The Voodoo King (of Detroit) and the Origin of Helter Skelter

 I am not the first person to discuss this topic. Starviego already did so here: http://www.mansonblog.com/search/label/Zebra%20murders. 

So to some extent this is a bit of a rehash.

I started down this road because “Mr. H” used to mention the ‘Black Muslims’ in many of his posts. I wanted to try to figure out what his posts meant and in the process discovered ‘The Voodoo King (of Detroit)’, which took me back to my youth.

I was born in Detroit and spent my grammar school days in Cleveland, Ohio. Every summer my parents would drop my brother and I off at our grandparents in Detroit for a week, and every summer we’d have a ‘sleep over’ with all of my cousins. As we settled down for bed and my grandmother said goodnight, my grandfather would come in and tell us about the ‘Voodoo King of Detroit’ and how his followers would come for us in the middle of the night and stab us in the heart. His story always ended with the warning that, ‘they’ will be 'coming for you while you sleep tonight'. This was usually followed by my grandmother's insistence that he, ‘Stop it!’

Years later I WAS lurking AROUND this BLOG reading Mr. Hendrickson's COMMENTS about BLACK Muslims AND Manson. I decided to research that and like Starviego, I found the Voodoo King (of Detroit). 

Wallace D. Fard (He's not the Voodoo King)

Contemporary, Detroit, newspapers call him Wallace D. 'Farad' but every other historical record says 'Fard'. Wallace D. Fard is the original source for what later came to be called ‘Helter Skelter’ by Charles Manson. That is him below.

According to the FBI, Fard was born Wallace Ford in Portland, Oregon February 25, 1891. His parents were Zared Ford and Beatrice Ford, both born in Hawaii.

The FBI file claims Fard was arrested in Los Angeles for assault in 1918 and on narcotics charges in 1926. On the second charge, he spent three years in San Quentin. (FBI Records: The Vault, Wallace Fard Muhammed, Parts 1-7.)

Wallace D. Fard appears on the historical stage July 4, 1930 in Detroit, Michigan, where he is working as a door to door silk peddler selling to the African-American community. Fard had an East Indian appearance, and was a dapper dresser with perfect white teeth and according to the FBI, maroon eyes. He is described as being extremely likable and charismatic. 

While presenting his sales pitch to his potential buyer Fard would suddenly announce that they were ‘truly beautiful’ and ‘special’. Fard’s comments would alternate between flattery and strange, esoteric, references to the ‘lost-found people of Shabazz’. Fard would close the conversation by advising his listener that she (typically) was descended from scholars and kings and that ‘her people’ the ‘black’ race had invented the alphabet, calculus, astronomy and philosophy. The blacks, he would proclaim, were the elite race, God's chosen people and destined to 'rise!' and rule the world. 

He explained that this was a divine certainty because Allah had 'willed it to be so' hinting that he, Fard, was God’s divine messenger. All this was not going to happen sometime in the distant future but the listener was living in the time when Armageddon was going to occur. Fard would proclaim that the ‘white devils’ would soon be destroyed. (Zoe Colley, 'All America is a Prison', The Nation of Islam and the Politicization of African American Prisoners, 1955-1965, Journal of American Studies, 2014). Mystery Man Kelli B. Kavanaugh, Detroit Metro Times, March 5, 2003. Detroit Free Press, November 21-27, 1932.)

“Given the importance of Christianity to African American identity and culture, Fard’s teachings inevitably engaged with this aspect of black life. He made extensive use of the Bible, as the religious text with which African Americans were most familiar, to portray Christianity as the white man’s religion and a tool of racial control. In doing so, he sought to break the bond between African American identity and Christian values. However, at the same time as castigating Christianity as the product of white malevolence, Fard also appropriated elements of biblical discourse to produce a doctrine that, as Zafar Ansari has shown, bore “a greater degree of resemblance with Judaism and . . . especially Christianity than Islam.” (Colley)

Fard’s 'truth' included the story of Jacob (Yacub) and particularly the Book of Revelations, both stories Fard ‘translated’ from the ‘trickology’ of the ‘white devil’s words’ to their true meaning as revealed by Allah. And it went like this:

6500 years ago, the only race on earth was the black race. Then a mad scientist named Yacub created the other races, one at a time, by a technique known as ‘grafting’. As he did the ‘black’ race slowly became whiter and whiter until finally he created the ‘blue eyed, white devils’. These beings were totally evil, a murderous lot who could never be trusted because they spoke in riddles, confused and manipulated.  Fard had been sent to lead the chosen race to mastery of the world through the coming Armageddon. ( Kavanaugh)

Soon the ‘black people’ would ‘rise’. Some blacks, however, were ‘lost’. Some, unfortunately, would remain ignorant of the truth and many of the ‘lost’ would perish in the conflict. Blacks would fight blacks as well as whites. In the end the ‘black man’ would slay the white, each killing four by stabbing them in the heart and the world would belong to the blacks.

Between 1930 and 1932 Fard recruited a following estimated by authorities at between 8,000-9,000 from the African-American community in Detroit. He started a school known as 'The University of Islam' and a 'church' he named ''The Order of Islam' that he later called 'The Allah Temple of Islam'. Finally it came to be known as the Nation of Islam (NOI). 

All of this was designed to segregate the ‘chosen people’ from the influences of the white devil and allow them to cast off the teachings of the devil by living apart from the white devils until the Armageddon came.

Converts to this new religion were required as a first act to change their name. They must cast off their ‘slave name’ and abandon their past. Allah would reveal their true name through Fard. They must go simply by “X” to separate them from their slave master’s name until that day. The adherent could ask for such a name by using a pre-printed card, which Fard provided, by most accounts, for $2. In return Fard presented them with an ornate card, bearing their Muslim name, and, of course, collected his commission from the printing company. (Erdmann D. Benyon, The Voodoo Cult Among Negro Migrants in Detroit, American Journal of Sociology, 1938 and Kavanaugh.)

_____

"The true believer who becomes a Muslim was expected to cast off his old self and take on a new identity.  He was no longer a Negro, so long despised by the white man that he has come almost to despise himself.  Now he was a black man - divine ruler of the universe, different only in degree from Allah Himself.  This rebirth was commemorated by a change in name." (Lincoln, Dr. C. Eric. 1961, 1973.  The Black Muslim in America. Westport: Greenwood Press, Publishers)

_____

Fard's protégé was one, Elijah Robert Poole (whom he renamed, Elijah Mohamed). Until his death in 1975 he would head the NOI after Fard's sudden disappearance, officially, in 1934.

Everything seemed to be going smoothly for Fard. His following was growing in the African-American community. Donations and requests for non-slave names were pouring in. 

Then the wheels came off.

The Murder of JJ Smith

On Sunday, November 20, 1932 a follower of Fard, Robert Harris (soon to become known as the 'Voodoo King') murdered another African-American named James J. Smith. 

Harris explained to the court at his initial hearing that Smith agreed to die. Death, Harris explained, was not the end. ‘It will set Smith free and he will reach a higher state of being’. Smith, allegedly, consented to being stabbed in the heart (the preferred method for killing ‘white devils’ -although Smith was black) and beaten over the head with a car axle. Harris went on to explain to detectives about the coming race war and how Smith would now be a warrior in that war ‘inflicting fear on the white devil’. He also identified his inspiration: Fard.

Fard was arrested. Initially, Fard stuck to his story about the coming race war and his own divinity but denied telling Harris to kill Smith or telling Smith to volunteer to be sacrificed. 

In a typical response during less complicated times, Fard, Harris and another high-ranking member of the group, also arrested at the time, were sent to a psychiatric ward to determine their sanity. (Detroit Free Press, Monday, November 21-27, 1932)

According to the FBI Fard subsequently admitted the whole thing was a racket. Fard was released as long as he agreed to disband his 'cult' and leave Detroit forever. He agreed.

Fard relocated to Chicago but things didn’t go well there, either. On March 6, 1935, one of his followers was summoned to ‘Women’s Court’ for an altercation with another woman on the train. Some reports say the assailant pulled a knife on her victim.

About 100 ‘brothers and sisters’ showed up in court to support the accused, who asked for a 'warrant' for the other combatant's daughter who allegedly kicked her in the shin. About 100 police showed up to make sure things stayed calm. This filled the small courtroom and the crowd spilled over into the antechamber. The bailiff ordered the antechamber of the courtroom to be cleared. There was some confusion over which door to exit and a riot ensued. Shots were fired, knives and clubs were wielded and a police Captain died of a heart attack while diving into the fray. (Chicago Tribune, Wednesday March 6, 1935)

Fard wasn’t present and while the police were looking for him he and was never found. In fact, he disappeared forever. The NOI claims Fard disappeared a year earlier. In fact, Elijah Mohamed claimed he saw him climb onto an 'airplane' and ascend to heaven. That said, the papers in Chicago are pretty clear who the police wanted to interview: Wallace D. Fard. 

That’s why black prisoners become Muslims so fast when Elijah Muhammad’s teachings filter into their cages by way of other Muslim convicts. “The white man is the devil” is a perfect echo of that black convict’s lifelong experience.   

The Autobiography of Malcolm X.

By the early 1960's the NOI’s 'bastardization' of Islam was booming in the prison systems of the country.

(Aside: In 1961 C. Eric Lincoln in The Black Muslim in America coined the term "Black Muslim," thus distinguishing them from orthodox Muslims who he called "moslems" because the NOI is not Muslim.)

Sociologists observed at the time that this phenomenon was the product of two factors: the growing numerical dominance of African-Americans within the general prison population and the impact of the civil rights movement.

The process was bolstered, they said, by prison desegregation. The removal of racial barriers intensified racial conflict as white prisoners battled to retain territorial and formal control of the prison yard. (Colley)

_____

“Black Muslim’ prisoners distinguished themselves from other African American prisoners by shaving their heads and marking the “seal of Islam” on their foreheads with either cigarettes or caustic soap. (Colley)

_____

During the late fifties and early 1960’s prison and government officials offered increasingly shrill warnings about the growing strength of the ‘Black Muslims’ inside their correctional institutions.

By 1961 Time magazine was issuing a warning about "Black Muslims" in our prisons, referring to them as: "Negro supremacists dedicated to the extinction of the white race". (Recruits Behind Bars, Time, March, 1961) 

The establishment began to fret about the influence of the NOI on the 'negro' population as a whole, warning that blacks were being trained in prison by the NOI for a race war. They, it was claimed, would form the vanguard of the Fruit of Islam the 'security force' of the NOI, in the upcoming racial conflict. Prison officials were encouraged to ‘crack down’ on the ‘Black Muslims’ and solitary confinement soon became the home for many. (Colley)

Enter SCOTUS 

In 1965 the Supreme Court decided Cooper vs. Pate. In that case an inmate in an Illinois state prison argued that he was denied access to NOI publications (Muhammad Speaks) in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 solely because he was a 'Back Muslim'. A district court dismissed his claim saying, in essence, that he had no claim under the law because he was a prisoner. By a unanimous vote SCOTUS ruled that the inmate could bring suit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Prisoners did not lose their all their rights, the court reasoned, only those necessarily arising from their incarceration or to prevent future crimes. And the flood gates opened. 

Hundreds of lawsuits followed advocating for prisoner religious rights amongst other causes and seeking NOI literature, prayer rugs, special dietary accommodations and copies of the Quran.

These events conspired to create the appearance that there had been sudden upsurge in incarcerated ‘Black Muslims’. Statistically, that was not the case. By 1966 the NOI’s influence was actually waning, but ‘Black Muslims’ were now free to openly express themselves in prison and could sue if they were deprived of this right. They 'came out of the closet', so to speak, and did so suddenly and with little forewarning. 

And Charles Manson was in the thick of it. 

Manson and The Black Muslims

Robert Hendrickson: 

“The Muslim connection did not become significantly relevant to me until after 9/11, when in 2007, I
was putting “Inside the MANSON Gang” together and came across a copy of Clark Howard’s “Zebra”. Then, in 2008-10, the “transcribing” process became a series of “ah-ha” moments. I remembered Phil Phillips talking about his and Charlie’s relationship with Muslims in prison, but it was certain dialogue in “Zebra”, combined with specific “transcriptions” that really blew the Manson case wide open for me.

There are specific keywords, phrases and beliefs that Charles Manson could only have picked-up from the Black Muslims in prison, which are also expressed by the Black Muslims in “Zebra”. Thus, if Manson talked to Family members about a Black and White race war, he got the idea from the Black Muslims in prison. With regards to the Vietnam War, the Family and I discussed the issue at length. As for law enforcement threats and harassment, back then the friction was always apparent to me, but the issue of an actual violent conflict did not come to a full realization until I understood the transcriptions, more clearly.”

****

“At the time in the 1960’s, nobody even knew what a Black Muslim was, let alone an ordinary Muslim. First and foremost, Vincent Bugliosi was an attorney/prosecutor, who’s job was to get a jury to convict Charles Manson. That’s it! All this BS we hear today about right/wrong, Constitutionally correct, etc. is just that – BS. That Bugliosi sold a Black and White race war motive to a bunch of “moon rocks”, as the failed OJ prosecutor Marsha Clark calls jurists, may not have required a “judicial genius”, but it sure didn’t hurt to have one on-board. That said, if Bugliosi played-up the issue of “Black” Muslims, he would have had to explain the existence of Black Muslims organizing and preaching against “Whitey” and “Christians” in California prisons.

Then, if the Black Muslims taught Charlie about the coming Black/White Battle of Armageddon, why were “they” not also on trial as co-conspirators? Then you have to explain why Muslims have it in for Christians and pretty soon you need a jury made up of all college graduates with history degrees, just to comprehend an otherwise simple Black/White race war. I doubt that Bugliosi was unaware of the delicate Muslim/Christian conflict connected to his so-called Helter Skelter race war motive, but simplicity SELLS. Complicated things do not. And when a prosecutor “builds” his case, that means precisely that. He carefully builds (puts together) for the jury, ONLY the “necessary” information (evidence) needed to accomplish HIS goal, which is to get a conviction.

Otherwise, Bugliosi never even had a meaningful conversation with Sandra Good – and Phil Phillips (Manson’s best friend in prison) isn’t even mentioned in the prosecutor’s best-selling book. Paul Watkins introduced the “Black Muslims” into his Helter Skelter analogy, but nobody even pressed such an important issue further.”

Interview with Robert Hendrickson, Ear Candy Magazine, June 2012.

_______________

While I was unable to find evidence directly corroborating that Manson learned all the above from Black Muslims in prison, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests it happened. In fact, it is hard to conceive how he could have avoided it, especially at the rather ‘progressive’ institution, McNeil Island, where he was doing time in the early and mid 1960's.

It is highly probable that during his years at McNeil Island Manson experienced what must have been, to his eyes and ears, a rather shocking, and sudden upsurge of Black Muslim activism, freed from the 'closet' by the Cooper decision and desegregation. 

What would he have heard? 

The story of Wallace D. Fard and the imminent Armageddon: a black/white race war that was going to happen before 1970.

1970? 

Yes. More than one writer in the late fifties and early sixties mentions ‘the end of the next decade’ or ‘by the end of the decade’ as a sort of pivotal moment for the ‘Black Muslims’. For example, Time Magazine:

_____

“The Moslems themselves talk of 1970 as their D Day, expansively predict that before that time the big white nations will have eliminated each other with atomic warfare and Black Africa will stand unchallenged.” (Races: The Black Supremacists, Time, August 10, 1959)

 _____

The very nature of McNeil Island penitentiary supports the conclusion Manson was exposed to this. Cooper and Post-Cooper court decisions were likely embraced by the authorities there. 

McNeil was a progressive institution with a long history of adopting modern and even 'experimental' rehabilitative programs like, for example, ‘bibliotherapy’- the notion reading books would cause prisoners to embrace the American way. Bibliotherapy educated a host of 60's prison radicals. 

_____

“[G]enerally speaking, throughout McNeil Island’s 135-year history-including the years since 1981, when it’s been run by Washington state – the prison has maintained a kinder, gentler approach, one based on the belief that hard work and nurturing the inner man can reduce recidivism.

When the prison closes, that will be its legacy: that criminal justice is about rehabilitation, not retribution.

In the 1960s, the philosophy of prisoner rehabilitation [at McNeil] began to veer away from work therapy and toward a “medical model,” characterized by substance-abuse programs and inmate discussion groups. Prison guards became “correctional officers.”

At McNeil, music was considered therapy: the prison had a piano and several practice rooms for individuals and groups: jazz combos, western bands and Dixieland ensembles.”

(http://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/local/article22203306.html#storylink=cpy)

_____

(Aside: It has been said that Alvin Karpas taught Manson to play guitar. Probably through one of these programs.)

If Manson was exposed to Black Muslim proselytizing, that rhetoric spoke of an apocalypse that was coming and soon. The apocalypse would be a black verse white race war and 'the foot soldiers of the holy war' would be the Black Muslim convicts. 

While he was there, the hierarchy of the prison suddenly flipped. While it is likely he seldom ever spoke to a black inmate during his previous incarcerations, by 1961-2 'they' were everywhere. And the previously invisible Black Muslims suddenly were on top of the heap of black prisoners that were suddenly the majority, due to desegregation. 

Combine this with events outside the walls and it must have appeared that the prophecy of Wallace D. Fard was, indeed, ‘coming down fast’

Watts Riots: August 11-16, 1965

(Aside: note the dates. I have always thought there was more to the dates of these murders then simple coincidence if you were trying to start a race war.)

Detroit Riots: July 23-27, 1967

The Black Panther Party (BPP): founded on October 15, 1966.

May 2, 1967: Thirty armed members of the BPP go to the California state capital and rally on the steps.

On April 4, 1968 Martin Luther King was assassinated and the cities of America erupted into violence. Two hundred major 'racial incidents' occurred in 172 American cities. 

In August 1968, what has been called a 'police riot' erupted at the Democratic Convention in Chicago. Black Panther, Bobbly Seal, allegedly said the words below to the gathered 'Yippies' speaking on behalf of the Black Panther Party:

"The time for singing 'We Shall Overcome' is past. Everyone should get himself a shotgun or a 357 magnum or a carbine and kill pigs." (Testimony of undercover police officer Robert Pierson at the trial of the Chicago 8)

(Aside: The 'Yippies' nominated a pig named "Pigasus" for President at the convention and demanded secret service protection for their candidate. Testimony at the trial on this event focused on the fact that the pig was arrested by the 'pigs' before he could actually accept the nomination.) 

_____

“The BPP, armed with guns, law books and a menacing bravado projected a militant swagger that made their threats of starting a revolution for black liberation plausible despite the considerable evidence to the contrary.” (Joseph Peniel, The Black Power Movement: A State of the Field)

_____

Even if you assume Manson didn't give two thoughts to the idea of an imminent race war, the government (our government) did. On June 15, 1969 J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI said of the BPP "without question [the Black Panther Party] represents the greatest threat to the internal; security of the country". Through COINTELPRO (already actively seeking to undermine the BPP and the NOI by 1969) the FBI set out to destroy the BPP in 1969.  

Assume, if you will, that Manson sees the sudden upsurge of Black Muslim 'awareness' while he sits in prison at McNeil Island. It would have seemed to him to be a shocking event in the hierarchical and controlled environment of the prison he was used to. Here,  blacks were traditionally segregated and 'on the bottom' of the pile. 'Black Muslims' are suddenly preaching an apocalypse where the white man would be slaughtered. Black inmates were suddenly empowered in a way that upset the balance of power in the prisons and terrified the prison establishment. 

The ‘Black Muslim’ race war was also expressed in terms Manson was familiar with from his youth: the origin is the Biblical, The Armageddon. Armageddon: a term Manson will supposedly use repeatedly when speaking of Helter Skelter.

Seemingly out of nowhere in this prison culture, that until that time was not only segregated based upon color but also based upon power (white power), there arises a race of black warriors who believe God is about to level the karma of the white man and restore the black man to his rightful position- ruler of the world.  

Manson is paroled into a world he cannot possibly understand the world of 1967- Haight Ashbury. 

Here live the 'Leslie Van Houten's' of the world who have never heard of the Black Muslims and do not 'see' Armageddon 'coming down fast'. In the world of Ozzie and Harriet (even on dope) such things simply don't happen. Suddenly, with a little LSD and the events of the day, Manson is a prophet. 

Wallace D. Fard’s vision of Armageddon as a black/white race war happening 'now' is where Helter Skelter was conceived, not in the mind of Vincent Bugliosi.

Pax Vobiscum

Dreath

Bruce Davis, a Charles Manson Follower, Has Parole Blocked for Fifth Time

The New York Times

Bruce Davis, right, with his lawyer, Michael Beckman, before a parole hearing in 2012. Mr. Davis, a former member of the Manson family, was convicted in 1971 of two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder and robbery. CreditJoe Johnston/The Tribune of San Luis Obispo, via Associated Press

A prison inmate who was a member of the Manson family has had his parole blocked by the governor of California for the fifth time.

A state parole board had recommended the prisoner, Bruce Davis, for parole in February. But Gov. Jerry Brown, who is known for taking a hard line against the followers of Charles Manson, refused to grant the parole on Friday.

In his decision, Governor Brown acknowledged that Mr. Davis, 74, who was convicted in 1971 of two counts of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder and robbery, “has not been disciplined for any misconduct for 25 years, and he has made efforts to improve himself while incarcerated.”

But the governor said the inmate, along with Mr. Manson and other followers, had “committed some of the most notorious and brutal killings in California’s history.” He added that in the years since, Mr. Davis had played down his role in a series of gruesome killings in 1969, and had acted in ways that suggested a lack of remorse.

“This is just a governor playing politics,” said Michael Beckman, Mr. Davis’s lawyer. “Bruce Davis is the most rehabilitated California inmate that I’ve represented, and there’s not even a close second.”

Bruce Davis, left, and Steve Grogan, both followers of Charles Manson, leave court after a hearing in Los Angeles in December 1970. Credit Harold Filan/Associated Press

Mr. Davis and other followers of Mr. Manson were convicted of killing Gary Hinman, a musician, in July 1969, and Donald Shea, a stuntman, a month later.

The victims were shot, beaten, suffocated, or stabbed with knives or forks. Their blood was used to write messages — such as “rise” or “political piggy” — on the walls at the crime scenes.

Mr. Manson told his followers that the killings were intended to ignite a race war that would bring about the end of civilization, which Mr. Manson called “Helter Skelter.”

Mr. Beckman, the defense lawyer, said Mr. Davis had taken responsibility for the crimes committed by Mr. Manson and his followers — even those in which he did not participate — and deserved to be freed. He said the next parole hearing for Mr. Davis could take place next year.

But the governor wrote on Friday that Mr. Davis “currently poses an unreasonable danger to society if released from prison.” It is the fourth time Mr. Brown has denied parole for Mr. Davis, who is incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, did the same in 2010.

Mr. Davis said at his parole hearing in February that, at the time of the killings, he “wanted to be Charlie’s favorite guy,” referring to Mr. Manson, according to the text of the governor’s decision.

Mr. Davis’s case is one of several in recent years that has forced officials to wrestle with a difficult question: whether Mr. Manson’s followers should be granted leniency because of their relative youth at the time of the murders, or because they may have been under the sway of Mr. Manson, who was considered a charismatic and ruthless leader.

Others who participated in the 1969 killings, but sought release as they aged behind bars, include Susan Atkins, who was ultimately convicted on eight counts of first-degree murder and lived in prison until her death at 61 in 2009; Patricia Krenwinkel, 69, who was denied parole for a 14th time on Thursday after officials considered whether abuse by Mr. Manson had affected her state of mind at the time of the killings; and Leslie Van Houten, 67, who was convicted in the LaBianca murders and sought parole 19 times before a board recommended it in April 2016. Three months later, Governor Brown blocked her release, as well.

Mr. Manson, 82, is incarcerated at the California State Prison in Corcoran. Records show that he has been denied parole a dozen times, most recently in 2012. His next parole hearing is scheduled for 2027.

Never Trust An Eyewitness

A number of people believe Bugliosi 'coached' witnesses ('coached' to me means: directed their testimony where he wanted it to go before they took the stand-told them how to answer his questions). I think the theory goes like this: Bugliosi invented the Helter Skelter motive from a few philosophical musings Manson may have made during the timeframe. Bugliosi then expanded the thread to become 'Helter Skelter' (perhaps in anticipation of a future book deal). He then communicated Helter Skelter to at least a dozen other witnesses through his coaching and he threatened witnesses if they didn't adopt his theory of the case. He then had them all come to court and tell the story. This never happened.

But.... that doesn't mean we can trust the eyewitnesses and it also doesn't mean Bugliosi didn't influence the testimony of witnesses. He could have done so with no ill intent at all and without even knowing he was doing so.

Eyewitness Memory

It may come as a surprise but eyewitnesses to traumatic events are remarkably unreliable witnesses. Far from being the source of detailed information regarding such events they are frequently wrong and frequently include in their descriptions of events information borrowed from other sources. They seldom actually are able to recount the events with any accuracy a short time after the event.  In fact, eye witness memory is so unreliable that in 2014 the National Academy of Sciences after an extensive review of the issue called for major changes in both law enforcement procedures and the conduct of criminal trials to address the problem. While you read this quote consider these crimes.

____

"Factors such as viewing conditions, duress, elevated emotions, and biases influence the visual perception experience. Perceptual experiences are stored by a system of memory that is highly malleable and continuously evolving, neither retaining nor divulging content in an informational vacuum. As such, the fidelity of our memories to actual events may be compromised by many factors at all stages of processing, from encoding to storage and retrieval. Unknown to the individual, memories are forgotten, reconstructed, updated, and distorted."

From the NAS study: Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification (2014) 

____

Problems When Memory is Encoded

Studies have identified a number of factors that can impact memories at the time the events occur- encoding. One of the most significant is clearly present in this case when it comes to our eyewitnesses: the trauma or the stress level of the event. 

Eyewitnesses to traumatic events frequently have a poorer memory of the event due to the stress of the event. The graph to the left shows how this happens: at the peak (which varies witness to witness) a witness will have clarity and actually remember events perfectly but outside that peak stress zone (too much stress or too little) memory will suffer significantly. They will become 'weapon focused' and remember seemingly inconsequential details while being unable to remember important events or ‘the big picture’. These witnesses will frequently describe their emotional or mental status during the event as 'being in shock'. Aharonian, Ani A. and Bornstein, Brian H., "Stress and Eyewitness Memory" (2008). Faculty Publications, Department of Psychology. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

In one study subjects were shown a video of a violent attack. They were then asked to identify 40 items of information from the video. The group consistently underperformed a second group who watched a ‘sanitized’ version of the same event. Clifford and Scott (1978)

Examples of this effect can be seen in this case.

In the midst of the horror, after Jay Sebring is shot and Watson is stabbing him, victims are screaming and chaos ensued, Atkins has a vivid recollection of a dog peering in the window of the house- an inconsequential event. When asked in a narrative style to describe to the grand jury what happened this memory is foremost in her mind.

Q: What happened next?

A: There was still some light from outside so that we could see on the inside. I looked over and I saw a dog in the window. The dog ran away.

This effect, some experts warn, can also make the witness appear calloused or cold hearted: 'How could they not see 'X' and notice 'that'? 

Bernard Crowe offers a classic example of weapon focus, carrying the issue one step further and actually requiring the gun to be pointed at him: weapon focus.

Q: I show you People’s 40 for identification. Have you seen that revolver before?

A: Yes, It looks like it. But I was a distance away.

Q: This looks like the revolver Mr. Manson had in his hands when he shot you?

A: Why don’t you point it at me. Then I could tell.

Q: Something like this?

A: Yes. Could be.

Kasabian remembers Frykowski falling into the bushes and can describe this event and the events immediately surrounding it with great detail but never mentions Frykowski and Watson passing within feet (maybe inches) of her as she stood on the walkway when they crossed the walkway into the yard. Frankly, remembering Krenwinkel's 'upraised knife' is likely the result of the traumatic nature of these events. 

How does Kasabian describe her mental state? Being in shock.
_____

Q (Buglioli). Now, when you say your car, you are not referring to the car of the man in the driveway?
A: No.
Q. You are referring to the car you came in?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you enter the car?
A. Not at first.
Q. Were you by yourself at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. What was your state of mind at that point?.
A. I was in a total state of shock.
*****

Q (Fitzgerald). And at that time you were in a total state of shock; isn’t that correct?

A. Yes.

Q.That has been your previous testimony, that you were in a total state of shock.

A. Yes. 

_____

The first thing eyewitness memory studies suggest is that it is probable none of our eyewitnesses have accurate memories due to the traumatic nature of these events, alone. This has nothing to do with lying or coaching by Bugliosi. It is simply what happens when a witness is confronted by such violence: their memory suffers. 

Memory Storage Issues

The second place where memories are affected is while they are stored and before they are recounted. 

It is indisputable that the passage of time does not improve eyewitness memory, ever. That is why myself and others rely more heavily on sources closer to the events of July-August 1969 instead of parole hearings and books written years after the events. Witnesses forget and when they do other factors begin to fill in the missing pieces when they are required to recall the past event.

One study compared the accuracy of witness identifications after 3 days and 5 months. The study found no false identifications after 3 days but after 5 months, 35% of identifications were false. Malpass and Devine (1981). Although an admittedly simplistic, non-scientific, approach, given this study by December 1969 our eyewitnesses may have forgotten or reported inaccurately about a third of what occurred on those nights.

Numerous studies have shown that memory changes over time. Eyewitnesses incorporate information learned after the event into their memories. For example, they may talk to another witness, read a newspaper account or see a TV account of the event and use that information to fill in their memories. This is called witness conformity. And if the source is viewed as 'reliable' by the witness the likelihood is even greater that they will adopt the memories of someone else. Gabbert, Fiona; Wright, Daniel B.; Memon, Amina; Skagerberg, Elin M.; and Jamieson, Kat, "Memory Conformity Between Eyewitnesses" (2012). Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association.

Eyewitnesses may also fill in holes in their memory by combining two memories into one or by using biases or expectations of what probably was seen or what should have been seen. The image to the right was used in a study in 1947. Allport & Postman 1947. The vast majority of subjects after being shown the picture later identified the African-American as the person holding the razor.

And it seems that as witnesses recall (describe) an event over and over as time passes they drop details from earlier versions and add new details to later versions. These details are frequently obtained from other sources. All things being equal, accuracy declines with each new telling. 

It is, then, plausible that after Susan Atkins' Grand Jury testimony (or her story) became common knowledge (and certainly after the trial) every one of those present at Cielo would begin to adopt what I call the 'official narrative' as their actual memory. This can happen even if, for example someone thought they remembered that Sharon Tate was stabbed on the front porch. They will or could abandon their own memory and adopted someone else's and again, no evil intent need be ascribed. They are simply filling in their own missing information from what someone else who witnessed the event describes. Even if they have a memory of an incident they might abandon theirs if their memory is 'sketchy' and adopt the memory of another because they trust that recollection or it seems more 'solid' then their own.

Why This Happens

Most people conceive of memory like a video tape. Turn it on and the memories play. In reality memory is more like a jigsaw puzzle with pieces missing. Viewing conditions, duress, elevated emotions, other versions of the story and biases increase the number of missing pieces and the passage of time increases the number further. As humans, we attempt to fill in these missing pieces and draw on outside sources.

So how might Bugliosi have influenced the witnesses in this trial?

Memory Recall Issues

This is where I believe Bugliosi had the greatest chance to influence the evidence in this case and he even helps me reach this conclusion by bragging about it. 

Studies show, overwhelmingly, that an interviewer can create memories based on how they interview the witness. By 'create memories' I mean they can fill in those missing jigsaw pieces (and even replace some of the existing pieces with alternatives) through the interview process. I mean they can create memories. 

More importantly the witness will actually come to believe the false or created memory. The witness will confidently adopt that information as their actual memory. That, by the way, will make them less susceptible to impeachment by cross examination because they truly believe it. This is called the ‘misinformation effect’.

Jean Loftus, Phd was one of the leading original psychologists in the study of eyewitness memory. In one study she showed groups a film of two cars having an accident. To one group she asked "How fast was the blue car going when it contacted the red car?" To another group the question was framed as "How fast was the blue car moving when it smashed into the red car?" Those who responded to the second question on average placed the speed of the blue car 10+ mph faster than those asked the first question. (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978)

Misinformation effect can affect memory easily, and without any intention to deceive (Allan & Gabbert, 2008). Even slight differences in the wording of a question can lead to misinformation effects. Subjects in one study were more likely to say ‘yes’ when asked “Did you see the broken headlight?” then when asked “Did you see a broken headlight?” (Loftus, 1975). The image they had previously been shown did not include a broken headlight.

If the interviewer uses leading questions in the interview the misinformation effect is compounded. We already know Bugliosi had a habit of using leading questions in the trial. Why would we believe he was any different in the interview process? We also know he was described by some as having a quick temper (a sign of impatience). That would tend to reinforce the notion he would lead a witness to get to the point quicker. 

Now, what happens after multiple interviews? The witness’s memory of events doesn't deteriorate with multiple interviews instead it gets better. So what's the problem?

The problem is this is usually due to 'created' memories supplied inadvertently (or perhaps purposefully) by the questioner. Multiple interviews fill in those missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. Engelhardt, Laura, "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1.1 

In this case Bugliosi brags about interviewing witnesses multiple times.

____

"I rarely interview a witness just once. Often the fourth or fifth interview will bring out something previously forgotten or deemed insignificant, which, in proper context, may prove vital to my case."

Bugliosi, Vincent; Curt Gentry. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (p. 274). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

____

Danny DeCarlo: 

"I interviewed Danny numerous times, one session lasting nine hours, obtaining considerable information that hadn’t come out in previous interviews."

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

____

Kasabian:

"I talked to her from 1 to 4: 30 P.M. on the twenty-eighth. It was the first of many long interviews, a half dozen of them lasting six to nine hours, all of which took place at Sybil Brand, her attorney usually the only other person present."

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

____

It is not surprising Bugliosi brags about this:

"The more times a witness tells his story, the more opportunities there are for discrepancies and contradictions, which the opposing side can then use for impeachment purposes. While some attorneys try to hold interviews and pre-trial statements to a minimum so as to avoid such problems, my attitude is the exact opposite. If a witness is lying, I want to know it before he ever takes the stand. In the more than fifty hours I spent interviewing Linda Kasabian, I found her, like any witness, unsure in some details, confused about others, but never once did I catch her even attempting to lie. Moreover, when she was unsure, she admitted it."

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

____

He's wrong and in fact what he is doing is creating memories. He is both creating and filling in those missing pieces and when he's done the witness believes it.

Proving Bugliosi Contaminated the Well

The only way to prove Bugliosi had the impact on this trial that he may have had would be if we could actually get our hands on a taped version of his interviews from the first interview through the last.

Are there indications of 'modified' witness memories? I think there are.

Jerrold Friedman

Jerrold Friedman testified on direct examination that he received a call from Steven Parent at 11:45 p.m. But on cross examination he said this:

______

I said, "It's awful late, Steve."

He said, "Well, what time is it?"

And I had a clock right by my phone. I picked it up and looked at it and I said "l1:30.

He looked at a clock where he was and said “No its 11:25”.

And then I realized, yeah, I had my clock set five minutes fast so I would never be late for work.

 [Aside: So much for the fact this call was when Steven Parent set the clock.]

______

[Aside: By the way, this was actually a rare example of exceptional cross examination in this trial. Kanarek makes Friedman tell the events in a narrative, which causes him to change his original testimony.]  

In fairness, Friedman also said this during his cross examination.

____

A: And he said, "Well, I will be there in 15 or 20 minutes," and then he said, "No...better make it 40 minutes so I will be there by 12:30"

____

[Aside: This series of exchanges on cross examination likely led to a conversation between Bugliosi and Sam Bubrick at the Watson trial and a stipulation there that the call occurred at 11:50 p.m. Friedman did not testify there.]

To me this testimony shows Freidman having been ‘led’ to 11:45 sometime prior to his testimony and then recalling his actual memory through Kanarek’s examination technique.

Rudolf Weber

Weber was interviewed first by Bugliosi and Calkins at Weber’s house December 29, 1969 and

Calkins again later that afternoon. We know what he told Detective Calkins thanks to Cielodrive.com.

____

RUDOLF WEBER: Well, to the best of my recollection…we went to bed around 9 o’clock which is our usual bed time –

SGT. ROBERT CALKINS: Who…Who is we? excuse me.

RUDOLF WEBER: My wife and I.

SGT. ROBERT CALKINS: Would you identify your wife, please?

RUDOLF WEBER: Her name in Mila(?)

SGT. ROBERT CALKINS: Alright, thank you.

RUDOLF WEBER: We, uh – ‘cause I have to be at work at 6 o’clock in the morning. So, about – it must’ve been about 1 o’clock, I heard the uh, the sound of, running water.

____

But during his trial testimony he gets more certain.

____

Q: Did anything unusual happen that night sir, after you went to bed?

A: Well, it was about 1:00 o’clock in the morning, that would be Saturday morning.

****

Q: How do you know it was 1:00.

A: Because I looked at the clock.

____

Notice how between December 29, 1969 the date of the interview and August 19, 1970 the date of his trial testimony when his memory should fade Weber's memory actually improved. To me this suggests he received a little help in filling in the missing pieces. I’d also point out that he doesn’t answer Bugliosi’s initial question but blurts out 1:00, a sign that something isn't right, but I’ve done that before.

Timothy Ireland

The First Tate Homicide Investigation report notes:

“Between 0100 and 0130 Mr. Ireland was awake, alert and watching the sleeping children. He heard a male voice from what seemed to him a long distance away to the north or northeast shout, 'Oh, God, no. Stop. Stop. Oh, God, no, don't'. Ireland said that the scream persisted for approximately 10 seconds. The male voice was clear and he did not notice an accent.”

At trial, presumably also after having spoken to someone at the DA‘s office in preparation for trial, Mr. Ireland changed his answer. He now places the scream at precisely 12:40 a.m. basing the change on what Mr. Sparks told him regarding the time.

____

Q: About what time was this?

A: Approximately 12:40 a.m.

*****

Q: You say you told Sergeant Henderson that it was between 1:00 and 1:30 a.m.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, what caused you to change your mind about the time.

A: When I talked again to Mr. Sparks, who was the man I first contacted about hearing the noise and asked if I could look around the camp, he said the time was 12:45, because he noticed it on his watch.

*****

Q: You spoke to Sparks a second time after you spoke to Henderson?

A: Yes, sir, I spoke to Henderson and Lee and Richards.

____

Bugliosi did interview Ireland before the trial. But more importantly this illustrates how memories can be impacted by the memories of other witnesses. Here, the impact may be innocuous, but clearly Ireland’s actual memory of the events changed because of what Sparks said and by August 19, 1970 he believed it. In August 1969 he did not: witness conformity.

The Jakobson Interview

To really determine what Bugliosi did we would need to have tapes of all his interviews. We have the taped interview of Gregg Jakobson by Bugliosi on February 20, 1970. It can be found Cielodrive.com. The problem is the interview is clearly not the first of Jakobson and not the first of Jacobson by Bugliosi. This is noted about 30 seconds into the interview. We can’t really track if Bugliosi's style had any impact because we don’t have the starting point. But from my review of that interview I can say this:

Bugliosi repeatedly throughout the interview uses two approaches that according to all those experts above are going to impact Jakobson’s memory. He asks leading questions. He also makes statements about what ‘others’ have already told him and asks Jakobson to confirm their viewpoint. Sometimes Jakobson does and sometimes he doesn’t. When he doesn’t did Bugliosi then go back to the other witness and interview him again? We don't know.

In my opinion this tape confirms that Bugliosi is doing precisely what he should not have done and he is likely affecting the witness’s memory. Unfortunately, we can’t see the impact because we don’t have the starting point to compare. This is one of three interviews Bugliosi conducted with Jakobsen and not the first.

[Aside: To me, Jakobson’s testimony is a lot of fun to read. Aside from the fact the ‘anti-Helter

Skelter wing’ never seem to actually explain him away, in my opinion, defense counsel are revealed as utterly inept. 

Jakobson gives quite a dissertation on Helter Skelter and is aided significantly by Fitzgerald’s robust cross examination which allows him to repeat much of it. His ‘real’ client wrote what on the fridge, again? Why let him bang the drum twice!

Hughes’ only possible defense, and only chance to avoid the death penalty for his actual client, is Manson’s control over Van Houten. Hughes does an exemplary job of proving the independence of the family members, especially the girls, and Manson’s lack of control. 

Shinn seems to want to ‘bond’ with Jakobson about trees and nature and Kanarek strives mightily to prove Manson had a right to have a grudge against Jakobson and Melcher for misleading him about that record deal through Melcher. Can you say secondary motive?

Several times Bugliosi objects and then says ‘objection withdrawn’ when he realizes the improper question actually helps his case. 

[Aside: What on earth could they be smiling about? They didn't get paid and they didn't win. And three of them threw their clients under the bus. IMO]

From the available evidence it appears that Bugliosi breaks three of the memory rules.

     1. He interviews the witness multiple times.

     2. He asks leading and suggestive questions in those interviews.

     3. He acts as a bridge between witnesses. He carries witness #1’s memories to witness #2. In other words, he facilitates witness conformity through his interview style.

Could these three factors, if applied to Kasabian over six interviews and 50 +/- hours, have impacted the accuracy of her testimony? Yes. In fact, the probability is very high.

One last point. This doesn’t mean Bugliosi is 'unethical' or 'evil' or 'broke the law'. Probably most of you have heard the Jakobson interview long before this post and never even noticed anything. Probably, neither did Bugliosi. It’s just his style and to him it was effective even if it was effective for all the wrong reasons. His quote above is revealing. He recognized that witness memory 'improved' through his methodology. He didn't recognize that it may have been doing so because he was providing the missing pieces. 

Now if he was consciously doing this, knowing he would effect their testimony…..that would be a different story. 

[Aside: Why is Bugliosi standing like that, facing the wall like he's in the corner? I mean the wall is too big to be an office door, isn't it?]

Pax Vobiscum

Dreath