Photo from Tex Watson's High School Yearbook.

I bet he prefers this one not get out...

Shadowpulp True Crime Radio Hour

Bill Jensen is the host of Shadowpulp True Crime Radio Hour out of Los Angeles.  The program's focus is mainly unsolved crimes.  It is not solely a Manson orientated show.  This last April 23rd Jensen did a show on four of the unsolved murders that have been discussed as possibly committed by Family members as speculation of what murders might be on the Tex Tapes. The four murders were of Doreen Gaul, James Sharp, Marina Habe and the Mulholland Drive Jane Doe.

Jensen's guests were Michelle McNamara who has the website TrueCrimeDiary.com and Scott Michaels of Dearly Departed Tours.   

http://www.ustream.tv/new/search?q=Shadow%20Pulp

Michelle McNamara also writes for LA Magazine and has had a couple of recent articles on the Manson Family published online.

http://www.lamag.com/crimeinla/2013/06/28/killer-mystery-is-charles-manson-responsible-for-more-murders

http://www.lamag.com/crimeinla/2013/07/01/why-charles-manson-wont-die

Tate's Hair Designs

Mom Patty had her best friend in town last week from Rancho Palos Verdes. That's where Mom, Dad, Panamint and her baby sister Gluten-free Patty lived when they first came out to LA from Detroit in 1975.

Anywhoo, Patty asked Mom Patty to ask this friend if she knew that Doris and PJ Tate had lived so very close to us "back in the day"? Like, within a mile, maybe. Serious. My mom did not know, nor did Patty until fairly recently. This friend responded that yes, she did know, because she got her hair done at Doris' beauty parlor! She does not remember a lot of details but this is what she wrote:

"Hi again!!! I don't remember the dates. The hairdresser I used worked for Doris Tate. I think I went there for several years. I had many casual conversations with Doris. I knew who she was and that she lived in PV. I believe I met one of the sisters. I also remember a time when Charles Manson or one of his followers were coming up for a parole hearing and talking about the fact that Doris went to make sure they never left prison. She was nice. She wasn't visibly sad. Her business was successful. That's about all I remember. -S"

Special Thanks to Alisa Statman for sharing the above photo to jog S' memory. If we are lucky maybe she will remember more.

SPAHN RANCH DRESSING

Thank you Stoner VH for the tip!

Interpol report on Bruce Davis/Joel Pugh

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6425/interpol22.jpg

I have included the link in case it is to small to read here.  Image Shack is a really great place to view Manson documents.

Since we are on the subject of Image Shack what I find fucking hilarious is:

Other Manson sites get most some of their resources from Image Shack and then mark them as there own. To prove my point here is another Image Shack link to a Manson article.

I am sure you recognize the watermarked articles from other sites that post Image Shack pics. Go figure...

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/8964/barbarahoyttestifiesinm.jpg

Charlie's Sixth Amendment rights (or lack of)

Friend of the blog, Mr. Robert Hendrickson was kind enough to share with us a doozy of a find on Ebay! It is the court transcript of December 24, 1969 (Christmas eve), where Manson appeared before Judge William B. Keene to determine if he had the ability to "represent" himself. (Please read transcript first):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/JOSEPH-A-BALL-SIGNED-FDC-DETERMINED-CHARLES-MANSON-COULD-REPRESENT-HIMSELF-JFK-/271278682217?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f29783069#ht_5823wt_958

Ok, the part I didn't understand is why the judge told him he couldn't have co-counsel, but could ask for assistance from any capable attorney of his choosing. To me, it sounded almost like the same thing, but I am sure in legal terms, it was NOT. Here is where Judge Keene confuses me:

"But, as I say, it will not be on the basis of three or four or five individuals with the ability to be co-counsel in the matter with each one attempting to call the shots. You are going to have to call the shots yourself."

Something else makes me think too. The part Manson said about the "generation gap." I completely understand where he was coming from in that aspect. Could that have been the motivation behind his need to represent himself? Nothing they did, or said could convince him otherwise. He really made a mistake in his attempt at speaking for himself! Manson never knew when to shut up, and listen. One wonders if Manson would of retained the services of a bad-ass attorney, sat quietly in a suit & tie, and had a short haircut (not shaved), would things have been different, as far as making an impression on the judge & jury? Would they have seen him through rose-colored glasses? Me thinks not! In all honesty, Manson was convicted already, even before the trial began. Look at the incredible negative publicity surrounding the case. You know like hell those jurors SAW, and READ stuff about the murders even before they were called for jury duty. Didn't even Nixon make a comment in front of the press about Manson being guilty? Let me be clear on something, though. I am, by no means a fan of Charles Manson! Personally, I think he is a little creep, BUT I do feel that his rights were violated, and he didn't really get a fair trial. I am not the only one who thinks so either. Internationally known attorney Giovanni De Stefano came to the same conclusion in 2010 when he filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) asserting Manson had been illegally convicted. Of course, that could take years, since IACHR is backlogged with cases, and the courts could always argue that the reason Manson's Pro Per rights were withdrawn was because of his courtroom antics! OK, enough of my blabbering lips....Let us now hear from Mr. Robert Hendrickson on the subject at hand:

Austin Ann has apparently struck right to the heart of the relevant legal issue - "to have the assistance of counsel" outside the courtroom, verses the right to have co-counsel present in the courtroom during the trial and available for actual questioning of witnesses. 

FIRST: It must be realized that on December 24, 1969 at the subject hearing Charles Manson was "representing" himself in Pro Per, AND up until that time he was considered a model Pro Per inmate. Only after his U.S. Constitutional right to "represent" himself was set aside, did he revert to verbal outbursts, etc. in the courtroom. 

SECOND: It should be obvious that a "judicial" word game (between two supposed legal minds) was at play there. BUT when Judge Keene gave Charles Manson the ultimatium to "waive" his Constitutional right to the Sixth Amendment OR he would be denied his right to "represent" himself in Court, it could only turn ugly. It was then a "contest" between two super-egos (one representing the "establishment" and one representing the underdog) 

NOTE: Any attorney who advises a defendant to "waive" any Constitution right may be considered incompetant OR corrupt. 

THIRD: Shortly after this hearing, the same Judge Keene determined that "Mr. Manson is incapable of representing himself."  The judge held that to allow Mr. Manson to represent himself would bring about a fundamental denial of due process.

Of course back then, Judge Keene seemingly WON the battle, BUT today we realize that Charles Manson WON the war. Was the Judge actually tricked by a clever con - probably. BUT Judge Keene obviously shirked his judical duties by ignoring the rights of the three girl defendants - in favor of making it all-about-Manson.

Because the U.S. Consitution states: "to have the Assistance of Counsel FOR HIS DEFENSE," we only need to understand where "his defense" actually takes place and whether the act of "Assistance of Counsel" can include the examining of witnesses.

For me, because MY right to "free speech" (regarding the MANSON movie) was actually set aside by a Federal Judge in the Lynette Fromme / Gerald Ford case, I personally feel a profound connection to Manson's Constitutional "right" denial and mine. On the other hand, can we really expect a so-called "judge" to render substantial "justice" when a Constitutional Amendment is worded so carelessly that several miss-interpretations can be derived so easily? 

Robert Hendrickson

WikiQuote: Charles Manson

WikiQuote has a Manson page. A few that either made me laugh or otherwise caught my attention:

You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy.
 - Interview by Diane Sawyer (1994)

As long as there's hate in your heart, there'll be hate in the world. You can't fight for peace and you cannot capture freedom.
 - Interview track from Charles Manson Sings (2006)

Death is psychosomatic
 - NBC interview (1987)

READ THE WIKI HERE

Rare Sharon

In Paris

Contributed by William Marshall

ONE

Charles Manson Unpublished Interview

This is the recently released text of an interview with Charles Manson that was to have been in Penthouse magazine.  The correspondence includes letters between the person setting up the interview and Bob Guccione.

Nothing really new,  Manson admits to shooting Lottsapoppa, rambles a bit about having to try to fix Bobby's messes and goes on a diatribe about underage runaways.  They are going to cause his downfall, don't cha know!

From - http://www.vice.com/en_se/read/charles-manson-interview