Fuel to the Fire: The Family's Use of Amphetamines in the Summer of '69

The accepted wisdom says that Charlie did not tolerate hard drugs within the Family.  They smoked marijuana and hash, used LSD with some regularity, and ingested a smattering of other psychedelics like psylocybin(mushrooms), mescaline(Peyote buttons), even Belladonna.  One known exception is the admission by Atkins and Watson that they snorted from a jar filled with meth just before they left to go to Cielo Dr.  But that was it.

But there is good evidence that many others in the Family were using Speed.


Bruce Davis

http://www.aboundinglove.org/main/images/bookPDFs/Will_You_Die_For_Mesmall.pdf
pg63of120
Tex: "Charlie, for all his use of acid, was absolutely against speed. He believed it was bad for your body. But when a young guy from one of the neighboring ranches began sneaking it over,  Susan-Sadie, Bruce Davis and I started carrying it around in the bottom of a cigarette package."

pg76of120 
"I slept very late Saturday(Aug 9, 1969), then spent part of  the afternoon working on dune buggies and  snorting speed with Bruce Davis."


Kasabian

http://www.mansonblog.com/2015/03/goodbye-helter-skelter-chapters-fifteen.html  comment
"Another point: in the History channel special Kasabian ...also mentions taking a white speed tablet before embarking on the journey(to Cielo)."












Watkins

Testimony of  at the Watson murder trial(8-26-71):
http://www.cielodrive.com/charles-tex-watson-trial-08-26-71-am.php#bp
Q(Bugliosi):  Did you take speed on several occasions(while at the Ranch)?
A(Paul Watkins): Yes.


Krenwinkle

http://www.mansonblog.com/2015/06/the-mansonfamilytodayinfo-files.html
During Her time with the family, Patricia Krenwinkel used drugs heavily. ... She... at times would take various forms of speed such as Methedrine, Benzedrine and on occasion would smoke opium.



Grogan

My Life with Charles Manson by Paul Watkins  Chapter 20
Clem... was totally blitzed, and sat slouched over the steering wheel of the dune buggy, his eyes glassy, his hair matted and snarled... He appeared stiff, almost cadaverous. (Sept '69)
[Clem is obviously coming down off a lengthy Speed trip.]


Manson

Susan Atkins  The Shattered Myth of 'Helter Skelter'   pg26of63
"...Charles Manson was at his wit's end.  He was staying up for days at a time on drugs watching for Panthers." (July of '69)

Member of the Family  by Dianne Lake
(At Barker in late '68)
 "Charlie was too hyped up to make love to any of us, so we all just went to sleep.
"I been thinking about this," Charlie announced in the morning. He appeared like he had not gotten much sleep. "We should go back to town and get our things together."

The Shadow Over Santa Susana by Adam Gorightly
(At Barker in Sept/Oct '69)
"Manson, it has been said, became "feral beyond description" during this period.  According to Kitty Lutesinger:  "He got wild when he was out there.. he was just beating on Snake all the time-or everybody." "
[Sounds like an amphetamine-induced psychosis.]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/justice/california-charles-manson/

Manson Parole hearing from April 2002
"Manson also had a history of using drugs such as LSD, amphetamines and barbiturates... (Commissioner Gilbert)Robles said."

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-heilig/charlie-manson-the-life-a_b_4074267.html
He gathered unknowing young women from Berkeley and the Haight-Ashbury, where the clinicians at the landmark free clinic diagnosed him as an “ambulatory schizophrenic” with all manner of manipulative behaviors, not to mention a fondness for LSD, speed ... and marathon orgiastic sex directed by Charlie ...

https://nypost.com/2017/10/25/reliving-the-murderous-manson-familys-dark-pull-on-an-innocent-14-year-old-girl/   Dianne Lake interview:
When I got back from the Spiral Staircase House, I told Richard and Allegra about the possibility of going with Charlie and the girls. “I don’t know about that, Chicken Little,” Richard said. For some reason, he had changed his mind about Charlie. “It may not be such a cool scene. Maybe you should stick around here for a little while.”
That was the one warning I got about Charles Manson. It was not from my parents or from people at the Hog Farm. It was from my speed-addict friend who somehow understood something that the rest of us did not.
[Did he recognize that Charlie was into Speed?  Did it take one to know one?]

Everybody else

http://www.lsb3.com/search?q=speed&updated-max=2015-10-16T01:14:00-04:00&max-results=20&start=4&by-date=false
7/8/71- Psych examination of Tex Watson
Q. Meantime…did you go places?
A.  No, Charlie never wanted us to leave the ranch. Then it was drugs, drugs, drugs…  bags of acid and speed… we took a lot of speed.

http://www.cielodrive.com/charles-tex-watson-trial-08-26-71-am.php#bp
Q(Bugliosi): Was there quite a bit of speed out at the ranch?
A(Watkins): Not until late spring of '69.
Q: And from that point on there was quite a bit of speed out at the ranch?
A: Yes

http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/369/fountain-world?page=1&scrollTo=16281
Virginia(FOTW witness) said that most of the time the Family's conversations were confused and she felt that they "were usually up on something, sometimes they would just talk non-stop for hours and not sleep for three or four days."

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/features/denis-tuohy-the-day-i-came-face-to-face-with-charles-mansons-killer-cult-in-a-remote-mountain-ranch-36365134.html
Manson had linked some of the Beatles' songs with an apocalyptic vision of the future, a vision he preached to followers who were constantly high on LSD and amphetamines.

Susan Atkins  The Shattered Myth of 'Helter Skelter'  pg26of63
"The women began to fear for their lives as paranoid, speed-frazzled gunmen combed the ranch..." (July of '69)




So are we supposed to believe that all these followers were doing heavy doses of Speed and that Charlie was somehow unaware of it?  No way in hell.  I believe that Charlie was controlling the Family's amphetamine use--in the same way he exercised tight control over the Family's use of LSD-- by giving them the drug at certain times for certain reasons.

The use of the stimulant might also explain some other aspects of life at Spahn.  Like how they were able to be up all night fixing their dune buggies and doing their creepy crawls.  Like how they were able to make repeated bone-jarring rides back and forth from Spahn to Barker.


But when you play, you pay (as they say in Brooklyn).  There was an old anti-drug slogan from the '60s:  SPEED KILLS.  They should have listened, because there is a definite link between the heavy use of amphetamines and violent acts, according to numerous sources.

http://www.atdc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/0/2015_06_03_EVENT_ARTICLE_McKetin-2014-Does-methamphetamine-use-increase-violence.pdf
Methamphetamine .. is notorious for its association with violent behavior. Epidemics of use have been marked by rises in assaults and violent crime and case reports have implicated the drug in homicides. Violence associated with methamphetamine use is characterized by its capricious and often bizarre nature, this seeming to be fueled by methamphetamine-induced paranoia... In conclusion, violent behavior is a key harm associated with the use of methamphetamine.
 
Charles Manson Now by Marlin Marynick   pg129of155
Vicki(apparently an associate of the Family) assured me that, during her initial visit to the ranch, the family was living a peaceful, happy existence. The only drug on the property was marijuana. "Then they did LSD and, when speed came along, that was when it all went bad."

Then it becomes a legitimate question to asked to what extant did amphetamine use contribute to the murders?

I think that the use of amphetamines might be one of the missing links in this case.  So important that without the Speed, there would probably not have been the slaughter.  But why didn't Bugliosi mention it in his book?   In the penalty phase of the trial, he made extensive preparations to counter the defense witnesses who would claim the defendants were too drug-addled by LSD to be responsible, but he didn't do this for the Speed usage.  Even more curiously, the defense lawyers didn't introduce this evidence as a possible exculpatory factor.  Why not?  Was there some kind of agreement by everybody not to touch this subject?

http://www.goodbyehelterskelter.com/Reviews.html
Bugliosi discounts the importance of speed in the murders. He ignores most of the drug use at Spahn except for the use of LSD which he says Charlie used to brainwash his followers...

Gov. Brown reverses decision to parole Manson family killer

By Harold Blume

Gov. Jerry Brown has reversed a parole board's decision to free convicted killer and Manson family member Leslie Van Houten, shown here at her parole hearing in September at the California Institution for Women in Corona. (Stan Lim / Associated Press)

Gov. Jerry Brown has reversed a parole board’s decision to free Manson family killer Leslie Van Houten.

In September, the Board of Parole Hearings found Van Houten, 68, suitable for release. When she was 19, Van Houten took part in the brutal slayings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in Los Angeles on Aug. 10, 1969.

"The question I must answer is whether Leslie Van Houten will pose a current danger to the public if released from prison," Brown wrote in his statement, released Friday night. He said he had to consider Van Houten’s young age at the time of the crime, her dysfunctional upbringing and other mitigating factors.

He also noted Van Houten’s exemplary conduct in prison. Supporters and prison staff have described her as a model inmate who earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees and, as Brown put it, "exceptional work ratings as a tutor." Van Houten also took leadership roles in self-help efforts among inmates.

But "in rare circumstances," Brown said, "the aggravated nature of the crime alone can provide a valid basis for denying parole, even when there is strong evidence of rehabilitation and no other evidence of current dangerousness."

Brown cited the horrific nature of the murders, Van Houten’s eager participation and what he characterized as her minimization of her role in them.

The reversal marks the second time Brown has overturned a parole board decision in order to keep Van Houten behind bars. The first time was in 2016. Before that, the state parole board denied Van Houten’s attempt at winning release 19 times since she was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Manson died in November. Another participant, Susan Atkins, died in prison in 2009.

The youngest of Manson's followers, Van Houten has been portrayed by supporters as a misguided teen under the influence of LSD — and the twisted influence of Manson — on the night of the slayings.

A former homecoming queen from Monrovia, she did not join in the Aug. 9, 1969, murders of Sharon Tate, the pregnant wife of film director Roman Polanski, and four others in Benedict Canyon. But Brown’s statement noted that Van Houten felt "left out" and that she wanted to participate in the carnage of the following evening.

Van Houten was part of the group that stormed into the LaBiancas' home in Los Feliz. Van Houten testified to stabbing Rosemary LaBianca in the back at least 14 times, possibly after she already was dead. The group wrote messages in blood on the walls, and Van Houten, Brown noted, drank some chocolate milk from the refrigerator before leaving.

Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi argued during the trial that Manson orchestrated the murders as part of a plan to spark a race war that he called Helter Skelter. He and his followers planned to survive by living underground near Death Valley and then would take power.

Van Houten, Manson and three others were convicted and sentenced to death. But after the California Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, their sentences were commuted to life in prison.

An appellate court overturned Van Houten's conviction in 1976, and a second trial the following year ended in a hung jury. She was convicted in her third trial in 1978 and sentenced to seven years to life in prison.

At a 2002 parole board hearing, Van Houten said she was "deeply ashamed" of what she had done, adding: "I take very seriously not just the murders, but what made me make myself available to someone like Manson."

Her supporters have come to include retired reporter Linda Deutsch, who covered the trial for the Associated Press.

"During her incarceration, Van Houten has demonstrated remorse and, in my first-hand assessment, she is living proof that redemption is possible even for those whose crimes are unforgivable," Deutsch wrote in an opinion piece for The Times.

"I've learned that she has spent decades in therapy to understand how she fell under Manson's control," Deutsch wrote. "She once told me: ‘I could not have lived without paying for what I did.’ "

"But she has paid," Deutsch added. "At issue is whether a person who earns her release through hard work over many years should be treated differently because her case was in the headlines."

Opponents of Van Houten’s parole take a starkly different stand.

"Ms. Van Houten should not be paroled and society cannot trust someone who committed such a heinous murder without showing any remorse for years," according to a statement on a Web site devoted to keeping "the Manson Family Killers in Prison."

Sorting out the issues behind Manson's estate

Charles Manson is dead. His estate (and his body) remain, legally, 'at issue.

Only one person seems to have presented a legitimate will. That person is Michael Channels. Does this will take precedence over Manson's "heirs"?

At issue right now is whether or not the case is in the correct court. For some reason the case is in LA County because that is the county that Manson lived in before he was arrested. LA County thinks that Kings County where Corcoran is located and where Manson lived for so many years should be the proper place for the case. Manson died in Kern County and if anyone wants to go back to the last county Manson lived in while he was free, it would be Inyo County where he was arrested the last time. We are not sure if the case will stay in LA.

The issue comes up this way.
_____

“A decedent, prior to death, may direct, in writing the disposition of his or her remains*****” (California Health and Safety Code Section  7100.1(a)). The writing would be Manson's will. 

_____

Administering a will requires a probate proceeding.

_____

“If the decedent was domiciled in this state at the time of death, the proper county for proceedings concerning administration of the decedent’s estate is the county in which the decedent was domiciled, regardless of where the decedent died.” (California Probate Code Section 7051)

_____

This would seem to be a rather simple issue. The key is where was Manson ‘domiciled’ when he died? Common sense says Corcoran State Prison, Kings County.

But it’s not that simple.

‘Domicile’ means the place where Manson was last physically present (lived) with an intent to remain at that location. as odd as it may seem, under the law you can change your residence and not change your domicile. Your domicile does not change until your intent changes.

This issue becomes more complicated because it is a generally accepted aspect of the law that ‘domicile’ must be ‘voluntary’ and that, therefore, an inmate’s domicile does not change. Incarceration is not voluntary. Nor do they intend to stay there, indefinitely, regardless of the reality of the situation.

So, Inyo County (which isn't even on the radar) actually appears to be the correct county. And here’s the argument why:

1. ‘Domicile’ requires that Manson be present in the county and have an intent to remain indefinitely to establish a domicile.

2. Incarceration does not change ‘domicile’ because it is not voluntary. 

3. Manson last lived in Inyo County. 

4. Manson expressed his desire to return to Inyo County (the desert) to the press during the TLB trial, in post incarceration interviews and at parole hearings. This seems to show his intent. Remember, the fact everyone knew he would never get out of prison doesn't matter. 

Does Inyo County make sense? No, of course not.

We could also add our second argument:

The state conclusively proved Manson’s domicile was Inyo County during the TLB trial. Bugliosi proved Helter Skelter was the motive. Part of Helter Skelter includes living in the bottomless pit, which allegedly was in Inyo County. 

Therefore, since Manson was present in Inyo County in October 1969 and Bugliosi proved Manson intended to remain there for 100 years by proving that Helter Skelter was the motive for the crimes, Inyo County is the proper venue for the probate proceeding.

Now, on to the people who have made a claim on Charles Manson's estate and those who have a legal right to do so by virtue of actually being legally related to Charlie.

Manson had a son by Rosalie, his first wife. Charles Milles Manson born in 1956 in LA. Rosalie divorced Charlie while he was in prison and was remarried Nov. 8 1958 to Jack White. Her second son Jesse White was born Feb. 3 1958 in LA before her divorce from Charlie was final. Jed White was born Apr. 4 1959 in Riverside County CA. Shortly after that the whole family moved to Cadiz Ohio. Charlie Jr changed his name to Charles Jay White. He married Elizabeth Noel July 5 1985 in Clark County Nevada. They had a son Paul Jay White Jan. 25 1986 in Galveston County TX.

So, Charles JR., who Jason Freeman claims is his father, actually did have a son who is legitimately Charlie's biological grandson.  Note that in Rosalie's obit in the above link that Jason Freeman is not named as her grandson.  Rosalie would have been every much a grandparent as Charlie. Did Freeman ever try to connect with her or was he only interested in riding Charlie's coattails?

Manson's marriage to Leona Musser is a little murkier but they did get a legal divorce and in the divorce papers it does say the Charles Luther Manson was his son. Charles Luther was married and had two daughters, Angela and Starla. He changed his name to Jay Charles Warner, BTW.

So, there are two more grandchildren, children of Charlie's sons - both named Jay.

None of the three legitimate grandchildren have laid claim to Charlie's estate.

Jason Freeman... His mother's maiden name was Freeman, he was born out of wedlock Sept. 2, 1976. We'd bet dollars to donuts that his birth certificate says "father unknown" but we haven't seen it.

Matthew Roberts... It is unknown if Charlie is really his father despite the fact that he does have a resemblance. However, Matthew was adopted as an infant so he has no legal claim to Charlie, in our opinion. An adopted child has no legal claim to their birth parents or anyone in their birth family, so it's silly to think any adopted person could make the claim that Matthew Roberts is trying to make. The will that was presented looks phonier than a three dollar bill, too. It is made on an online will form and it does not even look like Charlie's signature on it. It is included below. The red box is around the url of where the will form came from.

Upon reading it if you thought "Oops, you are missing a witness"... then you are thinking like us. Doesn't ANY will require at least two witnesses to attest to the sound mind and absence of coercion?  It seems to us that this will is invalid on its face.

This is the will that Michael Channels submitted to the court.  It was posted online by TMZ and was heavily redacted by them.  This will appears to have been written on a form provided by the prison and filed with the prison.

These are the requirements for a valid will.

_____

California Probate Code Section 6110:

"(a) Except as provided in this part, a will shall be in writing and satisfy the requirements of this section.

(b) The will shall be signed by one of the following:

(1) By the testator.

(2) In the testator’s name by some other person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction.

(3) By a conservator pursuant to a court order to make a will under Section 2580.

(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the will shall be witnessed by being signed, during the testator’s lifetime, by at least two persons each of whom

(A) being present at the same time, witnessed either the signing of the will or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or of the will and

(B) understand that the instrument they sign is the testator’s will.

(2) If a will was not executed in compliance with paragraph (1), the will shall be treated as if it was executed in compliance with that paragraph if the proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time the testator signed the will, the testator intended the will to constitute the testator’s will."

_____

The underlined words are the key, legal jargon. This is why Roberts has a problem. The will can be valid if not witnessed correctly but the standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ is a tough one to reach in court. 

The usual standard in a civil matter is ‘a preponderance of the evidence’. Think of the standard this way: you have to prove you are 51% right or win 51-49. In a criminal case the standard is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ or by 99% (99-1). ‘Clear and convincing’ is somewhere in between and means Roberts has to prove he is 75% right (75-25). That is hard to do, especially if all Roberts has is the will.

Michael Brunner was adopted by Mary Brunner's parents, George and Elsie Brunner. So, the same adopted argument prevails. He is no longer legally Manson's son.

Here is 'legally' why.

"An adoption severs the relationship of parent and child between an adopted person and a natural parent of the adopted person unless both of the following requirements are satisfied: [the exceptions are not relevant here]" (California Probate Code Section 6451)

A 'completed' adoption severs the right of a child to inherit from their biological parent unless that parent 'contractually' provides for it. In other words, leaves something in a will. The key is 'completed'. There is a difference between 'giving the child up for adoption' and adopted. As long as Michael Brunner et al were adopted they are cut off absent a will.

David and DebS contributed to this post.