Monday, October 2, 2017

Which Way You Goin' Billy?

Which Way You Goin' Billy?

The Curious Case of WILLIAM GARRETSON

 

8/24/1949 - 08/16/2016

 

 A long time ago...in a galaxy very much the same...and yet very different in so many ways...as the one we are living in now...

Garretson (left) with an attorney

... A young man roamed the highways and interstates of America in search of something, anything, that would help him make sense of the world he was living in. Actually he was trying to get lost in America in the name of avoiding the draft for as long as possible. He had turned 19 less than a year before, and was set to complete his final stretch of 'teenagedom' not long before the summer of 1969 officially evolved into past tense. Wanting to see more of the country he might be going to war for—before the inevitable luck-of-the-draw caught up with him—he set his sights on the open road, without a car. By repeatedly waving his thumb in the air for a few days, he managed to pick up enough rides to successfully make the trek from his hometown in Ohio all the way to the 'City of Angels.' Armed with a very unique breed of luck, he eventually landed in an extremely ideal living situation in Beverly Hills, temporarily... and in the middle of a waking nightmare destined to haunt him the rest of his life.

Several months ago I was informed by the Col that our friend William "Bill" Garretson had graduated to that highway in the sky we've been hearing so much about lately. Juan Flynn, Paul Crockett, Vince Bugliosi, Susan Atkins, Rudi Altobelli, and Robert Hendrickson (along with other associated names I'm most likely forgetting) have all been part of a recent wave of expiration in the realm of TLB (Tate/La Bianca)—whose window of time for full disclosure, by the way, is now acquiring a status similar to that of the JFK assassination; thanks to the almighty and undefeated foe we call time.

I'm seriously losing confidence in the idea that we'll ever know what really happened? We know what didn't happen. Well, I should preface that by saying that we don't all agree, but it seems to me that most researchers who study this case (with even a semi-open mind) come to the conclusion that "Helter Skelter" is nothing more than a really upbeat and funky Beatles song appropriately named after a giant spiral slide in London... rather than a legitimate motive for what was arguably the most infamous mass murder in American History.

Call me naïve, but between Manson and Hendrickson I had some real hope for eventual revelations. Hendrickson left us a year ago (along with whatever secrets he claimed to be holding onto)... and Manson...well...the phone calls I've heard from the last handful of years don't sound promising at all. In truth, he sounds like time has caught up with him as well. He sounds 'out of it' and just repeating a small collection of those catch phrases that were so entertaining in the days of the VHS 'uncut' interviews. He sounds too old and tired to remember all of his lines and anecdotes needed to maintain the internationally known, multi-dimensional character he created so long ago.

But hey, that's all for another day. We are talking about Garretson now...

The Col suggested I write a post/obit about our boy Billy, because I knew him. Coincidentally the Col is usually (and totally) preoccupied shopping with his supermodel wife for warped and scratched LP records to add to his very eclectic collection, so he is simply too busy to write this himself. I understand and hopefully you do too. Actually I wish he would've written this because, with his superior mind and endless vocabulary, this shit takes like 20 minutes for him to do as opposed to the 20 hours it takes me. Seriously. But honestly, I'm more than happy to pay a brief homage to a man I consider very misunderstood among the TLB community of researchers, scholars, as well as the generically curious.

William Garretson caught my attention in a very big way almost immediately after getting as totally sucked into this case as all of you probably are. On March 9, 1994, the Dianne Sawyer show "Turning Point" premiered using Manson/TLB as a predictable go-to springboard. It was however, a great show... great enough to turn my head around to the degree of perpetual obsession for several years. There was a lot of good footage in the show and the interviewees (including Manson) were very colorful and coherent. Some very interesting things were said that grabbed my attention and compelled me to take a closer look at a true crime story I had otherwise just accepted the 'official' narrative of and for.

Naturally I reread "Helter Skelter" right away as it was the only book about the case I was aware of (along with the vast majority of people). While reading it, I was in awe when I realized there was a lone survivor in the wake of the Cielo Drive massacre. I didn't know that. I didn't understand how that was possible considering the entire event was the result of a murderous rampage rooted in nothing whatsoever other than bloodlust and the cosmically weird need for some people to randomly kill a bunch of strangers just for the apparent thrill of it (Oh, and to start a race war). These people, the killers, were presented as mindless zombies essentially, who's mission was simply to make sure there was no-one left alive on the property—No-one.

It seemed to me that if there were a lone survivor, it was quite possible the victims were more intended rather than random.

I've been on the property and I assure you the distance between the main house and guesthouse could not possibly have led to an oversight among three very amped (and totally brainwashed) soldiers seeking nothing less than the fulfillment of an order from 'Top Hat' to kill everyone there. Yes, the order was to "Kill everyone there!"

With my curiosity piqued, I instinctually knew I had to get in touch with this lone survivor guy right away. Although the official word is that he neither heard nor saw anything that night, I figured he must know something; he must have seen something; he must have heard something... anything. I can't imagine he doesn't in some way hold a piece of the puzzle pertaining to the what, the how, and just maybe the why.

So I took what was expected to be a totally fruitless chance... I 'called information' (Something we used to do before the internet and smart phones). To this day, I'm totally surprised he was actually listed.

Somewhere around mid-late April of 1994, my initial call to him began (verbatim) like this...


WG:  Hello?

Me:   Hi, is this WILLIAM?

WG:  Yeah

Me:   William GARRETSON?

WG:  Uh huh

Me:   William ESTON Garretson?

WG:  Yeah...who is this?

Me:   Hey...I'd like to talk to you about the summer of '69

WG:  Ok...can you hang on for a minute?

Me:   Sure


The rest of the conversation lasted roughly six years.

In the beginning I called him probably once a week and talked for an hour or two about anything and everything. He was very likable, funny, and fun to talk to. Who he was, was as fascinating to me as what he knew. I wasn't going full-blown wannabe Geraldo on his ass just yet... I could wait for answers.

By Memorial Day (May 30th) he called me.

It was a very cool surprise. Apparently he was wonderfully intoxicated and hanging out with a friend ('Getting loaded' meant drinking several cans of Budweiser). I assumed, being Memorial Day,  the likely scenario is he was thinking about the past (having had friends who were killed in Vietnam while he was almost killed himself), and because I had recently emerged to dig into his past, he felt compelled to call me and talk about it. Unfortunately I wasn't home, but he did leave a message. Back then we had answering machines using dual microcassette tapes; one played the same outgoing message over and over while the other recorded all the incoming messages. Thanks to this amazing technology it was easy to preserve messages by simply flipping the cassette over and recording on the other side. Anyway, I still have the original cassette and here is the message...




My memory isn't totally clear (due to all of this coinciding with a very blurry period in my life) but I'm guessing I must've been talking to him pretty frequently at that point... because a month later I embarked on a hitchhiking tour with a planned visit to Ohio for the purpose of taking him up on an invitation to stay at his place for a night... and finally hearing his story in person. By researching the whole Manson/TLB case, I discovered the '60s and became so absorbed by what I was learning, that I was inspired in a huge way to sort of... relive it. I decided I absolutely had to force upon myself a rite of passage in the form of hitchhiking cross-country. I ended up convincing a friend and a dog to go with me. We planned to circle the entire country throughout the summer and top it all off by ending up at Woodstock '94. We made it as far as the Midwest, where I dropped anchor for a while, while the friend and dog kept thumb hopping around the country.

At some point, probably a few weeks later, the friend (and of course the dog) returned to the area. His priority story was that of the night they spent at Garretson's place. He had called Bill from a payphone in Lancaster, Ohio. They met at a pizza place. The night concluded with both of them sharing a case of Budweiser... and Bill holding court, telling his story about August 8th and 9th, 1969... 25 years later... while sitting around a bonfire in his backyard. The road dog also had a very memorable night playing with Bill's dog.

This is the fourth time in six years that I've seriously regretted not spending a lot more time hanging out with, or simply talking to, someone directly or closely related to this case. Rudi Altobelli, Christopher Jones, Robert Hendrickson... and now finding out about Garretson several months after the fact. Real-life characters from fascinating true crime stories are as huge to me as celluloid heroes are to star struck fans while they're being hypnotized by the big screen. I'll never stop occasionally beating myself up over my missing the pizza/beer/bonfire night... and I'll always wish I would've (or could've) stayed in touch with Bill long after our communications ceased to be in the spring of 2000. I'll get back to that in a bit, but I'll back up a few steps now for the sake of chronology.

In 1997 another Bill, Bill Nelson, released his second or third book titled "MANSON: Behind The Scenes" in which he claimed to have gotten Garretson to open up for the first time. The front cover boasts the following:


WORLD EXCLUSIVE
The only person alive on the
Tate property BREAKS HIS SILENCE


Sounds pretty exciting... except it wasn't a world exclusive and it wasn't the first time he 'broke his silence.'

I was surprised to find out (From Garretson Himself) that he was actually flown to New York, put up for a couple nights in a fancy hotel, and interviewed on-camera for the pilot episode of Turning Point I mentioned earlier. I may be the only other person aware of this fact because they didn't use any of him in the final cut, and I've never heard him mention it in any of the interviews he did later on. The Turning Point interview really was a turning point in his life because it was the first time he was actually interviewed since surviving the Cielo Drive massacre and everything that followed (Including the TLB trial as well as his civil suit against LAPD). It was him finally breaking his silence almost 25 years later. I can't say I remember exactly what he told me he had shared with them, but he may have revealed to them first some or all of the things he would tell Nelson a couple years later.

And then there was me...

Over time he had systematically opened up and shared with me the strange things he remembered about the later hours of August 8th, 1969 leading up to murders. The car that picked him up when he hitchhiked down to the Sunset Strip to get the TV dinner and cigarettes, and how they warned him not to go back to the property that night. The VW van full of "hippy types" that picked him up on his way back, and how they repeatedly, and suspiciously, kept insisting on driving him all the way to Cielo despite his attempts to get dropped off a safe distance away. He was very spooked by the time he got back in the guesthouse that night—he even wrote down the license numbers of both cars. For anyone not familiar with his story, read Nelson's book or, even better, listen to the interview he did with Brian Davis at TLB Radio (easily the most thorough of documented interviews). I won't go into all the details here because that isn't the emphasis of this article. I'm more interested in weighing what is believable vs. unbelievable for the sake of truth-seekers not being too easily swayed by the kneejerk reactions and declarations of those who choose to totally discredit him based on his bizarre behavior later on—which is what I'm here to talk about.

Like I mentioned earlier, our conversations continued for about six years until the Spring of 2000. The reason I discontinued our talks was simple and can be summed up in three words: Rosie Tate Polanski.

Yes, sometime in early 2000 I got a very strange call from Bill... one that I'll never forget. He had an unfamiliar enthusiasm in his voice which immediately held my curiosity. I hadn't talked to him in some time so I was asking him what was new in his life and what he was currently doing (i.e., asking why he was calling). He kept making fragmented references or hints as to what was behind his ambiguous excitement... saying things like "Oh, I'm just hangin' here with Sharon Jr." and "I've been having a few beers with Roman's daughter."

Nothing unusual about that, right?

He caught me off guard mainly because I never felt the need to be on guard with him at all. So I played along by asking him what he meant while wondering if Roman actually had a daughter I was unaware of... who had recently emerged in Ohio (of all places). It was possible. The more he talked, the more it became clear that he was now 'hosting' some woman claiming to be Roman Polanski's daughter—but, not only that—she was Roman AND Sharon's daughter. How was that possible?  As far as I knew, it wasn't.



"So what's the deal, Bill?" I asked, and before I could nervously cough up the words "Dude, are you loaded?" he handed the phone to his new girlfriend who, after introducing herself as "Rosie Tate Polanski," proceeded to give me an amazing history lesson. With Bill's unflinching reinforcement of her story... I was now on the road to being convinced that she was the female unborn baby we had all come to know as the male unborn baby pre-named Paul Richard Polanski—the same baby who's entire life was cut short before it ever had a chance to begin. I wasn't really on the road to being convinced, but I did play along in awe because I honestly could not believe what was happening. I kept thinking "Why is Bill fucking with me and when will I be let off the hook?" I played along expecting at any moment he would bust out laughing while boasting about how long he had me going. But that moment never came. Even if it did, I still would've thought the whole thing was very weird, and I would've chalked it up to some crazy broad Bill is now 'entertaining' had compromised his self control and sense of decency. No big deal, just a bit surprising. The boy needs to get laid. It's long overdue. I understand. This is a bit much... but I get it.

It didn't take long for the real reason behind the call to be revealed. After hearing enough about me from Bill, Rosie T.P. (for lack of her real name) figured I might somehow be able to hook her up with a venue or two to tell her story and get some exposure. Still playing along, I wasn't about to give the impression I would be able to follow through with anything like that. After getting the hint, she began expressing a strong interest in talking to Rudi Altobelli (Owner of the Cielo Drive property in '69)—as though he would be able to confirm her story and identity. I wasn't about to give her Rudi's phone number, but once Bill started asking for it, I gave in. I had known Rudi for a couple years at that point and Bill knew it. Being caught off guard, I wasn't totally comprehending the degree of insanity Bill was embarking on. It still seemed like a joke to me. A sick one sure, but a joke nonetheless. In all fairness, I was distracted and not giving it enough thought to where I should've put myself in Rudi's shoes before agreeing to give up his number. All I was thinking at the moment was how cool it would be for Rudi to hear from Bill after what, 30 years?

Well that went over beautifully!

In fact Rudi called me immediately after he hung up on Bill. He was very annoyed, but very patient; he was eloquently reprimanding me without being too pointed. It was while talking to him that I was finally able to put this whole Rosie T.P. thing into proper perspective. I was embarrassed and apologetic that I gave Bill his number. Rudi was a very no-nonsense type of guy. He was a lot of fun and had a wild sense of humor, but he wasn't one to play along with something he deemed a total waste of his time—especially when it was "Originating in the Twilight Zone," as he put it. From what he told me, it sounded like he was quick to ask Bill exactly why he was calling and what he wanted. According to him, Bill literally said something along the lines of "Don't you remember what happened to the baby?" while alluding to the existence of Rosie. With that, Rudi gave him no slack and immediately cut the conversation off with "Goodbye William. Don't call me again." At one point in our conversation I questioned Rudi as to why he wouldn't have any interest in staying in touch with Bill just for old times' sake. His response was simply "If you have a cancer, you cut it out." Wow! Ok, I get it. Sorry. Sad that the idea of a reunion was totally lost to what was probably the most discomfiting period of Bill's later life. It was him at his worst and he was willing to do it to maintain a 'partnership' with the first woman to come into his life in who knows how many years. Probably quite a few. Maybe even a decade? I know he was married a few times, but the entire six years I was chatting with him I never heard a single reference to a woman, ever. See what I'm getting at?

Although that call was enough for me to stop talking to Bill, It didn't for a minute cause me to question his credibility up to that point. It would've been fruitless and counterproductive to continue talking to him anymore because the conversation would've centered around Rosie and this 'new' addition to his version of the events that night. As far as the rest of his story, well... it hadn't changed up to that point and hasn't changed since. The cool thing about his involvement with Rosie is it consequently pushed him into the spotlight for posterity's sake. The not-so-cool thing is he will forever be discredited by most people researching the case simply because of the poisonous web of Rosie's he got caught up in. They won't have the timeline perspective that I have; they didn't get to see him evolve as more relevant witness, as it were. It will appear to them as though he rushed the gate and immediately jumped on Rosie's bandwagon. He didn't.


Bill standing poolside @ Cielo Drive


Do we question the sanity of a man who embarks on such a grand embellishment? Well, sure, probably, but that doesn't mean he's insane. Desperate, perhaps. It blew my mind even more seeing Bill share the screen with Rosie. It's been so long, so I'm not totally sure, but I think it may have been a revised version of the Sharon Tate "E! True Hollywood Story" that covered them the first time. Obviously they didn't have the knee-jerk "he's full of shit" reaction that most people have upon hearing the shocking news that Sharon's baby actually survived and is now sharing Budweiser mimosas every Sunday morning with the boy in the guesthouse. There was also some other day time Oprah-like TV show that gave Rosie air time. What the hell? It wasn't even presented as though it were a joke. It was seriously being considered. Reminds me of a great line from the film "SFW"...

"Reality TV gives reality a bad name."

The other side of that cultural phenomenon is the parallel reality taking on a life of its own before it's given a chance to have a proper birth and burial. A lot of people tend to jump the gun without questioning the trendy conclusion, and run with it while covering their eyes and ears with a false sense of having gained superior knowledge by being on board with the newly unchallenged knee-jerk consensus. This is one of the more popular ways that 'bullshit walks' a long and winding road with a confident and cocky stride. The lie becomes the truth before it has a fair chance to be put to rest, and only the insane dare challenge it. It happens all the time and in a lot of cases it becomes the majority rule. Just look at how many people still emphatically argue that Manson is 5'2" short—a widely popular falsehood that can be easily disproven with a little bit of research (he's actually just shy of 5'7"... or, he was anyway). The lie in this instance being that all of a sudden nothing Garretson ever said is worthy of consideration because one day he decided to invite the wrong person into his life, for better and worse.

Equally on point, Bobby Beausoliel is worth mentioning here. A lot of researchers dismiss the idea that he has ever told the truth due to his story having changed over the years in interviews and parole hearings (something I haven't personally looked into enough to substantiate but it's worth using as an object lesson while we're on the subject). Let's weigh his predicament a little bit and see if there might be a legitimate reason if he has indeed changed his story. Without going into the specifics of his story (or stories), I'll just remind you that the man is in prison for life and only goes up for parole every few years, and he is pretty much at the mercy of whatever help he can get in the form of an attorney. If that attorney dangles a carrot in front of Bobby while instructing him that he will probably have a better chance of being considered for parole if he would only alter his story to fit whatever narrative the attorney feels at that time would have a more softening blow on his eligibility, suitability, and ability in general... would Bobby not be wise to follow the attorney's advice? Consider the fact that prisoners aren't able to have their fingers on the pulse of reality outside the prison walls as much as we and the attorneys do. There isn't much in hand with which to weigh such a decision. There isn't much time either in a lot of cases due to unforeseen or unexpected events; like changing attorneys, last minute filings, amended rules, etc. There are no second or third takes at Parole hearings. There's only one bullet in the gun, only one hand to fire it with, and only one target to shoot perfectly in the middle. "Everybody run! Bobby's got a gun!" Yes, there certainly are legitimate reasons for one changing their story that have nothing to do with honesty or credibility.

So Bill is lonely and quietly haunted. Along comes Rosie and her calculating vagina. Bill takes the bait knowing full well what he is doing and how it's gonna look... but he doesn't care. He never cared what anyone else thought of him or his credibility anyway. If he did he would've sought the spotlight a hell of a lot sooner than he did. Like 10-20 years earlier. He never left his hometown and his number was listed... so it is without question he was approached by every single TLB special ever produced in the preceding three decades. He turned them all down. Now he's made a deal with Rosemary's Baby, and he has to live up to his end if he wants to continue having his way with both of her ends. Even if it means immortalizing his name, face, and extremely suspicious memory on the screen with his new song and dance—written, produced, and directed by the demon baby herself. He probably knew it wouldn't last forever but, at the same time, a year or two might seem like forever in the life of a lonely, sexless truck driver who drinks a lot of Budweiser. I believe their rendezvous did indeed withstand the fairy tale odds and extend beyond a year or two, but I can't say for sure. Either way, it lasted a while and Billy got what he wanted, and so did Rosie. In one of his interviews with TLB Radio, he was asked if he thought Rosie was just using him. His response was "Well, if she was using me then I was using her." Oh I'm sure they had their little spats and knock-down-drag-outs, and reasons, but clearly once the attention dried up, she was gone. I wonder who's unborn baby she's pretending to be these days...

As I mentioned earlier, the important facts of his story never changed. The parts that did change—his Rosie-induced additions—may actually be clues into other revelations he hadn't yet remembered or revealed. In Bugliosi's Helter Skelter there is a very brief, and easily missed, mention of what could be an extremely important clue; a neighbor claiming to have heard the sounds of two or three men in a very heated argument coming from the property that night at roughly 4:00 A.M.. Why this clue was not the least bit expounded on by the prosecution is, to this day, a very valid mystery to me and many other would-be researchers. It was mentioned once and then buried by all the murderous hippy cult, race war, and Hollywood-hit-list minutiae filling up the hundreds of horrifying pages (as well as a lot of meaningless, overly detailed 'facts' as if Joe Friday had written it himself and just had to mention the current weather in every single entry).

It is widely believed, as well as widely debated, that Manson revisited the crime scene later that night to plant some false clues (glasses, for instance), wipe away finger prints, and whatever else he may have felt the need to do to steer the carnage into his own imaginative narrative. It is also widely believed he did not go back there alone. Bruce Davis seems to me the most popular candidate to have joined him if this did indeed happen. I've always emphatically believed that, if it did happen, there is absolutely no way the boy in the guesthouse would've been overlooked twice at that point. The fact that the boy survived that night compels a shitload of totally valid questions which still deserve answers.

It made sense to me in the very beginning of my research that Garretson was approached by whomever went there later that night, and some kind of agreement (by obvious use of intimidation) was made with him in exchange for his life. Again, if the murder victims were targets (at least some of them), there would've been no reason to kill Garretson unless of course he got in the way, saw too much, and could identify the killers... which is exactly what happened to Steven Parent. I imagined him being approached in a very stone-cold and matter-of-fact tone, as though he is being given one chance to pick the right card from a stacked deck and walk away unharmed... while fully embracing what he's willing to do to live up to his end of that agreement.

The boy was in as much shock and fear as the entire city was—even more so because he was there. How likely is it that he would've revealed what he knew or whom he met that night knowing full well the unveiled threat could easily reach all the way to Ohio and wipe him out as well as... maybe his Mother? Keep in mind the degree of fear many people peripherally involved with the case still carry to this day; and how it continues to keep them very tight lipped about what they know. If you are unsure what or whom I'm referring to, I encourage you to dig much deeper than you already have... because I am not making this up. It's ironic, but over two decades ago I envisioned two men approaching him in the guesthouse, hours after the murders, and forever etching into his would-be tombstone that he would not reveal a single word with regard to what he saw or heard that night. Which, he didn't. Of course, several years later, as part of his 'three eyed baby' story (the one Rosie conveniently vaulted from his entombed memory) he in fact mentions a few men coming to his door later that night holding the baby and having a conversation with him. Take the baby out of the equation and maybe, just maybe, he is confessing to something there.

It took him nearly twenty-five years to begin to open up about anything he saw and heard. He saw Tex on top of Wojciech outside the front door of the main house. He saw Krenwinkle chasing Abigail through the yard. He heard Abigail say "Stop! Stop! I'm already dead!" Something Krenwinkle actually mentioned in Turning Point although she came across in a much calmer tone and using only the words "I'm already dead." Speaking of Krenwinkle, she also mentioned in the same interview that she had approached the guesthouse but, all of a sudden, a wave of guilt and remorse took her over and she walked away without even trying to enter (a very inconclusive statement on her part). Garretson, however, recalled to me how he had stood there and watched an attempt to turn the doorknob from the outside—which was only prevented by the fact that he had already been spooked enough to lock it.


The guesthouse as seen from the swimming pool
(note the distance)


Yes, Billy was in full combat gear that night in his mind. He was wide awake and sporadically running on the kind of adrenaline brought on by the fear of one's life being realistically in imminent danger. He was on Red Alert. Sirens were going off all over the battlefield. He was crawling through a foxhole. He was all over the guesthouse that night. Hiding...sneaking from room to room...peeking out windows...squinting...listening...trying to figure out what his next move should be. Should he make a dash for it? Assuming he had just seen an attempt to open his door by someone who was party to the shadowy horror unfolding on the edge of his yard, stepping outside could be an instant and fatal error. Should he scream out the window for help? Considering it was so quiet that night that one of the killers later stated "you could almost hear the sound of ice rattling in cocktail shakers in the homes way down the canyon"... he may very well have been heard by a neighbor. But what good would that do? He would immediately get the attention of the enemy combatant(s), which could prove to be just as soon and fatal an error as running. Besides, from all the screaming he's already heard, what difference would it make? The police have got to be on the way by now. Just keep hiding. Keep surviving until they finally make it up the hill to save the day. And whom are they saving exactly? And from what or whom exactly? "What the hell is going on out there?"

What happened to Bill between the time the war was over, and the moment the LAPD burst through the guesthouse doors pointing their cannons at the little white boy from Ohio (whom they immediately assumed was the murderer even though he didn't have a drop of blood on him) is a noted mystery. We know he stayed up writing letters to people. When the morning sky finally illuminated the more hidden houses in the canyon, he was still writing letters. The police photographs show the letters on the coffee table as though he was in the middle of writing when they arrived. He has made many comments to me and others about the importance of those letters. Even twenty-three years ago when I started talking to him he put a lot of ambiguous emphasis on those letters. He's even alluded to the contents of the letters explaining what happened that night. The problem is, in typical LAPD fashion, those letters never saw the light of day once they were removed from the property. Were they even booked as evidence? Were they even read? If there were nothing to them, why not share that revelation as further evidence of Garretson's innocence? After all here is a kid who was conveniently booked for mass murder simply because he was there. He was now internationally known in the worst way imaginable. His face was on the cover of newspapers all over the world. He told me about how he had gotten calls from friends who had been shipped off to Vietnam. They saw his face plastered on front pages all the way over there. They were trying to find out what the hell was going on.


Inside the guesthouse
(notebook used for writing letters on the coffee table)


The logic has always escaped me. Uh, yeah, the boy killed everyone there and then changed his bloody clothes after a shower. Probably had some chocolate milk and cheese while he was drying off. Probably wanted to take a nap but figured the sun will be rising soon anyway so why bother. Oddly he didn't feel the need to flee the crime scene even though there were dead bodies all over the front lawn. He probably figured enough time would go by and no one would notice and he could continue to live there eating TV dinners and smoking cigarettes and somehow everything would magically be back to normal by the time Rudi returned from Europe. Regardless of the scenario envisioned by LAPD, put yourself in his shoes before you judge his behavior after he was arrested... as well as after he was released. What he endured that night was only prelude for what he was about to be thrown into once the sun came up.

Shocked into submission at gunpoint, dragged out of the house, barefoot and shirtless, and through the front yard. He was still in a dream state. In his stupor, he actually thought for a brief moment the cops were there to arrest him for some unpaid hitchhiking tickets he had collected that summer. His unassuming question was simply "What's wrong?" and their answer was "Shut up. We'll show you!" And show him they did. His words to me were "It looked like a battlefield." There was Abigail. He liked Abigail. She had treated him kindly and had even given him a few rides to save the wear and tear on his thumbs. He didn't even know it was her when they showed him, but when he found out later it was, there was a sadness. He had a connection to her. There was Wojciech... eyes wide open. What the hell actually did happen here last night? Is this all a bad dream? It can't really be happening. What the hell is going on? Why me? In his state of shock he was powerless, speechless; incoherent for several days. And yet, being the innocent bystander, he was expected to perform a polygraph examination as though it were any other day of the week. He recalled to me how, while he was being processed at the Police Department, some cop had pointed directly at him while declaring "There's the guy that killed all those people in Beverly Hills!" What the hell is going on? That's exactly what he kept asking himself over and over. Imagine that. Imagine being him in that moment and for the few days he spent living this inescapable nightmare. how would you react and behave? It's worth noting here that after he was released and flown back home to Ohio, with the exception of mandatorily returning for the trials, he never once stepped foot in Los Angeles again. I tried talking him into returning and revisiting (thinking it would be good for him as well as light a fire in his memory), but he wouldn't have it. He was compelled and content to stay put in Ohio for the rest of his life—3,000 miles from the summer of '69.


Garretson being led into an interrogation room
after his arrest  (bare foot and shirtless)


Revisiting some of the memories he finally shared a quarter century later... its important to note that he definitely added some dimension, as to what really happened that night, by sharing the story about the van full of hippy types who had picked him up on his way back from Sunset. Although I have not read Nick Shreck's latest book, I am privy to the section where he claims the Cielo Drive property was under FBI surveillance that same night due to all the drug activity supposedly going on there with Wojciech. I can't say whether that's true or not but, like anything else, it is possible. Assuming for now that it is true, what better way for undercover agents to disguise themselves and fit in than to do it as hippies and keep a close tail on everyone coming and going from the house? Garretson told me he got spooked by these people and told them to let him out far before they had gotten anywhere near Cielo Drive. They told him it was ok, they could take him further. The further up Benedict Canyon they drove, the more he tried to get them to pull over and let him out while they continued to assure him it was ok. When they finally reached Bella (directly opposite the long, shared, private drive leading to the house), after turning onto Cielo, he boldly told them that this was it, he definitely had to get out here. Their response was "It's ok, we are going to the same place you are." They drove him all the way to the house, parked, got out with him, and started asking him who the cars there belonged to. "Who's car is this? Who's car is that?" One of them even went into Sebring's Porsche claiming it was his "friend's car" and he was going to "play a trick on him." It's also important to note here that Sharon's Ferrari was in the shop at the time, and she had returned from Europe early. So, in a sense, she wasn't even there. She wasn't supposed to be anyway. There's more to the story but I'll stop there and highlight another very good possibility.

In Bill Nelson's book Manson: Behind the Scenes he interpreted this story as though the hippy types were actually casing the place for what was being planned that night. One of them could very well have been Bruce Davis (for example). The reason I give this interpretation so much credibility is because—until hearing this story—the thought of preplanning never entered the equation in my mind. It's one of those easily missed and taken for granted conveniences. It was a slap-my-forehead moment, and since then I see it as a no-brainer with no possibility of being untrue. Imagine the alternative. With no preplanning (I.e., no one on the lookout to make the call saying the coast was clear), it was possible the killers could've driven roughly an hour, only to descend on the property that night being occupied by no one. Even better, it was highly likely they would've run into 30 or 40 people on the property that night in the middle of a party. It was Friday night and by many accounts a party had been planned. What happens then? They drive back to the ranch and (assuming Manson had anything to do with this plan) Tex awkwardly has to explain why nothing happened...

"Awe shucks Charlie, wouldn't ya know it? They was a havin' a big ol' party tonight and we figured it dumb tryin' to take on 30-40 people with a six shooter and a couple of knives. Darn the luck! I'd have to reload that buntline perty fast, yuk yuk! Well dangit I'd say we oughta give 'er another try tomorrow night but tomorrow night is Saturday and they's prolly havin' another big shindig or BBQ or sumpin busy like that. Me and the girls was talkin' bout it on the way back and figured Sunday night's prolly the best idea since most folks are workin' Monday mornin' and usually get home early Sunday night to relax and watch TV. I know my folks do it sumpin' like that usually unless there's another family reunion that weekend."

To that Manson replies...

"Good thinkin' Tex. I knew there was a reason I kept ya around. Sunday night it is. Why didn't I think of that? Damn, I must be getting old. And damn those Hollywood types and their stupid Friday night parties! Ok kids, take your black clothes off, hide 'em under your mattress, put your PJs on, and go to bed. And don't mention a word of this to anyone else."

Interestingly, Nelson sums it up at the end of that chapter in his book by recalling how Manson had supposedly told Tex and the girls "It's time" before sending them off to Cielo. Nelson then concludes by asking the question "How did he know?"  With the very notable exception of digging into the true nature and history of the relationship between Tex and Susan LaBerge (Rosemary LaBianca's daughter)... this may be the very best and most compelling question Nelson ever asked in all of his investigations. How did he know? More appropriately, how did they know?

Of course it's as possible as anything that Garretson really was overlooked that night. I just don't see it being likely. It's possible Krenwinkle tried the door and gave up after noticing it was locked while also being spooked by the sound of multiple dogs (Rudi's) barking inside. But with the massive bloodbath they were already neck deep in, does it make sense they would roll the dice and simply hope they weren't leaving an eyewitness to tell the tale? It's also possible that Manson and Bruce Davis (for example) went back later and (already having full knowledge of the guesthouse) creepy crawled the property, peeked in the windows, noticed the boy was minding his own business, concluded he must not have seen or heard anything, and decided there was no reason to get his attention now. However, within Garretson's 'three eyed baby story' lies some very realistic details pertaining to the alternative possibility—excluding any and all references to the baby of course.

He claimed after stepping outside on the patio with the men, one immediately went inside to see if his phone was working... while the other held him outside at gunpoint. At some point after the men were both present again on the patio, they began walking away in separate directions. One went in the direction of 'the alley' (the path to the driveway) while the other one—the one with the gun—went towards the main house... while pointing the gun at Garretson, telling him to go back inside, and stating "There's already enough dead tonight." This all makes perfect sense if you consider the idea of taking out the boy in the guesthouse being put on the table and dramatically weighed real-time. Imagine Manson and Bruce going to the house later, knowing full well that someone was in the guesthouse because Krenwinkle told him so while telling him why she was unsuccessful in killing them. Another possibility is she just lied to Tex earlier and told him no one was in there. Or maybe she told him about the barking dogs, and Tex was... scared. Either way when the two show up later they know someone is there and they know who it is because earlier that night Bruce was one of the lookouts casing the place who picked Garretson up and drove him there. They had decided to leave him alone because he was innocent and not an adversary. They probably liked him. They probably deemed him closer to being one of them than were the intended targets. They even warned him not to go back that night—hoping he would just make it easy for them by staying away.

After hearing Krenwinkle had attempted entry, possibly getting his attention, and after hearing about the surprise killing of Steven Parent, they now don't know what to think... and they absolutely have to investigate and decide whether or not he should be forever silenced. After all, the entire ambush was fraught with unexpected chaos; the murders were supposed to have been contained inside the house rather than spilling out onto the front yard. They need to gauge whether or not he saw anything. They need to make sure the phone in the guesthouse is as dead as the phone in the main house is. They need to be sure he hadn't called anyone in the last few hours, as well as make sure he will not be able to call anyone now or after they leave.  Bruce, being the Zodiac Killer (not really), is bloodthirsty and all about killing him and not taking any chances. He holds him at gunpoint, drilling him with even more everlasting fear... while Manson, the older and more experienced criminal, checks the phone inside and sees that it is indeed, dead. So far, the boy has alerted no-one.  At one point one of them asked Garretson if he "needed a gun." Could this have been a trick question to see if he was hiding a gun he might pull on them at any moment? None of this matters to Bruce anyway, who still insist they kill the boy because letting him live is too risky. They argue about this passionately; it is an extremely heated decision to make. They are arguing loud enough to get the attention of a neighbor—who later reports hearing the men arguing around 4 A.M.. Either within the argument or after, the comment is made "There's already enough dead tonight."

Obviously in the middle of this scene it is made very clear to Garretson that he is to stay inside the guesthouse and forget the conversation ever happened. Forget everything he has seen or heard. He is told not to leave until he has to; and he will know when that time comes. "Your word is your bond, and your bond is your life." He has no doubt; they held the power to scare him into submission. After being led out by the cops later, and seeing the carnage, the threat is forever locked in his mind. He's also consumed with guilt about the death of Steven Parent—if he had never met him, he wouldn't have been there that night (regardless of the true circumstances behind that meeting).

He is now on his own road to hell, or so it seems. He is now in the middle of a war he knows nothing about. He is now being held captive—a collateral POW rather than collateral damage. His memory is rapidly being traumatized, confused, and buried by all the suggestive interrogating he is undergoing while still in his state of suspended animation. "What the hell is going on?" Whatever the hell is going on, he is being driven further and further away from ever truly figuring it out. He is now no different than the soldier he may have been in Vietnam had he been drafted instead of floundering in La La Land during the monumental summer of '69. He has narrowly escaped death while being almost hand in hand with his comrades who weren't so lucky. He's still a teenager and look at what he has been witness to, party to, and part of. He's fucked. For life. His mind will never be the same. It will never work the same. It was stamped with PTSD before he really became a man. With regard to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... his clarity will be self chosen, selective, and swimming around in a pool of Budweiser in it's free time—only coming up for air in colorful, fragmented increments. It will forever be protected from too much solitary thought, and will never fully escape the dark corridor of his mind it will be locked down in for almost half a century.


Garretson in the guesthouse during happier times


Forgive the boy for being partially confused and foggy and susceptible to Rosie's bait. He isn't the only one in history who's memory got locked in a little black box and buried in the basement for decades. It's a very common occurrence, in fact. Personally I don't think it took twenty-five years for his memory to return. I think it took that long for him to get the nerve to talk. I think the guilt ate away at him while the fear kept him quiet. I think he was also very afraid of confessing what he knew, because he knew it would leave him labeled as 'the only person in the world who could've prevented the murders' that night. He had warning. He was spooked. He was aware. He had been 'brought to now'. He could've ran from the van and alerted a neighbor or ran to the main house and alerted the intended victims directly. He could've... he could've... he could've. Even worse, what will people say when they find out he could've told the cops so much more and perhaps the killers would've been apprehended sooner? How much sooner? Would his info have spared the LaBiancas? Where does it end in his mind? Walk a mile in his bare feet and striped pants, and then blame him all you want...

"What the hell is going on?"

He had told me the reason he took off hitchhiking across the country was because he was avoiding the draft for as long as he could. He said in a later interview that he wanted to see more of the country he would be fighting for, because he was sure he'd soon be drafted. I think he felt on the spot when asked the question, and didn't want to appear to be a draft dodger. But really, who can blame him? Running on the belief that he was indeed running from the draft, it is an uncanny irony that he ran from the war in Vietnam, and ran right into the middle of another kind of war. It has been called a holy war. It has been called a drug war. It has even been called a pre-emptive strike for a race war. Whatever the truth is, it was a war, and people were killed, and he was there... and he couldn't run from it. He forever suffered the consequences of that war; he survived, but he was another victim. The haunting remained his most consistent marriage in life—as well as his most constant demon.

"It looked like a battlefield."

Bottom line: In my mind there's no way he was overlooked that night. I know parts of his story, the later story, are contradictive. In his polygraph examination, he claimed Steven Parent had made a call from the guesthouse phone before he left that night. After Rosie was in the picture, he claimed the phone lines were already down when he got dropped off by the van, and there's no way Parent made the call. I think he was especially vulnerable to whatever spell Rosie cast on him. She got into his head. She played on his guilt and fear. Maybe he eventually believed what he was saying. I don't know. But, like I said, the core parts of his story, his early story, didn't change... and they make a lot more sense than what he added later. He was allowed to live that night. How? Why? Unfortunately we will most likely never know the full extent of those circumstances. If Bruce Davis went there later with Manson, he will never admit to it. He's already been granted parole five times. Such an admission would make him an accessory to five more murders. Manson? I don't think he even remembers if he went there later that night. If it were discovered that any of those people known as "The Manson Family" were in those cars driving Garretson back and forth that night, they would also be charged and convicted as accessories to murder. No-one will ever talk.

There has also been speculation kicked around for years that Garretson knew Patricia Krenwinkle, and that's why he was allowed to live. If that were the case, his only dilemma would've been whether or not to turn an acquaintance in for murder after he discovered what happened. Again, anything is possible, but it seems the risk would totally outweigh the loyalty for a peripheral player on that stage. His behavior, the way he looked, and the way he talked from the moment he was arrested until he finally escaped from L.A., all reek of something more complicated. Just look at him in this frame from film of his press conference after his release. The look in his eyes is worth a thousand more words than the picture itself...





No, Billy was too good to simply look the other way and pretend to not know an acquaintance was involved in the brutal massacre of five people he knew... which is why I don't give the Krenwinkle angle much thought. I knew him. He was a good guy. He was an honest guy. He was moral. He was caring. He was also pretty normal by society's standards. He was likeable. He had a heart. He had a soul. And, I considered him a friend.

It's not fair that his peculiar memory has become such a comedic character in this play. It has been elevated to that of an antagonist in the quest for truth. It has become a punch line. It's understandable to a degree how it's come to be that way... but that isn't what he should be known for.

Sadly, it appears too late to ever change that.

R.I.P. Billy...




Which Way You Goin' Billy - Poppy Family (1969)
 



Saturday, September 30, 2017

Marina Habe Portrait Photo on eBay


This photo is for sale on eBay - if anyone is interested in relic collecting.

To read about who Marina Habe (pronounced haahbay) was, here are a couple of older posts:

http://www.mansonblog.com/2013/07/marina-habes-murder-maury-terry.html

http://www.mansonblog.com/2012/07/hans-habe-marinas-father.html




Monday, September 25, 2017

Abigail Folger's Funeral




Recently the San Francisco Bay Area Television Archive posted news footage of Abigail Folger's funeral.  This is footage that hasn't been seen since the evening of August 13, 1969.







Monday, September 18, 2017

Five To Puke

One of my recent meanderings took me to the Santa Barbara, California area, during which time Deb presciently hipped me to the fact that Ivor Davis would be making an appearance (that very night!) at the Museum of Ventura County in nearby Ventura.



Ivor Davis, as students of TLB know, was the co-author (along with Jerry LeBlanc) of Five To Die, one of the earlier books written about the Tate-LaBianca murders. Like Lawrence Schiller's The Killing of Sharon Tate, Die was actually published before the murder trial of Charles Manson and his three co-defendants even started. Thus, it serves as one of the earliest proponents of many aspects of the case that are accepted as fact even today. It's all there: the drug use, the orgies, the rituals, the mind control, the failed music career, the "Family," the Bible, the Beatles, Helter Skelter -- it's all really there, in a book published seven months before the beginning of the trial of Manson and others.

Above, Ivor Davis
Below, the original edition of Five To Die

Five to Die is the result of Davis being assigned the task of reporting on the murders by his bosses at The London Daily Express. The Express was (and is) a sensationalist tabloid that was once characterized by Britain's Prince Philip as "a bloody awful newspaper. It is full of lies, scandal and imagination. It is a vicious paper." Lies, scandals, and imagination -- that description fits Five to Die to a T. 

Die is based in large part on interviews conducted at Spahn's Ranch with Paul Watkins, Brooks Poston, and Juan Flynn, a trio of malcontented "Mansonites" who early on recognized the value of peddling sensational stories to the bloodthirsty media. How riddled with errors and untruths is Five to Die? I hadn't read this book in decades, so I skimmed it again in preparation for this post. Time and space prohibit a point by point refutation of all of the errors in this book here, but suffice it to say that aside from some interesting historical photos it is full of myths, sensational fabrications, misrepresentations, exaggerations, innuendoes, and untruths. 



Nevertheless, Die had a major impact on the entire TLB phenomenon, and Davis is very proud of that impact. Although Bugliosi dismissed the book in Helter Skelter as "a quickie paperback" (see Helter Skelter, Bantam paperback edition, 1975 page 399) Die in fact was instrumental in establishing much of the mythology that surrounds the Manson case to this day. "Our book," Davis later wrote, "was rushed out in paperback in January 1970, seven months before the trial began. It was the very first book to catalogue the bizarre story of life with Charlie Manson."

An example of Five to Die fear-mongering

But Five to Die was more than just one of the earliest sensational accounts of the Tate-LaBianca murders and "the Family," for according to Davis the book was actually responsible for the state of California's victory in the murder cases against Charles Manson et al. "Several years [after the murder trials] I ran into former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Aaron Stovitz," Davis later wrote. "Much to my astonishment, Stovitz dropped a bombshell, a complement to me, but a bombshell nonetheless. 'Your book was the blueprint for the prosecution of Charles Manson and his Family,' he said. 'It was all there for us to follow.'"

In 2009 Die was rereleased with a forward and afterword sandwiching a reprint of the original book. The new edition featured a summary of the police investigation leading up to the trial and a recap of the trial itself. (As an aside, I was surprised to find a reference to me on page 28, a reference which I consider inaccurate, if it's at all true.)

The updated 2009 edition of Five to Die. (Is it a coincidence that its 
publishing company was located in Ventura, California?)

Ventura was an apt venue for Davis' talk since Ventura County is where the famous mug shot of Charles Manson that was taken on April 22, 1968 after he was arrested on suspicion of grand theft auto when the bus he was driving got stuck in a ditch on a secluded road in the eastern section of the county. As much as anything that mug shot encapsulates the popular perception of Manson as homicidal madman. "Just look at that picture!" Davis exclaimed to the shuddering crowd. (Other people just see a guy making a face for the camera.)

Ventura County's claim to fame: Homicidal maniac or goof? 

The audience begins to assemble in the events hall at the
Museum of Ventura County before the program. 

The program at Ventura was pretty much a regurgitation of the 2009 edition of the book. Davis recounted the police investigation into the murders, taking particular delight in pointing out the ineptness of LAPD (e.g. a television news team found the killers' clothes, not the police, and Steve Weiss' father had to remind the department that his son had found the murder gun and that they already had it in their possession). This incompetence was greeted with laughter and snorts of disgust from the audience until a retired FBI agent stood up and reminded everybody that the police do, after all, make mistakes. Davis also laid into Vincent Bugliosi, mentioning both the DA's huge ego and his indictment for perjury. In fact, no one escaped Davis' critical eye (of course, everybody in "the Family" from Manson on down was treated with snarky disdain, and even the cooperative Paul Watkins was described as just a "wannabe musician") except for Aaron Stovitz, who was likely spared Davis' wrath because he credited the writer for solving the mystery of the Tate-LaBianca murders.

In addition to Davis, two other book authors appeared on the dais and lectured the audience about Manson, "the Family," and the murders. They were the father and daughter writing team of Mark J. and Aryn Z. Philips. The Philipses cowrote Trials of the Century, a compendium of the most sensational murder trials of the 20th Century, one from each decade (Harry Thaw, Mary Phagan/Leo Frank, Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle; Richard Hauptmann, Wayne Lonergan, Sam Sheppard, Richard Speck, CM, Jean Harris, and O.J. Simpson).



Mark and Aryn Phillips and Ivor Davis on stage

The Philipses' presentation was, to be polite, really, really bad, and quick reading of the source notes for their book chapter on the Manson trial reveals why: most of their information was gleaned from Helter Skelter. (Another oft-quoted source was the book The Trial of Charles Manson, by Bradley Steffens and Craig L. Staples. I was unfamiliar with this book so I got a copy. This slim -- 112 pages including notes and index -- volume is part of the Lucent Books series of "quality nonfiction for libraries and classrooms." Lucent has a series of books called "The Famous Trials Series" which includes other famous criminal and legal cases such as the Dred Scott Decision, the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the Nuremberg Trials, the Rosenberg espionage case, the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the Pentagon Papers, Roe v. Wade, and the Salem Witch Trials. Sources used for Trial include most of the better known TLB books and periodicals. The main recommended Internet source was www.mansonmurders.com, an URL that will surely invoke a nostalgic cringe in longtime students of the case.)


The audience of about two hundred, which consisted of mostly well-to-do older white folks, took it all in. Even the few longhairs in attendance seemed to go for everything. I quickly gave up on any attempt to reply to the onslaught of lies (although I did loudly say "He is not." after the moderator exclaimed, "First of all, Charles Manson is only 5 foot 2 inches tall!") as I was quickly overwhelmed by the avalanche of misinformation coming from the stage. The moderator had requested that all questions and comments be held off until the presentation was over. By then I knew that the audience was a lost and dangerous cause. (If I had asked a question it would have been "If you thought everything you heard from Watkins, Poston, and Flynn was unbelievable, why did you believe it?")

But after the event I was compelled approach the lawyer and his daughter with my evaluation of their presentation. After identifying myself and laying out my background (the lawyer noticeably started when I told him that I had visited Manson in prison almost two hundred times) I told them that their whole spiel was "so wrong" and misinformed that they had no business pontificating about the case. The daughter was visibly taken aback. Her father defended the book as being intentionally superficial re the specific cases, but I said that if that was the case they shouldn't pass off their superficial knowledge of the Manson case as if they were any kind of authority. We exchanged books and they seemed very glad when I left. (Before the event I introduced myself to Ivor Davis as a decades-long student of the case and told him that I was glad to meet one of the authors of one of the first books about the case as I had written a book about the case myself. He wrote down the title of my book and said he'd check it out.)

In addition to the Ivor Davis event, Manson and "the Family" were featured in an ongoing museum gallery exhibit dedicated to "Really Awful People" who included Nero, Attilla the Hun, Vlad Tepes, Gilles de Rais, Torquemada, Ivan the Terrible, Jack the Ripper, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and…. Vladimir Putin? (Okay, I know that in progressive Ventura they probably believe that Vladimir Putin helped Donald Trump win the election for president of the United States, but does that really warrant his being presented alongside two figures who were responsible for the murders of tens of millions of human beings?)

Really awful people Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Putin 

The Manson exhibit consisted of a large black panel decorated with a sparse description of the case, some photos of Manson, Spahn's Ranch, and Sharon Tate, and a blurb tying Davis and Five to Die in with the whole thing.






Five To Die is an interesting period piece, but it is also a sensational example of the worst of British tabloid "news." Its "unbelievable story" is literally just that. But what's even more unbelievable is that after almost fifty years the public still eagerly laps this garbage up.



Monday, September 11, 2017

Hoisted By His Own Petard

During the summer of 1969 the white establishment was on the eve of destruction. The black man was about to rise up and leave his ghetto to slaughter the white race, the pigs. This event was to be known as Helter Skelter and taking a cue from Paul McCartney, Helter Skelter was 'coming down fast' in the summer of '69.

Armageddon was imminent.

_____

A year later Vincent Bugliosi described Helter Skelter during his opening statement:

“The evidence will show that one of Manson’s principal motives for these seven savage murders was to ignite Helter Skelter; in other words, start the black-white revolution by making it look as though the black man had murdered these seven Caucasian victims. In his twisted mind, he thought this would cause the white community to turn against the black community, ultimately leading to a civil war between blacks and whites, a war which Manson told his followers would see bloodbaths in the streets of every American city, a war which Manson predicted and foresaw the black man as winning.

Manson envisioned that black people, once they destroyed the entire white race, would be unable to handle the reins of power because of inexperience, and would therefore have to turn over the reins to those white people who had escaped from Helter Skelter; i.e., Charles Manson and his Family. In Manson’s mind, his Family, and particularly he, would be the ultimate beneficiaries of a black-white civil war. We intend to offer the testimony of not just one witness but many witnesses on Manson’s philosophy, because the evidence will show that it is so strange and so bizarre that if you heard it only from the lips of one person you probably would not believe it.”
_____

Ever since those words were spoken, nearly fifty years ago, someone has accused Bugliosi of fabricating the Helter Skelter motive.

Did he?

At the outset, I frankly admit I’ve never followed how this fabrication supposedly happened. Maybe it is because I'm a lawyer and realize how incredibly difficult it would be to pull this off in a courtroom. But I’m also not sure if the argument is Bugliosi invented Helter Skelter or whether the argument is that he took bits and pieces of things Manson actually said and coerced, manipulated or maneuvered witnesses into repeating and twisting the tale in such a way that it seemed like the motive. Either way it is a serious accusation. 

[Aside: This post is not about whether the actual motive was Helter Skelter. That's another story.]

The Importance of A Motive

By now everyone knows that motive was not a necessary element of Bugliosi’s case. That statement, however, is somewhat misleading when it comes to convicting Manson. As to Manson I believe it would be more accurate to say Bugliosi didn’t need to prove the Helter Skelter motive but he likely needed to prove some motive to gain a conviction. And that is because the primary charge against Manson was conspiracy to commit murder: Manson didn't kill anyone those two nights.

So even though the prosecution typically doesn't have to prove motive it is frequently hotly debated at trial. Why? Because people have a strong need to know 'why' especially when it comes to murder. And in our jury system, people are the ones deciding guilt. So while motive is not a necessary element of proof in a criminal trial motive, in fact, has a significant impact on the jury.



“Research in social psychology, on the other hand, suggests that blaming is often intuitive and automatic, driven by a natural impulsive desire to express and defend social values and expectations.  Blaming serves an integral social function. By blaming a wrongdoer, we establish, enforce, and express the social boundaries and rules of our community. To this end, people are often willing to make sacrifices to punish cheaters, even when they themselves are not the ones who have been cheated. Blaming in ordinary social life primarily serves as an expressive social tool to sort the ‘bad’ members of society from the ‘good’ members of society and, thereby, to foster solidarity and cohesion among those who are appropriately abiding social expectations. In ordinary social life, an actor’s perceived character and reasons for acting, therefore, are of primary importance to the process of administering blame for a harmful action.”


Janice Nadler, Moral Character, Motive and the Psychology of Blame, Northwestern University School of Law. 2011

This is why Bugliosi needed a motive. Manson did not kill anyone. His guilt is based upon an agreement and largely (although not exclusively) the actions of others. This is a hard sell to a jury, which is why conspiracy cases are difficult cases for the prosecution (as Bugliosi noted). Put simply, Bugliosi needed the jury to blame Manson for the murders and that was supplied by proving a motive. 

In this case it doesn’t matter which motive he used (robbery, copycat, drug burn, Helter Skelter). Any motive answers the question ‘why?’ and that allows the jury to blame Manson. So, it is better to say Bugliosi needed a motive not the Helter Skelter motive. 

So why did Bugliosi choose Helter Skelter?

Because Manson talked incessantly about Helter Skelter.

A Few of the Eyewitnesses



Several witnesses testified about Manson’s race war. I chose these first two because they were not part of the Family and thus not part of the inner circle but both had substantial contact with Manson. I chose the killers because they were the ones committing the murders. They also were also part of the of the Family and two of them almost from its inception.

Gregg Jakobson



Jakobson first met Manson in May 1968 and last spoke to him in late August or early September 1969. According to Jakobson he spoke to Manson multiple times about Helter Skelter.

Q: Approximately how many times did you talk to Mr. Manson about his philosophy on life?
A: Well, innumerable times.
Q: When you say innumerable, will you give an approximate figure.
A: Maybe 100.
*****
Q: Did Mr. Manson ever speak to you, Mr. Jakobson, about a black-white conflict or physical confrontation?
*****
A: Often.
Q: Did he give this black-white war or conflict a name?
A: Yes.
Q: What name did he give it?
A: Helter Skelter.
Q: Did he mention Helter Skelter to you many times?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he say there was going to be a black-white war?
A: Oh, he believed that it was imminent.
*****
Q: Did Mr. Manson indicate to you how he envisioned this black-white war would start?
A: It would begin by the ripping off of some white families in their homes.
Q: By whom?
A: By the blacks.
*****
A: He said-- he used the words ripped off, and those stuck in my mind, and then he went further to say that they would really be cut up and dismembered and so on.
*****
A: He firmly believed that there was a pit, a bottomless pit in the Death Valley area that could be lived in, and inhabited and quite possibly was inhabited.
Q: Did he say he intended to inhabit the bottomless pit during Helter Skelter?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: In other words, the black man would want to turn over the Establishment to Mr. Manson, is that correct?
A: Right, yes.
*****
A: Helter Skelter, Charlie’s interpretation was, the revolution was the rising up of the black man, the Armageddon, the last battle in the streets to be fought.
Q: Did he actually mention the Armageddon? Did he actually mention the word?
A: Yes.
*****
A: It was in preparation to go to the desert. Specifically, a lot of money was needed to buy rope.
Q: A rope?
A: Yes, very expensive rope.
Q: For what purpose?
A: It was to go into the pit with.
Q: The bottomless pit?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he indicate to you how long this rope had to be?
A: Yes.
Q: What did he say?
A: Thousands of feet were needed, a truckload of rope.
*****
Q (Fitgerald): Did it appear to you that Mr. Manson was sincere in his beliefs in regard to his philosophy? [Aside: Why on earth is Fitzgerald asking these questions? Isn’t his goal to prove it is BS?]
A: Oh, sure. Yes.
Q: It appeared to you, then, that he believed what he said?
A: Absolutely.
*****
Q: One of the tenets of his philosophy was that people should be required to tell the truth?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you find Mr. Manson truthful in your dealings with him?
A: Yes.
_____

Juan Flynn




Flynn described his role at Spahn Ranch as follows:

Q: Did you work as a ranch hand?
A: Yes, manure shoveler.
Q: Manure shoveler?
A: Yes.

Here is what he said about Helter Skelter:

Q: Did Mr. Manson talk about a black-white war?
A: Yes. And he related it to Helter Skelter.
Mr. Kanarek: Your Honor, may that be stricken as nonresponsive?
The Court: That portion is stricken.
*****
Q: Manson did speak about a Black-White war?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he ever mention Helter Skelter to you?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he say what Helter Skelter was?
*****
A: Yes
*****
Q: When did he say what Helter Skelter was?
A: When he first told me this was when the Beatles record came out.
*****
Q: Do you know who was present when he spoke about Helter Skelter for the first time to you?
A: Well, on a lot of occasions, you know, there was a lot of people present.
*****
Q: What did he say to you?
*****
Q: About Helter Skelter.
A: Well, this was the change, the turn of the Karma, you see, you know, and the Black people were to overcome the white people, you know, and, you see, because the love has been licked too much, you know, on the Black people, you know, and there was a revolution in order, you see, to balance, you know, what the white man had done to the Black man.
Q: This is what Mr. Manson told you?
A: Yes.
_____

[Aside: On September 28, 1970 while Juan Flynn was testifying Bugliosi began to ask Flynn about an incident where Flynn was in a car driving around Chatsworth with Manson, Davis, Watson and Grogan. Fitzgerald and Kanarek asked for and received a side bar. During that side bar they challenged the relevancy of the testimony and Bugliosi made the following offer of proof.
_____

“Bugliosi: They stopped in front of this house, a rich house, in June or July 1969 in the Chatsworth area, and he was in the car and Clem Tufts was there, Bruce Davis, and he thinks Watson, he is not sure.

Again, this is only offered as to Manson, not the other defendants.

Mr. Manson stopped in front of the house and told Juan to go inside the house and tie the people up, and then open the door and let Manson and the rest go in.

He said, “We’ll go in there and get those M.F. pigs, kill them with acid, cut the kids up in pieces and then when the parents are hysterical tear their guts out or words to that effect.”
_____

Being in a car with that crew, Flynn is lucky to get back alive.

We know Bugliosi planned to have Flynn testify to the incident because he began to do just that before the interruption. Bugliosi claimed Flynn would testify that the incident occurred in June or July 1969. Of course, this might be another ‘get me a coconut' event but I doubt it. If this incident happened and if it happened before the murder of Gary Hinman doesn’t it undermine the copycat motive fairly severely? And if it happened at all doesn’t it also undermine a drug related motive unless someone wants to argue the occupants of this seemingly random house were also involved in the illicit drug trade (which someone probably would).

The court excluded the testimony because it found the prejudicial effect to the female defendants outweighed the probative value of the evidence. The girls were not present so the evidence did not tend to prove a conspiracy between the defendants.]

Under the fabrication theory the testimony of Jakobson and Flynn, above (and others) was either invented by Bugliosi or spoon fed to them or twisted from innocent comments into an elaborate and unbelievable motive. But the killers also heard it from Manson and, I would argue, believed it.

Here is what the killers had to say on the subject.

Kasabian



Kasabian never actually says she believed Helter Skelter during her testimony. She does, however, acknowledge it being discussed by Manson.

[Aside: This is Kanarek at his ‘best’.]

Q. Did Manson ever mention the term to you, Linda, Helter Skelter?
A. Yes.
MR.KANAREK: I object, leading and suggestive, conclusion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes.
MR.KANAREK: Ambiguous as to time, your Honor.
MR.BUGLIOSI: Mr. Kanarek knows I am going to go into time, your Honor, I would ask the Court to admonish Mr. Kanarek to wait and give me an opportunity to lay a foundation, one he knows that I am going to lay.
MR.KANAREK: I have no knowledge of what this man is going to do, your Honor.
MR.BUGLIOSI: If you would listen to my questions you would learn, Mr. Kanarek.
THE COURT: I don't want any colloquy, gentlemen, let's proceed.
Q. When did Mr. Manson mention the term Helter Skelter to you?
A. When?
Q. You said he mentioned the term Helter Skelter. Do you know approximately when? Was it within this one month period?
A. Yes, it was.
MR.KANAREK: Leading and suggestive, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Did he tell you what the term Helter Skelter meant?
MR.KANAREK: Calling for a conclusion, hearsay, improper foundation, and ambiguous as to time.
MR.FITZGERALD: Can we have the spelling of the word Helter Skelter, your Honor?
THE COURT: By whom?
MR.FITZGERALD: Excuse me, if the Court please, I am not familiar with the term, by the party offering the term.

[Aside: Of course he is. I think Fitzgerald hopes Ms. Kasabian misspells ‘Helter’.]

MR.STOVITZ: I will show counsel how to spell it, your Honor. [Aside: Stovitz to the rescue.]
MR.KANAREK: Has he a reference book for it, your Honor?
MR.BUGLIOSI: May I continue, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. What did Mr. Manson say Helter Skelter meant?
MR.KANAREK: I don't know if I objected, but I must on the grounds of hearsay, conclusion, no foundation, ambiguous as to time.
THE COURT: I think you'd better lay a foundation, Mr. Bugliosi.
Q. Do you know when he told you what Helter Skelter meant to him?
MR.KANAREK: Again, your Honor, that is the "When did you stop beating your wife," type of question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR.KANAREK: Conclusion and hearsay, leading and suggestive.
A. Excuse me, I don't understand the question.
******
Q. What did Manson say about Helter Skelter?
MR.KANAREK: Object on the grounds it's a conclusion and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It is a revolution where blacks and whites will get together and kill each other and all non-blacks and brown people and even black people who do not go on the black people's terms ---
MR.KANAREK: I make a motion that that last answer be stricken on the grounds of its prejudicial nature, on the grounds it states hearsay and conclusions.
THE COURT: Denied.
Q. Did he say who was going to start Helter Skelter?
MR.KANAREK: Object, assumes facts not in evidence, conclusionary, hearsay, and ambiguous as to time and place, no proper foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Blackie.
*****
Q. During the day of August 8th, do you recall Mr. Manson saying anything about Helter Skelter?
A. Yes, I do.
MR.KANAREK: I object on the grounds of conclusion, hearsay.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
A. I believe that was the day he came back from Big Sur or wherever he came back from.
Q. He came back from some place?
A. Yes.
MR.KANAREK: May that be stricken as not responsive, that had nothing to do with it, his coming back.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. And he was telling us --- I remember I was sitting on the couch in front of --- they call it the gun room --- where Danny used to sleep.
Q. Danny DeCarlo?
A. Yes.
Q. About what time was this in the day?
A. It was in the middle of the afternoon.
Q. Okay.
A. And I remember the new girl that he brought back, Stephanie, I believe her name was Stephanie, now, and maybe a few other people were there, Clem, maybe, I cannot remember faces again.
Q. Clem Tufts?
A. Yes, and he was telling us about his trip up in Big Sur and that the people were really not together, they were just off on their little trips, and they just were not getting together. So he came out and said, "Now is the time for Helter Skelter."
_____

According to one source, Kasabian seems to have believed it enough to 'preach' it herself.
_____

“She said, "Yeah, well they're killing people like that out in L. A."
"Like what?" I asked.
"Pigs that try to act like freaks."
*****

[She said] Charlie had learned through meditation about the existence at several places around the world of holes which went down to the center of the earth. Down the Holes will go the Beautiful People to escape the wrath of Black Man who will rise up and slaughter his hateful master, White Man. Some time after While Man has been killed off Black Man will realize that he has learned all he knows from White Man and that he cannot develop civilization any more on his own. Then the Beautiful People will be invited out of the holes to rule Black Man and further civilization. Only the Beautiful People will love Black Man and will not mistreat him as White Man had. 

Charlie and the people he lived with in L.A. were not the only ones who knew about these holes. Donovan knew; in one of his songs he sings, “Take me down through a hole in the ocean.” The Beatles knew, and they knew Charlie knew. Charlie and his friends had listened to “Helter Skelter” with headphones for months until they could hear, quite distinctly below the sounds of the instruments and the singing, the Beatles in speaking voices saying, “Charlie, can you hear us? Charlie, can you hear us? Call us in London. Call us in London.” Charlie had called London and the Beatles had refused to accept the call. Still, their faith was unbroken.”

The Road from Gallup to Albuquerque, No writer attributed, The Harvard Crimson, December 18, 1969
_____

Atkins



Van Houten questioned whether Atkins actually believed Helter Skelter. I think Atkins' words answer that question: yes, she did.

SUSAN ATKINS: We watched the newscast and it kind of, it really helped me to know that the people were as important as they were – it blew my mind and there were a few comments made, well, the soul really picked a good one this time. Just happened to have been Sharon Tate, a movie actress, and it happened to have made nationwide and worldwide news which we had no knowledge that that’s what it would do. There was a comment made that what had happened had served it’s purpose, that was to instill fear in man himself.

PAUL CARUSO: The establishment?

SUSAN ATKINS: The establishment. That’s what it was done for. To instill fear – to cause a paranoia. To also show black man how to go about taking over white man.
*****
Linda went into the gas station and left the wallet in the gas station, the women’s restroom, hoping that a black woman would find it and pick it up and use the credit cards, which would direct the police to black people, instilling more fear into white people. Then we drove around, just kept driving around, ended up at the ranch, but the idea was Charlie had wanted Clem and Linda and me to go to another house and we would do two simultaneously, in one night, to instill fear into white men.

Susan Atkins, Interview by Caballero and Caruso, December 1, 1969, Cielodrive.com
_____

I can see your side of this clearly. Nor am I mad at you. I am hurt in a way I only understand. I blame nobody but myself for ever saying anything to anybody about it. My attorney is going to go on insanity. Yes, I wanted the world to know “M”. It sure looks like they do now. There was a so-called motive behind all this. It was to install fear into the pigs and to bring on judgment day which is here now for all.

Susan Atkins to Shelly Nadall 1969
_____

SERGEANT PATCHETT: Did she ever talk about murdering a negro fella?
MS. HOWARD: No. But she doesn't think too much of colored people. She thinks their- well, white people should stick together and colored people should stick together. You know, because I told you why they were doing some of this. She said she thought that it would make the colored people wake up and take notice that this is what they should do to get what they want out of the world, you know, some violence.
*****

SERGEANT McGANN: Did she say why they left to go up to the north, in the desert?
MS. HOWARD: Oh, yeah because that is where the hole is, in the desert. They call it devil's canyon or devil's hole or something. What is what she said, the government put a big fence around it and it is supposed to be owned by the bottomless pit and she said that, in other words, people are all going to go back to the earth eventually anyway and they wanted to be one of the first ones there to start it. In other words, so when people die like ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Well, they’re just kind of speeding things up a little bit.
*****

MS. HOWARD: Yeah, where she said they wrote "Arise", and "Death to all pigs" and, I believe she said, I think she even said they wrote "Helter Skelter" is supposed to be like this new movement or whatever it is up there.
SERGEANT McGANN: She spoke of helter skelter in addition to writing on the wall?
MS. HOWARD: Uh huh, yeah she said where is some song out, helter skelter or something. It means, most everyone, I guess, in the group knows what helter skelter means. It is supposed to be like their new movement, you know.

Ronnie Howard Interview by LAPD, November 25, 1969, Cielodrive.com
_____

MS. GRAHAM: This Charlie Manson, obviously had schooled all these girls and boys, whatever, that there is a hole in the middle of Death Valley and that there are people living down in underground and that they are going to start a new society and that they are the chosen few, they are elected, this group of people, to pick people at random and execute them.
*****
SERGEANT NIELSEN: The helter-skelter?
 MS. GRAHAM: The helter-skelter.
SERGEANT NIELSEN: That was her group?
MS. GRAHAM: Yes. Yes, this is the group of people that want to go and assassinate or execute other people, the helter-skelter.
*****
SERGEANT NIELSEN: Now this helter-skelter group –
MS. GRAHAM: Yeah. She said, "You've heard of helter-skelter?" And I said, "No. What's that?" And she said that they belonged to this -- and I don't remember what word she used, I say sect because this is how I identify it, but it's a group of people that are (Unintelligible)...or whatever and their sole purpose on this earth is to go around and do people in and they are all going to get together and they are going to go to Death Valley and that there is a hole there and that Charlie knows where it is because he's been there and they are going to go down and live down under the earth and get away from society. I mean she really thinks that she did the right thing by killing these people, really.

Virginia Graham, LAPD Interview, November 26, 1969 (Kindle Locations 571-577). Kindle Edition. Cielodrive.com
_____

Q: Did you say anything else when you heard who those four people were?
A: Something to the effect that it served its purpose?
Q: What had happened served its purpose?
A: Yes.
*****
Q: Did you say why this had been done?
A: To instill fear into the establishment.
****
Q: I am concerned about these two words, pigs and helter-skelter.
A: I know of—in some of the songs he wrote helter-skelter was in them and he’d talk about helter-skelter. We all talked about helter-skelter.
*****
A: You must understand that all words had no meaning to us and that helter-skelter was explained to me.
Q: By whom?
A: Charlie. I don’t even like to say Charlie, I’d like to say the words came from his mouth that helter-skelter was to be the last war on the face of the earth. It would be all the wars that have ever been fought built one on top of the other, something that no man could conceive of in his imagination. You can’t conceive of what it would be like to see every man judge himself and then take it out on every other man all over the face of the earth.

And pig was a word used to describe the establishment.

Transcript of Susan Atkins’ Grand Jury Testimony, December 5, 1969. Cielodrive.com
_____

By the time she wrote her book in 1977 Atkins had changed her tune. The motive was now a copycat motive to get Bobby Beausoleil out of jail. The plan was apparently discussed by Manson in 'around the clock sessions' for several days before the murders. That, of course is not possible given Manson wasn't there.

Krenwinkel



Krenwinkel left no contemporary account of the crimes. Van Houten, who idolized Krenwinkel at the time, however, claimed she was a believer.

MR. PART: Now, you say that you all used to sit around Gresham and the desert and talk about this philosophy of going down to the center of the earth. Could you name some of the people that used to talk about it?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Gypsy and Brenda and myself and Katie and Charles and Tex and Clem and Snake and Rachel.

There was — we’re the ones that usually talked about it the most. Sadie did sometimes; but I don’t know if she actually believed it or not.

But all the rest of us, we really believed it.

Leslie Van Houten Interview with Marvin Part, December 29, 1969. Cielodrive.com
_____

I don't trust parole hearings but Krenwinkel at her hearings has given some indication of her state of mind at the time of the killings and it seems to be consistent with the rest.

“Inmate Krenwinkel: It was a combination, because the acid trips were directed and there was a (indiscernible) and he—when you take acid and he would direct them. And we would do whatever he said. Mostly what he wanted us to do was lie down and die because we were supposed to give up our egos so that we would be able to spout back to him his philosophy, his delusions, his craziness.”

Patricia Krenwinkel’s 2004 Parole Hearing. Cielodrive.com

“Attorney Wattley: There were all these ideas that seem to be going around that he would talk about we’ll do this and start a race war. We’ll do this to, you know, recreate a separate society. Did you embrace these things at the time?

Inmate Krenwinkel: Yes, I did. If he [Manson] said those things, I accepted that and I would repeat it back to him. I was willing to take whatever he said as the gospel”.

Patricia Krenwinkel’s 2011 Parole Hearing. Cielodrive.com

[Aside: Notice Krenwinkel begins her answer with ‘if he said those things’. This seems to be a recurring point by Krenwinkel, which becomes more direct in her 2016 hearing: she has no recollection of Manson saying the Family would start Helter Skelter. I think this has gotten her into trouble in these hearings because it leads to the question ‘then why did you kill these people?” and her only answer is ‘Tex told me to, so I did.’]

Presiding Commissioner Chappell: Okay. Okay. All right. So getting back to the, to the meetings, when did it come out that you wanted to—or Charlie Manson wanted to start this, divide the country and start this race division? When did that come out?

Inmate Krenwinkel: I think he started doing that probably, again. Probably started that philosophy probably somewhere along, maybe four to six months.

Presiding Commissioner Chappell: Four to six months?

Inmate Krenwinkel: Yeah, prior to the crimes.
*****
Inmate Krenwinkel: Well, he started talking about there was going to be a race war.

Presiding Commissioner Chappell: Okay.

Inmate Krenwinkel: And that—and, of course, he came up with this crazy idea of, which at the time we were going to the desert and there was going to be a, there was a hole in the desert that we were going to live in and while the, while the war raged or whatever. But I—he—I never heard him, you know, say he was going to try to start it. He just, it—that came out in, at trial. But I mean, that wasn’t what he was saying. He was saying this is going to happen and this is going to happen. And there was this whole feeling of –that we were under attack. He started making it more that, you know, we were, we were under, you know, that is, you can see they’re trying to attack us. That we’re living together. We’re a group of people and we’re being under attack and the, you know, there is going to be this. So we started getting where he was making it really pulling, say the circle together. He wanted everybody really tight together because we were under attack and this—did everything and, you know, and America itself was going to go to war. So we needed to be really close with one another, you know, we had to be on one philosophy, one thought, one—we were one him. And we would be able to survive somehow.
*****
Deputy Commissioner Lam: ***** It almost suggests that at a certain level you had an awareness that what he was saying didn’t make sense. Or am I hearing it wrong?

Inmate Krenwinkel: No, at that time, I bought in lock, stock and barrel to his philosophy.

Deputy Commissioner Lam: You believed everything?

Inmate Krenwinkel: I did, because it was, you know yeah, it was the only philosophy going and we all kept passing it on, one to another. I believed, I believed in him. I believed in it as much as I knew anything to be real, which I can tell you was, nothing was real. But that’s—yes, I, you know, I kept, I absorbed the stuff that he said. It was that or repercussions, you know. I mean, I had learned along the line that this, this is the way it is. And I consented.
*****
Deputy Commissioner Lam: Okay. During these meetings, did he teach you about the race war?

Inmate Krenwinkel: Yes.
*****
Deputy Commissioner Lam: ***** But in terms of starting the race war, how was that going to happen?

Inmate Krenwinkel: He never said that. He never said exactly how, to me, that I was going to be part of that, or I was supposed to do something. Ours was always how we were supposed to make it safe for he and others to survive these, you know, with these holes in the grounds, and these other crazy things…..

Patricia Krenwinkel’s 2016 parole hearing. Cielodrive.com
_____

Watson



And here is what Watson has to say.

“Ever since I'd known him, Charlie had occasionally mentioned that eventually there would be a bloody conflict between whites and blacks. But a lot of people were saying that — hadn't Watts been the beginning? He'd also made it clear that he thought blacks were inferior to whites and only created to serve them, but this kind of thing had never been a major part of his teaching. Now “Helter Skelter is coming down fast” was the main theme of everything he said, every song he wrote, and it didn't take long to figure out that the black-white terrorism and Helter Skelter meant pretty much the same thing: violent revolution. And now, Charlie was saying, it would be “blackie's turn to win,” the karma would roll, and the blacks would end up on top as the establishment.”

*****
“The central doctrine of Charlie's new teaching was Helter Skelter-Armageddon, the Last War on the Face of the Earth, the ultimate battle between blacks and whites in which the entire white race would be annihilated. As the Beatles sang, this was not some event in the distant future, it was “coming down fast.” We were living in the last few months, weeks, perhaps days, of the old order.”
*****
“There were three basic motives behind the murders that took place sometime past midnight on August 9. The most obvious was the one Charlie had articulated to us that afternoon: to do what blackie didn't have the energy or the smarts to do — ignite Helter Skelter and bring in Charlie's kingdom. There was also the need for more cash, first of all to finance our preparations for Armageddon — the same thing that had motivated the drug burn and Bernard Crowe's supposed murder, the killing of Gary Hinman, and all the proposed abductions and murders in the Chatsworth area — and also to pay $600 bail for Mary Brunner, who had been arrested earlier that day for using a stolen Sears' credit card.”
*****
When he got back, he called us all together. It was the afternoon of August 8, 1969, and his message was simple.

“Now is the time for Helter Skelter.”

Charles ‘Tex’ Watson, Will You Die For Me (1978)
______

I also don't trust books by killers. We likely will not know for sure what Watson actually believed at the time the crimes were committed unless and until the ‘Tex Tapes’ come to light. But there is some indication what might be on those tapes.

In 2015 Richard Pfeiffer, the attorney for Leslie Van Houten, filed a motion with the court to have the tapes reviewed by a court ‘in camera’ (in private) to see if anything on them would be of assistance to his client’s efforts to obtain parole. The DA responded on December 21, 2015:

 “The People do not believe it necessary for the Court to arduously labor through the 326 pages of rambling musings about LSD, secret worlds beneath Death Valley and bizarre racial theories.” 

Pleadings quoted in Charles Manson’s Right-Hand Man Is Up for Parole. Here’s What to Watch For. Tom O’Neill (2016)

The DA’s characterization sounds to me quite a bit like Helter Skelter. If that is a fair description of what is on the tapes then I think it is safe to include Watson in the ranks of the true believers.

Van Houten



If ever there was a poster child for the Helter Skelter true believer club it was Leslie Van Houten in 1969.

MISS VAN HOUTEN:
*****
But we — after that, we started decide — seeing where we were in this position, because we knew that we were part of this Revolutions — of the Revelations in the Bible. We knew that we had a part in it.

And so we read, and it talked about a hole in the desert or going to the Kingdom.
We found out — we started looking into the Death Valley, what’s underneath Death Valley, and we found out there was the Armagosa River and blind fish and all kinds of things that just made us believe that there was a whole world underneath. And that some of the Montezuma’s people are already under there waiting for us.

And that what would happen is that about a couple thousand of the chosen people — white people — would go down into the center of the earth and stay there for about fifty years. And then there would Athens or — I can’t remember all the names, but something was going to happen. And then we were going to come back up.

And this was when we — the earth would be all black.
*****
MR. PART: Now that you mentioned “the plan that we have no control of,” tell me what you mean.
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well, it seemed like after we knew what was going to come down we tried talking to leaders, you know, black leaders, and we saw that they were stalling.

And it was almost as though we had to make the first move for it to continue to develop, to get bigger so that it would happen because the black man loves us so much that he would be our slave and do everything we said, let us beat him and mistreat him for so many years that he almost doesn’t want to do what he has to do, but he sees that he has to do it.
And so it was up to us to start it.
*****
MR. PART: Well, how were you going to start the this revolution?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: By killing.
MR. PART: Could you explain that?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: By doing a murder that had no sense behind it, and by putting words that would make people scared.

Because the more fearful the people get, the more frantic it will get, and the faster it will happen.
*****
MR. PART: Why in the world would you want to go out and kill somebody?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Because it had to be done. It had to be done just in order for the whole thing to be completed, for the whole world’s karma to be completed we had to do this.
*****
MISS VAN HOUTEN: Well, in order to create fear it had to be — look like an obvious, just an obvious murder; that there was no robbery , nothing behind it; just flat out to do it, to start this paranoia going.

And so we had been told that this was the best time to use our witchcraft.
*****
MR. PART: Now, what do those words mean to you, and what were they written in, and where were they written?
MISS VAN HOUTEN: “Helter Skelter” was written on the refrigerator. And that was used to let people know that the Beatles were the prophets, and they were telling it like it was, and that it’s coming down fast, and you just be ready, you know.

You know, get it on. Do whatever you have to do for this whole thing to be over.

And “Pig” was the white — the white businessman who hated his neighbor, couldn’t look at his neighbor with love, who was going to get it in the end.

And then “Rise” was for the black man saying that it was his turn to, you know, be leader after all that time.
*****
MR. PART: Well, if Charlie’s Jesus and you girls are angels and you are doing God’s will and God’s will is that the revolution start so that the colored people can take over the earth, why do you think that everybody’s in jail?

MISS VAN HOUTEN: Oh, I don’t know. You know, it would almost be for the publicity, as silly as that sounds. So that all —See, there’s no — we were trying to find out ways of letting the youth know, because the people that are going to go into the hole are going to be the young people.
And we tried with our music, and nobody would put out our music. And, you know, we tried lots of different ways, and nothing worked.

But now everyone is finding out. Like our music is finally coming out. And Charles will be able to speak for himself at the court and — to show —I guess it just happened to let people know that that this is the way it was happening. ’cause some people will believe.

Leslie Van Houten, Interview with Marvin Part, December 29, 1969. Cielodrive.com
_____

Charles Manson 


On June 19, 1970 Mary Neiswender, who had been reporting on the murders since August 1969 wrote an article about her recent interview with Manson. The article appears below. While never directly mentioning ‘Helter Skelter', Manson made a couple interesting comments. Ms. Neiswender failed to follow up.

“I see a black robe; the same one Pilate wore. It’s got blood on it from 1900 years of Christian rule.

If I were my own attorney I could explain. You’ve heard of the Battle of Armageddon (the Bible’s prophecy of the last, decisive battle between good and evil before the Day of Judgment). I see it coming, and all I want to do is get out of the way, but they’re trying to stick an antichrist label on me.”
*****
If he were turned loose, he says wistfully, “I’d go to the desert and no one would ever see me again.”
_____

In two quotes Manson mentions two ‘themes' of Helter Skelter (1.) imminent Armageddon (a word frequently attributed to him by other witnesses when explaining the concept of Helter Skelter) and (2.) going to the desert and disappearing (the move he and the Family were to make to escape the war).
_____

On or about June 25, 1970 Manson was interviewed by David Felton and David Dalton for Rolling Stone Magazine. A few quotes by Manson:

“The white man is fading, everybody knows that. The black man will take over, they can't stop it.
*****
Can you explain the meaning of Revelations, Chapter 9?
What do you think it means? It's the battle of Armageddon. It's the end of the world. It was the Beatles' "Revolution 9" that turned me on to it. It predicts the overthrow of the Establishment. The pit will be opened, and that's when it will all come down. A third of all mankind will die. The only people who escape will be those who have the seal of God on their foreheads. You know that part, "They will seek death but they will not find it."
*****
"Revolution 9" will be violent? Why will it be racial?
Have you heard of the Muslims? Have you heard of the Black Panthers? Englishmen, do you remember cutting off the heads of praying Muslims with the cross sewn onto your battledress? Can you imagine it?
Well, imagination is the same as memory. You and all Western Man killed and mutilated them and now they are reincarnated and they are going to repay you. The soul in the white man is lying down. They were praying, kneeling in the temple. They did not want war. And the white man came in the name of Christ and killed them all.
*****
Do you really think the Beatles intended to mean that?
I think it's a subconscious thing. I don't know whether they did or not. But it's there. It's an association in the subconscious. This music is bringing on the revolution, the unorganized overthrow of the Establishment. The Beatles know in the sense that the subconscious knows.
*****
Why do you think Susan Atkins gave that confession?
Susan is a very aware girl. I think her soul did it. I think her soul worked on her to the point that she did it. Personally I think she did it to put me in the position I'm in so that people could see where I'm at."
_____

Manson was also interviewed by the Los Angeles Free Press. The Free Press also ran articles about the Family. They even gave Manson a sort of column for a while and published his poems and letters to the editor. Here are a couple quotes by Manson:

“I was in Death valley trying to get away from your world. I can’t judge it. The Black Man is going to do that. 
*****
Everyone is going to get back what they put out, and God knows no time. It has piled up for years and it is turning. Your world is in big trouble. Justice is coming.”
_____

Is this proof Manson believed his own shtick? Hardly, but the quotes are consistent with the theme. Of course these were all made after his arrest when he would likely be more guarded. 
_____

Anybody Else?

One website claims this is the Spiral Staircase. 

Manson seems to have spoken about Helter Skelter to anyone who would listen. On December 7, 1969 an article appeared in the LA Times (below, right) written by Eric Malnic. Malnic got wind of Manson's haunts and took a road trip up to Topanga Canyon. This is likely lower Topanga Canyon based upon the reference to the bus- the location of the Spiral Staircase.  There he interviewed several local ‘hippies’ and heard this:

“He [Manson] said he’d take his army of dune buggies and kill every white mother- every white pig- between here and the desert.

Then he was going to make an exodus- take his people to a big hole in Death Valley and hide there. From there he could just sit back and watch the revolution.”

A ‘thirty-year old author’ was quoted as saying:

“He picked up the revolution thing about eight months ago. He hoped to cause some all-out confrontation between the police and blacks. Blacks and whites.”

Malnic continued:

“Manson never discussed his entire plan for fomenting a black-white war with any one person at the restaurant. Each has heard part of the plan, and together they pieced it together.”

“I think his talk about the machine guns and dune buggies and starting a revolution was dead serious,’ said one young man. ‘If what they say he did was true, maybe that was all part of it.”

Only one person is identified by name in the article: 24 year old, Michael Crow. Michael does not make any further appearances in the tale that I have found and is not on Deemer’s list of Family associates.

The article is dated December 7th. This was the Sunday between the two days of the Grand Jury.
Atkins’ story wasn’t common knowledge, yet. In fact, for all we know Malnic's trip to Toping may have been Friday the 6th while Sadie was on the witness stand.

It defies logic that some hippies who knew Manson in a restaurant in Topanga Canyon all heard the tale from Bugliosi. In fact, the idea is patently absurd. 

This small article tells us that Manson was very vocal about Helter Skelter even to those outside the Family. Perhaps it was a recruiting tool. He tried it on Stephanie Schram’s sister. And more importantly it tells us these unidentified ‘hippies’ all heard that Manson was going to start the race war. To me these comments are more damning then ‘Now is the time for Helter Skelter’ or ‘Someone is going to have to show blackie how to do it.’ The 'friends' interviewed on December 7, 1969 came to believe, by putting their conversations with Manson together, that Manson's goal was to start a race war, a revolution and then go hide in the desert.
_____

Bugliosi did not make up Helter Skelter. Manson did. The evidence is overwhelming that Manson preached Helter Skelter to anyone who would listen. It is repeated by non-Family, the murderers, Family and 'friends' in Topanga Canyon. Just in this post there are at least ten people repeating the tale. 

Manson was not the target of a motive fabricated or fostered by Bugliosi. He was the author. Manson handed the Helter Skelter motive to Bugliosi on a silver platter. He created a dozen witnesses for the prosecution. All Bugliosi had to do was pick up the ball and run with it. And that, my friends, is damned fine lawyering because it placed the blame for the murders squarely at Manson's feet.

Pax Vobiscum

Dreath