in that era. It seems to have been a thing in those times. As Steve Turner put it, “People started out on trips as hard nosed materialists after a bit of fun and emerged with their egos ripped & mauled, unsure at first whether they’d seen God or were God. Whatever they’d been through, the world appeared different....to many, such experiences were devastating. There was nothing in their background or education by which to interpret it. Literally overnight all their values & assumptions were challenged.”

As for not creepy crawling a neighboring house, why not? Charlie was a pretty reckless fellow

True, he could be.
But he wasn't stupid.

tobiasragg said...

I love how you dug all of this up and reposted it here for us, grim. Thank you for that.

The McCartney story was awesomely recounted in the Hunter Davies' "official bio" of the band, which was released in '68 and revised/reissued a few times in the years since then. Lennon had dropped by earlier in the day, I believe they were in the midst of the Pepper sessions, and a few other friends were present. If you're ever in London and you care a whit about The Beatles, def pay a visit to the McCartney house in St. Johns Wood - it is just round the corner from Abbey Road and makes for a lovely little afternoon excursion. At any rate, there is a gate there and there used to be a kind of squawk box where one could buzz into the house to ask that the gate be opened. Those inside that night in '67 were presented with a decision: Jesus Christ was buzzing in and asking for a visit. It's been a while since I've read the book, but I believe it was Lennon who suggested that they have him in for a visit because, as John apparently noted that night, "you never know . . . "

Back to OUR Jesus Christ (e.g. Manson), I am afraid I'm guilty of digesting things and not bookmarking or noting where they came from. Then, when a minor bit of Manson-related trivia is presented here, I can throw in what I remember without having a clue as to where I encountered it. Sorry, I guess I am just not as invested in this mess compared to some.

At any rate, the story on the Pasadena priest (or preacher, it wasn't entirely clear) that I encountered just recently - within the last few months or so - differed a bit from this very amusing in chambers discussion. As I shared above in this convo, the story was related by one of the girls and I read it online (not in a book), and according to whichever Manson girl was telling this, Charlie & companions ventured inside the worship chamber and Charlie engaged in what sounded like a decently lengthy/detailed debate or discussion of some kind with the priest/preacher. The entire reason I took mental note of this little story is the Kasabian testimony on the church stop during the road to the LaBianca back door. My thought upon reading this was "ah-ha! So THAT's why Charlie had them stopping by at a church!" Suddenly, decades later, that little detail began to make perfect sense to me.

I will say that, given how former (and still-current) Mansonite types like to exaggerate their shit, it could very well have been that Charlie presented himself as JC to a suburban priest, was turned away, and that was the extent of it. It is an interesting little point, though, and one I wish we knew more about.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

I love how you dug all of this up and reposted it here for us, grim. Thank you for that

That's OK. When you mentioned the incident with the Pasadena church, I was reminded of something that I read when I was going through the trial transcript. But I couldn't remember where it was, only that it was some conversation between the judge and Bugliosi. As it turns out, it was on page 15000 and something ! It took me a few weeks to find it. When I read it, it wasn't the same as what you were relating but I thought it was along similar lines and quite funny.

The McCartney story was awesomely recounted in the Hunter Davies' "official bio" of the band, which was released in '68

I seemed to remember it from that book too, but try as I might, I couldn't find it. I'm sure it's there that I read it because I seem to have a memory of Hunter Davies' dry way of reporting it.

If you're ever in London and you care a whit about The Beatles, def pay a visit to the McCartney house in St. Johns Wood

I live in London. In fact, I'm only about 15 minutes from St John's Wood {if the traffic is light}. I used to go through Abbey Road on a regular basis when I did delivery work {which I did for 20 years}. Sometimes I'd take my kids to the Pizza Express there. I even went into the studio once, to have a look. Something that I always found amusing and still do, was that the zebra crossing outside the studio is one of the most heavily visited tourist attractions in London. Not a day goes by when you don't see loads of people walking across it, having their picture taken. I used to stop in my van at the zebra crossing so that people could set up their shots at their leisure, but they never got what I was trying to do for them and they always just used to wave me on !
Interestingly, I live in NW9 and St John's Wood is NW8. I know the road McCartney's house is on, but to me, it's just a road. He was smart to buy a house there though, instead of moving out to the sticks like the other 3.

grimtraveller said...

tobiasragg said:

I believe it was Lennon who suggested that they have him in for a visit because, as John apparently noted that night, "you never know..."

That really tells you a lot about how LSD impacted people's lives and mental headspace in mid 60s England {and elsewhere}. Just 14 months previously, when the band were recording the vocals to George's "Think for yourself" {an ironic title, now that I come to think of it}, they were mercilessly taking the piss out religion and Christianity in particular. In Mark Hertsgaard's book, "A Day in The Life", he had access to the tapes of it and relates a bit of what was on it. Although Lennon, Harrison and Starr had all done acid a couple of times by then {and McCartney was about to}, they hadn't begun their serious in-depth exploration of the mental interior that was to bring them to the point where they could think that a guy that turns up at Paul's house could possibly be Jesus and just a few months later think they'd found the answer in the Maharishi. Many people like to rubbish the impact of acid but it was a huge game changer.

I'm guilty of digesting things and not bookmarking or noting where they came from. Then, when a minor bit of Manson-related trivia is presented here, I can throw in what I remember without having a clue as to where I encountered it

I think that's a common occurrence for a lot of us. When we were at school, we had to know where all our references came from and were. But when we read for pleasure, why should we ? And the Manson case touches so many different aspects of the cultural and historical framework, across quite a few decades, and is mentioned in so many places that have nothing essentially, to do with TLB, that's it's inevitable that most people aren't going to note where they get their info from. And in the way the internet has changed reading habits and brought about more of a 'surfing' than 'organized sitting in the library and reading', it's even more so.