DeWayne Allen Wolfer

About a year ago Deb sent me almost everything that follows on DeWayne Wolfer. Thank you, Deb.

______

 

DeWayne Allen Wolfer was born July 25, 1925. At the time of the Tate-LaBianca trial he was employed in the Scientific Investigation Division (SID) of the LAPD as a criminologist. While technically a police officer by pay rate, Wolfer makes it pretty clear in his testimony that he did not really consider himself to be one. 

 

On August 18,1969 Wolfer went to 10050 Cielo Drive to conduct acoustic testing with an assistant named Butler. To be specific, he went there to test whether Garretson could have heard the gunshots that night. He took a decibel or sound meter and a .22 long barrel, Colt version of the revolver used in the murders. 

______

 

In Helter Skelter Bugliosi says this about Wolfer’s acoustic experiment. 

 

“Using a general level sound meter and a .22 caliber revolver, and duplicating as closely as possible the conditions that existed on the night of the murders, Wolfer and an assistant proved (1) that if Garretson was inside the guest house as he claimed, he couldn’t possibly have heard the shots that killed Steven Parent; and (2) that with the stereo on, with the volume at either 4 or 5, he couldn’t have heard either screams or gunshots coming from in front of or inside the main residence.* The tests supported Garretson’s story that he did not hear any shots that night.” (Emphasis added by me)

 

Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (pp. 71-72). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

 

That’s not what Wolfer said at trial. But we’ll get there in a bit.

______

 

At first blush Wolfer looks like a great witness. 

Wolfer had a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Southern California in chemistry or physics. He had served as a criminalist since 1951. He was a professor at the California State College of Long Beach where he taught 'criminalistics' and he had previously taught at the University of Southern California, El Camino College, Fullerton College, Santa Barbara College and Ventura College. He had testified hundreds of times involving firearms and ballistic matters. He had written the lab procedures manual for SID and he was a member of the American Association of Forensic Scientists.

 

His resume included acting as chief investigator and testifying in the trial of Jack Kirschke. In 1967 a deputy DA from Los Angeles County, Jack Kirschke, killed his wife and her lover. He was arrested and charged with the double murder, tried and found guilty in large part, according to the press, based upon Wolfer’s testimony that included a dramatic reenactment of the lover’s body falling to the floor to explain a sound heard by witnesses that helped undermine Kirschke’s alibi. 

 

Wolfer was brought in to testify in the closing days of the trial. He was the prosecution’s key witness. His testimony that it was Kirschke's gun that killed the two lovers and his testimony that one of the bodies fell off the bed because of a shift in blood after death was credited with Kirschke's conviction. His third area of expertise during the trial was to explain acoustically how several witness might not have heard the gunshots. He opined that Kirschke used a crude silencer. 

 

Kirschke was paroled in 1977. 

 

In 1968 Wolfer was the key ballistics investigator in the assassination of Robert Kennedy and subsequently testified in the trial of Sirhan Sirhan. He is the guy who testified that all the shots came from Sirhan’s gun. In fact, he said 'no other gun in the world' could have fired the shots. He also testified on an acoustics issue. The picture up there is from that case. 

 

Sometime in 1971-72 he became the chief of SID despite the objection of a number of people orchestrated by an attorney named Barbara Warner Blehr. These objections led to an investigation into Wolfer’s practices including the Sirhan gun. He was cleared of any wrongdoing by a LA DA ‘s investigation. 

 

Wolfer passed away in 2012.

 

Deb dug a little deeper and found a few blemishes on Wolfer’s resume. 

 

In 1975 Mr. Kirschke filed an appeal of his conviction. The appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals on grounds that are legally correct but here is what the court had to say about Wolfer. 

______

 

"We conclude that while Wolfer negligently presented false demonstrative evidence in support of his ballistics testimony, Kirschke had ample opportunity to rebut the demonstrative evidence at trial so that the negligently false evidence is not a basis for collateral attack. (In re Manchester, 33 Cal.2d 740, 742, 204 P.2d 881; In re Waltreus, 62 Cal.2d 218, 221, 42 Cal.Rptr. 9, 397 P.2d 1001, cert. den. 382 U.S. 853, 86 S.Ct. 103, 15 L.Ed.2d 92.) We conclude further that while Wolfer's acoustical testimony was false and while his testimony on qualifications as an expert on anatomy was also false and borders on the perjurious, the opinion evidence given by Wolfer dealing with acoustics and anatomy pertained to essentially irrelevant matter and beyond a reasonable doubt could not have affected the outcome of the trial" (Emphasis added by me).  

 

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1830296.html

______

 

Ouch!

 

By 1980 Wolfer, now the head of SID, was suspended without pay for 30 days and his entire department was disciplined for a host of offenses including sloppy handling of evidence, drinking on the job and firing pellet guns out the windows. 

 

 

On November 24, 1988, an article appeared in the LA Weekly entitled Robert Kennedy: The Assassination This Time. The article followed the release of documents related to the assassination by the LAPD. Now, admittedly, the LA Weekly is not the LA Times. But here is what they say about Wolfer, referencing, in part, his issues from 1971 and the opinion of a colleague from that time that is far from flattering. 

 

 

So, according to this information and a court, Wolfer had a problem with the truth and used very sloppy or negligent techniques. He also is alleged to have fudged his results to get the DA what he wanted. 

 

Now back to Cielo Drive. 

 

Wolfer and Butler arrive at Cielo Drive at noon on August 18^th. So much for “duplicating as closely as possible the conditions that existed on the night of the murders”. 

 

In fact, very little about the experiment duplicated the night of the murders. Wolfer testified that Sergeant George Deese opened the rear door (pool?) and rear (nursery?) windows and ‘reconditioned the scene to its original positions’ (tipped over the trunks?). Humidity, wind, background noise and temperature were not compared even though Wolfer admitted they could play a factor. Wolfer appeared to not recognize that the rear of the house was actually the front of the house.

 

Butler then went to three locations on the property: where Parent’s car was found, near the location of the trunks and close to the front porch near the heel print. Butler fired five rounds at each location two times, towards the ground, into a sandbag. That too could effect the decibels recorded. So too, could Butler's position. If he was between the gun and the meter his body could help muffle the sound. 

 

Wolfer was inside the guest house near the stereo with the meter. Garretson testified he was on the couch (which would buffer the sound of the stereo) and at one point was at a window in the bathroom. Wolfer never changed his location.  

The first set of five were fired with the stereo off. The second set were fired, he testified at first, with the FM radio in the stereo on at volume “5”. Wolfer testified he could hear and register on his meter the first 5 but not the second five shots. 

 

He also testified that somewhere around volume 2-3 the shots could probably be heard but he wrote nothing down at the time regarding any test.

 

Fitzgerald: You are a man with an obvious scientific orientation, are you not? 

A. I would say yes. 

Q. And I take it that when the stereo was set at 3 you wrote down the reading on your decibel meter, correct? 

A. No, I did not. 

Q. Was there some reason for that? 

A. Yes. 

Q. What was the reason? 

A. My major reason was I was sent there to conduct tests at the setting of 5. 

Q. And you did not record the decibel level when the stereo was set at 4 either, did you? 

A. Mentally, yes, but recording it physically, no. 

Q. You are depending on your memory today when you testified as to the decibel level when the stereo was set at 4 and 3? 

A. Yes.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol III (pp. 3290-3291). Kindle Edition.

______

 

As an aside, one thing I have noticed about the defense lawyers in this trial is how utterly unprepared they were. When you try a case, you have a pretty good idea who the witnesses will be (in a criminal case the DA has to tell you) and prepare exhibits and questions based upon what you know. Now and again, you might have to lean over to your client in a civil case and ask, ‘who is this?’ but generally you know. 

 

During his testimony Wolfer denied he was an expert on acoustics, which should have brought an objection: irrelevant, since all he is doing is vouching for the credibility of Garretson. At that point no witness for the defense has challenged Garretson’s credibility. 

In Kirschke (and the RFK trial) he stated he was, indeed, an expert on acoustics and Bugliosi certainly qualified him with questions as an expert, generally although not on any specific subject. One of the things you do with an expert is check out how they testified before and maybe ask Wolfer what happened in the last three years to change his status. 

______

 

Wolfer initially claimed he played the FM radio to record his test firings and then modified his testimony to include a record on the turntable but noted neither the radio station, the length of time needed to perform the test firings, the name of the record or which songs he played. 

 

Fitzgerald: Were you playing records? Were you playing tapes? Or were you listening to FM-AM through the stereo, or what? 

A. As I recall we were listening to FM—or there was a stereo record on. We did play the stereo record, too. 

Q. Was it any different? 

A. Basically, no, it wasn’t. 

Q. Do you remember what the stereo record was that you played? 

A. No, I don’t recall that I do.

Q. I take it you are an expert— 

A. May I finish? 

Q. I’m sorry. 

A. I did not know what the record was by name then. I never looked at the name of the record. It was on the turntable when we arrived.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol III (p. 3292). Kindle Edition. 

______

On August 18^th he did not simulate screams or yelling and thus did not conclude what was claimed by Bugliosi in Helter Skelter, above, that Garretson could not hear the screams. One has to ask why he didn’t make this test when in September, using off site locations like Knott's house, this is precisely what he did. 

 

Kanarek:  Now, in connection with the previous experiments that you ran, that you have already related to us concerning which Mr. Bugliosi has interrogated you, is it a fact that Officer Butler also used the word “Help” in the experiments? 

A. No. Officer Butler did not holler in the first series of tests, if that is what counsel is referring to. The first series of tests on August the 18th was conducted merely with the firing of the Colt revolver.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol III (p. 3335). Kindle Edition.

______

 

He did not make any notes during his experiment. Not one. 

 

Bugliosi: With respect to your experiment on August the 18th, 1969, the first formal written report you prepared was dated August 26, 1969, is that correct? 

A. That’s correct. 

Q. That is eight days later? 

A. That’s correct. 

Q. And you do not recall whether you made any report prior to that time? 

A. No, I mean I did not make any report. I might have made a verbal report, but I made no written report. 

Q. You don’t recall whether you made any notes prior to that time? 

A. No.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol III (pp. 3409-3410). Kindle Edition.

_____

 

As he testified, Wolfer also did not immediately write his report. 

He wrote his report eight days later on August 26^th apparently from memory, using a form called an Evidence Analyzed Report. This report was subsequently lost. He wrote a second report on September 22, 1969, relating to efforts to hear shots and yelling from off-site locations.  At Bugliosi’s request he wrote a third report, October 5^, 1970, in a narrative form. But we only care about the first one. It was rediscovered the day of his testimony. 

 

All of this is very sloppy. Much of what a jury could learn from Wolfer would require them to rely on Wolfer’s testimony, not a report, which in turn was based in large part on his memory. They would have to trust he is reporting accurately and his history says he was not. 

 

Kanarek and Fitzgerald identified two issues with the August 26th report but neither asked the right question about those issues. Fitzgerald never asked the key question and Kanarek, being Kanarek, asked compound questions that likely baffled everyone in the courtroom. 

 

Kanarek did manage to point out that while the form had a specific blank where the analyzing officer was supposed to state his opinion about the analysis, this blank was not filled in.  In other words, his report does not express the opinion that Garretson could not have heard the shots with the stereo at 5. 

 

Kanarek had Wolfer read the August 26, 1969, report. Here is what it said. 

 

Q. Would you read that to us, please. 

A. August the 18th, 1969. Scene: 10050 Cielo Drive. 12:00 noon. Sound test. Colt, 9-1/2 inch barreled revolver, Remington golden L-R—which is Long Rifle. Sound level meter-General Radio Company.

 

Car position in driveway to the rear of house, 31 to 32-1/2 decibels. Front room to the rear of the house, 31-39 decibels. Car position in driveway to rear of house (radio) 78-78 decibels. Front room to rear of house, radio, and then in parens—I am sorry, radio was in parenthesis. Over this is “Set 5.” 78-78 decibels. Steps to the rear of the house, 31-42 plus decibels. Steps to the rear of the house (radio) 78-78 decibels. 

 

Blood samples, et cetera. Taken. Bullets examined.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol III (pp. 3390-3391). Kindle Edition.

_____

It is never explained why he took blood samples or examined bullets, which samples or which bullets. You should note he refers to the rear of the house. Parent's car was not in the rear of the house. The front porch steps are not the rear of the house, either. 

Here is an Analyzed Evidence Report from LaBianca. The arrow points to the opinion section. 

Fitzgerald noticed that the First Homicide Progress Report dated, if I recall correctly, September 1, 1969, contained an opposite conclusion regarding Garretson and the gunshots but Fitzgerald never asked the right question. 

 

BY MR. FITZGERALD: 

Q. At the time that you went to the Cielo Avenue location to perform certain acoustical tests, did you have information that the tests, similar type tests, had been conducted by persons within your department? 

A. No, I did not. 

MR. FITZGERALD: I have nothing further.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol III (pp. 3407-3408). Kindle Edition.

 

Wait! That’s the wrong question. He should have asked if Wolfer was aware of any such test, period. He then should have shown him the First Homicide Progress Report and asked him if it is referring to his test or another test.

 

The First Homicide Progress Report says this: 

 

“Investigating officers went back to the crime scene and reviewed the physical and acoustical aspects of the scene as related to what Garretson, who claimed to have been awake all night in the guest house writing letters, claimed he heard or saw.

 

In the opinion of the investigating officers and by scientific research by S.I.D., it is highly unlikely that Garretson was not aware of the screams, gunshots and other turmoil that would result from a multiple homicide such as took place in his near proximity. These findings, however, did not absolutely preclude the fact that Garretson did not hear or see any of the events connected with the homicide.” (Emphasis added by me)

______

 

Remember on August 18^th Garretson, although released from jail with charges dropped, was still a suspect. In fact, in the report he is still suspect #1. 

Wolfer did not go to Cielo Drive to prove Garretson could not hear the shots. He went there to prove the opposite and that is likely why there is no opinion in the report and why the Homicide Report has that odd contradiction at the end of the quote.

 

I believe the SID reference is Wolfer. Given the above history, it is not a stretch to conclude that in August 1969 he would have testified that Garretson could hear the shots if Garretson was on trial. Garretson never would have testified. Whisenhunt would have said the stereo was not on. His testimony would be he could have heard the shots which contradicted his statements to the police. 

 

I should note that William Whisenhunt mentions an acoustic experiment two to three days after the murders during his testimony. 

 

Bugliosi: Did you return to the Tate residence a few days later? 

Whisenhunt: Yes. 

Q. Do you know when it was, approximately? 

A. I returned that day, the next day and the day after, for a period of three days. 

Q. Did you ever participate in any type of an experiment at the scene of the Tate residence involving the firing of a .22 caliber revolver?

MR. KANAREK: May we approach the bench, your Honor, on this kind of an interrogation? 

THE COURT: That question calls for a yes or no answer. 

MR. KANAREK: I think it is immaterial. There is no foundation. Certainly, there is no foundation. 

THE COURT: No. That question can be answered yes or no. You may answer. Do you have the question in mind? 

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. The answer is yes. 

BY MR. BUGLIOSI: Q. When did this experiment take place? 

A. Sometime within the first three days. Approximately the 11th, I believe. 

Q. August the 11th? 

A. Yes. 

Q. ’69? 

A. Yes.

 

A side bar occurs after that answer which concludes as follows: 

 

THE COURT: Then there is the other question of whether or not the gun and the ammunition used in the experiment were similar to the gun and the ammunition fired by whoever shot Mr. Parent. 

MR. BUGLIOSI: Okay. I will pass it for now. 

MR. FITZGERALD: Also, the official reports of the Los Angeles Police Department indicate that they didn’t believe Garretson, and the reports of their tests were that they could hear. 

MR. BUGLIOSI: Really? 

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

MR. BUGLIOSI: Do you have it? 

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. 

MR. BUGLIOSI: I don’t have it and I asked for the reports about five months ago.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol II (pp. 3650-3658). Kindle Edition.

 

Bugliosi is obviously referring to Wolfer (when he passes) and his missing August 26, 1969 report (in the last line). Fitzgerald is referring the First Homicide Progress Report. 

 

But Bugliosi says this in Helter Skelter, which, oddly, contradicts Whisenhunt's testimony. 

______

 

Whisenhunt remained behind [at the guest house], looking for weapons and bloodstained clothing. Though he found neither, he did notice many small details of the scene. One at the time seemed so insignificant that he forgot it until later questioning brought it back to mind. There was a stereo next to the couch. It had been off when they entered the room. Looking at the controls, Whisenhunt noticed that the volume setting was between 4 and 5. 

 

Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (p. 13). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

_____

 

This is an example of the leading questioning Bugliosi inflicted on several witnesses in their interviews and points out the problem with his style. It is possible that Buglosi’s questioning reminded Whisenhunt that he saw the stereo between 4 and 5. Did he actually remember that or did Bugliosi supply that memory and why wasn’t the test done between 4-5 but only recorded at 5 in the August 26^th report? 

_____

 

There may have been another informal test on August 11 and that may be why Wolfer was sent to conduct a more scientific test seven days later. That makes sense. 

 

By the way, Garretson didn’t say he was listening to the FM radio which Wolfer certainly tested. He said this: 

 

Q. BY MR. FITZGERALD: Is that the entrance you customarily used for ingress and egress?

A. Yes. 

Q. Do you recall what you were listening to in the guest house on the stereo? 

A. Yes, some records. 

Q. Do you recall what the records were?

 A. The Words and The Mamas and The Papas—no, wait a minute—Mama Cass, and The Doors.

 

Stewart, Mike. The People of the State of California vs. Charles Manson Vol II (pp. 197-198). Kindle Edition.

 

I could not find a band called “The Words” in the sixties. I am guessing the stenographer mis-heard The Byrds.

 

I did some math using all the Doors albums and Byrds albums released up to August 1,1969 and the two by Cass Elliott: Dream a Little Dream, October 1968 and Bubble Gum, Lemonade and Something for Mama, June 1969. While they vary album to album, a side of an album comes in around 15-18 minutes with the early Byrds’ albums on the short side. 

 

As all of us who grew up with vinyl know, there are ‘dead’ spaces between songs. Not all songs have the same recorded volume (acoustic versus electric for example) and some fade at the end or start quieter and rock later like Stairway to Heaven or  You Can't Always Get What You Want. 

More importantly, you have to flip the album or put on the next one, unless you were dumb enough to stack them. Then you had to wait for the next one to drop. Wolfer says a record (singular) was on the turntable not records (plural). 

None of this was considered by Wolfer. 

 

A definitive timeline for the murders has never really been established. A clock says 12:15 a.m. and with some help from the police, Rudolf Weber remembers looking at his clock at 1:00 a.m. so let's just take five minutes off each end for Parent to reach his car and the murderers to reach Weber: 35 minutes or 30, I don't care. 

 

That means, during the crime, Garretson flipped the album at least once or put on a new album at least once. And during that time the guest house would have been quiet. And while Wolfer had the album right in front of him he didn’t test that either. 

 

Wolfer’s history suggests rather strongly that his investigation was likely negligent, leading to false results. The opinion of others suggests he would go so far as to create results for the DA. I think you see that when you compare his testimony (Garretson couldn’t hear the shots) to the First Homicide Progress Report (Garretson could hear them). 

 

Since I doubt the murderers paused, like an escaping Andy Dufresne, to wait for the next side of The Soft Parade to kick off, I think we can eliminate Garretson couldn’t hear the gunshots from the list of established facts. 

 

Pax vobiscum, 

 

Dreath with a lot of help from Deb

 

 

Leslie, My Name is Evil

When I began the project of adding Manson films to our blog library, I didn't think I'd like many of them. Atrocious acting and Bugliosiite retellings were my presuppositions.

Bigger picture, try as I might, I've never figured out how to write reviews. My hero, Roger Ebert, kicks my ass from the grave every time I attempt to type something half as good as he published several times a week for decades. The man was a bona fide genius and a deserving Pulitzer Prize winner. 

But time passes and Ebert types no more. Your consolation prize is my hot takes on a movie I should've watched a decade ago. Late date notwithstanding, I will not be restrained today. 

Canadian filmmaker Reg Harkema blew my doors off with this one. His film is a visual experience that chronicles the times through the eyes of middle class suburban kids growing up in 1960's America. The soundtrack is offbeat and the editing is tight. What's up with film editors and the Manson thing anyway? Don't answer. I'm grateful. 

You can watch Harkema's film free of charge (with two commercials) on IMBd TV. Please tell me what you think afterward. Thanks to Jay for suggesting this film for discussion. 

That's prostrate Sadie handing Leslie over to Charlie Jesus in case this is your first day in Manson. Mendocino was also mentioned. It's cool when a writer claims their spot at this gruesome table. Show us what you know.  

A quick pitch...

Let's address the 500 lb. elephant in the room. We all know it's time for a Hawthorne movie or cable series. A solid handful of people reading this post possess the abilities to make it happen. Double digits talent doesn't sound far-fetched. I am filled to the rim with ideas. Maybe we could talk on the phone. 

Max Frost must be given a role. Non negotiable. 

Picture the slow motion shootout. Brass and smoke hang in the air. Cool music with lyrics in not English language blasts and then abruptly cut off as Gypsy falls into a handsome young policeman's arms, whispers, "I'm sorry," and passes out from her fifteen gunshot wounds. Cut to Larry Bailey screaming and squeezing his shattered kneecap between two bloody hands. 

I don't know the actors and actresses anymore so you should pick who you like, but I'm your huckleberry if you need a socially anxious and talkative oddball to lurk in the background and agree with everything you say. From home of course. 

I might get sick if I leave my room. 

Let's get back to Reg Harkema while you chew on the idea. Leslie, My Name is Evil is also titled Manson, My Name is Evil. I'm not sure if the title was changed because of some crossing the border from Canada thing or what but the second title killed the first title's irony. Charlie acts more cartoon crazy than Evil with a big E, and Leslie is portrayed as a victim who mutilated Rosemary. 

Small potatoes. 

Like me, you probably see a Manson movie poster and say something like, "I'm going to be completely disappointed if I don't see any bloody sex ritual boobs." Rest assured, friends. Gory bosoms are included. This time in a dream sequence.

Love of brother. Vietnam. Nixon. The abortion. Harkema points out (something we talk about a lot here) that the Manson murders did not happen in a vacuum. 

A bit of license is taken. Rosemary is wrapped in the Cielo flag. 

The acting works in this film. Gregory Smith is Perry, a young juror who becomes infatuated with Leslie during the People vs Manson et al trial. Perry has a dirty dream about Leslie while sequestered in a hotel room. Kristen Hager plays Leslie. 

Charlie shows up in the dirty dream but Perry avoids Little Paul duties. Manson gives Perry the greenlight, albeit shirtless, and exits the scene. 

Ryan Robbins is Charlie. Robbins looks more like the Scots-Irish and English migratory blob that spawned Charlie than several of the actors who have played Manson over the years. I speak for all genealogy nerds when I say I appreciated Robbins' casting. He's also a more believable Charlie fwiw. 

Anjelica Scannura plays possibly the best Sadie I've seen on this journey. Same for Tiio Horn as Katie. Their scenes jump off the screen. 

Horn as Katie says she's from a Los Angeles suburb. Later, she pronounces "again" like a Canadian. I immediately wanted a pea meal bacon sandwich from Paddington's. I miss you, Toronto. 

I don't know how I'd classify this film. Dark camp comedy? I recommend it regardless. Bugs is great. Fitzgerald is hilarious. Perry's girlfriend and father possibly steal the show. 

I liked Leslie, My Name is Evil so much I ordered a copy from Amazon. This one might not be for the cadre dedicated to solving the cases in their own special ways and need everything historically accurate, but the film is a solid watch for everyone familiar with the tropes, facts, and myths surrounding the Manson milieu. 

The portrait of Nixon behind Judge Older's chair is massive. I laughed when Older asks Perry from beneath the watchful eyes of the man responsible for the headline if seeing the newspaper will prejudice his opinion of Charlie. Make sure you watch hang on through the credits to hear Nixon's speech to the youth of America. 

Overall, I got the feeling Reg Harkema looked at the U.S. during those times and used his film to asked a sobering question across time. How did we expect Manson not to happen? 

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

Bonus materials:

A review I like where the reviewer says all the things I want to say but lack the skills. 

Rotten Tomatoes.

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

We'll return to our regular scheduled programming Monday. I hope your weekend is swell. 

+ggw...Ohio

Take the Back Alley to Langley - Part One

Reeve Whitson - Freshman Year of High School 

Did photographer Shahrokh Hatami doom Sharon Tate and her friends one March morning in 1969 after a confrontation with Charles Manson at the Cielo front door? Were Rudi Altobelli's tenants cursed that evening when the Rudi told Charlie he'd be in Italy for a year after Charlie stood in front of the guesthouse and said he'd like to talk more in the future? 

Was Manson even there that day? Hatami wasn't sure. Mighty Max Frost, I am reaching out with my mind. Beep boop tell me what Rudi said. 

Today, we're exploring Tom O'Neill's claim that a possible CIA agent named Reeve Whitson has been left out of the Manson study history. According to O'Neill, after hearing Hatami's story, Whitson delivered his friend Hatomi (and his Ides of March tale) to Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, and then sat in on the unrecorded interview.  

-  Here is Hatami's backstory in case you think he's some hanger-on with a fancy camera who took a two year degree at Santa Monica College after UCLA laughed at his high school GPA and asked him to jump through hoops before achieving main campus status. Hatami was no state school guy. 

 - Here is Bugliosi's closing argument in the Manson, et al, trial. Photographer Hatami is mentioned fourteen times. 

During the trial, Bugliosi argued that Hatami's high-handed dismissal at the Cielo  to the guesthouse sent Charlie over the edge. Bugs asked about Hatami's aggressive posture, tone, and had him describe how he jabbed an index finger toward the guesthouse when dismissing Manson. 

- Here's a newspaper article from a courtroom reporter (via the almighty) if you are new to our study or desire a quick refresh on Hatami's testimony.  

Others weren't so sure about the encounters. Filmmaker and author Robert Hendrickson smelled a rat and believed Bugliosi needed those March 1969 confrontations to convince the jury Charlie visited Cielo before the murders took place and had an axe to grind after the Hatami and Altobelli brush offs. Hendrickson was so passionate about about Bugliosi's duplicity that he continued his argument across two Hatami posts in our blog library. 

- This video in Matt's post from 2014 shows Sharon and Hatami in better days. Hatami is the shirtless hunk. Sharon is as pretty as pretty gets. Hatami's girlfriend is hanging around because she's no fool. 

That fateful day in March, Hatami takes the chivalry route when an uninvited man reaches the Cielo front door. Not shocking. Manly man exhibitions in front of attractive women have always been a thing, even if sometimes it's only pretend. 

According to author Tom O'Neill, Hatami first shared his Charlie encounter story with possible CIA agent Reeve Whitson. The son of an actress and a circus acrobat, Whitson enters our story when Tom O'Neill has Whitson phone Hatami early that Saturday morning we all know so well before anyone else discovered the bodies up on Cielo. 

In O'Neill's Chaos, Whitson claims to friends he was the CIA surveillance team watching the Cielo house. He was supposedly on the scene early that fateful Friday but didn't stick around. According to his friends, Whitson forever lamented his inability to prevent the killings.  

We need to back up a bit because things are already not making sense. How does Reeve Whitson, a rumored CIA super spook, find his way to the Cielo crowd? 

Bugliosi never mentions Whitson in his book, but Chaos provides insight. According to O'Neill, Whitson might've bonded with Sebring over race cars. And Whitson's mom was good buds with Doris Tate. Third, O'Neill writes, Paul Tate told him Whitson was a friend to himself, Sharon, and Roman.   

So there's three hows. Whitson maybe became a family friend after meeting Sebring at the track. Unfortunately, answering my first question created a second. Why was Whitson surveilling his good friends? 

Reeve Whitson was an archconservative on an anti-drug mission. By some accounts, an ounce of blow was found in Jay Sebring's Porsche the morning following the murders. That's more than a personal stash, Idgaf who you are. An ounce was enough to get half the houses on the block trembling while searching for the man through their bedroom blinds the night of August 8th. Was Sebring doing deals out of the Cielo parking lot? 

English Major Math time: 

* In 1969, one gram of cocaine cost $100-$150 dollars in Los Angeles

* We know Jay sold little baggies out of his briefcase

* Sebring would be a fool to give rich people his lowest price - let's err on the bigger side this time 

* Twenty-eight grams come out of an ounce - more if Sebring stepped on his dope 

* $150 x 28 = $4200

* $4200 in 1969 money is more than $32000 today 

** Let's pause for reader corrections on the amount of cocaine found in Sebring's car, and also to give others a chance to describe how much blow they snorted some random Friday night in the 80's at a Huey Lewis concert. 

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

Discussion Materials: 

In addition to what is linked above, we're using newspapers articles, Helter Skelter, and Tom O'Neill's Chaos. Feel free to add links to any supporting or counterarguments in the comments below the posts. 

Most of O'Neill's research we're discussing in this piece is found in Chapter Six of Chaos, titled Who Was Reeve Whitson? I'm using the Kindle version. You should explore digital searching if you don't already. Yes, chopped down trees feel great in my hands, but they are garbage when I wonder how many times Whitson is printed in the text (150). 

Or Hatami (43). Btw, O'Neill doesn't care which version you buy. Both cost about the same. 

Continues in Part 2...

Time is Irrelevant to Me - December 1969

Susan Atkins served a life sentence. I see how she arrived there but believe she died in the right place at sixty-one years old. She went too far too many times. 

But what about once the killers are locked away? Are they allowed to retain their humanity after taking part in despicable deeds? Is redemption ever possible? Does empathy remain forbidden after they're dead? We're arguing all of that lately on this blog.

Issues pop up before a debate can begin. How do we qualify "despicable?" I'm squeamish and won't touch certain cases on my dark travels. My despicable might arrive sooner than another reader's. Etc.

For a starting point today, let's assume we all consider using a knife to murder a terrified pregnant woman after she watches her friends die and pleads for her unborn child's life a despicable act. 

Calling out for her mother as she passes. Shame on you. 

When I read blog comments during the weeks we talk about the inmates, I notice two groups. First, people advocating across the board transparency and fairness in parole processes. Something that shows a human life is not the possession of some political overlord or overlords. I completely agree with this camp. Every California inmate should live under the same sentences and rules for release. 

The opposition here is like are you nuts? Look what they did. F-them. 

I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a foot on either side of that line. 

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

Our reference materials for this discussion are provided by cielodrive.com. Thank you, kindly.  

1 Dec 1969 Susan Atkins Paul Caruso Richard Caballero Interview.

5 Dec 1969 Susan Atkins Grand Jury Testimony.

Tex Watson is arrested November 30th in Texas. Police catch up with Patricia Krenwinkel in Mobile the following day. Back in Los Angeles, Paul Caruso and Richard Caballero are interviewing their new client, Susan Denise Atkins, when the net drops on Krenwinkel two thousand miles away. 

The last part is possibly not accurate but I see it that way when I'm at my storyboard. Starsky and Hutch music plays in the background. "Police! Freeze!" 

 - Here is a link to my blog colleague David's excellent write up on Paul Caruso with a comment from Caruso's son below the post. 

Other writers believe Caruso was a mafia lawyer sent to cement a narrative into place. I'm interested in every side of that argument. What are your thoughts? 

Honkeys like me from Honkeyville possibly needed several decades to realize Caballero isn't an Italian name, and that's okay. There's no judgement when you ride with me. We can be hillbillies together forever. 

Circling back to my original question, let's look at Susan Atkins. She was at Hinman, Cielo, and Waverley (kinda). No one but Charlie visited more murder scenes. 

Reading Sadie's comments and testimony about her time with Sharon before Sharon died made me emotional. The photo of Atkins as a young girl standing in front of her father's car also remains burned into my brain. Maybe that's what keeps me coming back here. So many whys. 

Several statements in the above transcripts are heartbreaking. Other times, I laughed. Stop Talking was an alternative title I considered for this piece. 

"Helter Skelter" is not discussed during the interview with the lawyers, but joins the story four days later in front of the GJ (Grand Jury). 

Susan is speaking the language of her peers at Spahn's while addressing the GJ. She even rhymes her words at one point. Head and dead. Not a lot of smart in that gal at times. Watch Hendrickson on Youtube or any of the courthouse footage for verification on the group speak.  

Let's pause on the creepy crawls for a second. What are your thoughts on their genesis? Who was the first person saying hey let's go creepy crawling? 

Me if fam members asked me to go creepy crawling with them late at night: Omg I just got back from the A&P dumpsters. I wanna watch Clem's fire ritual. 

That's December 5, 1969. Friday. Four days earlier prior to a dinner plus ice cream, Atkins said this:

 

Two somewhat different scenarios. Sustenance and fear games. I spent an afternoon making a list of contradictions I found in the documents but stopped when my friend said: 

"Could be discrepancies or coaching. You would have to have a think about why the latter makes Tex/Manson look more culpable or if that was just her being ditzy." 

Inarguable. Dude should write blog posts.

Let's hop in on some omg and wtf moments from the first week of December 1969. A third title for this episode could be How to Doom Yourself to the Fullest. 

 *Judges scribble deductions on their scorecards 

"The air talked. I was programmed by Charlie but then like I also wasn't programmed by him."

Ah, the Infinite. Please go on. 

I followed up with my secret sources inside the CIA. Within minutes, they verified Sadie missed Climbing Residential Fences (CRF) day at CIA Assassins School. By the time she returned from a nasty bout of stomach flu, the class had jumped forward to Residential Kitchen Infiltration (RKI). 

Not sure why anyone would come clean about the following impulse but she says it in both documents. 

Sadie's second death rattle in three weeks. 

More disembodied voices.

LaBianca instructions overheard from the seatless back seat of Johnny Swartz's car. 

A possible moment of Bugliosi speaking through Sadie's mouth or the infinite or whatever. 

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

Bonus:

The famous Clem oopsie. 

Life at Spahn's as told to the GJ.

Richard Caballero courthouse interview. 

She should've stayed with Caruso and Caballero. Either way, Susan Atkins is gone. Have you forgiven her since she served her sentence, or is forgiveness something that will never happen? 

The Col Presents: The Last Word on JAY SEBRING... CUTTING TO THE TRUTH

In 1985 I came to California to get a graduate degree from USC.  I knew absolutely no one and had only enough money to get a small room in a roach infested “graduate” apartment building eight blocks from the campus.  I didn’t mind, I was away from home pursuing my dreams.

 

I didn’t have a car yet and, after orientation, school would start in another week.  Plenty of time to read large books, go to the cinema and explore the area.  Although then as now the area near USC is shit.

 

Hell, I thought one day, I am going to the Cinema School and there is a Cinema Library and I am in fucking LA, Hollywood adjacent.  Let’s check it out.

 

At the time it was a small space.  It had lots of cool movie star bios and other things along that line.   Good reference materials for film students.  I quickly learned that they had “files” on many subjects.  Like if you asked for the Errol Flynn file they had several folders filled with clippings of articles and photos.   Thus you could read about Flynn’s abuse of underage girls, his movie stardom- or even learn that he had once been an actual slave trader!

 

Even in 1985, learning these files existed, I only wanted to ask about one- Manson, TLB. Tate.  Years before founding the ONLY official TLB Blog I was still obsessively bothered by the case.  I had not learned that BUG had committed perjury during a capital murder case, and was in fact a sociopathic liar.  But I knew something was wrong.  No way this Helter Skelter shit was the motive.

 

I spent several hours going over the files and learning nothing new, although as Deb will tell you primary sources are the most accurate and fascinating, being up close time wise to the events occurring.   As I was set to go probably eat a shitty cheeseburger, a fellow student, undergraduate, came up and said “I understand you have the Manson files”.  I said yes, I was finished. I handed them to him.  He was younger than me, but equally new.

 

“Thank you.   What is your interest?” he asked.  I said “Obsessed since the TV film.  Still seeking facts.  You?”  “ Jay Sebring was my uncle”.

 

Awkward.   Although weird juxtapositions would come regularly in the future as effortlessly, I was three days in LA and without trying met one of the victims relatives.  I quickly did the math, was uncertain, but doubted the guy really knew his Uncle before he was slaughtered.

 

As Patty will attest, I do have a habit of sticking my foot in my mouth and then was no different.  “Yes, he was one of the victims with Tate.  I guess he was into tying women up and beating them.  He apparently loved Sharon till the very end.”  DUMB.   I don’t even know this guy.  I gave him the files and left.

 

Circa 2011, DiMaria became one of the sad people showing up at Parole Hearings to make sure the killers stay put.  I say sad, because it has been clear since the 90s that all the Mansonites in prison are dying in prison. Not even a chance.  Not even LVH who “only” stabbed a dead body (eye roll).  So when you show up it feels to me pretty sad.  You spend hours driving to a remote prison and reliving shit that happened decades ago and why?   They were not getting out anyway.  And people like Orca Tate, showing up at hearings of people who didn’t kill anyone she knew, after her own mother specifically did not WANT her to take up the mantle I mean wtf?  If it isn’t some sad attention seeking what is it?  It feels like a fake mailbox explosion, like why did you do this, who cares?

 

I recall saying all this, either here or on the Official TLB Blog, and meaning it.  Yuck.

 

A year or so after, I was at Musso and Franks the legendary restaurant in Hollywood and a guy came up to me.  Anthony DiMaria.  Maybe he was with a mutual friend.  I was awkward again, like how does he know who I am?  Is he upset at my opinions?  He was nice and gracious and I reminded him of the USC library and that’s that.

 

I think back story is important so the reader can judge.  I never, unlike Nelson/Molesto, inserted myself into the story but often I became inserted into it.  So in the same way you needed to know that Tom O’Neil was an assclown as far back as 15 years ago, I passingly met DiMaria 35 years ago last month.

 

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

JAY SEBRING….CUTTING TO THE TRUTH is a strong documentary look at a mostly forgotten and tragic figure, Jay Sebring, arguably one of the early fathers of modern men’s hairstyling.  It is told from the point of view of his nephew, who was a toddler when Sebring was viciously murdered by Tex Watson and his comrades.

 

Unlike say HBO’s The Vow, the director does not have access to a lot of primary footage.  The main footage used seems to be a Sebring International hair cut training video.  (I did wonder, with so little footage available, why the sequence from MONDO HOLLYWOOD was omitted- they could not have asked a large fee ffs).  He relies on the usual talking heads along with some home pictures and, certainly unusual for the genre, a lot of footage of himself on the phone.   That sounds boring but it isn’t.

 

The film gives a clear, for the first time, view of Jay:The Early Years.   His upbringing and military service and family life gets more attention here than anywhere I have seen.   It really is not enough, and the director struggles to connect cause and effect several times but it does portray a three dimensional picture of a real human being.

 

As he moves to the second act of the film I feel like the director struggles because of one simple fact- HAD Jay lived he was on his way to worldwide fame and fortune.  He would have been a millionaire and his salons would be in every state.  Instead he was murdered.  So the film tries to make an argument that Jay WAS what he probably would become, if that makes sense to you all.  When Jay died he was a jet set playboy with money and star access, who was on his way to the top.   But to argue that he somehow already WAS there is silly.   $100 Steve McQueen haircuts were great, but that would not make him remembered today had he not been killed.

 

The filmmaker also struggles with who would show up.  Jay’s pretty ex wife is there and does the obligatory “I still love him today” dance  But the person you really want to hear from is Sharon Tate and yeah, well, she’s dead too.

 

Despite these struggles the second act works for me because of how thorough the director is.   He glosses over things- I really do not think a guy who moved to LA and changed his name should be portrayed as close to his family, and his dad does not sound like fun.  There is some weird obsession with BUG.  Unusual for BUG who will show up for a supermarket opening, he refused to be interviewed by Di Maria, saying he never knew Jay.  He didn’t.  Why did DiMaria want him?  No clue but he tried hard to get him.

 

If I was impressed by Act 1 and enjoyed the massive data dump of Act 2 I felt Act 3/Denoument goes off the rails a bit.   There are still many people not named Orca who knew Roman and Sharon around in Hollywood.  No one is interviewed.   Would Beatty not come and speak for his fallen friend?  Hell he could have set the ground rules- talk only about Jay, not the TLB stuff.   Act 3 is where everything needs to come together.  DiMaria tries but he does not quite get there.  He’s stuck with the fact that he’s said everything he really can about Uncle Jay.  You see, because JAY didn’t get to his third act.

 

Instead we get DiMaria showing up at one of the Parole Hearings.  Remember, he’s a toddler when Jay is killed, he doesn’t know the guy.  No one from the immediate family showed up through the 70s and 80s when, conceivably, some of the girls could have been released.  Yes, DiMaria has the right to show up, but is he there to “make sure’ these old people stay put – or for a “movie moment”?

 

He also falters in the “bring the film together section”.  To tie my above story to the review, much is made about Jay’s s/m peccadillos.  Now in 2020 there is a thriving community of s/m fans on the internet, Reddit, where have you.  In 1969 less so.  But DiMaria brings up the accusations AS accusations and makes a big deal about portraying these and accusations, more or less saying “Can you believe this shit?”.  You sit there waiting for him to show us that it was bullshit.  But he just moves on.

 

 

DiMaria spends some time finessing an ending making his Uncle a hero for standing up to the hippie psychos and defending Sharon.  I didn’t get why.  All versions of the story have him trying to tell these killers that the lady was pregnant and stop being assholes, which leads to his death spiral.  It is surely brave if not heroic (I mean, he fails).  The problem was that Jay had no reason to believe they would not all get out of there alive because this kind of shit DIDN’T HAPPEN.

 

Look, I am being picky, probably because this is likely to be the only profile of Sebring we will ever see.  As such, OVERALL, it is very good.  It TRIES to be excellent and doesn’t quite get there.  DiMaria is too much a fan of his Uncle to make a warts and all film. (Look at the photos from the last day that we have thanks to Statman lifting that roll of film off the puke LAPD cop- tell me Sharon and Jay weren’t still fucking.)  But he obviously worked on this for ages and I get the full rounded sad story.

 

I didn’t expect to like this film, and bought it just because.  But if you are on this blog you care about the TLB victims.  Had she lived I think Sharon possibly might not have acted again.  She wasn’t good and she didn’t love it.  Had Jay lived he would have been a big deal. The fact that none of the five made it is the tragedy.

 

Hollywood being Hollywood, I am certain I will see DiMaria again somewhere.  I will tell him that he did his Uncle proud and buy him a Musso’s Martini.

 

The rest of you check it out- Amazon has it for $5.99 and it is worth it.