"The Hinman Murder Motive" - A Closer Look

"The closest I came to the crime scene is I cut Hinman's ear off in a fight over some money because the Frenchman - he wouldn't pay the Frenchman and I told him, why don't he be a man about himself and pay his debts? And we had a fight." 

               - Charles Manson at his 1992 Parole Hearing


"Good and evil, reward and punishment are the only motives to a rational creature. These are the spurs and reigns whereby all mankind are set on and guided."

               - John Locke




These questions are too broad to answer in the space of a single email reply. The best that I can do for now, until I have published the book I'm working on, is to hint at the answers. They are important questions, which doubtless accounts for why they are the types of questions I am asked most often. But the questions themselves. . . they are more telling than the answers, because they indicate in a very striking way that the characterizations in the popular media—books like Helter Skelter and The Family, the made-for-TV movies, even videotaped interviews with Manson himself—are something less than entirely satisfying to a great many people. I have come to believe that everyone who encounters this story knows on some instinctive level that much of what they are being told (mostly by people who were not actually a part of it) does not ring true.

Stripping away the falsities from the Manson mythology is an appealing prospect, but an incredibly daunting task. There are so many misconceptions and downright fabrications. Charlie has contributed to the confusion most of all because he has chosen, for the most part, to play-act the role the popular media has cast him into.

I can assure you of one thing for certain: the Charlie you have thusfar seen characterized in books, films and news media interviews bears little resemblance to the Charlie I knew. You ask, like so many do, if he really behaved that way, all crazy and weird. If he had, I would never have had anything to do with him, nor would anyone I knew.

One day the superficial falseness surrounding this story will fall away, revealing it to be far less terrifying and far more tragic than anyone but those who were directly a part of it could possibly imagine.

Bobby  




In the wake of the news that there is some video coming out which purports to show members of the Straight Satan's confirming that Bobby burned them on some drugs which came from Gary, I decided to take a closer look at what the existing evidence is to keep current in anticipation of what might be coming down the road. I am walking into this with the strong opinion that Gary was killed during a robbery gone wrong based on what I have read over the years. So yes, this post will have my usual "Saint Slant"  But I went looking for evidence of either robbery, or a drug burn involving the Straight Satans with equal resolve. I was ready to write this post whichever way the information went. In the process, I re-read most of interviews and quotes from Bobby I had been through in the past, which only reinforced my feelings of why I have the opinion of him I do in the first place. Let's get  that out of the way. I think Bobby is where he belongs. That is not the issue of the post, but it will come up. My primary intent for this post is to try and dissect why he went to Gary's. Honestly, I am not really sure why Gary got killed. So to discover that a drug burn really did happen would be something new and sort of exciting to me in a discovery sort of way. I hate to be too thrilled about anything to do with Gary's murder, but new information would be interesting. So as I am skeptical of Gary dealing bad drugs to Bobby as the reason for his own home invasion and murder, I am open minded to the possibility. However, for me to declare I am certain of either, I will need actual evidence. So I went to see what I could find. I wanted to see if I could determine if there is currently enough evidence to prove either?

 I tried to use my usual standards when looking for evidence: Physical, St. Circumstantial, and Testimony. I found it not so easy in this case. As far as Physical evidence of drug transaction or drug dealing- there is very little. That is kind of significant in my opinion. I re-read most of the official documents and the only mention/reference of any type drugs in the house would be in the supplementary Hinman Police report:

 "A home made scale was observed in a kitchen cupboard containing a white powder on one pan. The pan and powder was taken from examination"   

 But a few sentences later it states the powder tested negative for narcotics. There was also no physical evidence of money either in the house or changing hands. Hmmmm. No drugs, no money.

Circumstantial evidence as well of any drug/money transaction is almost completely lacking. Gary had a scale in his house. Circumstantial evidence of drug dealing? Maybe the fact that he had a scale in house would be. Even a scale with no residue on it. But he WAS using this scale for something, and as it was tested and it was proven he obviously was using it for other reasons, not as much so in my estimation.The only evidence I am aware of, or could find to support the drug burn involving the bikers, is testimony. Now, there is physical and circumstantial evidence of robbery obviously. The stolen vehicles and the fact that Bobby was found in one of them. The titles he was forced to turn over. But in both cases, most of what I found was testimony. And in the case of drug burn, it was sort of one sided.  I must admit, the problem with testimony from a few of these people is that several have changed stories, and in a couple of cases, multiple times. So everyone will have to judge credibility for themselves. Having said that- let's look at some testimony. Starting with what was floating around the ranch.

Charlie decided we needed still more money; there weren't enough dune buggies and supplies. Over the past year, he and various other Family members had spent time with a young musician and teacher in Topanga Canyon named Gary Hinman. Now Charlie somehow had an idea that Hinman had recently come into some money, so one Friday late in July (I later found out it was July 25) he called together Mary and Sadie and a boy named Bobby Beausoleil whom I'd never known very well but who'd been with Charlie on and off since I'd first come to the Family.The rest of us could tell something was up, but all we knew at first was that the three of them were supposed to go to Hinman and lay so much fear on him that he would give us everything he had, including the money Charlie was certain he was keeping at the house.

Although I am repulsed by Tex Watson and feel he is among the worst of bastards on Earth, I admit that Tex is much like Susan to me in the latter years in one regard. I think they both got coherent and semi- articulate as they aged. I think they tried to come across as thoughtful and honest as much as they possibly could. I think they both never stopped being self-serving, but still I believe much of what they wrote about themselves and the crimes when they became older people- granted, without saying anything to add to their own culpability. They were both very forthcoming about the crimes in latter years writings, and as hard as they were trying to be believed- I see no reason why they would have lied about the easy stuff. Stuff that can't hurt them personally. In short- I do believe about 70% of what is in both Will You Die for Me, and The Myth of Helter Skelter.  And, still, having said all of that-  if it were just Tex or Susan saying something- then maybe its diddly squat. But, I think you will start to see a common theme here...

 Subject Lutesinger then stated that above suspects Beausoleil and Atkins had been told by Charles Manson they were to go the Hinman residence and take money from him. Subject Lutesinger added that she heard that a fight had ensued and that Mr. Hinman had been killed. 

Bobby's girlfriend. Why would lie or say anything to hurt him? Wouldn't drug burn have been just as good a reason or story to give the cops? You have to assume she was just repeating what she had heard. Why was she told that specific story do you think? She and Tex had no real connection and yet they are telling the same story over 20 years apart. That is a weird coincidence.

Wait..What if Bobby had another girlfriend within the family who also said the same thing many years later? Would that still be a coincidence, or would it mean more?

Leslie herself didn't learn until long after the fact, that in late July 1969, Manson had instigated the murder of Gary Hinman, a gentle neighbor friend who taught music. For a time, Hinman had shared his humble home with Bobby Beausoleil, and it was Beausoleil who now held Hinman captive for two or three days, hoping to talk him out of money Manson wanted.

Do you think the author of " The Long Prison Journey of Leslie Van Houten: Life Beyond The Cult", wrote her book giving anything other than Leslie's point of view? Well, above is what she had to say from the LULU point of view about the motive for Bobby killing Gary.


Tell you what.  Lets take a quick pause from that, and look at his most recent version of why they went from Bobby himself...

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: This is a statement of facts prepared by Carolyn M. Hagen, my attorney of record. She writes a brief introduction and it is as follows: "Review of the most recent parole consideration hearing transcript of Robert Beausoleil, dated May 11, 2000, has revealed inaccuracies and confusion regarding the commitment factors. In order to fairly address the (indiscernible) factors of the offense, and by extension Mr. Beausoleil's rehabilitation, Mr. Beausoleil request that the Board incorporate this statement by reference into the current and any and all future proceedings. The commitment case factors as described below are based entirely on previous parole hearing transcripts, Board reports and psychological evaluations. 'Statement of Facts' – on the night of Friday, July 25, 1969, approximately 45 hours prior to the fatal stabbing of the victim, Gary Hinman, Robert Beausoleil went to Hinman's residence to buy drugs. Hinman was, at that time, dealing Mesculine that he made himself. Beausoleil was buying drugs on behalf of members of the Straight Satan's Motorcycle club who had supplied money for the purchase in the amount of $1,000. Danny DeCarlo, who would later testify as a witness to Beausoleil, was a member of the Straight Satan's club and an active participant in the drug transaction. Beausoleil delivered the mesaculine he had purchased from Gary to the Straight Satan's at Spahn Ranch where Danny DeCarlo resided with his girlfriend, Susan Atkins, who would become co-defendant in Beausoleil's case. DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans then took the drugs to Venice Beach for a party involving several motorcycle clubs that was to take place the next day. On Saturday, July 26th, DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans, accompanied by members of the Satan's Sley and Hell's Angels motorcycle clubs, returned to Spahn Ranch and confronted Beausoleil. They accused Beausoleil of conspiring with Hinman to burn him for the money for selling them bad drugs. The bikers roughed up Beausoleil and threatened him with a knife. Beausoleil told the bikers that he did know the drugs were bad and promised to get their money back from Hinman. DeCarlo and co-defendant, Bruce Davis, told Beausoleil that they would drive him to Hinman's residence to make sure that he did. Two young women, co-defendants Atkins and Mary Brunner, who were initially unaware of the difficulties between Beausoleil and the bikers and Hinman, came along "for the ride."

That sounds reasonable to me. After all, Bobby admitted to the crime and took responsibility. What reason would he have for lying about a crime he is willing to take responsibility for doing?

Well- lets be honest and fair for just a second. One potential (very significant) reason would be that the drug burn story makes it almost as if he was acting out of self defense, in a sort of second hand way, which is a much better explanation to give for yourself than greed or robbery. More important, I think though, drug burn has less to do with Charlie and the Family. Distancing himself from the Family would make it easier to prevent what has happened to Bruce all these years from happening to him. Admitting you went over to rob an innocent person at Charlies orders is a whole lot harder to explain to a parole board who thinks your part of the Manson Family- than telling them you killed a no good drug dealer because big bad bikers were after you, and you had to make a choice between him and you. It seems from the reading that Bobby has gone to great lengths to distance himself over the years. To Oregon even.

Bobby B: Listen, one thing that you should establish about me—I was not then nor am I now a member of the Manson family. There never was a Manson family. That didn't happen until everybody got busted. There were a bunch of girls, a few guys, a couple of ex-cons, a bunch of kids, some runaways with no support from home, and they were living in a garbage dump called the Spahn Ranch.

Of course Bobby also said:

Bobby BeauSoleil: " The girls tried to really tell how it all came down, but nobody would listen, People couldn't believe anything except what the media said. The media had them programmed to believe it all happened because we were out to start a race war. The media, they called us a "family". and it was the only true thing they said. We were a family. We were a mother, father, brother, sister, daughter, son. And so for the love  of a brother, a brother who was in jail on a murder rap, all those killings came down"

And

RB: “This is my song, this is my song, this is my dark song, my dark song …” Everybody always wants to know how I got together with Manson. It was through our music. He plays some, too. One night I was driving around with a bunch of my ladies. Well, we came to this old roadhouse, beer place, with a lot of cars outside. So we went inside, and there was Charlie with some of his ladies. We all got to talking, played some together; the next day Charlie came to see me in my van, and we all, his people and my people, ended up camping out together. Brothers and sisters. A family."


 So make of what Bobby says what you will. As for me?  Please indulge me briefly:

 It seems deep down there has always been a " I am a Bad-ass" element to Bobby's personality. He has a sort of bravado in his attitude, in his speech, writing, and art. It is plainly there if you look at enough of it. He uses one sympathetic approach with parole boards, but he comes across totally different when doing interviews or in his work.  In one parole hearing he tells the board he hasn't got a violent bone in his body, and would never hurt a soul. That is why, he explains, it was so out of character for him to harm Gary. In another email exchange he is literally bragging about a prison fight and how he had to throw down to defend a brother. I get that in jail you have to do things sometimes. But, my point is the way he describes himself. the language and verbiage he uses to make himself sound like a rebel child of the 60's who will never give up his soul one minute to one person, and then the quiet, thoughtful, reformed adult to another. Whatever audience he is playing to- that's the personality he delivers. He never seemed to grasp that people can read all of it, hear all of it, and see the contradictions from thing he says or creates to the next. Bobby really makes it pretty clear of how he feels about himself if you are willing to really listen. He seems to have a little cockiness to him which he never can seem to hold down for too long. Bobby -and I admire this actually- is the only one of the incarcerated, outside of Charlie, who refuses to completely sell out his past. Most of the others use "The times" as an excuse. I think Bobby still somewhat embraces "The times" and lifestyle he lived. He has too much ego to not be proud of some of the things he did. Some of the things he did lol- I don't blame him.  But, over time, I think he realized that he was going to have to make some compromises about his values if he ever wanted to get out of jail. I have to wonder, as he aged and became more aware of his situation and became more mature and a little smarter, if he started to figure out a chain of events loosely based on some actual things that happened which gave him his best chance to admit his guilt. Something still plausible enough to sound believable, but most importantly not connected to Charlie. Maybe this is what framed his final version of events and became the explanation he has proclaimed in all these years since. I did it to save myself from bikers =  reasonable. I did it because Charlie told me to = Family member/nuts. I dont know. The above is just my opinion about Bobby and some speculation.

But, maybe that is not the case. If I am off the mark, and it was a drug burn all along, then you would think a couple of the others who were involved with Hinman more directly would verify Bobby's story if it were the real reason they went there with him right?  Bobby admitted the stabbing. The others have no reason to lie about why someone else did something. We need more than Tex, Lulu, and Kitty who were not there. What do the others who were there have to say?

During the interview Davis stated, 'What I did understand was that they went there to rob Gary Hinman. They thought he had money but he didn't.' 

Bruce has had more parole hearings than any of them. Drug burn has never come up as a reason for going but, robbery does- consistently. (Including in the statement of facts shown on the previous post of this blog) Why should he have lied? What would be the difference as far as he is concerned? Why would one reason for driving Gary, and coming back with Charlie benefit Bruce more than the other? Bruce hasn't been trying to distance himself from his association with the Family in any way. Bruce just tries to explain how he got caught up in it. He has been trying to come across as honest so he can get his ass out of the clink.  So why would Bruce lie about why Bobby did something all these years?

P.S. -If Bruce is lying about this- what else is he lying about? Do we trust Bruce, or Bobby all those in favor of their release? You can't have it both ways. One of them is still lying all these years. Anyway, let's move on to something about...

MS. BRUNNER: Then Bobby came up and we just talked for awhile and then Bobby told Gary that we needed some money and Gary said he didn't have any and then jabber, jabber, and then Bobby took the gun out and said that, you know, we weren't kidding, we really do need some money and, then, they got fighting over it and Gary got hit with the gun. 

So I guess I am wondering why Bobby didn't mention the drugs at any point? And, again, here comes the money statement literally:

MS. BRUNNER: We came for money but by this time it was obvious he didn't have any.
SERGEANT WHITELEY: How much money?
MS. BRUNNER: Somebody said he had $30,000.

I have read every one of Mary and Susan's accounts of this crime that I can find, and neither of them ever mention Bobby or Gary bringing up bad drugs or a burn at the scene??  If that was the reason for Bobby going there, and he was in a life or death threat over these bad drugs- shouldn't that be the first thing Bobby started screaming about? Susan and Mary's testimonies hasn't matched Bobby's story- but they match each others.They went there for money- no mention of money for bad drugs. And that should have come up at least once if it were the reason for the visit. All of his fear Bobby had from the bikers, and yet he never mentioned the bad deal, or bikers in all those days according to Mary and Susan. If they went there for Drug money that Gary cheated Bobby out of- Susan didn't know that through the day she died.

Oh yeah- I keep bringing up Sexy Sadie... Well, what did she say??

 But he didn’t find out that the murder of Gary Hinman was connected to Bernard Crowe until well after the Grand Jury. How could he possibly uncover the real motive for the murders of those at the Cielo and LaBianca homes without understanding the real reason for Gary Hinman’s death? He couldn't.

  The true irony of this moment can only be appreciated if one understands the real reason all the killings began – to get money so that Manson could run away from the police and the Black Panthers, who he was sure were coming after him for killing Bernard Crowe.

At this one moment it must have all became obvious to Charles Manson. Bernard Crowe wasn’t dead. Manson hadn’t killed anyone that day. What’s worse was that it was also obvious that Bernard Crowe must have never mentioned the shooting to the police. And none of Crowe’s friends had either. And no Panthers had ever come up to wipe out Spahn Ranch.

That was the moment when the true horror and tragedy of all those murders should have come to Manson. That was the moment when it was obvious that when Charles Manson had ordered the murder of Gary Hinman, no one, not the police or the Panthers, was pursuing him. There had been no need for desperation. There had been no need for money to flee. And there had been no need for Gary Hinman to die. 

Susan wrote this when she was dying. As I said earlier, I think Sadie lied about plenty over the years, but, I also believe at the end she was saying what she believed to be true. That can happen upon reflection at the end of a long wasted life.

Bobby mentions the involvement of Danny Decarlo, and that brings me to the final pieces of testimony I will look at, and not to be coy, it goes Straight Satans to the heart of the matter :)

MR. DeCARLO: Uh - Charlie was telling me he knew where he was gonna - they were gonna get 20 grand pretty soon; that, uh-uh - they knew a guy named Gary who had the money, and they're gonna go up there and try to get it off of him. 

At Bobby's trial Danny said:

Then what did he say? (asking in regards to a conversation with Bobby)

A: During the course of the conversation he pulled a gun on him and demanded that Gary give him the money that he had. He was supposed to have $20,000.

Now, I know Danny himself would say anything to collect a reward, keep his kids out of child welfare custody, not go back to jail etc. But the thing is- he is repeating something that has been said quite a few times now. There is that dogged story again. It just wont go away. It seems some at the ranch, at the very least, had some reason to think that Bobby went there to rob Gary.

Also- lets look at something interesting I noticed. People are going to tell me that Bobby is much more believable than Danny. Well, let's see. Here is how many times Bobby says he stabbed Gary. Then, how many times Danny says Bobby told him he stabbed Gary. Finally- how many time Gary was actually stabbed by the Medical Examiner. Who should we believe?

INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: I killed a man by the name of Gary Hinman by stabbing him twice. That's the bare bones facts of it. I didn't have a very good reason. In fact, the reason that I had that seemed so important at the time was petty. It's selfish. 

 Danny repeating what he says Bobby told him:

A: He said he hit him once with a knife. It didn't kill him right off. He hit him again and again. He did not say how many times he did it. He didn't die right away. It took him awhile. 

The medical examiner under Direct at people versus Beausoleil:

Q: In performing your examination, Doctor, did you find more than one wound?
A: Yes.
Q:How many did you find altogether?
A: five wounds which I consider to be stab wounds.

But Danny was one Straight Satan who may have had something to do with things and had a reason to lie or hide the truth. Maybe. But, we also have some testimony from a Straight Satan who did not.

That brings me to the final testimony I looked at, which really, is the most significant to me. Al Springer. Al is just as important to me more for what didn't seem to know as what he did.

Al Springer had been told a thing or two about Gary's murder. He knew some facts. And, I wonder,  If Gary was killed for a reason involving HIS Motorcycle club, why was he so anxious to talk about it to the cops? Especially when he didn't have to at all.

Springer wasn't being asked about the Hinman crime- He offered it.

 "Did you ever get a corpse with his ear abruptly cut off?" Springer abruptly asked. Apparently, one of the detectives nodded, as Springer said, "Yeah. That's your man. Charlie had told him about cutting some guys ear off.

" He had heard, from Danny, that the sword had been used when they had killed a guy, "Called Henland I believe it was." This was the guy who had his ear cut off. What did he know about the "Henland " killing they asked? According to Danny, a guy named Bausley and one or two other guy's had killed him Danny said.

I cant re-paste H/S here and it takes too long to re-type the whole book, but he says Clem told him they cut someones ear off as well. Why arent the telling him- " We did this to try and get your money back"? They are all bragging to him!


Al Springer was a member of the gang that Bobby supposedly committed these crimes to pacify. Why would he start giving up information about Danny and these crimes if his club had any involvement? He wasn't personally involved in the crime and barely knew anyone who was. How easy for him to keep quiet, and its a 5 minute talk, and then done and over. But he went on and on. And you know what? Most of what he said ended up being more or less true. About this crime and TLB.  I don't think he believed the Hinman murder had anything to do with anyone he knew. If not, can you explain to me why would he offer so much unnecessarily?

Maybe, Al Springer wasn't part of the drug deal and didn't know Bobby you say.

 "I romanticized this sort of free-wheeling lifestyle of riding the highway on an iron horse with the wind in my hair, being free and I thought this was really cool and I was trying to become a prospect – at the time of my arrest, I was trying to become a prospect with Straight Satan's motorcycle club, which is how I got involved in that drug deal. So, I think that part of it – that withdrawal in 1969, into the fringes of society is significant in terms of what behaviors led to my being incarcerated for Gary Hinman's death."

Bobby says he was trying to become a Straight Satan prospect at the time of his arrest. So, how could Al Springer not know him? Springer couldn't even pronounce Bobby's last name correctly, and that's about all he seemed to know. Again, why would he offer up, unprovoked- and under no pressure- information about a crime committed involving his own people and prospects breaking laws?

Now go back to Bobby's own latest version which I posted earlier and re-read his own words.

Beausoleil delivered the mesaculine he had purchased from Gary to the Straight Satan's at Spahn Ranch where Danny DeCarlo resided with his girlfriend, Susan Atkins, who would become co-defendant in Beausoleil's case. DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans then took the drugs to Venice Beach for a party involving several motorcycle clubs that was to take place the next day. On Saturday, July 26th, DeCarlo and other members of the Straight Satans, accompanied by members of the Satan's Sley and Hell's Angels motorcycle clubs, returned to Spahn Ranch and confronted Beausoleil.

Al Springer had no idea any of this was going on? He wasn't at the party, or aware of all these other biker gangs being involved in a beating at Spahn Ranch?

Danny told Springer about the Hinman crime. If Danny told Springer it was to get money back for a deal that had anything to do with either their, or another motorcycle club- why would Springer offer that to the cops? Does that make any sense?

But if Bobby was lying and Springer knew it had nothing to do with his people. Then maybe he would have a reason to talk about a story he overheard. A very simple reason:

Do you know there is a $25,000 reward for the Tate murders. Yeah, and " I sure could use it".


So, what I am left with after my weekend experiment is that none of the people who made statements I could find are saying that they went there because Bobby got burned by Gary with bad drugs. I read statements from people in different cliques within the family, and in some cases taken 20 to 30 years apart. Some from people who were at Gary's, and others were just repeating the scuttlebutt/rumors around the ranch. Two were in the motorcycle gang supposedly burned. They all say robbery, and none were mentioning a drug burn, Where was anyone else who saw the drug transaction?

Bobby said in an interview:

BB: Right. The whole transaction with the Straight Satans motorcycle club took place at Spahn's Ranch. There were a few Satan Slavers hanging out there as well. The Straight Satans took the mescaline back to the motorcycle club at Venice where they were intending to party. They were really mad about it.

So how come nobody else saw has talked about this transaction? Why wont anyone else verify this drug transaction in any way- with the exception of a few, not specific, mumbles from Charlie like the one at the top of this post? Where is one single story of the bikers going back to Spahn and threatening or beating Bobby- from anyone besides Bobby? In fact the only one who seems to talk about the Drug Burn theory is Bobby himself.

So, the stories of Gary getting an inheritance he was there to rob, and all the other lies about his case must really bother Bobby right? I mean Bobby must wonder who would make up lies like that?

Well, Bobby would:

Apr. 14 – It was Charles Manson who stabbed a Topanga Canyon musician to death last summer, murder defendant, Robert Kenneth Beausoleil claimed yesterday. Beausoleil, testifying in his own defense at his murder retrial, said the entire blame on the death of Gary Hinman, 34, on Manson, leader of a nomadic “family.” Beausoleil also claimed it was Manson who slashed Hinman’s left ear with a sword because the musician refused to give the cult leader $20,000 which he reportedly had just inherited. 

So, at some point, even Bobby mentioned robbing money at Gary's. A fair person can start to sort of see why everyone seems to say the same thing about the subject, or at least, why those stories were out there.

And I haven't even mentioned people on the Gary's side. People who could defend Gary's honor. People like Glen Krell. Read the people versus Beausoleil where he was called as a witness. He says he was as close to Gary as he was to anyone. They ask Krell about every possible rumor connected to Gary. His political affiliations, his hobbies, his work. They even ask if he appeared or could be mistaken for being gay, or taken as a "Fag". But they never ask him if Gary is a drug dealer. How come no rumors or stories from anyone about drug dealing even came up during the investigation?


So in closing old friends: What we have for now is not really much testimonial evidence of anything more than the trip to Gary's being a robbery. I concede, Shaky testimony at that. I probably wouldn't bet anything of value on why they went based on the words of any of these people really. But it was interesting to read that so many of them said the same thing. I am willing to consider anything anyone else can show to prove there was an other reason for what happened to Gary. I look forward to this Straight Satan's video coming and will look into anything new I hear. I will try to check it out in whatever direction it leads me. I reserve the right to amend my opinion later. I have no skin in this game and am just reporting what I could find. I guess where I am for now comes down to this:

Do I believe one dishonest person who has told a few different versions of this crime, or do I believe a few dishonest people who have all been telling one common version of this crime?


All we know for sure, sadly is that Bobby did a really terrible thing. We may be trying to figure out why forever. Much like TLB. Trying to figure out what could cause such savage killings can be a very difficult thing to do. One of the most natural ways to search for answers is to take a hard look at those who committed them. That leads me back, in this case, to Bobby. And that is where I will end it.

If you really want to take a hard look at what Bobby was capable of- read all the statements from Mary, Susan and even Bobby himself. You will see enough consistencies to get an idea of what those days were like for Gary. The stories about what actually happened to Gary are close enough all the way around that we can figure out what Gary went through. Slowly bleeding to death in his own house at the hands of people he had been generous and kind too. The way Bobby treated him, by his own admission had such a frighteningly, cold emptiness to it. And look, by the time Bobby started stabbing he knew Gary had no money. It wasn't any form of self defense. It wasn't going to change his situation with the bikers. It was pure self preservation.

Gary Hinman was a friend of theirs and a friend to others. He had family, a life, and people who cared about him. Gary Hinman was a Human Being.


MS. BRUNNER: We went out and shut the door but then Bobby came out and said, "Okay, let's go," and then Gary started real loud deep breathing, real raspy, loud. He did it a couple times and Bobby went back in through the kitchen window and then we opened the door and put a pillow over Gary's head for awhile. Then he asked me to hold it there so it wouldn't be so loud. Then he called me to the kitchen while I was still doing it and I don't know why he called me. 


S/Atkins related she went about the house wiping off all of the areas she thought either of the suspects had touched. S/Atkins then stated she and Beausoleil left the residence locking the door behind them when she suddenly heard V/Hinman making sounds, at which time she stated to D/Beausoleil, "I don't think he's dead." D/Robert Beausoleil then put on a pair of gloves and climbed through the kitchen window. A few moments later, S/Atkins stated she heard V/Gary Hinman cry out, "Oh no Bobby, please don't!" S/Atkins stated she heard a sound like gurgling as when people are dying. She stated D/Beausoleil then came out the door again and they left 


At location, we observed numerous flies around the southeast window, which was partially ajar. Deputy Piet climbed a ladder to above described window and observed victim lying on the floor against the west wall. This time, we entered the location by climbing through the east, unlocked window leading into the kitchen. On entering living room, we observed victim lying on his back with his head pointing west and his body east. Victim had a blank covering his body and a pillow partially covering the left side of his face. Victim was observed to be in a decomposed condition, face blackened with Maggets on and around the head area. We observed splotches of blood on the blanket in the area of victim's chest. 

 "At that time I was not sure whether they were wounds or not. There were numerous maggots and beetles eating on the body, and the body fluids had moved in to what were later determined to be knife wounds and had caused the water fluid to rise above, which the beetles were moving into. It was hard to determine the death"


Sigh.....


Ya know, lol,  I went over to Bobby's website today for the first time in a very long time. He used to have sections with letters where he would answer questions, and correspond, with emailers about the crimes. That is gone. What he did have was a link to an interview he did with Extreme Music for the "Love Life Forgive: Insights from Artists by Justin Vincent. This is under the headline: " In search of Heart in Art" You read things like Love, Heart and Life, and you think maybe that other stuff was long in the past. That this is really a changed, spiritual man who really wants to send the right message. Then you look up not quarter of an inch above the link to the interview and there is a recent photo of Bobby.

 He is sitting on a rail, holding a flower and staring at a sign on the rail next to him which says: "Off limits- Do not sit on rail"


Go look at the pic. Is it a sort of smile on his face? A semi-smirk? Who knows. Its hard to tell...



But it does leave me with one question: Can what is at the core of a person ever really change?




INMATE BEAUSOLEIL: Because I'm not the same man that I was who killed Gary Hinman, and there is no possibility that I would ever put myself in a similar position again. There is no possibility that I would ever treat another human being with disrespect and indignity as I did him. I am secure in myself as a man, I absolutely, I'm absolutely confident in my orientation, in my spirituality, in the relationships that I have created with other people, or developed with other people. There isn't a vile inclination in me. and I have learned from this, I have learned in a very profound way what the consequences are, why the consequences are the way they are on both a legal level, a human level as well, but also on a spiritual level. And, you know, the indignity that I put Mr. Hinman through, and the violence that I committed against his person was truly, in my way of thinking now, a sacrilege. and I deeply, very deeply regret what I did. But again, in answer to your question, I am not the troubled young man I was 41 years ago


                                                                 

                                                        -Your Favorite Saint

THE MURDER OF GARY HINMAN: Drug Burn or Robbery? by D. LaCalandra

One of the most often debated topics of the life, times and crimes of the so-called 'Manson Family' is that of the murder of 35 year old music teacher Gary Hinman and the true circumstances leading to his death at the hands of his friend Bobby Beausoleil on July 27th, 1969. Was it, as the official record states, the result of a thuggish attempt to rob Hinman to "finance Helter Skelter" as ordered by Charles Manson? Or was it the result of a drug deal gone sour in which Beausoleil was acting as a middle man between Hinman and the Straight Satans MC club?

Before we examine the details of the Hinman case, let us first look at an event which took place only 27 days earlier on July 1st. The near fatal shooting of Bernard "Lotsapoppa" Crowe at the hand of Charles Manson. We know, beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that the shooting of Crowe was the result of a botched drug burn in which Charles "Tex" Watson had ripped him off of $2,000. But let's look at what some of members of The Family had to say of the crime, including one that the Prosecutor of the Tate-LaBianca murders, Vincent Bugliosi, would used as a star witness and go as far as saying was Charles Manson's "right hand man", Paul Watkins.

Dianne "Snake" Lake: "Gypsy told me Charlie had shot a black leader to start the revolution" (LAPD Police Interview)

Brooks Poston: "and he’s talked about killing a negro, militant leader in Los Angeles" (October 3rd, 1969 interview with Inyo County Sheriff Don Ward)

Paul Watkins: "Just because he said he was fuckin' little white girls. He says, "don't fuck with the white woman", BAM! He said he shot him with a 45 right through the heart" (Interview with Lawrence Merrick)

..and what did Watkins say of the Hinman murder?

"He said uh...Gary wanted to come with the Family, see, ah uh, he says that Gary said uh, "Can I come with you and the Family?" And old Charlie, "Sure, how much we have in our bank account?" And uh, Gary said, "what do you mean in our bank account? And Charlie says, "Well, what's mine is yours, so what's yours in mine" And old Gary said, "Well uh, no thanks". Charlie told me had ten thousand dollars in his bank account"

Again, Paul Watkins is the man Vincent Bugliosi lead the public to believe was one of Manson's "right hand men". Now, if we had gone by what these individuals in this supposedly tight-knit "Family" had said of the Crowe shooting* we just might be arguing today as to whether it was was really over a drug burn or just because he was "fucking little white girls" and now a great deal of the testimony regarding the murder of Hinman has to be put to the question. Clearly, many involved in the Family were kept in the dark about the true nature of the crimes of July and August of 1969.

* Various different motives for the murder of Gary Hinman have been given. Inheritance, stocks and bonds, Hinman wanted to join the Family, Manson wanted Hinman to join and the best, as given by Mary Brunner: Manson wanted Hinman to join his pop group. Leslie Van Houten in her interview with attorney Marvin Part claimed the reason was to get money for Dune Buggies.

Now let's look at the murder of Hinman. Rarely, if ever during debate about the crime is it mentioned that in early October of 1969, Danny DeCarlo and the Straight Satans were suspects in the case. This fact never made it into any homicide report and was obmitted from Bugliosi's Helter Skelter. Mark Arneson who had purchased Hinman's Microbus from Charles Manson, sold it shortly thereafter to a person by the name of Louis Puhek. Puhek was pulled over in Venice, California (HQ of Straight Satans) after an all-points bulletin was put out for the vehicle on October 5th or 6th. After questioning Puhek, it was learned that a Danny DeCarlo was one of the possible owners of the vehicle. A request was then made by Hinman detectives to locate DeCarlo and for general information about him and the Straight Satans.

Before that requested was fulfilled however, they had received information on October 12th that a girl named Kitty Lutesinger in Inyo County. who they already had interest in upon learning her name from Beausoleil himself, had information about the Hinman murder and thus an investigation into the involvement of the Straight Satans was temporarily put on the hold.

In Helter Skelter, Bugliosi writes that Kitty told LaBianca detectives:

"Manson had tried to enlist a motorcycle gang, the Straight Satans, as his personal bodyguard. With the exception of one biker named Danny, the group had laughed at Manson. Danny had stuck around for several months. Only learning that the motorcycle gang hung out in Venice, California, the LaBianca detectives asked Venice PD if they could locate a Straight Satan named Danny"

Bugliosi doesn't tell us that Hinman detectives, who had passed what Lutesinger said on to the LaBianca detectives, were already looking for him. It's safe to assume they too received this information, on top of what Puhek had told them, which was significant enough for them to consider DeCarlo a suspect. Was Bugliosi twisting the facts on behalf of one of is golden boys?

During Beausoleil's first trial, Sgt. Paul Whiteley, head of the Hinman investigation said on the stand:

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.

But what? There were no further questions and by this point, DeCarlo was already in bed with law enforcement and Bugliosi. Granted, he states that upon interviewing Lutesinger, that he learned DeCarlo wasn't involved. But whatever information he learned later that revealed he did, he does not elaborate on.

It was Lutesinger who implicated Susan Atkins in the Hinman murder. According to Helter Skelter, it was Atkins who revealed they went to Hinman to get money he "supposedly inherited". But as Bugliosi points out, she wasn't being totally truthful (was she ever?) and Hinman detectives suspected such. Because unlike Kitty, Atkins did not mention Manson, nor did she admit to stabbing anyone. If she was smart enough to leave out Manson, Brunner and Davis, all whom were eventually charged and convicted in the Hinman murder, it's safe to assume she was keeping her mouth shut about the possible involvement of DeCarlo.

Let's examine Lustenginger for a moment. She, the pregnant girlfriend of Beausoliel didn't learn until "several weeks later", according to Helter Skelter that he was even arrested and "much later" that it was for the murder of Hinman. Even she was kept in the dark, so if the crime it's self was kept from her, how could she be a reliable witness as to what the motive was?

On November 12th, Vence Police Department contacted the Parker Center and told them an Al Springer, member of the Straight Satans and his friend Danny DeCarlo had information about the Tate LaBianca murders. In this interview, Springer talked about everything from the shooting of Crowe to the murder of Shorty Shea and implemented Manson, Watson and Grogan in the murders. Despite this, detectives were unimpressed. Though Springer testified in the Hinman/Shea trial, he was not asked to testify in Tate-LaBianca trial as it was unclear as to weather he had heard about these things first hand or just repeating things DeCarlo had told him. Still, Bugliosi considered his taped interview with detectives to be of great, yet overlooked importance.

In regards to Hinman, Springer says something very interesting:

"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"

Right here we have evidence of a possible conspiracy involving DeCarlo and Lutesinger to establish a story that absolves Straight Satans of any involvement, or perhaps Lutesinger was strong armed into establishing the story she laid out. Clearly, they KNEW Lutesinger talked to police. Did they know before or after? Was there more to them squealing than pending charges? Did Venice PD tell them Hinman and LaBianca detectives were looking for them? What exactly was Springer worried about Danny getting in trouble over? Whiteley said he learned DeCarlo wasn't involved, but as pointed out, Lutesinger and DeCarlo were talking to each other at some point and they knew she would "let it all hang out" again.

The day after they had interviewed Springer, they spoke with DeCarlo. One week later, Bugliosi would be assigned the Tate-LaBianca case and Decarlo would be his personal tour guide of the Spahn Ranch. A little less than two weeks after DeCarlo's police interview, Bugliosi would be assigned the Hinman case after Beausoleil's first trial ended in a hung jury, thanks in part to the jury not believing DeCarlo.

Back to Atkins, why did say inheritance? We know, that Gary Hinman wasn't the hippie in Topanga Canyon to inherit $20,000. It was Charlie Melton. While it's safe to say that many of the Family weren't the brighest bulbs, I still think that they, especially those involved in the actual crimes weren't so stupid to believe that not one, but two hippies in the Topanga area connected to the Family had inherited a large lump sum of cash at the same time. So we can cross the idea that anyone really believed that Hinman had $20,000 off the list of possibilities. Could it be, Atkins substituted Melton with Hinman under pressure in an attempt to conceal the true motive, so to not incriminate Danny DeCarlo? She did, after also tell Ronnie Howard she stabbed Hinman while Bobby held him (sound familiar?) and that she stabbed Sharon Tate, when we know it was actually Tex Watson. Role reversal seems to have been a staple in the Fanciful story telling of Sexy Sadie.

Ronnie Howard: "She says he was a hippie too and I asked her, I said, "Well, why did they do it?" She said, "Well he owed them some money or something. He owed this Bobby and her some money and some other girl. I heard them talking on the telephone. I heard them trying to kill him. So they got him out for a ride. He thought he was just going out for a nice drive" (November 25th 1969 interview with LAPD)

Owed is the key word. Granted, Susan was obviously engaging in her aforementioned fanciful story telling during her jailhouse confessions. It's also possible Howard got her facts mixed up, since her statement contains clues of the Shorty Shea murder and not that of Hinman. But Atkins was clearly going for shock when she opened up her mouth to Howard and Graham, So why no mention of an inheritance rather than a mundane scenario involving Hinman owing money to Bobby? Again, owned is the key word.

"Kid come to me and said Hinman owes me" - Charlies Manson (1992 interview with Bill Murphy)

Ella Jo Bailey is one ex-Family member who's testimony is often used by people who favor the official record. However, what they fail to look at, is that Bailey wasn't interviewed in regards to the Hinman case until March of 1971. After Manson was already sentenced to death in the Tate-LaBianca trial and needless to say, long after the Manson myth has already been established. She was, yet another example of somebody with pending criminal charges of her own. So it's more than safe to assume she was simply telling them what they wanted to hear. Ella, also never said anything about any inheritance. Her reasons were stocks, bonds and the two junk vehicles Hinman owned. One overlooked comment from her interview though, is that fact she mentions Susan saying something about drugs before they left for Hinman's house. She claims Bill Vance left because he didn't want to go out on any "Capers". Yet we know the ex-con already was engaging in criminal activity on the ranch. As we'll see later, there might have been a reason she mentions Vance in regards to the Hinman case. Further more, did in fact confirm Hinman supplied the Family with mescaline.Those who claim the topic of drugs in relation to Hinman never came up during any of the trials, can no longer say that.

From the People Vs. Davis on January 12, 1972:

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.

In Death to Pigs, Lawrence Merrick asked Mary Brunner if Gary Hinman "was into dope dealing" and her reply was, "yeah". What did Hendrickson and Merrick hear at such an early date that prompted them to ask about Hinman and dope dealing?

"Hinman deserved to die. He was selling bad dope" - Charles Manson (1971, Hinman/Shea trial)

In 2012, a relative of Gary Hinman, or somebody claiming to be so, made a letter from Beausoleil available to read online. This letter has been used as "proof" that the Hinman murder did not involve a dope deal by those in favor of the court's findings. But let's look.

"However it would be hypocritical and disingenuous to say that Gary was a drug dealer. The story about the drug burn was just something put into my head by others, and there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the story considering its source. Gary wasn't the kind of guy to burn anyone in a drug deal or otherwise. I chose to buy into the story and allowed it to be part of the internal narrative I used to justify my decision to rob him. And later to rationalize some lame reasons for what followed."

Beausoleil says somebody "put into his head" by others, but doesn't say if it was before or after the murder nor does he name these "others". He then goes onto say:

"Back in the 60s everyone I knew traded in such things as pot and capsules of peyote cactus among friends and neighbors, and this includes me. None of us thought of one another as drug dealers"

So Bobby doesn't deny some sort of transaction too place, he only apologizes for the characterization of Gary as a drug dealer. A term that needless to say carries a lot of negative connotation.

Of the five people charged in the murder of Gary Hinman, only two have said that the that the true nature of the crime was drug-related. That is Charles Manson and Bobby Beausoleil. It's often questioned as to why this is the case and why none of them made this be known at trial. What must be understood is that Bobby Beausoleil was tried and convicted in a separate trial* in which his defense strategy was to lay blame on Charles Manson. Despite his efforts , he was convicted and sentenced to death in the slaying. Manson, Susan Atkins and Bruce Davis were tried together directly after the Tate-LaBianca trial. Atkins plead guilty having already been sentenced to death in the Tate-LaBianca trial and did not wish to go through with another trial. She received life in prison for the Hinman murder. Mary Brunner turned state's witness and testified in exchange from full immunity.

* Beausoleil had two trials. In both, he tried to beat the rap and deny any involvement.

..and what of Mother Mary? It should be said that Bobby Beausoleil has stated that neither Susan Atkins nor Mary Brunner were told why he was going to Hinman's home and maintains to this day that they were not sent by Charles Manson, they simply tagged along. This could very well be true. There is a more than likely chance that Beausoleil had too much pride to tell the girls he was more of less being pressured to recoup money for a group of tough guy bikers. Initially, Mary claimed that when being questioned by detectives, she was more or less pressured to repeat what Atkins had already told them and had threats of her son being taken away from her and being sent to the gas chamber. With the help of a good lawyer, she was able to strike up a deal to testify against her co-defendants in exchange for immunity. She then recanted her testimony against Beausoleil and claimed she was coerced into testifying and that the purpose of her testifying against Beausoleil was an attempt to absolve Charles Manson of guilt. Her initial reason for the murder? Hinman refused to join Manson's pop group. Another question one could ask is, why no mention of Danny DeCarlo if he was involved? In her police interview, she claims it was Bill Vance who accompanied Manson to Hinman's residence, rather than Bruce Davis. Obviously they were all very selective and careful as to who to name.

*Later on, her lawyer was able to maintain the deal made using the excuse her copporation helped the prosecution's case and charges were once again dropped.

Susan Atkins nor Bruce Davis have ever said that the murder of Gary Hinman was anything other than a botched attempt to rob him. However, both Atkins, before her death and Bruce Davis worked hard to get parole. In the eyes of a parole board, reality is on paper under the heading of "Statement of Facts". Parole hearings are not retrials and to go against what the records say are the facts is taken as deception. This is why Bruce Davis has been granted parole for a three years in a row* and Beausoleil denied at all 17 of his hearings to date. Atkins, claimed that after the shooting of Bernard Crowe there was a desperation to flee into the Death Valley and that money and Dune Buggies were needed, thus an idea to get funds off Hinman went into effect. If the murder of Gary Hinman was indeed not over a drug dispute, then this is most likely the true motive. But selling stolen property of a dead man is too risky of a business venture, so it's safe to say that murder wasn't apart of the original plan.

*Davis was granted parole in 2010, 2012 and 2014 but the decision was reversed by governors Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2010 and Jerry Brown in 2012 and 2014.

The changes in the story as presented by Beausoleil over the years has been a big reason people often cite that he and Manson have been lying about the drug angle. But has he really changed his story? The answer is actually no. Since 1981 the story has remained the same with the exception of some minor discrepancies and details. In his 2010 parole hearing, Beausoleil actually gives a logical explanation:

"Well, initially, I was too ashamed to admit to my parents that I had killed a man, and I made up a story that Manson had done it. And then later, in my first parole hearing in 1976, I wanted to accept full responsibility, but I wanted to do it without being perceived as a snitch*, because that would have been a death sentence in California at that time. So, I took responsibility for everything that had happened. I said that I had done it all, including slashing Gary across the face, and so that was the second version that I had told that wasn't entirely true. It was true other than that one part. And then subsequently, Manson himself admitted in this book that he had been involved in, admitted that he had slashed Gary's face, so I no longer felt an obligation to try to protect myself, and, you know, and being thought of as a snitch, because he'd already said that. So, I felt at liberty at that point to say exactly what happened, and that was, I think, in 1980"

*This may sound like a silly excuse to some, but in defense of Beausoleil, unlike Charles "Tex" Watson and Bruce Davis, he at that time was in San Quentin. A much harsher environment and he has, in the passed been involved in violent situations, one in which he was stabbed by another inmate.

In a 2009 documentary, Bugliosi dropped somewhat of a bomb shell when he said:

"Gary Hinman furnished drugs for the Family. He was not a member of the Manson Family, he was an associate"

In the end, it can not be proven for sure if drugs played a role in the death of Gary Hinman. But when one takes into consideration all that has been said and the progress and circumstances of the investigation and trial, I believe that there is good reason to believe there was in fact a drug transaction that escalated in a violent and deadly situation.


Sources:

The Family, Ed Sanders

Helter Skelter, Curt Gentry and Vincent Bugliosi

Death to Pigs, Robert Hendrickson

Police interviews, parole hearings and other documents found at cielodrive.com

Gary Hinman was murdered for money!

As we all know, Mr. Bobby Beausoleil is coming up for another parole hearing this month. He was on the schedule for February 19th, but it was postponed due to a rules infraction that is currently being investigated. His last one, which was in 2010 didn't go so smoothly from what I read in the hearing transcript. With that being said, I would like to go over a few things that I think are important in this case. Things that I am almost 100% are going to be addressed in his upcoming parole consideration hearing. As you all know, Mr. Beausoleil has, over the years concocted so many different versions of what happened when he murdered Gary Hinman, that it is almost impossible to pinpoint when he is telling the truth. Here are a few examples of his ever changing versions over the years:

• Manson killed Hinman
• Manson didn't kill Hinman
• Bruce Davis AND Danny DeCarlo drove him and the girls over to Gary's 
• Mary Brunner was a lover of Gary Hinman
• Danny DeCarlo's girlfriend was Susan Atkins
• Manson did NOT order him to kill Hinman
• Bobby himself inflicted the wound on Hinman
• Manson did not appear at Gary's house at all
• Manson took Bobby for a ride in a truck and threatened his life if he told
• Danny DeCarlo was a participant in the events that led to Gary Hinman's death
• Gary Hinman was involved with radicals from UCLA
•  He wanted to be invited to the 10 year anniversary party for the Straight Satans and he went as a go-between for them and Gary

The list goes on & on. It's mind-boggling how much the story changes from year to year. What I haven't been able to figure out is this: Why is Bobby Beausoleil and Bobby Beausoleil alone the only one claiming this crime happened because of a drug deal? Why wouldn't his co-defendants say it was over a drug deal? Why would they not know? Why on earth would they be hiding the fact that it was a drug deal thing? We can sit here all day long going back & forth debating whether Danny DeCarlo & other witnesses were lying, because they had something to lose, if caught, but it still wouldn't make sense for Ella, Mary, Susan, and even Bruce Davis to be lying about the reasons behind the murder. Hell, they all admitted Gary was murdered, because they wanted his money, property, stocks & bonds, or anything else of value. This was a definite pattern of Manson & Family. Whatever is yours is mine, whatever is mine is mine!

For instance, when Ella Jo Bailey was interviewed by police,
she had this to say:

"Everyone talked about Hinman. It was all planned. Me and Bill were the only ones there that saw Mary and Sadie when they got back from Gary's house. Then me, Bill & Bob went on an errand after the murder and talked about it. I remember it clear, because Bob was really upset. He was quiet and to himself. I also talked to Bruce about it. I wanted to hear what happened from everyone, because I was closer to Gary than anyone else, but I don't feel responsible for what happened. I left the ranch, because I was scared. There was no benefit from Gary's death. That was hard to understand! There were so many guns around. It wasn't the same scene that had happened for a year, year & a half that I lived with them. I'm sure each of us saw changes coming down. I saw Charlie hit some of the girls at various times for some little thing that wouldn't be important to anybody else, but to him was important. I didn't want to be hit. I don't want to be hit, and I certainly don't want to be killed. I didn't want any more to do with it. Bill certainly didn't want to get involved. I was afraid that eventually Charlie would say, "okay, you didn't go to the Hinman murder, but it's time that you accomplish what everyone else has done." Bill told me that Charlie had directly spoken to him, and told him that other scams were planned. They were gonna try to get money from some casino just over the hill in Simi. There was talk that there was gonna be more & more of these things. The girls had gone on capers. I didn't want to." Bobby had also told Ella that they were supposed to drive the car out of LA county, into Santa Barbara so they could get some money for it. If that was the case, I thought the Straight Satans wanted their money back and sold the car to recoup their loses.

Then we have Bruce Davis's testimony from this 2012 parole hearings: 

Davis stated, 'What I did understand was that they went there to rob
Gary Hinman. They thought that he had money, but he didn't."

"The gun was mine. That's the one that I received the federal firearms
charge for buying it with a false identification."

"I was present when the planning to rob Mr. Hinman went on and I drove."

"And when I was asked to drive, I did. So I drove my co-defendants to
Gary's home. I later pointed my pistol at Gary in an attempt to rob
him."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: "So the motive for Gary Hinman being
basically tortured and murdered, that was for robbery?"

INMATE DAVIS: "Yes, it was."

From Danny DeCarlo's police interview:

"Now, he said he was hung up on this little girl up there. He said that's one of the reasons why, he was trying to get her, to leave the ranch with him. But, Charlie was his god. Whatever Charlie did, he did. Whatever Charlie thinked, he thinked. It was this tight, ya know?" 

The first thing I ever heard about Gary Hinman was that he had 20 grand.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Who told you this?

Danny DeCarlo: Charlie, he told me this. He had $20,000 and they were going to go out there and get the money off of him. Now, they, this is, they were talking about this for probably weeks-the Gary Hinman's money. According-they both knew Gary, from prior contact with Gary. Alright, he had 20 grand. Where he got this money, I don't know? If he had 20 grand, I don't know? They just said it was $20,000 that they were gonna get. So, they have to talk somebody out of it. So they're gonna talk it out of Gary Hinman. So, they sent Bobby, they sent Sadie and they sent Mary.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Do you know where Gary's house is?

Danny DeCarlo: Not the slightest idea.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Okay

Danny DeCarlo: Okay, now I am telling you, what he told me, when he came back, I'll run it down to you.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: He?

Danny DeCarlo: He is Bobby Beausoleil.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Okay

Danny DeCarlo: Right from the horse's mouth. Now, this is when he came back. And a little bit, what Charlie told me, from when they got there. Now, when they left, I don't know. When they came back, I don't know. What they left in, I don't know. I'm only telling you what he told me when he came back. And that's where I'm gonna start, when he came back. Okay, I was in the end bunkhouse, on the ranch, Right, he came back and uh, I says-he was telling me about, uh, he had stabbed Gary Hinman. He says, "and I got the mutherfucker" "I killed him." He says, "it's pretty weird, I never killed anyone before in my life." And he had a little knife that he carried with him. A little Bowie knife-a Mexican, Bowie knife. A Mexican, a Bowie with a blade that comes up like this and down like this and under, fancy handle, fancy engraving on the handle. You people have it.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: How do you know that?

Danny DeCarlo: Cus he carried it constantly on his hip.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Mmm hmmm.

Danny DeCarlo: On a sheath. When he got busted up there in San Luis Obispo in that little Toyota, he had that knife on him. He was supposed to take that Toyota out of town.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Let me ask you something.

Danny DeCarlo: Okay

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: How do you know he had the knife on him?

Danny DeCarlo: Cause he never parted with it.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Okay

Danny DeCarlo: When he did it-Bobbie, Charlie told him to get rid of the knife, he never did. He didn't want to get rid of the knife, because he loved it. That's why he kept it with him. So, when he got arrested up in San Luis Obispo, he had the knife on him, right? He had the knife? Didn't your crime lab check that knife and it came back clean? Well, that was the knife that did it. I almost chocked when I heard that.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Well now, not that our crime lab came back clean, but we have, we did test the knife.

Danny DeCarlo: Yeah, well he, he called the ranch while he was in jail and said, yeah the crime lab came back, and he said the knife, wasn't the knife that did it. 

Unidentified voice: That isn't true.

Danny DeCarlo: Well, that's what he said.

From Susan Atkins last known manuscript "The Myth of Helter Skelter":It should also be mentioned that the reason why Charles Manson couldn't find anyone in all of Los Angeles who was willing to loan or give him enough money to flee, or to put him up for awhile until the heat died down, was because by the summer of 1969, Charles Manson had abused the friendship of everyone who’d ever tried to help him. He’d robbed some of these people, stolen from others, threatened others when they didn't give him what he wanted, and shamelessly lived off others until he’d abused his welcome everywhere. No one who had anything worth taking wanted him anywhere near them.Finally the men at the meeting were reduced to grabbing at the faintest of straws. Bobby Beausoleil thought he remembered someone saying a friend of the Family’s, a music teacher named Gary Hinman, had inherited $20,000. This didn't seem very likely to me. Gary lived in a little place down Topanga Canyon – nothing fancy. But that’s all they could come up with.Charles Manson said that Hinman was practically part of the Family – or at least he could be convinced to join the Family. If he joined the Family he could be expected to turn his inheritance over. Since this was all they could come up with they decided to try it. 

(Note: Susan Atkins conveniently forgot to mention in her manuscript that they were ALL THERE during the planning stage of taking money from Gary. Remember what Ella Jo Bailey said?)

From Kitty Lutesinger's arrest report (10/13/69):

Subject Lutesinger was transported to the San Dimas Sheriff's Station and during questioning she stated that she had not been at the Hinman home and had never been there. Subject Lutesinger then stated that she had heard a story that above suspects Beausoleil and Atkins had been told by Charles Manson they were to go the Hinman residence and take money from him. Subject Lutesinger added that she heard that a fight had ensued and that Mr. Hinman had been killed. Subject Lutesinger also added that she left the Spahn Ranch approximately 8-1-69 and, that about one week prior to that she had observed both of Hinman's cars at the ranch. Subject Lutesinger stated that the above S/Atkins had also told her and other girls at the ranch that she had been in a fight with a man who pulled her hair; that she had stabbed him 3 or 4 times. As part of this information was consistent with some of the facts given to the undersigned by D/Beausoleil, the undersigned returned to Inyo County Sheriff's Department where we spoke with S/Atkins.

From Mary Brunner's statement (12/4/69):

The police asked her, "who did you go up there with?" Her answer, "With Bobby and Sadie." How did you get there? "I think it was Bruce who drove us up there."

"Then Bobby came up and we just talked for a while and then Bobby told Gary that we needed some money and Gary said he didn't have any and then jabber, jabber, and then Bobby took the gun out and said that, you know, we weren't kidding, we really do need some money and then, they got to fighting over it and Gary got hit with the gun."

From police report concerning Gary Hinman vehicle:

Louis Puttek was interviewed by District Attorney of Los Angeles (01/20/70):Mr. Puttek states that he purchased the 1958 Volkwagon van, that formerly belonged to Gary Hinman from Mark Aaronson. Mr. Puttek stated that he was told after his arrest on October 8, 1969, that Mark Aaronson had been given the bus on the ranch by CHARLES MANSON. He stated that he never worried about title to the bus, because he was given the pink slip, and it was signed and dated by Gary Hinman. He stated that he altered the date to avoid paying penalties to the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Note: Again, if this was a Straight Satans thing, why the hell was the bus GIVEN to someone by Manson? Beausoleil claims nobody knew about the deal with the Straight Satans.)

As much as I think the Los Angeles deputy DA is a complete ass, he summed it up nicely when he said this:

With regards to the commitment offense, and actually, with regards to much of this inmate's attitude towards not only his prison disciplinaries, but almost anything regarding his life, I would conclude that he is a pathological liar. He has told so many different versions of his involvement in this crime that it's almost beyond belief. Today we hear now a new and different version of his crime, which has differed from his previous statements. His statements have gone from he didn't kill Mr. Hinman, that he was in the other room when it happened, to Manson did it, Manson didn't do it, Manson was involved, Manson wasn't involved. I mean, you could go on and on regarding all of his different versions of the offense. Today's version is somewhat of a new deviation from his previous assertion that the motivation for Mr. Beausoleil going to Mr. Hinman's house was to collect money on a drug debt. I think previous statements from this inmate were that he had bought some mescaline from Mr. Hinman, and it turned out -- and he then, in turn, sold it to the Straight Satan's, it turned out to be laced with strychnine. The Straight Satan's were mad at Mr. Beausoleil, so Mr. Beausoleil went to confront Mr. Hinman regarding the bad drugs that Mr. Hinman sold to Mr. Beausoleil. The problem with this theory is, and this previous story, which is different from today's version, is that there is no indication in any of the records, in any of the physical evidence, or any of the statements of the witnesses, that Mr. Hinman was in any way even a drug dealer. According to Mr. Beausoleil, Hinman manufactured the drugs at his house, at his residence. There's nothing in any of the police reports, there's nothing in any of the evidence from the crime scene that indicates that Mr. Hinman manufactured drugs at all. Furthermore, there is no evidence from any of this inmate's crime partners that Hinman was involved in any kind of a bad drug deal between himself, the Straight Satan's, or Mr. Beausoleil. This is all a flat-out lie. In fact, Mr. Hinman's deceased crime partner, Susan Atkins, testified at her own parole hearing on Tuesday, December 31st of 1985, and this was at CIW, and I have the transcript in front of me, and I'm looking at pages 59 and 60 of that December 31st, 1985 transcript where she was asked a few questions by Board member -- actually, two different Board members"Did you at any time, did you think that Robert Beausoleil was there to collect money on a drug deal?" Inmate Atkins: "No, Sir." This fantasy that inmate Beausoleil concocts is a way of minimizing not only his involvement in the crime, but also of shifting some of the blame to Mr. Hinman. In other words, it was Mr. Hinman's fault that he sold some bad drugs, and that's what caused this whole confrontation to occur. It was Mr. Hinman's fault that he threatened to go to the police after his face had been slashed, that caused him to be killed by Robert Beausoleil. That is absolutely incorrect, it is not true, and Mr. Beausoleil to this day continues to lie and deny, and to make up new stories about his involvement with the crime. This was a planned attack and extortion. Bruce Davis drove Bobby Beausoleil and the girls to the house. The girls knew Hinman. They were to enter the house first to see if Mr. Hinman was with anyone. If Mr. Hinman wasn't with anyone, they were to make a signal, and after they made that signal, Bobby Beausoleil then entered the house with the gun. They kept him hostage. Despite what Mr. Beausoleil says about not preventing him from leaving, it's absolutely clear that they did. He struck Mr. Hinman over the head with the gun. In fact, by his own admission, he says that the gun was damaged. At least, that's what Bruce Davis says, that the gun was damaged. Mr. Beausoleil makes out that he's somehow a pawn in all this, that he was given instructions on how to go collect the money, that it was Bruce Davis and Danny DeCarlo that told him how to use the gun and how to threaten the victim, and this was absolutely incredible, and it's absolutely unbelievable. He continues to minimize his behavior by saying, this was all Charlie's fault, and none of it makes absolutely any sense whatsoever. According to Mr. Beausoleil's latest version, he was just there to collect some money, that he really didn't tell the girls, despite all the evidence to the contrary, because all the girls and everyone else indicates that the reason that all of them went to Gary Hinman's house was because they believed he came into an inheritance, and they wanted to acquire that inheritance as part of the Family funds. So, Mr. Beausoleil is flat-out lying. His version is completely different from all of his crime partners', and all the evidence in this case projects. His version makes absolutely no sense too, because if he were there to collect on the drug debt, why is Manson involved? Why does Manson come over? His explanation is, Manson was worried that his girls might have been in danger. They were never in any danger. There was a struggle with the gun, a gunshot went off, Beausoleil retained possession of the gun. If he hadn't retained possession of the gun, Hinman may still be alive today. He may have fled, he may have shot his assailants. But the point is, is that Beausoleil was always in control. The reason Manson was called over to the house was because Hinman didn't have the money, or wasn't giving up the money, so the purpose for Manson and Davis to return was to further threaten Hinman to pay up or turn over the pink slips to the car. This is logical, this is what all the evidence shows, and this is in direct contradiction to what Mr. Beausoleil is trying to tell this Panel today. And Mr. Beausoleil, he can't -- well, he can't keep his story straight.

We can probably gather that a lot of the witnesses, and co-defendants minimized their involvement in this tragic case, simply because they didn't want to get charged as some sort of accessory, or get involved any more than they already were. Could we say that Ella Jo was involved? Sure. She is the one who suggested Gary in the first place. We could also say that Danny was involved somewhat too. Danny was there, getting drunk & feeling up Ouisch & Simi Valley Sherry probably while they were in Devil's canyon, sitting around a campfire & brainstorming on how to procure desperately needed funds for dune buggies, food, equipment, drugs, tools, etc. He heard the planning! Danny didn't claim to be an angel. He was a piece of shit, but that doesn't mean he put Bobby up to going over to Gary's and getting the money back on some sort of bum drug deal. Remember, everyone was desperately trying to think of a way to get the money necessary to move to the desert. They even talked about kidnapping Terry Melcher and holding him for ransom. Do I think Gary Hinman was murdered because of a drug deal, or bad mescaline? Absolutely not. I never have. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Gary ripped Bobby Beausoleil off, or gave him mescaline with strychnine. I have known many outlaw bikers for many years now and I can guarantee you this: They would NEVER, EVER have to send some punk over to a drug dealers house to get a refund of their money. Outlaw motorcycle groups have people on their "team" that have no problem collecting on a debt or getting a refund. It's preposterous to even think that they would rely on a 21-year old punk to go collect, even back in 1969. As for the drugs, Gary might have done a little experimenting with drugs for a spell, and his family admitted that he had been in a recovery group for drug addiction, but that doesn't mean he sold Bobby Beausoleil a bad batch. It was the late 60's in Topanga Canyon. Who didn't do drugs in that area back then? Bobby Beausoleil, in my opinion is desperately trying to minimize his involvement in this cowardly murder by putting some of the blame on his victim and the rest on Charles Manson and even Danny DeCarlo. Do I think this man would be a danger to society if released. No, I do not, but I am not the one he has to convince. Inconceivable!!