Burton Katz and the First Grogan Trial

Burton Katz worked for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office as a Deputy District Attorney. He was the prosecutor for Bobby Beausoleil's second trial in 1970. In 1971 he was the lead prosecutor for both of Steve Grogan's trials for the murder of Shorty Shea.

In Katz book Justice Overruled, 1997 Warner Books, he relates why a mistrial was declared in Grogan's first trial. Newspaper articles hint that the mistrial was because of something Nancy Pitman, aka Brenda McCann, said while on the witness stand. There is a little more to it than that. Here is the story from Katz's book, pages 167-175.

                                   *******************************************

Scared Off by the Manson Family

In many ways, the worst judges are not the corrupt or crazy ones. The worst are decent, well-meaning judges who are just not up to the job. The first time I tried Steven Grogan for the murder of Donald "Shorty" Shea, the case ended in a mistrial because Judge Joseph Call could not keep going when things got rough. When you were dealing with the Manson Family things could get rough.

Judge Call had been appointed to the bench over thirty years before the Grogan trial. Few lawyers were willing to risk a complicated case before Judge Call. As luck would have it, we drew him for Grogan. We reluctantly agreed to Judge Call. It was to prove a costly mistake for both the defense and prosecution.

During the trial, Nancy Pitman, (aka Brenda McCann), "Squeaky" Fromme, Mary Brunner, Sandra Good, and other Manson Family members slept out and "held court" on the corner of Temple and Broadway, just outside the Hall of Justice. 

Each morning, outside my office, I would encounter the Family huddled together picnic-style, looking like innocent suffragettes bonding together for the cause. The Manson girls were as schizophrenic and enigmatic as Charlie himself. Sometimes they were pleasant, even coyly flirtatious. They would invite me to go camping with them at Spahn Ranch so they could reindoctrinate my misguided and corrupt establishmentarian ways of thinking. When things were going poorly for Charlie, they were menacing and dark-spirited, rubbing the sheath knives they kept lashed to their hips. They were always strangely entertaining, shrouded in mystery, myth, and rumor.

During the Grogan trial, a fierce rumor floated about that the Manson Family was going to free Manson, Steve Grogan (the defendant in my trial), and Tex Watson. Death threats had been directed at Judge Call and everyone else involved in the trial- even at the defense attorneys. Security was beefed up. Undercover cops were sprinkled throughout the audience. I was told I was to dive under the counsel table if a shootout started, because I was (as they delicately put it) "expendable" in any court shootout. The cops' priority was to protect the judge. The DA's bureau assigned a personal bodyguard to protect me, and my family, and armed me with a snub-nosed .38, which I carried strapped under my arm. We were all edgy. But Judge Joseph Call came completely unglued. It started in the judge's own chambers.

Fearful that Grogan would accuse him of something sinister if a chambers hearing occurred outside Grogan's presence, Judge Call allowed the defendant to be present in chambers during a discussion with counsel. The judge sat there nervously, jiggling some coins. Grogan sat only a few feet away. As the judge attempted to reassure Grogan everything he could do to provide a fair trial, Grogan suddenly moved. He knelt in front of the startled judge, his hand on the judge's knee- like a supplicant with a beatific smile, kneeling before Christ. We all stared, transfixed. At that moment Grogan could have killed him. The judge's face was ashen; his hands shook. Before the bailiff could help, the judge looked at Grogan for reassurance and said in a quivering voice, as if to convince himself: "Steve doesn't mean anything by it." Grogan, looking up at the judge and still smiling, gently replied: "It's oaky, Joe, I know you're just trying to be fair... you'll do the right thing." From that moment on, the judge began to unravel. All he wanted to do was to get out of trying this case. The only way he could do that was to declare a mistrial. You will probably not be surprised that he found a way to do just that.

Things might have settled down, had there been no further incidents. But that was not to be. Several Manson Family members, including Mary Brunner and Catherine Share (aka Gypsy) tried to rob a gun store. In the ensuing gun battle with the people, over fifty rounds of ammunition were fired, but miraculously no one was seriously hurt. Manson Family lore has it that Gypsy's bra was shot right off of her by police gunfire ripping through the getaway van in which she was waiting. The police did find a bloody bra in the bullet-ridden van, which amazed me. To my knowledge, Gypsy had never previously been sighted wearing a bra. Following their arrest, an additional cache of weapons was recovered- weapons that were to be used in freeing Charlie Manson and his faithful followers.

Needless to say, we were all on edge as we began the third month of trial. The stage was now set for the showdown on the stand with Brenda McCann. McCann was an important witness because she was present during a conversation between Grogan and Paul Watkins, a Manson Family member and close confidant of Charles Manson.

After surviving a mysterious trailer fire that nearly took his life, Watkins turned state's evidence. He believed Manson was behind the fire, and he was probably right. As a government witness, he had testified to a stunning confession made by Grogan in that conversation. You have read part of it earlier:

Charlie told me to cut his [Shorty Shea's] head off. So, I had this big machete and I chopped his head off and it went bloop, bloop, bloop and rolled out of the way...it was really groovy...

Grogan told Watkins that he had blood spattered all over him, and it was all warm, and he had it all up his arm.

Watkins then asked Grogan if he felt guilty. Grogan replied,

Any guilt I have is my changes [a term used in scientology] because in reality one baby should be able to kill another baby and then reach over and eat his shit... any guilty I have is something I have to work out with myself.

Defense attorney Charles Weedman called Brenda McCann as a witness in an effort to refute the damning confession. She claimed she had heard the same conversation, and denied that Grogan had ever confessed to the murder of Shorty Shea. In an effort to discredit Watkins, she claimed he boasted he was avoiding the draft by feigning mental instability, epilepsy, and seizures. Further, she said that Watkins he had learned to mock up cancer in his lungs so that an x-ray would reveal a black spot! She also added that he claimed to be a homosexual. The last point was hilarious inasmuch as the jury had just observed the extremely handsome and youthful Watkins on the stand for several days, regaling them and the court with his tales of lust for the Family females, who, like honey attracting bees, had induced this adventuresome youth to join the family. Watkins testified,

Well, when I first met Charlie, I was all alone and I wandered into a house and then there was Charlie and a couple of guys and ten girls, and that was what I had been looking for. I knocked on the door and three girls met me at the door, and right away I recognized the smell of marijuana, and they asked me to come in. And so, then I went in, it was [sic] some people didn't have their clothes on, and so right away I felt the free atmosphere, and I was overcome by a feeling of this is what I was looking for.

Watkins was as homosexual as John F. Kennedy. I began my cross-examination. I wanted to show the jury this witness was completely untrustworthy because of her Manson affiliation. The attitude of the "family" towards conventional values was summed up as follows in their own words:

Whatever is necessary, you do it. When somebody needs to be killed, there's no wrong. You do it, then you move on. And you pick up a child and you move him to the desert. You pick up as many children as you can and you kill whoever gets in our way. That is us.

Virtually from my first question, I knew it was not going to be easy, as Charles Weedman and the court kept jumping in. I began to focus on the subject of her being a member of the Manson Family, and her obvious loyalties and biases. Here is some of that testimony:

KATZ: [Y]ou understand at this time Mr. Grogan is on trial for his life, don't you?

McCANN: Yes.

KATZ: You understand the significance of your testimony, don't you?

McCANN: yes.

KATZ: You understand... if the jury believes you, they might acquit the defendant; isn't that right?

McCANN: Yes.

Manson and his followers had disavowed society's rules and laws; they X'ed themselves out of society. I explained to the judge that, during the Tate-LaBianca trials, Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, Katie Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten had carved X's on their foreheads. Other Family members quickly followed suit, symbolizing the Family's rejection of society's rules and conventions. Hence, I felt it appropriate to ask whether Brenda recognized her duty to tell the truth under oath.

KATZ: [Y]ou would do anything you could, you would lay down your life for Clem [Grogan]; wouldn't you?

McCANN: Yes.

KATZ: As a matter of fact, Brenda, with respect to the so-called establishment and society as we know it, you have X'd yourself out from society, haven't you?

WEEDMAN: Oh, Your Honor, for heavens sakes. How long is this going to go on?

The court said it was not a proper cross. Then I asked her if she believed in the law against perjury. More objections were sustained by the court. Now I turned my attention to the actual conversation between Grogan and Watkins. On direct, I had deliberately refrained from asking Watkins about the entire conversation in which Grogan and McCann had talked also about killing Frank Retz, who owned the property next to Spahn Ranch. Retz had physically thrown Manson off his property and advised George Spahn strongly to kick the Family off Spahn Ranch. He was regarded as an enemy of Manson. I believed that this information was irrelevant to the confession and arguably too prejudicial. However, when Weedman made a tactical mistake in asking Brenda McCann on direct whether she had described the whole conversation, to which she replied yes, the door was open wide enough to accommodate two elephants and a rhino. The law allowed me to elicit the entire conversation, which included the damning death threats to Retz. I asked McCann whether she and Grogan had talked about killing Frank Retz. Of course, I expected her to lie about it, and she did. Before I could ask a follow-up question, Weedman jumped up and asked to go into chambers. The testimony was reread. Weedman argued that this was impeachment on a collateral matter and highly prejudicial. He then made a brief argument and a halfhearted motion for a mistrial. Judge Call had been terrorized with the news of the gun-store shootout just five days earlier. Weedman’s mistrial motion was just what the judge had been waiting for – a way to get himself out of this case.

The judge started talking about a whole series of small matters he claimed were prejudicial, things that had not even come up as objectionable at the time of the testimony, things that were not even the basis of Weedman’s motion. What is absolutely amazing is that he was ignoring virtually indestructible, well-settled rules of evidence. I asked for a recess so I could prepare a brief on the law permitting such questions to be asked. This was summarily denied. It was clear where Judge Call was going, and he wanted no impediment to his decision to jettison the case by declaring a mistrial. The judge said, “I am serious on the question of a mistrial. I am serious about it. I think it is highly prejudicial, highly inflammatory, and it can’t be otherwise.”

Dejected, I went home. The next morning, I appeared in court. Weedman and I were locked out of chambers for two hours. I had case citations with me establishing that my cross-examination about Retz had been entirely proper. But Judge Call never heard about those citations because he did not want to hear anything that interfered with his decision to get out of the case. At 10:50 A.M. we were ushered into chambers. The judge immediately started picking over the entire transcript of the previous day’s proceedings. He read into the record minor points having nothing to do with the subject of Weedman’s mistrial motion, and even alluded to questions asked of a witness other than McCann. This nitpicking went on for nearly three hours. Then the judge stated, “This is my final summation. I do grant the motion for a mistrial.”

As the old saying goes, you should be careful what you wish for, because it may become true. Wedman was horrified. I know he had moved for a mistrial. The judge had granted his motion. Why was he upset? In truth, a mistrial was the last thing he wanted. All he was trying to do was set up an issue on appeal. Basically, he had moved for the mistrial so he could argue to an appellate court later that he should have gotten a mistrial he did not really want. Defense lawyers do this all the time. This was nothing different. What was different was having such a weak motion granted by the court.

Weedman frantically tried to backpedal. First he asked the court if he could confer with his client before the jury was dismissed. The judge was ready to discharge the jury, but Weedman asked for another chambers discussion in which Grogan was present. Craftily, Weedman then told the judge that while he did not necessarily agree with his client’s assessment, Grogan had expressed “feeling that some of these matters could be sufficiently cured as to insure [sic] him a fair trial in this matter.” Weedman mentioned this this had been a long trial, and it had been a considerable strain on Grogan; who might disagree that a mistrial was necessary. Weedman had cleverly placed the court in a vise, on the one hand suggesting his client might object to a mistrial, even though he, as his lawyer, believed it was warranted. A declaration of mistrial over strenuous objection oof the defendant can result in double jeopardy, barring a retrial. The trap was being set.

Judge Call quickly began to reiterate, apparently for the benefit of Grogan, how devastating the supposed prosecutorial error had been:

Your jury is prejudiced. I’m telling you my opinion again. It is deadly. I think it has created irreversible prejudice in the minds of those folks. You should go out and get a new jury on this and a new judge; let somebody else rule on it. I’m out of it. I mean, in a new trial, they should get somebody else in.

Note Judge Call’s insistence that he personally should be removed from the trial. The usual rule is that the trial judge at the first trial also presides over the second. Because he is already familiar with the evidence and the law pertaining to that case, the rule saves time and makes good sense. But Judge Call was the senior judge. He was not worried about anyone junior to him telling him he had to retry this case. Not on your life.

Weedman took one last stab. First he told the judge he had no objection to his continuing in this trial. Then he was allowed to confer once again with Grogan. Upon returning, he asked that the court delay the discharge of the jury until the following Monday (it was Friday) with a view towards withdrawing his mistrial motion. The judge refused. The jury was dismissed. The case was over, as far as Judge Call was concerned. The jurors were confused, shocked. Not one juror understood the reason for the mistrial. Not one thought the question about Frank Retz was that important. Fortunately, the case was quickly reassigned to the very competent Judge James Kolts. He conducted a fair and expeditious trial. The case was tried swiftly and without incident to a conviction and a death-penalty verdict which Kolts reduced to life in lieu of granting a motion for a new trial.

                                       ********************************************

Steve Grogan after sentencing Dec. 23, 1971

Katz's account of why Grogan's death-penalty sentence was reduced to life is likely what is in the official records. We don't have the transcripts from that trial, only the first trial. The newspaper accounts of Judge Kolts, saying that Grogan was too stupid to have acted on his own, are an opinion and not part of the official record.

The CIA's Review of Chaos

Did you think that Tom O'Neill's Chaos would fly under the radar of the CIA notice? Of course not. All in all it's a generous review though one might get the feeling that there were a few eye rolls along the way when writing the review.

Intelligence in Public Media 

Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties 

Tom O’Neill with Dan Piepenbring (Little, Brown and Company, 2019), 521 pages, plates and illustrations, bibliography, index. 

Reviewed by Leslie C.

 Authors, or their agents and publishers, seem unable to resist using the word “secret” to modify that apparently pedestrian word “history.” Its use promises something the finished work invariably fails to deliver, implying as it does access to the eldritch or the gnostic, when the reality is often more mundane. Such a force is at work in Tom O’Neill’s Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties. 

The book has its origins in a magazine article O’Neill was commissioned to write marking the 30th anniversary of the Tate-LaBianca murders. Charles Manson, a semiliterate drifter and purported cult leader, and members of his “Family” were convicted of the killings. The episode transfixed the American public and suggested the forces unleashed by the social tides of the sixties, not least the anti-war and youth movements, had dark if not violent undertones. O’Neill never finished his article. The threads he uncovered while doing his research led him instead on a 20-year odyssey that crossed the line into obsession, as he switched editors and publishers, borrowed money from relatives, and did anything else required to unearth the truth about Manson. 

Chaos is a monument to O’Neill’s determination to get the story and a narrative of his efforts to track down reluctant witnesses, obtain forgotten or buried documentary evidence, and pull the pieces into a coherent picture. Chaos is not—at least not in the way its title suggests—a “secret history of the sixties.” With its fascinating allusions to a host of Southern California characters from Cass Elliott to the Beach Boys, it is more Once Upon A Time In Hollywood than Manchurian Candidate. This review will not summarize O’Neill’s theories, though it will touch on them insofar as they are germane to the primary question for this audience, which is, of course, what did Charles Manson have to do with the CIA? But first, some housekeeping. 

Over the course of August 8–10, 1969, Manson’s followers, at his urging, murdered eight people during two home invasions: six at the home of actress Sharon Tate and the director Roman Polanski, and two at the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Manson believed the killings would trigger a race war, and his followers—using the victims’ blood—left behind graffiti meant to suggest the Black Panther Party was responsible. A four-month investigation, spurred by the jailhouse confession of a member of the “Family,” resulted in the arrest of Manson and his accomplices. Vincent Bugliosi, the Los Angeles district attorney who tried the case and secured the convictions, wrote a book about the crimes. Titled Helter Skelter—after a Beatles song Manson used a code word for the race war—it went on to become the best-selling “true crime” book in the history of American publishing. 

All of this is straightforward. However, O’Neill’s research uncovered a litany of problems and unanswered questions about the conduct of the investigation that might, had they been brought to light sooner, have justified a re-trial, according to one of Bugliosi’s associates in the DA’s office. In O’Neill’s telling, Bugliosi emerges as a villain who seized his chance to profit in the wake of a terrible crime and who spent the subsequent decades consciously foiling any effort to question the methods or outcome of the investigation. O’Neill’s scrupulous catalogue of the myriad omissions in Bugliosi’s case certainly paints an unflattering picture of the entire process and of many of those involved. 

Manson’s responsibility for these crimes in not in question. O’Neill’s interest is in the motivations and actions of many secondary players, together with the grip Manson continues to hold on the American imagination. Most people were horrified—yet fascinated—by the brutality of the killings, though others saw them in a different light. The leftist radical Bernardine Dohrn of the Weather Underground infamously elevated Manson to a revolutionary hero. New Left chronicler Todd Gitlin was more reasonable, and closer to the mark, when he observed that “For the mass media, the acidhead Charles Manson was readymade as the monster lurking in the heart of every longhair, the rough beast slouching to Beverly Hills to be born for the new millennium.” O’Neill reaches a similar conclusion, which brings us to the main point, which is the CIA’s alleged role. 

If, as Gitlin suggests, Manson embodied for most Americans the darkness hard wired in the counterculture, then how did the US government benefit? O’Neill delves into the FBI’s COINTELPRO and CIA’s CHAOS, domestic surveillance programs designed to infiltrate, discredit, and neutralize civil rights, student, and anti-war organizations that first Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon regarded as subversive. These programs, which in the case of CIA violated its charter, were ultimately exposed and triggered congressional hearings in the mid-1970s, in which the Intelligence Community was held to account. 

And this is where O’Neill ultimately falls short. Despite what his title implies, he cannot document any compelling link between these programs and Manson. This was not for lack of effort. Extensive research and a slew of FOIA requests did not produce a smoking gun or much beyond the shadowy, ill-explained presence around these events of Reeve Whitson, an alleged “intelligence operative.” O’Neill also examines the CIA program MKULTRA, which may have gotten him closer to his goal—but not much. Conceived by Richard Helms and authorized by Allen Dulles in 1953, MKULTRA studied mind control, one possible path to which was hallucinogenic drugs. 

The standard histories of the subject indicate that the CIA, through MKULTRA, spent considerable effort to understand the use and effects of LSD and other substances, and contracted with a number of researchers to that end. One was Dr. Louis Jolyon West, who is the closest O’Neill gets to tying Manson to the CIA. West, purportedly at the behest of the agency, opened an office in San Francisco, the purpose of which was “studying the hippies in their native habitat”, Haight Ashbury.  Manson had, at the same time, been a denizen of the Haight before moving the “Family” to Los Angeles, and he liberally dosed his followers with LSD, which was one of his tools for bending them to his will. Indeed, defense attorneys unsuccessfully attempted to use this as a mitigating factor during the trial. 

While O’Neill not unreasonably asks how a barely educated criminal like Manson could use sophisticated methods to control his “Family,” he cannot link Manson to Dr. West. There is no evidence the two ever met, or that Manson was—in what O’Neill admits is the most “far-out” theory—the product of “an MKULTRA effort to create assassins who would kill on command.” (430) His own conclusions about CHAOS—which are less relevant to his theory of the case than MKULTRA—are dubious. He describes a program that kept tabs on 300,000 people, sharing intelligence with FBI, the Department of Justice, and the White House, but he then claims it was so well-hidden within CIA that “even those at the top of its counterintelligence division were clueless.” (233). And yet, when the program was exposed and Director William Colby admitted its existence, James Angleton, the longtime head of counterintelligence and presumably no stranger to such efforts, was the official who resigned. 

O’Neill also makes the occasional odd statement. One example will illustrate the point. In untangling the web of connections surrounding the Manson case, O’Neill links one figure to former Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis E. LeMay, who, he writes, “tried to organize a coup against Kennedy among the Joint Chiefs of Staff” during the Cuban Missile Crisis (83). This was news, as the standard Cold War history fails to mention it, as does LeMay’s biographer. LeMay did forcefully advocate for military action against the missile sites—and he was famously satirized in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove— but a coup? Presumably if his advocacy had reached even the level of significant insubordination Kennedy would have removed him. There was, after all, precedent for doing so. 

O’Neill’s narrative is never uninteresting. His research has raised legitimate questions about the investigation and prosecution of these notorious crimes, and the actions of a number of people, from the district attorney’s office to the sheriff’s department; from the associates and relatives of the victims to the perpetrators. However compelling his determination to follow every last thread, O’Neill has not written a “secret history” of the 1960s, unless the secrets are those certain individuals wished to keep for their own reasons. The author cannot definitively tie Manson to MKULTRA or CHAOS; he can only imply it on circumstantial evidence. At least, in the end, he has the grace to acknowledge it.

The reviewer: Leslie C. is a CIA operations officer. 

Studies in Intelligence Vol 65, No. 3 (Extracts, September 2021)

Original Article 

Scrapbooks

 

Someone has compiled a series of scrapbooks with images of newspaper articles, documents, and public and personal pictures. I say someone because there is no stated author. The books have a title page but nothing else, no copyright page, no dedication page, no acknowledgement, no table of contents, no chapters, no forward or introduction pages. There is a website address on the back cover of the books.

The website associated with the books is https://family-jams.company.site/  Because of the Family Jams name I contacted George Stimson and asked him if he knew anything about who put the books together. He did not but he did want to take a look at the books to see if he might be interested in getting them for himself. George came by for a visit and ended up ordering the books. 

These books are put together well. They are mostly chronological, the articles and documents are readable. There are pictures in the book that I have never seen. The books are large measuring 12"x 8 1/2"and 1 1/2" thick. They all have 500+/- pages. They are available as a paperback or hardcover. The hardcover books are $25 more than the paperbacks which are $60. If you go to the website they are offering a deal on all four books for $200 in the paperback format.

These are print on demand books that are published by Lulu. I have also seen them new on Ebay but they are $10 more each. Family Jams has a couple more books that are strictly documents with few pictures. One is the Grand Jury testimony for TLB and the other is The Process Church v Ed Sanders documents for the trial held in the UK.

The books would make a good Christmas present for yourself! What? Don't you treat yourself at Christmas after spending all of your hard earned cash on other people? They also would be a good suggestion for that person who asks you what you want for the holidays. 

There were a couple of documents in Volume 1 that surprised me. I have these documents and have had them for at least 15 years. I've never posted them because I was asked not to. Copies of the documents were given to me by Howard Davis, author of "The Zodiac Manson Connection", who said he had the originals. He was trying to sell them at one point and I'm not sure if he ever did sell them. Howard passed away July4th of this year so I guess it's alright to publish them now.

The first document was issued upon Manson's release from Terminal Island March 21, 1967 and his arrival at the Federal Parole Office in Los Angeles. It is signed and dated by Manson. The amount of money that he was given at the time of parole was left blank.

I had emailed with someone who said they had this document, too. It was a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" moment. We exchanged documents. There was a difference between the two, though they were both the same form. The other document had the money section filled out but no signatures in the Section Two portion of the form. Manson received $75.00 plus $1.09 for transportation upon his release on this other document.

The second document I have is a form that is mostly handwritten. It gives Manson permission to travel on the same day that he was released from Terminal Island. He can go to San Francisco, California, Spokane and Seattle, Washington to look for relatives and establish employment.

Addresses for the parole offices in each city are listed as well as the parole officers names. Handwritten, in Charles Manson's handwriting, next to the list parole offices is the name of Roger Smith and a phone number. The phone number is for the Federal Parole Office in San Francisco.

Making Manson

 

Making Manson is a new three-part documentary debuting on November 19th, the 7th anniversary of Charles Manson's death. It will be shown on NBC/Peacock. All three episodes will be released on that date. Each episode is about an hour long. It was produced by Renowned Films.

Making Manson has been a two-year effort. The program consists of phone conversations between Charles Manson and John Michael Jones over a 20-year period. Jones initially pitched the project to Netflix but after a year Peacock showed interest and it was ultimately picked up by them. Peacock wanted director Billie Mintz to spearhead the project.

Billie Mintz is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and journalist among many other activities. His documentaries include Selena and Yolanda, The Guardians, Portrayal, and Jesus Town USA. He spent two seasons as a correspondent for National Geographic's show Explorer.

This is what Mintz had to say about Making Manson-

"We spent a year delving into two decades' worth of never-before-heard recordings of Charles Manson and his closest confidant. Until now, Manson has only been heard through brief interviews where journalists and prosecutors shaped the narrative without being questioned or contested. In our series, we bring a fresh perspective to his story, allowing Manson to present his own version of events. Everything you knew about Charles Manson is now up for reexamination. Grateful to Renowned Films and Peacock for entrusting me with these tapes and this story.

In our series "Making Manson" we present Manson in a way he's never been heard or thought of before, with an unprecedented level of intimacy that allowed us to interview contributors like never before. Despite countless interviews for past films that have shaped the widely accepted narrative of Manson and the murders, this series breaks new ground, challenging those familiar perspectives."

There were nearly 20 people interviewed for the series. It was learned that the people being interviewed listened to recordings of Manson, presumably regarding something he said about them or an event they were familiar with, and then they were asked to comment and discuss.

The trailer shows Dianne Lake, Catherine "Gypsy" Share, Phil Kaufman, and Steven Kay. Another interviewee was reporter Linda Deutch. Mintz wrote a heartfelt tribute to Deutch upon learning of her death.

"Linda Deutch stands as a trailblazer in the world of journalism, particularly known for her groundbreaking work in covering some of the most notorious and high-profile trials in American history. She made her mark as one of the first women to break into the male-dominated field of courtroom reporting. Her career is distinguished by her coverage of landmark cases, beginning with the infamous Manson Family trials in the late 1960s, where she became a familiar face in the courtroom and established herself as a reliable and insightful journalist. Her career continued with comprehensive reporting on the O.J. Simpson trial, which captivated the nation and further solidified her reputation as a leading figure in legal journalism.

Over the decades, Linda Deutch covered countless other significant trials bringing her sharp analysis and dep empathy to each story, making her reports resonate with the public. Her work has left an indelible mark on journalism, and she had been a role model for many aspiring reporters, particularly women looking to enter the field.

I had the unique privilege of being the last journalist to interview Linda Deutch, an experience that was both humbling and inspiring. She was tough as nails and hilarious as well. She didn't put up with any shit- including mine. I got many eye rolls during the course of our almost 8-hour interview. She liked me and was impressed by my ability to cut through the shit- including her own. As we discussed her storied career and the impact of her work, it was clear that her contributions to journalism were immeasurable. I can only hope that she is still able to watch the film, a tribute to her legacy, and she how her pioneering spirit continues inspire and inform."

Others interviewed include Family members, victim's survivors, law enforcement, the LA DA's office and more. Billie Mintz conducts all of the interviews.

 

Mintz was aided in creating this film by James Dawson a longtime Manson researcher and friend to John Michael Jones. Dawson proposed questions for some of those Mintz interviewed and guided him through the connections of the different people being interviewed and activities of the Family.

The film will be an interesting departure from the current offerings by looking at events from a totally different perspective.