"The Hinman Murder Motive" - A Closer Look

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

               - Charles Manson at his 1992 Parole Hearing


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

               - John Locke




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

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

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

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

Bobby  




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Of course Bobby also said:

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

And

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At Bobby's trial Danny said:

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

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

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

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

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

 Danny repeating what he says Bobby told him:

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

The medical examiner under Direct at people versus Beausoleil:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Bobby said in an interview:

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

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

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

Well, Bobby would:

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


Sigh.....


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

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


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



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




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


                                                                 

                                                        -Your Favorite Saint

The Governor's Statement About Bruce's Refusal

In the past Michael Beckman, Bruce Davis's attorney, has sent me the letter he gets from the Governor's office with the reasons for his refusal to allow Bruce to be paroled.  This year Mr. Beckman did not receive a letter from the Governor's office until today, Tuesday January 26th.  How Mr. Beckman found out that Bruce was refused was in a voice mail left for him by the Associated Press wanting a statement from him.  Hummmm, the press is notified before the prisoner or his attorney!

Here is this year's statement from Governor Brown. 



Governor Brown has again vetoed Bruce's parole

 

 

 

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown rejected parole for a third time Friday for a follower of cult leader Charles Manson 46 years after a series of bloody murders rocked Southern California.

Bruce Davis was convicted of the 1969 slayings of musician Gary Hinman and stuntman Donald "Shorty" Shea. He was not involved in the more notorious killings of actress Sharon Tate and six others.

Brown said that the 73-year-old Davis remains a danger to public safety, saying in his decision that the "horror of the murders committed by the Manson Family in 1969 and the fear they instilled in the public will never be forgotten."

 

Read the rest of the story at SFGATE.

Manson Family Lookalikes!

You may think "The Manson Family" had a unique look and were one of kind in behavior AND appearance, but, as it turns out, that simply isn't true. They say everyone has a twin somewhere, right? From Sadie Mae Glutz's slender skull to Danny DeCarlo's push broom bristles, you will be amazed at the common characteristics this felonious family shares with...well, a lot of different things. Let's take a look:

First up, we have the patriarch of the "First Family Of Terror" Charles Milles Manson, aka Jesus Christ, God, The Dirt Devil, Pecker Smalls:

Next we have the oh-not-so-sexy-one of the group. Rumor had it that she was constantly "fishing" for complements:

 

Third in line, we have the former bible student who went on to "teach" oral communications at the Longhorn Saloon, located, some have said, miles from civilization in a land that seemed lost:

 

A horse is a horse, of course, of course, and no one can talk to a horse, of course, that is, of course, unless the horse is the infamous Lulu Van Toothahavin:

I'm too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for my shirt, so sexy it hurts.......other people:

The parole board always has this man sitting around in a sickening stab of suspense, where all he can do is present Halloween favorites in the TV room at the prison house:

This steaming pile of horsehockey fancies himself a holy man where he spends countless days farting in the prison chapel, appropriately named, "The Church of Fecal Wonder." The resemblance to his lookalike is simply uncanny:

Up next, we have the very first female member of the motley crew of smells, Mary "The Chin Gigantica" Brunner:

This blockhead of clay loved ground squirrels & chuckers so much, he was willing to forewarn them about beasties a comin' down the road. Too bad he didn't feel the same way about ranch hands:

This malevolent mouse was a jack off jack of all trades. From preparing a dumpster dinner to crooning out creepy songs, she was the "man," literally:

Up next, this whiskered, small mammal with a robust body, short limbs and a long.....Oops. I'm sorry. I was describing some sort of rodent....or was I?:

Now, turn your attention to this bohemian bad girl who loved to belch on command, smoke herbal delights, pick an occasional nose, dance and blow various pipes. You know, the musical kind:

Who was responsible for all the dirt, grime & grease at Spahn Ranch? Give up? I'll give you a hint:

"Yana the Witch" made her way to Spahn's ditch to eat a sausage sandwich, only to get ill from not taking the pill and now has a litter of three:

 

Blinded by her hate for hamburgers, this dirty damsel destroyed a sandwich on the way to catch a flight one sunny afternoon. What did a hamburger ever do to her?:

Frankly my dear, this young lad didn't give a damn if you looked like a trout with hair, or a tumbleweed with eyes, you were gonna get laid:

My, what a shy, long-suffering muppet who sat on a tuffet for days on in, wearing his kickers with a load in his knickers. If he only had a brain....

This young girl only wanted a broiled, beef Whopper, fresh with everything on topper, anyway she thought was proper, minus the mind-altering secret sauce:

Rumor has it that this "Curlicue of cuteness" was said to be highly skilled at the art of copulation. Not so good was her skill at getting rumors correct, however:

This young snake with the last name Lake loved to shake, rake, bake, eat cake and when awake, partake in slithering through the grass on a hot, summer day.

As a pubescent with plenty of pubes, this young creature made her first feature, on the floor of the saloon with a midget named Bridget, plus a donkey and a honky:

Not much is known about this fuzzy little scuzzy from the coast. Let's hope she found a good home and a bathtub:

Not much is known about this "eyes without a face" except she "popped out" of nowhere and made herself at home amongst the flies at Spahn ranch:

This ends our lookalike list for now. We hope you enjoyed. We will be back real soon with "Manson Family Lookalikes # 2: The Associates" in the near future. Remember, kids, this is only a blog. My postings are not meant to cause offense, so chill.....it's not everyday that you get to read the ramblings of a lunatic, right?

Ruth Ann Morehouse 1975 address in Sacramento, CA

Sacramento Bee
October 8 1975

Sacramento police yesterday arrested Charles Manson follower Ruth Ann Morehouse, 22,  on a number of charges including burglary and conspiracy to commit murder.

Miss Morehouse, known to the Manson followers as "Ouisch," was arrested at an apartment at 2453 Rio Linda Blvd. and served with the Los Angeles warrant. She offered no resistance.

The FBI said today that her Sacramento address was learned during investigations following Miss Fromme's alleged attempt to assasinate President Ford.

In 1971, Miss Morehouse was convicted of feeding an overdose of LSD in a hamburger to a prosecution witness in the Tate-La Bianca murder trial.  The prosecution in that case said Miss Morehouse, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, Catherine "Gypsy" Share, Steven Grogan and Dennis Rice lured Manson family member Barbara Hoyt to Honolulu and fed her the LSD to keep her from testifying against Manson.

Nine months pregnant, she disappeared before her four codefendants, including Miss Fromme, were sentenced to 90 days in jail.

The manager of the apartment complex where she was arrested said Miss Morehouse had lived there since April 18.  She had given the name Ruth Fowler and was living with two small children and a man who identified himself as Ray Bones.

Asked if he had ever seen Miss Fromme or her roommate Sandra Good at the apartment, the manager said, "They haven't had any visitors like that."

He said "They didn't leave the apartment that much. I never saw anything unusual."

Prior to coming to Sacramento, Miss Morehouse had been living in the Carson City, Nev. area, authorities said. Investigators in the Tate-LaBianca case apparently had known of her whereabouts then but didn't think it was worth trying to extradite her.

Miss Morehouse joined the Manson Family when she was 15 years old. According to Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's book, Helter Skelter, her father, Dean Morehouse, went to Spahn Ranch to kill Manson for stealing his daughter. "He ended up on his knees worshiping him."

She is expected to be transferred to Los Angeles later Today or Tomorrow.

Thanks to friend of the blog Stoner Van Houten and to DebS for their fine detective work. You can view Stoner's video of this site here.

The Following is an exchange between Robert Hendrickson and Vincent Bugliosi after the publication of the below article

THE ORIGINAL ROBERT HENDRICKSON ARTICLE

LAPD Scandal and Vincent Bugliosi

February 16, 2000

It seems that in Los Angeles you can't even escape the "LAPD SCANDAL" long enough to have a quiet dinner and take in a movie. We're up to victim's blood splattering on police station walls and carpets, so God, What's next?

This entire event is unfolding just like the Manson Case did 30 years ago. The only difference is murder is now spelled phonetically S C A N D A L.

That police brutality is news to only one black man in these United States (the Chief of police) speaks dramatically to the question of cover up and or conspiracy. And that the mayor and members of the LA City Council would undoubtedly refuse to take polygraph tests only raises more suspicion of complicity.

If you are watching the sinful crumbling of the once great city named Los Angeles, you can see that the standard setup for the little guy to take the fall is already in progress.

But if you, like us, wish to see the actual responsible parties take their due, perhaps you would agree that there is only ONE solution. This is to take the 9 million dollars Bernie Fife wants to con L.A. out of and give it to, none other than, Vincent Bugliosi. Appoint Mr. Bugliosi as Special Prosecutor, just like the famed Kenneth Starr was.

Please understand, we do not endorse or recommend Mr. Bugliosi, as a particular person, nor are we affiliated with him in any way, but we acknowledge that he is quite possibly the ONLY man alive qualified to get the necessary complicity convictions of the higher ups. He has proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he can accomplish such a feat as evidenced by his record in the Mason Case.

The parallels between the "Manson Case" and the "LAPD Scandal", what with idiots doing the bidding of their leaders are almost exacting and trust us on this one, ONLY a Bugliosi will bet justified conspiracy convictions. It's time we all stop accepting the practice of letting the little guy take the fall.

As for all the deranged cops that have gotten off for so long on the LAPD time honored exercise of Nazi-bation, we suspect most of those little cowards will run and hide at just the thought of Mr. "B" riding into town. And those that don't run will surely prove just how mentally defective they really are.

If you wish to comment on the above opinion, tell us your thoughts and if you are about to be a fall guy, tell us what you know and we'll publish it, only if you so request.

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


Hendrickson: "Because Mr "B" has claimed that HE ONLY uses an old typewriter and does NOT even own a computer, this may be the ONLY email of its kind."

BUGLIOSI RESPONDS

Whoever you are, you are obviously a conspiracy theorist and an idiot. Your "pigeon English" and failure to construct a logical line of reasoning clearly indicates that you have no credibility - or education, for that matter - and should simply be ignored. Your disjointed ranting goes nowhere and would undoubtedly fail to go any further even if you had the slightest grasp of proper grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling.

Nevertheless, here's where your reasoning is flawed. First, polygraph tests are so unreliable that they are barred from being introduced into evidence in a court of law. Yet, you want to hold them - or someone's unwillingness to submit to them - up as proof positive evidence. This makes no more sense than O.J. Simpson's defense. It's nothing more than a bunch of garbage without any foundation in reality. The fact of the matter is that you need credible, reliable evidence to back up your claims. In the absence of such, you have nothing more than the ability to raise eyebrows in the audience at a Jerry Springer Show taping.

Next, you completely contradict yourself. First you say this matter should be if away from the control of "Bernie Fife" - in reality the name is Barney Fife, just another incident in which your obvious and blatant stupidity rears its ugly head - and place it in the hands of ‘none other than" Vincent Bugliosi. Shortly thereafter, you say you "do not endorse or recommend Mr. Bugliosi, (sic) as a particular person..." That makes no more sense than the rest of your utterly stupid blithering. That is a complete and total contradiction. It makes as much sense as saying, "This is black, though it is not really black at all, but really white and completely white at that."

Third, what the hell does convicting Charles Manson of the Tate-LaBianca murders have to do with your "SCANDAL". That was a murder trial, not a scandal. The only thing remotely scandalous was the fact that these crimes were very high profile - due to the victims chosen - and the particularly gruesome way in which they were carried out. Furthermore, the challenging part of that case was convincing a jury that Manson was convinced that the Beatles were speaking to him through their music, that Helter Skelter was his way of igniting a race war that would ultimately leave Manson himself in charge of the world, and that Manson exerted control over a bunch of hippies to the extent of controlling even their sex lives. Is that what you're claiming, that this alleged "SCANDAL" involves a musical group communicating with its perpetrator(s), that the ultimate goal is igniting a race war to empower the perpetrator(s), and that it involves controlling every last detail of these people's lives? From your ineloquent ravings, it sounds more like an internal matter to be handled within an organization.

Finally you claim resolution of this matter might show "how mentally defective (these people) are." Sir, I suggest your website merely shows how mentally defective you and anyone who would buy into your ridiculous rhetoric and far-fetched notions are.

It's been said that , a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If that's true, then I'm afraid you, sir, are extremely dangerous.

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


HENDRICKSON RESPONSE

Dear Mr. Bugliosi:

Because you appear to comprehend the complicated world of the English language, would you be so kind as to explain to us, in layman's terms, the meaning of the following?

1) "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right.... to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense."

2) "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Also, because you were deeply involved in the decision making process, with respect to "The Court Trial of the Century", could you explain the LEGAL grounds upon which Charles Manson was denied his Constitutional Right to represent himself with "the assistance of counsel"?

We humbly await your reply.

P.S. Please don't misinterpret our motives. We really don't give a damn whether MANSON is innocent, guilty, another messiah or just a mass murderer, but if the sacred Constitution upon which the glorious United States was founded has been reduced to a mere piece of' Ebay memorabilia, then we would like to inform our many listeners worldwide, that America just isn't what its forefathers had in mind.

By the way, it was uneducated Blacks, Mexicans and poor White folk that spilled their blood on battlefields so that YOU could attend the college of your choice. We certainly hope to help break that bad habit.

And while we have your attention, we have a most serious question, With respect to the LAPD SCANDAL if police officers have become such good actors that not even educated "officers of' the Court" can detect their false testimony, how can ordinary jury folk or "moon rocks" as one famous prosecutor describes them, be expected to make JUST decisions?

We, unlike the traditional media, are offering you a worldwide forum in which to express yourself UNEDITED and UNCENSORED and we admire your passion.

By the way again, in the third paragraph of' your letter, you make a comment with regard to our "utterly stupid blithering" in the context "This is black, though it is not really black at all, but really white and completely white at that."

Welcome to the 21st Century Mr. Bugliosi, the dinosaurs are gone and it's a NEW age. The following is a full-page advertisement taken from a recent national publication.

Now, pretend you are a detective and see how many inconsistencies or gray areas you can find in this NEW media ploy to raise money for low-income lawyers.

The Watson-Kasabian Dynamic

I think that one of the most overlooked relationships amongst the people connected with the Tate-LaBianca murders was (and is) the one between Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian. Going further, I would also contend that the personal interaction between Watson and Kasabian had much more to do with the murders on Cielo and Waverly Drives than any sinister plan on the part of Charles Manson. 

Charles "Tex" Watson

Linda "Yana" Kasabian

Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian had one of the more identifiable relationships of all of the characters living at Spahn's Movie Ranch in July and August of 1969. That relationship was based on two things: sex and criminality.

That Watson and Kasabian were bonded by sex is well known, because by both of their accounts their lovemaking was profound.  In his book Will You Die For Me? Watson remembered Kasabian's arrival at Spahn's Ranch on July 4, 1969 and their subsequent night together: "Linda joined the Family that same day, without even meeting Charlie, and that night I introduced her to our truth. Linda later said that when we made love it was like being possessed. For me it was a more complete sensation of oneness than I'd ever known with a woman. It was as if our two bodies literally became one and it was no longer possible to feel where I ended and she began. Linda and I talked very late that night, just the two of us in a little room in the ranch house. I told her she should steal some money that the man she'd been staying with had inherited, and when she protested that she couldn't do that, since he was a good friend who trusted her, I quoted Charlie and told her that there was no wrong, no sin; everything anyone had was meant to be shared. Linda had already given the Family whatever she owned and the next day she went back to Topanga and returned a little while later with $5,000 she'd ripped off according to my instructions." (all emphasis added)

At his murder trial Watson elaborated on why he thought he was such an impressive lover of Kasabian: 

 Sam Bubrick (Watson's defense attorney): "The first time you saw Linda, wasn't it about three or four minutes later that you were making love to her?"

Charles Watson: "That is correct."

SB: "What was it about Linda that caused you to be so amorous?"

CW: "Well, I guess the fact that she was a new girl there and that all the other girls, they kind of looked down upon me because they were all with the family before I was and they saw how straight I was when I first got there, and that was always in my mind and their mind too, I believe."

Kasabian was equally impressed by her initial tryst with Watson. Talking to Vincent Bugliosi while preparing her testimony for the murder trial, Kasabian recalled that when she was having sex with Watson she felt as though she was "possessed," and during her testimony at the murder trial (transcript pages 5570-5571) she said:

LInda Kasabian: "Well, first I will have to explain to you the night of July the 4th."

Paul Fitzgerald (Attorney for Patricia Krenwinkel): "Okay."

LK: "I met Tex, and Tex took me into a dark shed, shack, whatever you want to call it, and he made love to me, which was an experience that I had never had before."

PF: "You had never had sexual intercourse before?"

LK: "No. I'm saying that the experience I had in making love with Tex was a total experience, it was different."

PF: "In what respect?"

LK: "That my hands were clenched when it was all over and I had absolutely no will power to open my own hands, and I was very much afraid, I didn't understand it.

"And I questioned Gypsy about it later and she told me it was my ego that was dying."

It's certainly true that a short or even singular sexual relationship can affect a person for the rest of their lives. That is what I think happened here. I think that Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian bonded through their sexual interaction and that a special relationship existed between them. And I also think that that relationship endured throughout the murder trials and indeed continues to this day. 

Watson and Kasabian were also bonded by their shared criminality. Watson's criminal inclinations are well known, from his days in Texas when he drunkenly broke into his old high school and stole some typewriters as part of a fraternity initiation, through his time in Hollywood when he supported himself by low level drug dealing, to his lying to the army to get a deferment, to his amateurish ripoff of Bernard Crowe on July 1, 1969 (just three days before Linda Kasabian arrived at Spahn's Ranch), and finally to his ending up as one of the most notorious mass murderers in American history. 

And Linda Kasabian was no stranger to the shady side of life either. She had been around quite a bit before she even arrived at Spahn's ranch. As her one-time panhandling partner Sandra Good later succinctly recalled, "She was experienced." After the murders at the Polanski and LaBianca residences Kasabian stole a car from a ranch hand at Spahn's to flee the Los Angeles area. Eventually arriving at her father's residence in Florida, he shortly thereafter evicted her because he suspected her of stealing items from his apartment and selling them to buy drugs. And before she was finally arrested at the beginning of December of 1969 she evasively never mentioned the crimes she was involved in to any member of law enforcement or "the Establishment" even though she had ample opportunities to do so.

Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian were partners and soul mates -- both in love and in crime. 

*      *      *

Linda Kasabian came to Spahn's Ranch on July 4, 1969, brought there by Catherine "Gypsy" Share, who had met her at the home of mutual friend Charles Melton. (Kasabian had been briefly staying at Melton's while attempting a reconciliation with her husband Robert, but the reconciliation didn't work out.) Upon her arrival at the ranch one of the first persons she met was Charles Watson. On that first day the pair hung out together, made love, shared drugs, and at some point decided to steal $5,000 from Melton, a theft that Kasabian carried out the next day before she even ever met Charles Manson. (Kasabian says that Watson encouraged her to steal the money. Watson denied this while testifying at his own murder trial, but later, in his book, said that he suggested that she take Melton's money.)

That this $5,000 theft was a major indicator of Kasabian's criminal nature was recognized by Manson Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who succeeded in having any mention of the theft excluded from the Tate-LaBianca murder trial based on the legal principle that a witness's criminal history can only be mentioned if they have been convicted of a crime. In the case of the stolen $5,000 there was no legal process leading to a criminal conviction. But the technical fact that Kasabian never faced any legal consequences for the theft doesn't make the theft any less serious. (And to give the reader an idea of just how serious that theft was, consider that $5,000 in 1969 dollars would be worth a little over $33,000 today. In other words, Linda Kasabian stole a substantial amount of money.)

The primary driving motive for the Tate-LaBianca murders was to commit a series of copycat murders that would convince the police that Bobby Beausoleil didn't kill Gary Hinman. (You can say that it wasn't, but it was. There might have been other considerations in the minds of the people who killed on August 8 and 9, 1969, but the primary reason why they drove away from Spahn's Ranch on those two nights was to do something to help Bobby Beausoleil, who had been arrested for Hinman's murder only a few days previously.) Everybody at Spahn's Ranch wanted Bobby Beausoleil out of jail. But nobody did more so than Charles Manson, who knew that Beausoleil had killed Hinman to keep him from going to the police after Manson had cut his ear during an earlier violent underworld occurrence. When Manson wanted something done to free Beausoleil he summoned the people who owed him favors and told them to "do something."

All of the people at Spahn's Ranch owed Charles Manson generally for his shooting and presumed killing of Bernard Crowe to protect them from his threatened retaliation after being ripped off by Charles Watson. But some people owed Manson more than others. Charles Watson, of course, owed Manson because he was the one who put the drug burn in motion that led to Manson's shooting of Crowe in the first place. Susan Atkins owed Manson for times when he had resolved problems brought on by some of her careless social interactions, including her thievery involving hashish. Linda Kasabian owed him for when he smoothed over the problem of Robert Kasabian and Charles Meltion coming to the ranch and making a big stink about her stealing Melton's money and threatening to turn the theft into a huge law enforcement issue, or worse.

But the biggest debt by far was owed by Watson, who had forced Manson to (he thought) commit murder in order to straighten out the Crowe mess. Thus was Watson sternly assigned by Manson the task of "doing something" to get Beausoliel out of jail. Out of that command arose discussions around the ranch of what could be done. Out of those discussions arose the half-baked and stupid copycat motive. Was Linda Kasabian a part of those discussions? No one knows for sure, but it is not unreasonable to assume that she had some input into ways to deal with the demand that Manson put onto her lover and partner in crime.

At the murder trial Catherine Share testified that the "copycat motive" was Linda's idea. Certainly anything Share says should be taken with a Death Valley salt flat, but it is not too hard to imagine Kasabian being part of the discussion or planning that led to the ill-conceived copycat plan. She was, after all, criminally inclined, as her eager theft of Charles Melton's $5,000 demonstrated. Also, because of her intense and impressive sexual encounter with Charles Watson, she very possibly held him in a special regard, despite her denials during the trial that she loved Watson any more than she did any of the other men she made love with during her six weeks at Spahn's Ranch (including, not incidentally, Bobby Beausoleil). Thus she might have been especially interested in coming up a with a plan that would both free Beausoleil and get Watson off the hook with a furious Manson.

The prosecution has always claimed that the only reason ranch newcomer Kasabian went along on the murder nights was because she was the only person at Spahn's Ranch with a valid driver's license. But this contention is laughable and is in no way a credible reason for her being in the car. I mean, if you were sending people out to commit an atrocious crime would you really want to send with them a newcomer that you don't really know simply for the legal advantage of  her having a valid driver's license? And if you were on your way to commit mass murder in a borrowed car bearing the wrong license plates, with a rope, bolt cutters, several knives, and a gun, would there really be any reason to have someone along with a valid driver's license? (In fact, having a real driver's license along on such an endeavor would be the exact opposite of what you would want to do if you thought there was a likelihood that you would encounter the police.) And what, really, is the likelihood that Kasabian even really was the only person with a valid driver's license amongst the fifteen or so "Manson Family members" who were present at Spahn's Ranch on those nights? 

Kasabian's activities at Cielo Drive are also inconsistent with the behavior of an innocent bystander. There, Watson sent her around the house to reconnoiter the layout and accessibility of the premises. Later, he had her stand lookout by Steven Parent's car while he and Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel entered the house. Neither of these tasks are  assignments that would be given to a group's weakest link. After the murders, Watson chewed Kasabian out for abandoning her lookout post and returning to the car at the bottom of the Cielo Drive cul-de-sac after her nightmarish encounter with a bludgeoned and bloody Voytek Frykowski at the front porch of the Polanski house. And as the killers were fleeing the scene, Watson assigned her the task of ditching the murder weapons and had her hold the steering wheel while he changed out of his bloody clothing. 

(Much of all of this, incidentally, is at variance with the testimony that Watson gave at his own murder trial in 1971. While completely uninformative as to why the group went out to commit murder on the first night, he says that Kasabian was driving the car while he rode in the back seat. He also says that Kasabian provided him with the bolt cutters that he used to cut the wires leading into the Polanski property on Cielo Drive and that she drove the car when the killers left the murder scene.)

Lending further credence to the possibility of a special Watson-Kasabian dynamic are the details of the killers' recollections of the second night of murder, when the carload of people from Spahn's Ranch went on a supposed city-wide search for potential murder victims. At his own trial for murder Watson testified that he didn't remember much of the ride that night before the group arrived at Waverly Drive. But by the time he wrote Will You Die For Me? seven years later his recollection accurately mirrored that of Linda Kasabian. Did Watson actually later remember the exact same chain of events that Kasabian did? Or was he merely parroting the story put forth by his former lover in order to provide her version of events with false corroboration?

And yet another bond between the Watson-Kasabian pair is an apparent affection that the two have demonstrated for the type of drug generally referred to as "speed." 

Charles Watson's affinity for the drug is well known. He has recalled his extensive use of speed many times in his book and elsewhere. At his 2001 parole hearing he remembered, "There was a friend of mine across the street, that had the ranch across the street. He had obtained an ounce of it and had given me a jar of it. And Susan Atkins and myself and one other was sniffing the methamphetamine." Was the "one other" Charles Watson referred to at this parole hearing Linda Kasabian? And was Watson still being protective of her by not naming here over thirty years after the murders because he still had special feelings for her?

On Linda Kasabian's part there is not much contemporary evidence of her favoring speed in 1969, but the substance was Watson's drug of choice at that time and it is therefore highly likely that she indulged in it with him while they were together, perhaps even from the first night that they met. Also, Kasabian is known to have had experiences with speed later in her life, some of which experiences led her to have negative encounters with law enforcement. 

In the 2009 History Channel "drama-documentary" Manson, Kasabian made her first extensive public statements about the murders in almost forty years. In the program she practically beamed when talking about her early idyllic days at Spahn's Ranch. She described Charles Watson as gruff and creepy but with beautiful eyes and a beautiful smile. She was attracted to him. Regarding their love-making she said, "He made me feel like I'd never felt before." Although Kasabian's theft of Charles Melton's money was recounted in the show there was no mention whatsoever of the Bernard Crowe burn and the resulting threatened and real violence. Thus, the "Family's" sudden transformation from a peace and love commune into a paranoid and armed camp was left unexplained. Kasabian did say that the killers in the car the first night had taken speed (white pills supplied by Charles Manson) and also that she took Steven Parent's wallet from his corpse after he was shot to death and scouted out the rear area of the Polanski house. In recalling the actual murders she affected weeping but there were no tears. At the conclusion of the program she said, "I could never accept the fact that I was not punished for my involvement in this tragedy. I feel then what I feel now, always, and forever, that it was a waste. It was a waste of life that had no reason. No rhyme. It was wrong. And it hurt a lot of people. Still now, today, and always forever."

Linda Kasabian -- was she really just a poor innocent hippie girl who accidentally fell in with a group of ruthless murderers? Or was she a tough, amoral, and criminally inclined individual who willingly participated in (or maybe even instigated) some of America's most infamous murders? And are she and Charles "Tex" Watson still engaged in a life-long special relationship based on their shared experiences at Spahn's Ranch? Are they like the characters in German folklore known as Doppelgänger (literally "double goers"), biologically unrelated persons who nearly or completely resemble one another? In the folklore when someone meets their Doppelgänger it is an omen of impending death. Perhaps Watson and Kasabian are life-long soul mates, and perhaps they are not. But whatever the true nature of the relationship between Charles Watson and Linda Kasabian was or is, no one can deny that death followed in the wake of their fateful introduction to each other on July 4, 1969.

Sanders New Book

Both Matt and myself have Sanders new book Sharon Tate- A Life.  We are both trying to read it but we are having trouble because it's so damn bad.  Speculation and flights of fancy abound.  We have agreed to each work on certain parts of the book and present a book report together.  So stay tuned.

When Sanders wrote his first book, The Family, veteran reporter Mary Neiswender who covered the Tate  LaBianca trial for the Long Beach Independent did a review.  In the opening paragraph she proffered an alternative title for the book "Rumors I Have Heard Or Thought About Re: Manson, Cults, Weirdos, Etc." .  This would have been a great title for the new book!

Transcribed:

Manson book mixes fact and fancy

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK
Mary Neiswender

"The Family — The Story of Charles Manson's Dune Buggy Attack Battalion." (E. P. Dutton & Co., $8.95) by former Free Press writer Ed Sanders should have been entitled “’Rumors I Have Heard or Thought About Re. Manson, Cults, Weirdos, Etc.”

It's 412 pages of journalistic minutiae, put together in an attempt to show the “real" Charles Manson, the "real" Manson Famiiy and the "real” blood-and-guts behind the Tate-LaBianca killings and any other murder that looked or sounded similar.

But what it really shows instead is a massive amount of disjointed stories tied together with the now-infamous name of Charles Mlles Manson.

HOWEVER, it's a fantastic piece of journalism. No one I know except the long-haired, always-digging Sanders could come up with all the fact-and-fiction he did, then get it all down chronologically as well as comprehensively.

If you're not used to underground press phraseology - shock instead of sharpness - some of the tales may raise year eyebrows. But, to Ed's credit, there are fewer four-letter words in his book than there were in any one of the Manson articles he wrote for the Free Press.

Although Sanders uses many dates that don't match with the faces (they may be typographical errors), many of his "facts" sound more like the writer's Imagination than Manson’s actions. And, In many of the shady arrests of the Manson story, Sanders uses rumor to fill the void where no  known facts are available.

BUT THEN, no one - except the hippie chief himself - knows how to fill those voids accurately.

Sanders seems to gloss over this "real" Manson - and this also may be because no one really knows the "real" Manson. Sanders apparently hasn't talked with Manson sufficiently - if at all on nitty-gritty matters - to illuminate the subject.

Sanders himself seems confused about what he thinks Manson is all about. But that's understandable too.

He accepts the courtroom testimony of Juan Flynn, a Spahn ranch hand, without question.

WHEN I FIRST interviewed the curly-haired Panamanian at Spahn Ranch a few days after Manson was arrested, he was quoting the Bible and telling anyone who would listen what a rotten guy Manson wae oed what a rotten VD-infeelod bunch of girls he had.

A few months later, I saw the same Juan Flynn in a corridor of the Hall of Justice playing "hand love" with one of Manson's girl “followers and telling television reporters Manson was his "brother" and the greatest guy since Jesus Christ.

When he got an the witness stand, he was back to his his first stories - only vastly expanded and strengthened.

AT THIS POINT I don't think even Juan Flynn knows where he stands, but Sanders took his courtroom testimony only - without hedging his bet, or letting tits readers know the background.

Sanders apparently did the same with other Manson "contacts."

There are a lot of questions Sanders left unanswered in his book - but the answers probably will never be known until Manson tells his own story, if he ever does.

Until then, Sanders' book is the most detailed on the subject to come out… even though the details have a little to be desired.

What I’m waiting for now is Sanders' next book -  which he told me a few months ago would be on another carachter: Richard Milhous Nixon.