Monday, October 20, 2025

Charlene Cafritz: The Questions and The Controversies

 Charlene Lawley Cafritz is a figure of mystery in the Manson saga. She is described as a recent divorcee from her marriage to a member of an influential, prominent Washington D.C. family, and was left a pile of money in her divorce settlement. Allegedly she met Charlie at one of those Hollywood parties; or maybe she met him at Dennis Wilson's house, sometime in 1968, when Cafritz would have been 22. Her name does not appear in Bugliosi's Helter Skelter, nor in most other books about the TLB saga.


Ed Sanders was the only journalist at the time to mention her. From his book, The Family, pg136:

"In December of 1968 Charlie and three girls drove in an old Studebaker to an exclusive dude ranch near Reno, Nevada where they spent two weeks as guests of Charlene Cafritz, whom Manson had met the previous summer at Dennis Wilson's beach home. Mrs. Cafritz was in Reno logging enough time to get a divorce. 
    Manson seems to have had a great effect on the young lady in terms of material detachment. As a result of her divorce settlement, the lady was left with a fortune in excess of two million dollars. This sum she spent in something like ten months, aided in early phases of her spend-frenzy by guess who.
    Sometime toward the end of December, a friend named Warnick drove the young divorcee back to Los Angeles from Reno. In January '69 Mrs. Cafritz visited New York where she spent $92,000 during that month.
    At one point Manson told the young lady that he wanted a blue Fleetwood Cadillac. The young lady erred and purchased instead a fire engine red Cadillac and he told her to take it back. She also evidently purchased a number of thoroughbred horses which Charlie gave away for her. ...
Mrs. Cafritz took numerous motion pictures of Manson and the family in Reno which no one seems to want to discuss. Mrs. Cafritz was a friend of Sharon Tate and Terry Melcher and many others associated with the oncoming tragedy."


Here is Lynette Fromme's version, from Reflexion, pg371:

"When it came to getting money Charlie went for what he knew. Her name was Charlene, a boot and whip-style girl with a curvy body. I read later that she was some kind of heiress, but he never mentioned it. He had met her at a party in Beverly Hills and invited her to The Ranch. She didn't come. She had invited him to her ranch in Nevada, and instead of going alone, he asked Sandy, Brenda, Paul, and me to go with him.
Charlene's Nevada ranch had an old-time hotel with a cowboy cafe at the front. Tired and hungry from the overnight drive, we went in for breakfast. Charlie sent one of the workers to let Charlene know that he had arrived. I almost missed seeing her. She was coming toward Charlie, but, after seeing the rest of us, she wheeled on her high heeled boots and let the screen door slam behind her. He went out to talk to her, and pretty soon an employee showed the rest of us to a bare rustic room with two beds, no telephone, and no TV. I don't know what gave me the impression that this ranch was more about women than horses, but I knew about Nevada's Mustang Ranch and I was beginning to think that Charlene might be running such an establishment. In any case, it was not an entertaining trip for us - we slept most of the time - and the next day Charlie returned to say we were leaving. As we drove away, he said that he had offered Charlene a place with us, but she didn't want it. I found out later that she had offered him a Cadillac, but he refused it. Apparently, this wasn't about stuff or money."


Gregg Jakobson had his own version:

Ed Sanders Cafritz file from the Sanders collection at Princetion University
LAPD interview form, dated 4-6-70
Mr. Jakobson informed investigators that Miss Cafritz had spent some time at Spahn Ranch with the Manson "family" and had taken numerous photographs of Spahn Ranch and the Manson "family".


This is what Charlene herself said at the time:

LAPD interview form, dated 6-11-70
Miss Cafritz stated she had never been to Spahn Ranch. ....
She was introduced to Charles Manson at Dennis Wilson's home in Malibu. ...
She took numerous still pictures and movie pictures of various members of the family when they visited her in Reno, Nevada, and at the Wilson residence.


Author Nick Schreck claimed this is what Manson told him:

Schreck post on FB of Sept 20, 2023
Further confirmation of what I stated in the File concerning Charlie's lover and cash cow, Charlene Cafritz, referencing my December 2012 conversation with Charles at Corcoran:
"Charlie readily confirmed long-standing rumors claiming that in December 1968 he and some of the girls in his commune performed in pornographic film shoots Cafritz had arranged at her dude ranch in Reno, Nevada."


One thing is certain---none of the photos and film taken have ever seen the light of day. Though investigators may have had access to them:

LAPD interview form, dated 6-11-70
"Additionally she(Charlene) stated that she also had a tape recording of Charles Manson which he had made for promotion of an album. She does not know where this tape recording is. She could not recall where this tape recording or the pictures were at this time.
   Note: In an earlier conversation with Miss Cafritz's mother, investigator learned that Charlene had numerous items stored in her mother's basement. Her mother indicated that the movie pictures were in the basement as were some tape recordings."

----------------------------

After her time with Charlie, Charlene seems to have fallen into a spiral of self-destruction. The timeline(from researcher Casey Fields):


December 25, 1968 - Manson visits Charlene Cafritz near Reno.

August 22, 1969 - Charlene Cafritz allegedly called Spahn Ranch from St. Elizabeth mental hospital in Washington D.C.

December 19, 1969 - Charlene Cafritz (23) was arrested for trying to sell fourteen capsules of heroin to an undercover police officer. The arrest kept her from potentially testify in the trial.

April 5, 1970 - Charlene Cafritz was interviewed by LAPD investigator Sergeant Manuel P. “Chick” Gutierrez at St. Elizabeth Hospital in Washington D.C. Cafritz came to Gutierrez’ attention following his interview with Gregg Jakobsen. LAPD’s Jakobsen Interview Report stated, “Due to a misspelling in Miss Cafritz’ name, officers were unable to locate her until the above date. Cafritz was being held by the Washington D.C. court pending psychiatric examination."

April 14, 1970 - Charlene Cafritz was indicted for selling fourteen capsules of heroin to an undercover police officer.

April 17, 1970 - Charlene Cafritz and her mother were interviewed by LAPD Homicide Detective Sergeants Frank J. Patchett and Manuel Gutierrez via long-distance call.

September 4, 1970 - Charlene Cafritz died from an overdose of Nembutal.

September 8, 1970 - Charlene Cafritz was buried at Mt. Olive Cemetery in Washington D.C.




 Charlene's family, on both her parent's side, and her husband Carter Cafritz' side, had extensive, high-level connections to the diplomatic and intelligence worlds of Washington.

Researcher Paul Hart:
"Charlene’s mom (Lucille Lawley) worked for Raymond E. Murphy, who was the State Department’s liaison to the CIA. Charlene’s in-laws (Morris & Gwen Cafritz) were close to J. Edgar Hoover ever since the early 50s. ... They were also deeply in bed with the FBI, CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (which her father Jack Lawley was with)."


Because of this, and other inconsistencies in the evidence, many speculate that Charlene was some kind of intel operative, and that her death was faked (she was then presumably given a new identity and life). Consider:

Researcher Paul Hart:
"Charlene only wanted to deal with Charlie, and to secretly funnel him funds. She wanted nothing to do with the rest of the Family. In fact, she didn’t even want to be seen by them when they visited her at a ranch in Nevada… Her mysterious disappearance after the TLB killings and her supposed “death” had Tom O’Neill chasing leads in DC for weeks. There was no death certificate or Social Security Death Index # for Charlene. ...

"Tom O'Neill found a former administrator of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in DC who said the FBI seized all the hospital’s records on Charlene after she supposedly died later in her apartment. ... Tom also interviewed a DC police detective who said all their records on Charlene were seized as well. ... Everything about her has been removed from public scrutiny. Photos, death notices, social security records, everything."

"Charlene's mom, Lucille A. Lawley died in 2008. On the website Find-A-Grave, someone posted the announcement of her death along with a bio and a photo of her grave. In the announcement, it says Lucille was survived by her husband Jack S. Lawley (the guy I told you was in military intelligence) and her daughter Charlene Marie Lawley!!! But Charlene supposedly died in 1970."


Also this odd note:

Paul Hart:  "TomO also interviewed a DC friend of Charlene’s who said she brought Manson to DC at least once. Explosive finding if true."
 

Confirmation?

From Death to Pigs, pg318    Phil Phillips describes a visit by Charlie at some point.
"...The next time I saw Charlie he came to Vegas and it was in the middle of the night, about three o'clock in the morning... but he came up and knocked on the door.. And he was acting real strange. He told me that he'd just come on a plane..."


On a plane? Hmmm... was he flying in from having visited Cafritz in DC, as one of her friends asserted to Tom O'Neill?

 

 ------------------------------------

 Unanswered questions:


--Did the Family just have contact with Cafritz one time--near Reno, or were there multiple contacts--at Dennis Wilson's, at Spahn, and at the ranch near Reno?

--Did they spend two days in Reno, or two weeks?

--Did she run a prostitution ring at the 'dude ranch'? If she made a porno movie with the Family, who was it made for?

--What happened to the extensive photo and film collection she made of the Family?

--Was she ever actually interviewed in person by LAPD investigators? Or was there just a phone call with the mother?

--Was her death faked?


On the very day the detectives in LA learn of Charlene's location--April 6, 1970--she is committed to a hospital in DC for mental observation, and is still there in August. One wonders if the purpose of the heroin bust in Dec. '69 was to damage her credibility as a witness, and if the purpose of her being committed was merely to keep her away from the investigators.

Affluent society divorcees generally don't get involved in running houses of prostitution or making porno movies. Nor do they generally get involved in dealing heroin out of parking lots in DC. Lots of unanswered questions about this person.


There are different ways to interpret this evidence:

--scenario #1

Charlene was just an adventurous young lady out to enjoy life ("young, dumb, wanna have some fun"). She meets Charlie by chance, and is quickly entranced and enamored by his charisma and presence, like so many others. Enough to give Charlie money, but not enough to actually join the Family. But then she gets strung out on the hard stuff, and accidentally ODs.

Schreck:
"Charlie told me he had no doubt she was dead, said she was always very likely to o.d. due to her constant hard drug abuse."


--scenario #2

Cafritz was sent out by the covert operators to contact Charlie, make sure he has funds to operate, and document the Family lifestyle. After the murders, she starts to doubt her employers, and figures out that her trust may have been abused. Her suspicions and her guilt drive her to drugs, and to an OD, either accidental or intentional(suicide).


--scenario #3

Cafritz was sent out by the covert operators, but they didn't plan on her involvement being outed by Jakobson, and now start to worry that a young and disillusioned Charlene will spill the beans to the experienced investigators. So they arrange her death via an OD(murder). Or they tell her that she has no choice and will have to fake her death and accept a new life with a new identity.


 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/DramaFreeNoDealers/posts/7928466610535911/
"The famous missing collection of Charlene Lawley Cafritz. Yearbooks, school books and more."      

1966   "...includes pictures of Charlene.  Nicknamed "Charlie," has senior year book..."

oo-ee-oo!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 comments:

  1. If I had only the three scenarios above to choose from, I'd go with Scenario #1. Charlene to me always personified the interested young adventurer, who had no reservations about giving Manson money or Cadillacs.

    Even though she did not formally join the Family, I have always thought of her as a material contributor in the spirit of, say, Juanita Wildbush; even though, of course, Juanita lived with the Family.

    In the end, it may be that this chance meeting between Charlene and Manson was no more mysterious than so many others who met him. Very good documentation here. Thanks for this post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm guessing Charlene was troubled even before they met. Charlie was attracted to that type.

      Delete
  2. "...At one point Manson told the young lady that he wanted a blue Fleetwood Cadillac. The young lady erred and purchased instead a fire engine red Cadillac and he told her to take it back. She also evidently purchased a number of thoroughbred horses which Charlie gave away for her. ...
    Mrs. Cafritz took numerous motion pictures of Manson and the family in Reno which no one seems to want to discuss. Mrs. Cafritz was a friend of Sharon Tate and Terry Melcher and many others associated with the oncoming tragedy."

    All of this should be independently verifiable and footnoted. Is it?

    Not a mean-spirited challenge, star, but for these claims to be taken seriously, we need more than the author's claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "All of this should be independently verifiable and footnoted. Is it?"

      Exactly and no. We only have authors making claims with no substantial evidence to back it up.

      Delete
  3. The miniscule amount of photographs of Manson & Company (police booking photos, drivers license photos, the 1968 image of Charlie playing guitar at Dennis' Pacific Palisades house, late Spring 1969 stills taken at Spahn, Charlie and Joan/Juanita and others in Death Valley, Charlie and the unnamed prospector, etc.) that were taken prior to Tate/Labianca will almost certainly be the only such images that we will ever have. Forget about the Cafritz films or the Jakobsen video footage ever surfacing. That stuff was either destroyed or locked away in the LAPD evidence vault and it ain't ever coming out.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is also a collection on Facebook of Charlene yearbooks and other printed items. The sale listing is entitled, "The Famous Missing Charlene Lawley Cafritz Collection (Charles Manson Follower), and is priced at $2,500.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oops, sorry, Star. Looks like you already made mention of my above comment at the very end of your post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. shoegazer says
    "All of this should be independently verifiable and footnoted. Is it?
    ... for these claims to be taken seriously, we need more than the author's claims."

    Like Paul Hart said: "she's been erased." Her name never appeared in the media, nor at trial. The court testimony of Gregg Jakobson doesn't mention her. Though she was interviewed by the LAPD, as the Sanders collection has revealed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fromme:

    ".... Her name was Charlene, a boot and whip-style girl ..."

    What the hell is Lynette talking about? Is that some kind of kink fetish thing?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I thought "boot and whip style girl" had to do with Charlene's owning thoroughbred horses.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too. A dude ranch in Nevada with a lot of women could also indicate a place to establish residency to qualify for a divorce. I'm not sure if this was still necessary in many states in the 1960s but it could be a holdover from earlier practices.

      Delete
  9. Except for those couple of photos of her that were discovered relatively recently, nothing else of substance in 50+ years has been learned regarding Charlene's relationship to Manson that hadn't already been found out and publicized by investigations conducted in 1970-71. Pointless rehash.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good post, Star. I'd totally forgotten about this young lady.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you Starviego for your posts, its otherwise been pretty quiet here.
    I love your intense research but I hope you incorporate more primary sources. I think your reliance on secondary sources is hurting your credibility.
    For instance, if three authors write A happened and a fourth writes B happened, its more likely that author #4 is mistaken somehow than the others are covering it up. More research could reveal what did happen.
    But keep posting, I'm enjoying your work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When someone doesn't believe the Sandy Hook and Port Arthur massacres even happened, I think their credibility is already hurting.

      Delete
  12. @Medium....In this particular instance, "more research" will lead nowhere. Far too much time has passed and virtually all the people who could have provided corroboration for and additional info on whatever kind of relationship there was between Charlene and Manson are gone. More data MIGHT have been uncovered if the original 1970-71 inquiries had continued, but they didn't continue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I guess anything is possible, but I have reviewed more than a few divorce settlements and it’s hard to believe the wife of a marriage that did not last past her reaching the age of 22 and which produced no children would receive over $2 million back in the 60’s, or even now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Little guru met her at Dennis Wilson's. Figures. Juanita flatbush and LK herself really financed the family. Gary should've paid his tithes, which in the family is everything you got. Did Manson get money from his last girl the one he took down to that spa? (damn can't remember what it s called ...Esalon or something)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am acquainted with her niece via musical connections. Haven't spoken in person for years...since she was living in NY. I have her current contact info but would rather see her (Julie/Julia) in person before reaching out to her randomly TBH.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This article went full Tom O'Neil. Never go full Tom O'Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With understandably dwindling content as the years roll on and the actors depart the stage, the bar has become pretty low. But no need to let authors of this ilk turn the place into a conspiracy haven.

      Delete
  17. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable at one of those Sharon Tate fan/tribute sites, where you will face nothing more challenging than seeing a new, previously unreleased pic of one of the victims/Family members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Star, I want to make clear that your stuff does have value. You find worthwhile tidbits and facts and connections.

      And you share them freely. Essentially, you find stuff that keeps this tired old site going.

      My main--and perhaps only--criticism is that what you manage to conclude from the facts you present seem to rely on tenuous, even non-existent, connections that are based on what amounts to salacious gossip and innuendo.

      In fact, the connections are *so* strained that for quite a while I was sure you were purposefully injecting them in a sort of cynical manipulation, to court a following amongst conspiracy theorists. But I no longer think that. I am not sure, but it could be a mixture of actual credulousness, and a sort of Herculean attempt to keep this old, dead website going.

      And in that you succeed admirably.

      Sincerely, I appreciate your contributions and am learning to disconnect the demonstrable facts from your conclusions.

      Delete
  18. @shoegazer....Your simping for star is, to be brutally honest, embarrassing and cringe. The first part of your 4th paragraph above is 100% correct. I have no idea why you decided not to trust your instincts. Maybe you were, shall we say, "monetarily induced" to change your mind? Ultimately, the reason doesn't matter. Some of us here, however, actually value and enjoy maintaining our personal integrity, so it's kind of sad to see when somebody decides to give theirs away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 60s, a long time ago I made the3 conscious decision to by default separate the content from the messenger. This means that valuable content can be delivered by *any* source, and then it's up to each of us to evaluate the content. The messenger can later be evaluated separately from the message, if one want to spend the time.

      The important thing is that the two elements--messenger and message--are entirely unrelated except by circumstance.

      Anyway, that's how I see things...

      Delete