You can read Anthony's article here
For nearly sixty-years, The "Manson Family" murders have been more than just a historical tragedy; they have been transformed into a self-sustaining "Manson Industrial Complex", a genre of media that prioritizes entertainment over visceral reality of human loss. Recently the release of the Disney+ and Hulu documentary My Grandfather Charles Manson, this exploitation reached a new, disturbing low. Anthony DiMaria-nephew of Jay Sebring and a tireless advocate for victims, has voiced a necessary and scathing critique of this production. Anthony is correct: these narratives are "parasitical cash grabs" that treat the brutal slaughter of human beings as "cotton candy entertainment for the masses". Having been approached to work on this very documentary, I can confirm that his assessment of the industry's cynical motivations is entirely accurate.
When I was asked to participate in the production of My Grandfather Charles Manson, the underlying logic was made quite clear. I was told the more people involved-specifically the surviving members of the victims family members-the larger the production budget would be. This confirms Anthony's point that victims are not viewed as human beings with "true human dimension," but as "insignificant props" used to increase the market value of a production. The grief of a family is quite literally a line item in a production budget, while corporations like Disney+ and Smuggler Entertainment promote the "dark side" of Charles Manson as a curiosity to be discovered, they conveniently overlook the fact the victims were real people-flesh and blood- whom continue to be used as "insignificant props" in the peddling of their own deaths.
The documentary tries to frame, as I said before,generational trauma, through the lens of Sophia Arguelles, whom discovered Charles Manson was her grandfather via a DNA test. But as Anthony DiMaria argues, the real trauma belongs to those that were butchered and their families. Anthony also argues that we must not let a "good story" overshadow the unflinching facts of what occurred to the victims.
To pivot the conversation towards the emotional journey of a killers descendant while "the victims remain silent in their graves" is not just insensitive; it's a moral failure. Anthony highlights the evidence from Smuggler Entertainment, the production company, gaining access to Bruce Davis's parole hearing under the guise of "media attendance" only to have Sophia herself-the subject of the film-observe the hearing and "listen" to the victim's impact statements.
Deb covered this in 2024 here
Anthony also point's out that Danny and Sophia attended Family Jams Day 6, where Anthony says is a day for Manson "apologists and groupies" to celebrate the anniversary of the killings with beer and live music. As Anthony asks, if the filmmakers were truly interested in the "human dimension" of this tragedy, why isn't the footage of them smiling and laughing with "Manson fans" included in the film? *NOTE* I personally do not believe Family Jams to be a day to celebrate the anniversary of the murders BUT I have also never attended Family Jams because it's not my "bag". This is merely my opinion and it in no way is discrediting Anthony's opinion. Anthony has every right to feel the way he does.
Anthony also says Shame is the only appropriate response to those who continue to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of the haunted and the grieving, and that we must always remember the names the "profiteers" often treat as secondary: Gary Hinman, Sharon Tate, her unborn child, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, Leno Labianca, Rosemary Labianca, Donald Shea, Steven Parent.
42 comments:
Reading Anthony's letter, I was struck by the fact that Sophia (the grandaughter in question) changed her last name to Maddox, just in time for the promotion of the documentary. Doesn't sound very traumatized.
Very good article. Thank you.
For me, reading Helter Skelter as a youngster was deeply traumatizing. The photo section of that book is seared into my memory.
I appreciate this blog as a space to examine the case and process the lasting trauma these crimes instilled in me and the entire country. I have been visiting for years but didn't participate until the elaborate-death-fantasies-for-the-killers/which-Manson-girl-would-I-choose? sentiments left the comment sections. When they occasionally show up, no one really engages with them anymore, thankfully. Titillating is the right word from DiMaria. The idea of Family Jams is offensive. I imagine it is like the end of the Jason Freeman documentary, people rubbing Charlie's ashes all over themselves.
This granddaughter is clearly not processing any trauma. I wonder if she inherited Charlie's trait of making consistently poor choices. I thank all of you who declined to participate in this cash and fame grab. (And thanks Col. for your review, I love to read your takedowns)
So we're all agreed that it was a shit storm of paranoia for the cult leader (lotsapoppa, hinman) combined with the eagerness to impress the cult leader (watson getting let into the inner circle/big house) that led to cielo. The death drive is dumb but happened and Waverly was almost random. There was no drug motive. Maybe a little melcher vengeance motive, and get a brother out of jail was probably what atkins, krenny had in mind. The question of whether hinman was a drug burn or just the family getting greedy is still up in the air. The boys setting on shorty is grotesque. I guess he wasn't as chopped up as had been intimated and his body got grogan out.... Anyways, in all that the victimology seems pretty unimportant and this hashing up details of their lives is just from guilt and virtue signaling
DanS,
I don't think we've ever been "all agreed" on anything.
Who has agreed that we all agree? What a snooze this place would be if we did. The motive is really a moot point as the only person who benefits from a motive change is CM. Even without ANY motive, or CM ordering murders, being the leader or trying to start a race war, Manson gets the same conviction and sentence. He was never charged with ordering murders, trying to start a race war or being a cult leader so he was never sentenced for any of that. He was convicted because he was involved with doing SOMETHING to aid in the murders of the LaBiancas. And because Tate & LaBianca were tried as one crime, if one was guilty of one, they're guilty of both. Unfair for sure but had Manson not shit his own bed by firing attorneys who were trying to get the crimes separated, maybe he wouldn't have died a one-word legend and instead just been another dead prisoner.
At least SOME of the killers thought Helter Skelter was the motive as Tex said in his book and LVH said in her 12/69 interrogation recording. And they wrote HS in blood at the LaBianca's. Of all the song titles to write...why THAT one? How about 'revolution' or any phrase to pin the blame on black people? Does anyone think Bugs was so damn powerful that he could convince LVH & Tex to adapt the HS motive? Doubt and suspicion are not evidence.
Dan S, get a brother out of jail is as stupid as Hinman drug burn. Have you not heard the recordings of Paul Crockett and Al Spinger BEFORE the family were arrested? CM was spouting off at the mouth about the murders, threatening everyone, bragging about how they killed "five of them the other night", etc. No mention of getting a brother out of jail. Both of these men recognized MANSON was out of control, and needed to be jailed as soon as possible. This "get a brother out of jail" BS came from the girls trying to shift the blame away from Manson. It's preposterous! Also, listen to the recording of Ella Jo Bailey. Again, no mention of drug burns or "getting a brother out of jail." It was all about Manson's greed and him blabbing constantly about HS even if he knew it was BS! I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting that Manson did create HS out of his deeply disturbed mind and orchestrated all the murders by way of his big fat mouth!
.
I said the girls were into the brother out of jail thing. Saying we all agree is obvs a troll. I've said many times that the cause was Charlie's diarrhea mouth and Tex's poo brain.
Charlie spouts his prison/fountain of the world race war garbage; tex is sleeping in the outlaw shacks, not really invited to the big house orgies, feeling left out of club Helter skelter. He's getting tantric with/ LVH , then LK and he are having mind blowing sex time, he's ready for his big move to impress his frat president, I mean cult leader (just like he stole 17 type writers for his fraternity scavenger hunt when he only needed one and got kicked out of school).
The way CM was using the shorty murder to brag about what happens to snitches makes what you say about his earlier posturing vis-a-vis his murderous crew very plausible
100% Ann. I don't understand why some people ignore the most reliable evidence. The people who knew Manson, lived with him and were his neighbors. And the killers. Some of them told us their motive was HS. As Manson is the only one to benefit from a change in motive, the only ones pushing it are Manson groupies/followers/defenders like Nickolas Schreck, George Stimson, Brian Davis, Tasna Laufenberg, John Michael Jones and many other- "the less attended by ink the better." As Bugliosi said in his opening statement published in his 1974 book, it's the motive with the most evidence, not the only or main motive. I would replace "only" with "best." What's better than the killer telling you why they did it - even being sound enough to title the reason on the LaBianca's fridge?
DanS Seems like you're trying really hard to distance Manson from the murders and give too much credit to Tex. Who is the one common denominator in these murders? Manson. Even though he wasn't at Tate, it's almost reasonable to believe he manipulated Tex to kill those 5 people. And all you say makes sense when starting with your conclusion. But there's zero proof and minimal, terrible evidence to support it.
I wonder if Manson and (probably) Clem returned to Cielo after the murders. Maybe Manson couldn't believe Tex actually did that and wanted to see for himself. Although the risk being arrested may have been to great for even a mentally unstable person like CM to take.
Since Hinman and Ella Jo have come up. There is indeed a "paper trail" indicating that Hinman did either sell or supply "the family" with drugs.
From the 1968 arrest report, Sandra Good admitted she got the pills on her possession from Hinman. (Found on next to the last page)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-edBJabbPRoI8MliYechYreOyGdievA/view?usp=drivesdk
From the People Vs. Davis on January 12, 1972: NOTE: Cielodrive doesn't not have this transcript. If you want a physical copy you will have to contact the LA Superior court and request the transcripts that Bo doesn't have.
GEORGE DENNY: They got some of their mescaline from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I believe so, yes
GEORGE DENNY: And you got some of it for the Family from Gary Hinman; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't recall ever --Gary Hinman turning over any mescaline to me.
GEORGE DENNY: But you used that which had been gotten from him; is that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: Yes.
GEORGE DENNY: He manufactured it for the Family and others; isn't that right?
ELLA JO BAILEY: I don't know if he manufactured it.
So here we have Ella admitting that the “family” did consume mescaline from Hinman, but unsure he if he manufactured it. There is no special equipment needed to press mescaline into pills. On his self made bookshelf, there appears to be a bag of white powder.
In Death to Pigs, Lawrence Merrick asked Mary Brunner if Gary Hinman "was into dope dealing" and her reply was, "yeah". What was heard at such an early date for Robert and Lawrence to ask such a question?
"Hinman deserved to die. He was selling bad dope" - Charles Manson (1971, Hinman/Shea trial)
Manson's statement was before Bobby's story and what Ella Jo testified to.
Ps. I'm in no way justifying Gary's murder.
Here is a link to the picture I spoke about of the crime scene that has a bag of white powder.
Zoom in and you can see it even better.
https://imgur.com/a/0wx7XNS
James D, I looked at the link provided of the bag on the shelf. Some thoughts: If I recall correctly, police found a scale in Gary's kitchen and tested it for drugs. The results were negative. I don't recall from available police reports if any narcotics or drug paraphernalia were taken into evidence from Gary's.
Looking at the photo of the bag on the shelf, I find it difficult to believe that it contained drugs. Reason being it is in plain sight, and in no way concealed. Moreover, if it were drugs in the bag, why didn't Bobby, Susan, or Mary take it? In those days, due to the serious consequences for being caught with drugs, I would think that any dealer would have his supplies well hidden, certainly from police but also from a potential thief.
The Family did take Gary's Fiat wagon and VW Microbus, however. If Bobby owed some bikers money for 'bad drugs,' why not turn over the vehicles to them as payment? Instead, Bobby personally drives the Fiat-- with murder weapon still inside--and gets arrested with it.
Gary was evidently clean from drugs and about to embark on a pilgrimage to Japan as part of his religion. It would seem hard to me to believe that a sober and religious person would be in the habit of cooking and selling drugs.
In saying this, I'm not making an argument. Rather, I'm only asking some questions. But I have not ever seen any evidence of any 'sick bikers' who were identified in any literature. In all, I believe Gary Hinman was taken advantage of by the Family repeatedly. They did not like the fact that he was educated and arguably well read.
No mescaline found. No $1000 found.
No Straight Satans ever confirmed this 'bad mescaline' story. Including Danny DeCarlo, who would have been caught right in the middle.
Atkins and Brunner never heard any talk of any bad drugs during their two days on site, when that should have been the main topic of conversation..
No attempt by Beausoleil to give the Satans the two vehicles stolen from Hinman.
Conclusion: The Hinman 'drug burn' theory is pure fictional garbage!
-------------------
www.mansonblog.com/2020/07/charles-manson-follower-leslie-van.html
from 'Gorodish'
.. 2009 interview in a hotel room with a 69-year-old "86 George" Knoll where George mentions Bobby's mescaline story as "pure fictional garbage."
Friend to Hinman, James Dinwiddie wrote in 2019:
"Gary Hinman did not have a basement or a mescaline lab at his house. This is defamatory of an innocent victim, and no police or witness reports mention any drugs associated with Hinman."
You don't need any special equipment or lab to make mescaline. This so called friend is wrong. Looking at the pictures of the house, there was indeed a downstairs lower level basement area to the house.
"No attempt by Beausoleil to give the Satans the two vehicles stolen from Hinman."
We don't know that. If the Satans took the vehicles and sold them to recoup the money, the vehicles would be traced back to them and not Bobby.
"The family did take Gary's Fiat wagon and VW Microbus, however. If Bobby owed some bikers money for 'bad drugs,' why not turn over the vehicles to them as payment? Instead, Bobby personally drives the Fiat-- with murder weapon still inside--and gets arrested with it."
De carlo clearly knew Hinman bad been killed. If the Satans tried to sell the cars to recoup their money, the titles would tie them (or whoever had the title after the trade off) instead of Bobby.
There is still the problem of Ella Jo admitting that yes, they did get mescaline from Hinman. There is still the problem of Sandra Good telling police that the pills she had on her came from Hinman almost a year before his murder. Mary Brunner admitted it to Hendrickson and Merrick that Hinman was dealing dope. They had to have heard something from somewhere in order to ask Mary that question. That would have been in late 1969 after the case broke or early 1970.
From my understanding, medicine wouldn't show up on a routine drug test in 1969.
Ps. Bobby lived in Hinman's basement at one point.
Mescaline not medicine. Phone changed the word.
I could also argue that during the penalty phase testimony of Susan Atkins, she testified that Linda Kasabian had been burned on some dope equalling $1,000. Coincidentally the same about of the alleged Straight Satans vs Bobby vs Hinman drug burn. Susan st the time had not plead guilty to the Hinman murder...but this $1,000 amount sure does get around. It seems like Susan was applying what happened between Bobby and Hinman to Linda. Of course this was to cast doubt on the credibility of Linda Kasabian...but I find the $1,000 mention... suspicious.
If there is no drug connection, why was Gary Hinman killed?
"Arneson stated he went to the Spahn Ranch in July or August, 1969 and had a conversation with Charles Manson in the accompaniment of Robert Beausoleil in the salon [sic] building. He stated that Manson asked him if he would like to have a car and he replied 'Yes.' Manson and Beausoleil and himself got into a 1965 white station wagon with the engine sticking out of the front (Beausoleil driving) and went to the rear of Spahn Ranch where a 1956 Volkswagen Micro-bus, red and white in color, with a large eagle painted on the sides, which was parked among the trees.
"Manson got out of the station wagon and showed Arneson how to hot-wire the car and started it. Manson started the vehicle and drove it back to the saloon building and gave Arneson the pink slip to the vehicle. Manson stated to Arneson, 'If you get stopped by the cops, tell them you bought the vehicle from Gary HInman, who is a Negro wearing a black beret and black jacket.'
"Arneson stated a few weeks later, he sold the vehicle to Louis Pubeck. The vehicle was subsequently recovered and the registered and legal owner is Gary Hinman."
What do all of these reports tell us other than the fact that LAPD and LASO officers had trouble recording the correct names of individuals they interviewed? (Misters Puttek, Puheck, and Pubeck are obviously the same person, as are Misters Aaronson and Arneson.) They tell us that Gary Hinman's VW bus was given to Mark Aaronson at Spahn's Ranch around the end of July or early August of 1969 by Charles Manson in the company of Bobby Beausoleil. And who is Mark Aaronson? According to the January 20, 1970 police report, he was an associate of Joe Schumacher. Now although Joe Schumacher was not a member of the Straight Satans, his brother John was.
Then let's look at a piece of transcript from Bobby's first trial by Sgt. Paul Whiteley
THE WITNESS: "He had nothing to do with this car, as far as I know. In other words, I originally received information fourth hand that Daniel Decarlo had possibly been in possession of a Volkswagen bus at some time. Just about the time that I received this information, I was called to Independence, California, where I talked to other witnesses who told me that Daniel Decarlo had nothing to do with the car; that it was another person, and I just completely dropped him at that time"
THE COURT: But it subsequently revealed that he actually did have something to do with it?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Al Springer was very quick to try and cover for Danny. We already have two established connections to the bus at least and the Straight Satans. We have the Schumacher connection and Whitely connecting Danny to one of the vehicles. Presumably the bus since the word car is mentioned.
“this other girl kitty, or Patty or something like that. She not only probably has talked to ya, but once she sees Danny, her on her own, from what he hears, she's going to let it all hang out too. Everything she knows right to a T, So I figured I'd get the ball rolling. because I don't want to see Danny get in trouble for something he didn't do”
As far as the “inheritance motive” that was Charles “Blackbeard” Melton who got the inheritance. The same man Linda Kasabian stole the $5,000 from on July 5, 1969. That would be easy to twist and confuse.
I believe his murder was over the "bad" drugs.
Sandra Good -1968
Mary Brunner- late 69/early 70
Charles Manson-1971
Ella Jo Bailey -1972
Vince Bugliosi - 2009
Even removing Charles Manson from the list, Bugliosi acknowledged he supplied "The Family" with drugs. That doesn't make him a dealer.
And that was before Bobby ever told his version of the drug deal gone bad.
I am not distancing him very much. (I think he may have been surprised tex went through with it.) His participation ("show em how it's done") at Waverly puts him at murder 1 %100. Plus Shorty, and he sliced Gary, and shot Crowe
Earlkeese1978 said...
If there is no drug connection, why was Gary Hinman killed?
It was more in the nature of a personal dispute between Charlie and Gary. See here:
https://www.mansonblog.com/2025/07/james-dinwiddie-friend-to-gary-hinman.html
James D. The Manson Archives said...
There is still the problem of Ella Jo admitting that yes, they did get mescaline from Hinman.
Ella Jo said she 'believed' that, not that she 'knew' that.
Still still admitted that she did consume drugs (mescaline) from Hinman.
And tex is as much common denominator as mansion. There's no way those massacres happen without tex. He and Charlie are a perfect shit storm of lunatic leader and maniac follower, diarrhea mouth and shit for brains
Dan S sez: And tex is as much common denominator as mansion. There's no way those massacres happen without tex.
Not really. Manson was involved in Hinman, LaBianca and Shea and certainly knew Tate was going to / did happen. Tex was in LaBianca and Tate. If Manson was bound and determined (more bound) to have someone murder for him, it would have happened with or without Tex.
Thanks very much for the informative link.
This begs the question, were Tex not in the equation, who would Charlie most likely to have dispatched? It's well documented that everyone participated in the "off the pigs" drill exercises, but I wonder if there would have been anyone as (and I use this for lack of better terminology) "efficient" as Tex was. I mean, you look at some of the girls who didn't go either nights and you innately KNOW they had that bloodlust to carry out the killings but in terms of imposing physicality, who would have been Charlie's second choice? I couldn't see the likes of Clem having reign over anyone. I can't think of any other male family members who could (aside form Charlie) intimidate the girls on both nights when everything went down. Like, if Tex weren't at Cielo, would Linda have followed through on escaping instead of being "frozen", as it were? Or the next night, when Leslie was having buyer's remorse when it came to finally using the knife, would she have followed through had Tex not ordered her to "do something"? Of course, this is all speculation on my part. I can't provide specifics, but I feel the killings would have been even more (again, lack of a better word) chaotic without Tex at the helm - despite him being off his face, he was what, 6 foot plus, an athlete and physically agile, anyone else at Spahn, TBH, could almost have been overpowered.
That's a big no from me dog. This whole paranoia started with Crowe, CM becoming obsessed with black panther reprisal. Who's fault was Crowe? Then we have the fact that the stabby llama was a killing machine,. Give Charlie another pooh brain slavish strapping athlete and maybe we have the massacres..CM is completely criminal and a manic self defeater, but the end result of these freaky murders happening needed a Tex too.
Scary how different the scenes are after CM shows em how it's done. Calm and subdue the victims. If Charlie really wanted them to do the job the first night he'd ve shown em how then. I think he heard about the chaos of cielo and thought how lucky they were it didn't go worse. And they put him on the spot because they went through with it so then he had to prove he was into it.
Picture this before cielo. Charlie is on a bad one, the embarrassing show at esalon, shramm not passing the test of getting slapped and agreeing with it, even getting a speeding ticket ( I think this happened and definitively places him somewhere right?); they're talking their shit, Charlie holding forth, Helter skelter this and that etc, melcher is a welcher, there are movie stars up in that house. We should murder them, get the ball rolling. Tex is all, I'll do it!
Or like when a cop is talking to two priests. The cop says, we're looking for a pair of child molesters. The two look at each other and nod solemnly, " OK, we'll do it."
He had an alibi up to August 7th when he got the ticked in Oceanside. Sometime in the afternoon of August 8, he returned and learned about Bobby's arrest from the folks there at Spahn. That gave the killers time to figure out what they were going to do before CM found out when they told him.
Look at that timeline! Clearly get a brother out of jail is a motive.
Post a Comment