Death Valley’s ‘Sailing Stones’

By Carl Engelking | August 27, 2014

Photo credit: Anatoliy Lukich/Shutterstock

The Racetrack Playa - a barren lakebed in Death Valley National Park - is home to one of the world's natural wonders: "sailing stones" that mysteriously meander across the dried mud, leaving tracks in their wake. Since the 1940s, these rocks have fueled wonder and speculation because no one had seen them in action - until now.

A team of U.S. scientists recorded the first observation of these boulders in motion, using GPS monitors and time-lapse photography. By meticulously tracking weather data, scientists also explained how these rocks slog across the playa. What was one of the world's natural wonders now appears to be the perfect combination of rain, wind, ice and sun.

Unraveling a Mystery

Years ago, researchers traveled to the Racetrack Playa with plenty of instruments in tow. They first installed a weather station and several time-lapse cameras around the playa. They also placed 15 GPS-embedded limestone rocks of various sizes throughout the playa. Then, it was time to wait.

"As one of the other researchers on this project said, 'Probably the most boring experiment ever,'" study co-author Jim Norris said in a video about the experiment.

However, things got interesting in November 2013. In late November, significant amounts of rain and snow created a small pond in the south end of the playa. When December came, the GPS-embedded rocks started moving, with the heaviest weighing in at 35 pounds. The rocks reached blazing speeds of 9-16 feet per minute. Most importantly, the race was caught on camera.

So what caused the rocks to drag themselves across the playa?

Getting the Green Light

Past theories attributed the rocks' movements to high winds, liquid water, or ice. But scientists discovered it's a careful balance of all these factors.

When the small pond formed in the southern portion of the playa, it cyclically froze at night and thawed under the midday sun. When the sun warmed the pond, thin layers of surface ice started breaking apart into massive floating sheets tens of meters in size. Although the ice sheets were large, they were still just a few millimeters thick.

But the freezing and thawing wasn't enough on its own. A steady, light wind of about 7-10 miles per hour was also needed, but before the ice had completely melted. This wind, timed with the midday melt, pushed massive panes of ice into the stones. When the ice accumulated behind the stones, it generated enough force to set the stones into motion. And rather than floating or rolling, the rocks bulldozed their way across the mud, leaving behind their signature tracks. Researchers published their findings Tuesday in the journal PLoS ONE.

The rocks won't move if there's too much water or ice, too much sun, or not enough wind. Everything must act in perfect harmony for the races to ensue. So, in addition to their "sailing stones" moniker, we suggest a new name for these fascinating boulders: the Goldilocks Rocks.

The Manson Murders review

The Times Literary Supplement began as a supplement to The Times, a London newspaper, but became a separate publication 100 years ago though they still enjoy a close association with that newspaper today.   It is considered by many writers to be an indispensable source for serious and authoritative reviews.  Forty years ago TLS reviewed Bugliosi's Helter Skelter and I was struck by how insightful the review was of the author at a time when most US reviewers thought Bugliosi could do no wrong.

The book was published under the title of The Manson Murders -  An Investigation Into Motive in the UK.

April 18, 1975
A family and its head
by Charles Rycroft

The Manson Murders is a detailed, day-by-day account of the investigations into the Sharon Tate and La Bianca murders in Los Angeles in August 1969, and of the arrest, trial and conviction of Charles Manson and members of his "Family" in 1970-71.  Its author, Vincent Bugliosi, was prosecutor at the trial.

The English, though not the American edition, is subtitled "An Investigation Into Motive", and it therefore as such that it must presumably be reviewed in this country, even though it is obvious that elucidation of Manson's motives for murdering and inciting to murder, was not Professor Bugliosi's main motive for writing this book.

If it had been, he would presumably not have written it in a narrative form, first sketching in the facts already known to police before he himself became involved in the case and thereafter describing the investigations and the court proceedings entirely in terms of a day-by-day account of his own activities.  For instance, Professor Bugliosi reveals what he considers to have been the motive for the murders in two chapters, "January 1970" and "February 1970", which are the months during which he, already convinced on the circumstantial evidence that Manson must have been the prime mover behind the murders that on commonsense grounds appeared motiveless, began to understand something of the ideology and chiliastic beliefs that inspired Manson and his "Family".  Although this method of presenting the case makes for lively and exciting reading, it is also bewildering, since Professor Bugliosi records events not in the order in which they happened but in the order in which he learnt about them.  It also has the effect of drawing the reader's attention away from Manson and on to Professor Bugliosi, and, although prosecuting attorneys do, I presume, legitimately play star roles during murder trials, I doubt whether they should continue to steal the limelight while writing a book about the murders.

Professor Bugliosi must, I think, really have had two other reasons for writing this book; first to give as full account as possible of the longest, most publicized and most expensive trial in American legal history, and, secondly, to vindicate his own role in it.  He makes it clear that he insisted on establishing a motive for the murders, and a very peculiar motive at that, against the wishes of police, who would have been content with circumstantial proof; and, although it is hard for an English reviewer to be certain about this, the informality of his relations with the accused and with witnesses may well have raised eyebrows in some quarters.

His written account leaves the reader in no doubt as to which of the various besotted females in Manson's "Family" he liked and found attractive and which he found repellant or as to his opinion of individual detectives and defending counsel.  Furthermore he may well have had misgivings arising from the fact that the motive he proposed for the murders is, as we shall see, extremely hard to reconcile with the idea that Manson was sane enough to be charged.  I must confess, however, that both the court procedure and the moral tone of the trial were so unlike what, I hope, happens in English courts, that at times my credulity was strained; it sounds as though it was shambles from beginning to end.

It is clear, too, that Manson and Professor Bugliosi were in frequent communication with one another and each developed a reluctant respect for the other.  This book is, indeed, more easily read as a confrontation between the two men than as an attempt by one to investigate the motives of the other.  But, although Professor Bugliosi succeeds, accidently I suspect, in getting across the extent to which the trial was a duel between him and Manson, with Manson's life certainly at hazard- the death penalty was only abolished in California after his conviction, though before the appeals were heard- and Professor Bugliosi's possibly so, since throughout the trial many of Manson's followers were at large and known to be armed, he lacks the dramatic sense to present the trial as a contest between representatives of two opposed visions of the nature of society and the meaning of life and death.

Professor Bugliosi and Manson were both in their mid-thirties at the time of the trial, but, whereas Professor Bugliosi was a successful professional man, a district attorney and a professor of criminal law who had attended university on a tennis scholarship, Manson was a habitual criminal who had spent seventeen years of his life in reformatories and had convictions for armed robbery, burglary, car-thieving, forgery and pimping.  A not unusual contrast, one might have said, between a successful professional man and an unsuccessful criminal, were it not for the fact that somewhere along the line Manson had acquired some very curious, way-out ideas, which made him, in the eyes of himself and his followers, a legitimized adversary of the established order, exempt from its laws and conventions and no more a criminal than those of his and Professor Bugliosi's contemporaries who were fighting in Vietnam.

Unfortunately Professor Bugliosi's account of Manson's religious and political beliefs is so presented that it is impossible for the reader to decide whether Manson did in fact possess a reasoned, coherent though bizarre philosophy, which could have impelled him to plan and execute political murders, or whether his mind was really a rag-bag of half baked and delusional ideas.  Although he mentions that Manson had connexions with the flower-children, the drug-scene, the pop-scene, numerous groups and Scientology, and that he was an admirer of Nietzsche and Hitler and was believed by his followers to be Jesus Christ, Professor Bugliosi makes no attempt to assess Manson's philosophy seriously or to relate it to either the history of millennial Christianity or the sociology of the drop-out culture, about both of which an extensive literature does in fact exist.  As a result, Manson's ideas are presented as being more confused, inconsistent and autochthonous than they perhaps were, and, it is impossible to evaluate whether he was speaking literally or using religious metaphor when he asserted that he was already dead or implied that he was Jesus Christ- or whether the sexual performances he organized were orgies or rites.

This failure on Professor Bugliosi's part is particularly marked when he discusses the fact that Manson believed in both love and the permissibility of killing.  Professor Bugliosi, and apparently some of the other lawyers involved in the case, were deeply moved by the atmosphere of love that permeated the "Family".  One, indeed, wishes to write "a book about the beauty I've seen in that group- their opposition to war, their truthfulness and their generosity".  But they also believed in the triviality of death, and that killing was an unimportant event in the life of both the killer and the victim.  Now, although no society could conceivably tolerate members who acted on such a belief, any book that really was an investigation into the motives of the Manson murders would have had to explore that thread in Christian thinking which does lead to such a diabolical conclusion, and Professor Bugliosi's does not.  And it would have to explain why Manson thought it was morally justifiable to kill strangers in Los Angeles in order to provoke Armageddon but morally unjustifiable to kill strangers in Vietnam- or to commit soul murder in prisons- in order to preserve the American Way of Life.  As it is, however, Professor Bugliosi's account of Manson's motive- which was, briefly, to set off Armageddon by committing murders of whites which were made to look as though they had been committed by blacks- makes Manson sound terribly mad; even though the trial was based on the assumption that he was sane and fit to plead.

This is, indeed, the central weakness and contradiction of the whole book; it sets out to investigate Manson's motive for murder, but does so in a way that suggests that he should have never been tried.  It should be added that Manson, his followers, the lawyers and the psychiatrists all agreed that Manson was sane, that Manson never endorsed the motive ascribed to him by Professor Bugliosi, but that several of his followers and acquaintances attributed to him the belief that the Book of Revelations was about to be fulfilled, that the Beatles were the first Four Angels and wrote clarion-calls to revolution into their songs, and that the Bottomless Pit is just outside Los Angeles, all of which sounds very psychotic.

The Guns of Helter Skelter

For two months in the summer of 1969 violence rode in the winds over Los Angeles, California. It started with the shooting of Bernard Crowe in a Hollywood apartment in the earliest days of July and ended with the stabbing death of Donald "Shorty" Shea near Spahn's Movie Ranch almost two months later. In between those two events eight other persons would lose their lives in a series of slayings that culminated in the infamous Tate-LaBianca or "Helter Skelter" murders on the nights of August 8-9. In its entirety the Tate-LaBianca case is one of the most complicated in the annals of crime. There were many different victims, killers, locations, dates, motives, methods of mayhem, and weapons involved, including many different kinds of guns. The recent MF Blog about Shorty Shea's guns made me think of all of the firearms connected with TLB, either directly or indirectly, and after some contemplation I came up with the following list. Herewith, then, in order of their chronological appearances that summer, is a catalog of the Guns of Helter Skelter.

The first gun in the series -- a .22 caliber nine-shot Hi Standard Ned Buntline revolver -- was the most important, because it was also the most widely used and deadly. In early July of 1969 Charles Manson shot the drug dealer Bernard Crowe with it in an act if self-defense while attempting to mollify Crowe after he was angered by being ripped off by Charles "Tex" Watson. That presumed fatal shooting set off the violent chain of events which eventually led to the murders on Cielo and Waverly Drives. The same revolver was used to lethal effect at the former address, where Watson used it to shoot and bludgeon three people to death. 

 The .22 caliber Hi Standard Buntline revolver used in the shooting of Bernard Crowe and the murders of Stephen Parent, Jay Sebring, and Voytek Frykowski (Photo courtesy of Cielodrive.com)

A nine-shot Hi Standard Buntline with the cylinder open

The origins of this particular firearm are murky. According to Vincent Bugliosi in Helter Skelter, "The gun, serial number 1902708, had been among a number of weapons taken from the Archery Headquarters in El Monte, California, during a burglary on the night of March 12, 1969. According to [Randy] Starr, he obtained it in trade with a man known only as "Ron." Manson was always borrowing the gun for target practice, and Randy finally gave it to him in trade for a truck that had belonged to Danny DeCarlo." (Manson implied in his 1986 interview with Charlie Rose that the "Ron" who was the source of this gun was then President Ronald Reagan.)

After the murders on Cielo Drive the gun was tossed out of the car window by the fleeing killers. It was found by a boy and turned in to the Los Angeles Police Department on September 1, 1969, but wasn't connected with the Tate murders until later, a cause of much subsequent  hand-wringing by Bugliosi over the Keystone Kops incompetence of LAPD.

In Helter Skelter Vincent Bugliosi used the search for the Buntline as another excuse 

to point out the incompetence of L.A. law enforcement.

If you want a Buntline today, this one should do.

The second firearm relevant to the sometimes savage summer of 1969 was used during an event which was sandwiched between the shooting of Bernard Crowe and the murders at the Polanski residence, namely the assault and murder of Gary Hinman at his home on Old Topanga Canyon Road on July 25-27, 1969. Although Hinman was beaten and stabbed to death, a firearm still figured in the overall occurrence. According to the January 27, 1970 police report of the incident: 

"On January 8, 1970, at the request of Sgt. Whitely, Homicide Bureau, Undersigned conducted an examination at 964 Old Topanga Canyon Road, Malibu, for bullets and bullet holes.

"What appears to be a bullet hole was observed in a wood upright portion of a cabinet under the sink in the kitchen. This piece of wood was removed for possible further examination.

"A bullet was recovered from the inside of the exterior wall immediately behind the sink. The bullet is 9 mm jacketed weighing approximately 126 grams and was fired in a weapon having six lands and grooves with a right twist and a land to groove ratio of approximately one to one.

"Bullets on file in this office with similar characteristics to the recovered bullet include those fired in Astra, Browning, Lugar [sic], Radon [sic], Star, and Walther semi-automatic pistols." (Thank you, Cielodrive.com!)

The gun used in that incident was in fact a 9 millimeter Radom automatic pistol loaned to Bobby Beausoleil by Bruce Davis to be used to help persuade Hinman to refund money due to Beausoleil as the result of a failed drug transaction. According to Danny DeCarlo, Davis purchased the gun at a gun store in Canoga Park about a month earlier.

A 9 mm Radom pistol

Radom automatics were military pistols designed and manufactured in Poland starting in 1935. After the German invasion of that country in the fall of 1939 Germany took over production of the weapon and continued to make them until the end of the war. Radom pistols have an excellent reputation and are regarded in firearms circles as one of the finest military sidearms ever made. If you want to buy one today you can, but it will cost you.

A current Internet ad for a Radom 

One gun I can't present here is the gun that was supposedly along on the night that Leno and Rosemary LaBianca were slain. Never accounted for before or since that night, the gun (according to Linda Kasabian during her trial testimony and Charles Watson in his book Will You Die For Me?) was wielded by Charles Manson during an aborted assault on the driver of a sports car on Sunset Boulevard. Manson also supposedly used this gun to cover the LaBiancas while Charles Watson tied them up (or, variously, while he tied them up himself). Linda Kasabian claimed to have seen the gun "on several occasions" that night but she was unable to give any kind of description of it, even as to whether it was a revolver or a pistol. One version of events says that this gun was buried on the beach by Steve Grogan. It has never been recovered.

But the guns that definitely were in the house at 3301 Waverly Drive that night were those belonging to Leno LaBianca himself. An apparent aficionado of the old west, LaBianca had an impressive collection of 19th century firearms that included several varieties of Colt-type Navy revolvers, a nickel plated 1858 model Smith & Wesson revolver, two Colt "Peacemaker" single-action revolvers, and a muzzle-loading dragoon pistol. Probably unnoticed by the killers, these classic guns were discovered in the house by police officers investigating the murders. Their value (and that of a coin collection and other valuables still in the house) was part of the reason that authorities were disinclined to believe that robbery was the motive for the killings.

Leno LaBianca's gun collection (courtesy of Cielodrive.com)

A replica of an 1851 Navy Colt revolver

Internet auction for a genuine Navy Colt

LIke Bruce Davis' Radom, the next gun in this series also arose out of the Second World War. During the raid on Spahn's Movie Ranch on August 16, 1969 authorities recovered the infamous "submachine gun in its violin case" pictured in the book Helter Skelter. This weapon a Maschinenpistole (MP)-40, was discovered during the raid along with several long guns in a room that has been described as a "gun room" but was actually just the room that Danny DeCarlo was temporarily residing in with his guns. 

An assortment of Danny DeCarlo's firearms found during the August 16, 1969 raid on Spahn's Ranch

Danny DeCarlo's MP-40 as presented in Helter Skelter

The same gun during the August 16, 1969 raid 

Sometimes incorrectly referred to as a Schmeisser, the Maschinenpistole (MP)-40 was a workhorse of the German Wehrmacht during World War Two. After the war stockpiles of the weapons were distributed into the international gun world by the victorious Allies and some examples continued to be used in combat situations as late as the Vietnam War.

A beautiful example of a Maschinenpistole-40 submachine gun

If you thought the Radom was expensive, then don't even think about acquiring an MP-40. Even if you could get a license to own one the cost of buying a genuine wartime example is astronomical. 

Check out the price on this offering!

The next guns to be connected in sequence to the events of the summer of 1969 were the matching set of .45 caliber pistols belonging to Donald "Shorty" Shea, the complete story of which you can read here.

Shorty Shea's guns 

Guns figured in the immediate aftermath of the Hinman-Tate-LaBianca-Shea murders as well, most notably when they were used to propaganda effect in the 1973 Robert Hendrickson/Laurence Merrick documentary Manson. That film features several segments where Nancy Pittman, Lynette Fromme, and Sandra Good handle an assortment of long guns. And there is also a famous still photograph from the film of Steve Grogan holding a large caliber revolver of unknown manufacture.

Nancy, Lyn, and Sandy with shotgun and rifles

Steve Grogan and revolver

Other weapons later associated with persons and events connected to the so-called "Manson Family" include the .22 caliber Iver & Johnson revolver with which John Philip "Zero" Haught either intentionally or accidentally killed himself in Venice, California on November 5, 1969, and those used in the shootout at the Hawthorne Western Surplus store on August 21, 1971 (over one hundred firearms were ultimately involved in that incident!). But both of those events were separate incidents that occurred after the murderous Helter Skelter summer of 1969, and they did not directly reflect on the Tate-LaBianca murders and the acts of violence related to them (Crowe, HInman, and Shea) as did the girls' propagandistic posturing in Manson, and therefore they are beyond the scope of this post.

Manson Family Vacation - A Closer Look

"A horrible thing happened here, and you want to celebrate that? Haven't you ever lost anybody?"

- actress Suzanne Ford portraying the modern day owner of LaBianca house in Manson Family Vacation

"Their actually better than a real family cause they went out and found each other"

- Linas Phillips (As Conrad) explaining "The Family" to his nephew in Manson Family Vacation

Spoiler Alert:

Much love and gratitude, as always, to Patty for turning me on to this movie. I was so anxious to see it, that I originally watched it as soon as I got home, in the middle of the night, after a long flight back from the West Coast. I was tired, and catching the "Good-nite buzz", so by the time the movie hit its last 45 minutes- I was not in the proper condition to comprehend what ended up happening. So, I then watched it again the next morning to make sure that I had not somehow misunderstood. After realizing I hadn't, I watched it a third time...

This is not a comedy or road-trip buddy movie. I thought that is what it would be, and for the first 40 minutes, it sort of was. It does have elements of both of those types of films throughout. But, ultimately, there is more going on here than that. A lot more. I waited a few weeks to type this review so as to give the people in the community so inclined the chance to see it before revealing the ending. I am going to do that now. So, if you wish to take this trip on your own - now is the time to bail.

For the rest of you...

Before I go into the full review and my commentary, I want to take a minute to make some general comments. First of all, the average score for this movie on Rotten Tomatoes is a 6.9. A good score. It has received some recognition in the form of positive reviews and awards as well. Partly funded by kickstarter- this Duplass Brothers movie has been obviously well received by the general public who have screened it. This wasn't a big budget production, and the marketing is not likely to attract the mass audience awareness to get this movie the type of attention I think it deserves. That is a shame.

Next, there was a movie made not too long ago called "Waiting" starring Ryan Reynolds. It was about one day at a T.G.I. Fridays/Bennigans styled restaurant. It was a semi-funny comedy that most people got a few laughs from and then forgot all about. However, if you have ever worked in the restaurant business- watching that movie was an entirely different experience for you. There is a set of terms, expressions, and phrases that are almost like another language going on inside of a kitchen that most people in the general public would think was from another planet. A sub-culture among the staff exists in those types of restaurants that only people who been part of one will understand. Manson Family Vacation will feel a lot like that to most of you in this community. If the general public gives this move a 6.9- then in our world you can add another point or two for things we understand that the general public will just never get. As a recent visitor to every location they used in this film- I can tell you that they are fairly accurate. They go to the exact street intersections of both the Tate, and LaBianca homes, but when they film the close up scenes in and in front of the actual houses- they are not the actual houses ( I guess that is understandable lol). They have central characters named "Blackbird and Sunshine"    ( Tobin Bell and Davie-Blu) who are clear references to Greywolf and Star. There is mention of going to Death Valley to join an " Environmental group." Most of the general public won't get that means ATWA or understand the real relevance of those two characters. So, I guess my point is that there are probably going to be a few people who might make the same mistake I made of paying too much attention to the trivia and not paying enough attention to the road ahead and bigger picture. This movie takes a serious turn. I had no idea where it was headed and it ended up having an impression on me when it got to its conclusion. A real catharsis takes place at the end of this film. But before we get into that, let me start at the beginning....

Review:

The two main characters in this film are brothers. One is a successful corporate attorney named Nick ( Jay Duplass) who is married with one 7 year old child. The other brother, Conrad ( Linas Phillips), was adopted. He is a frustrated artist type who, we learn early on, has just quit his job. Conrad has sold all his possessions, and is heading out to Death Valley to join an "Environmentalist group". On his way to Death Valley, Conrad is going to stop by his brother Nicks' house to visit for a couple of nights.

Sidebar - Nicks wife ( Leonora Pitts) - Either by coincidence or not- reminds me very much of what a modern day "Cosmo" type  Manson girl might look like lol. Maybe its just me?- or this intentional casting? Sort-of-Plain, yet somehow sexy. Vulnerable but strong...  I was smitten with this actress lol

The film begins with some older footage of Charlie giving an interview about the Children. You have seen this one before. He explains why he stays relevant to Children. He does the wild arm-flagging dance for the reporter, He is "Brand new" he tells the interviewer. He is one of them...

 We then get introduced to both of our main characters. Conrad is hitchhiking up towards his brothers house with not much success. Nick is at his office explaining to his secretary, and by extension to us, who Conrad is and what his situation is. Then soon after, Nick is at home having the same discussion, with  a little more detail, with his wife. During this conversation we learn that Conrad was adopted and that he has missed their recent fathers funeral. Conrad has been an edgy, irresponsible child who was always very interested in death and conspiracies, and his art work is very dark. I felt the first time around this scene was written to explain why the two brothers were so obviously different, and to set up why Conrad might have such dark interests. It sort of was- but not for the reasons I thought as we will see later. Anyway around the time they have given up wondering when he would get there...
 
Conrad finally shows up at Nicks house. He hides under a table and startles him by jumping out and grabbing him with one arm and thrusting a ( anyone?) buck knife at him with the other. After saying hello, and having Conrad explain he has quit his job and is heading out to Death Valley, Conrad and Nick go outside of Nicks beautiful home to talk privately. After requesting to sleep in the back yard in a tent, Conrad reveals to Nick he has a plan for them for the following day. He wants to visit some sites around town related to the Charles Manson murder cases. After showing some initial reluctance, Nick succumbs as Conrad is able to use guilt- a common theme here with Nick- to convince him he only has one day in town before he leaves and it is something they can do together. There a few moments in this film where Nick is forced to make a choice between common sense and doing something questionable out of a feeling of guilt about how he has treated Conrad. Again, with his wife constantly pushing him in Conrads direction, Nick goes through more changes in this movie than any other character. There is a strong indication early and often that Conrad has been treated as an outsider his entire childhood. Nick is constantly agonizing over the role he played in that. This will lead him down a challenging path later when trying to reconcile major revelations. But at this early point- Nick simply agrees to chauffeur his brother to a few local locations. It is important to note that the contrast between the brothers is emphasized strongly early on. Nick was the real child, and the overachiever. Conrad was the outsider, who nobody ever seemed to care much about. At one point in an early conversation Nick points out to Conrad that "Your whole dynamic is this everyone hates me thing." To this Conrad simply asks him back "Well don't they?" The question goes unanswered. It is apparent that Conrad has always been an outsider in his adopted family. Nick acts very condescending towards Conrad frequently in the early part of the film.

The next day is more or less what I thought this whole movie was going to be. They go on a laugh a minute, embarrassment a minute for Nick, furious tour around LA of the major Manson related locations. One noticeable omission was the Spahn Ranch. But again, as a recent visitor, there isn't much there anymore to see. They went to the front of the gate at Cielo, and the front yard at Waverly. They ate at El Coyote. They cruise around the locales, as Nick points out to Conrad at one point, "Your enthusiasm for all of this is frightening." After embarrassing Nick at the Tate house to a neighbor by taking off his sweatshirt to reveal a Manson T shirt and screaming, Conrad calms him down in the car by using guilt again, along with a few hits of weed. By the time they get to Waverly, a buzzing Nick is helping Conrad get into the house by making up a lie to the present owners about being the Labainca's grandkids. This back and forth with Nick is constantly happening. He is primarily repulsed by the subject matter. On the other hand, he is constantly trying to pacify and make things right with his brother who he feels is running away in part due to a life of neglect he in part caused. So he repeatedly helps Conrad get into and around these places, and later people, which repulse him. "People died here. you have to respect that." Nick tells Conrad outside of the Tate house. Yet 30 minutes later, he is lying trying to help him get pics in front of the LaBianca's refrigerator.

It is an interesting question. Where do we draw the line? Where do I draw my own? I am repulsed by what the murderers did, and what happened at these places. But, I too was at that gate....

During the day we see that Conrad knows a lot about the case. He carries around a copy of Helter Skelter, but people in the community will hear Conrad say things which indicate a much more thorough understanding of the events which took place than that particular book offered. Someone did their homework. I will get to more about this shortly. At one point when looking it over Nick comes across a pic of the babies and asks what happened to them. I never paid attention to Conrad's muted answer the first screening around.  A sort of theme starts to develop where Conrad reveals more and more about his actual destination, and his involvement with Charlie as time goes on, and Nick starts to realize that there is more to this situation than meets the eye. At the end of the nite, back at Nicks house, they end up arguing about Conrad's involvement with Nick's young son- who has been having some trouble at school. However, after another heart to heart with the wife and another guilt ridden trip down memory lane, Nick agrees to drive Conrad out to Death Valley so he wont have to hitch. Interesting that later Conrad is able to offer some sage advice to Nick about how to handle his son...

 When they get out to Death Valley Nick realizes quickly that Conrad is joining up with a group of "Manson People." By now,  Nick is more or less on a rescue mission. It has become apparent that Conrad's entire agenda has been to join a group of people who all have some type of a connection to Charlie. Nick is disgusted, but feels partly responsible, so he sticks around to both help Conrad in his quest to find the leader of the group ( Blackbird), as well as to sort of watch out for him. We start to see now that Nick is feeling responsible for all of this. His own guilt along with the constant reinforcement from his wife ( who constantly refers to Conrad sweetly as "Connie") has manifested. Now add in that Conrad has played his own situation beautifully. Actor Linas Phillips does a perfect job as Conrad of looking menacing and dangerous, but coming across as sweet and gentle. He says just the right things to Nick at the precise moments they will deliver the most impact. He is always playing the sympathy card perfectly, and never aggressive. On the ride up there are a few funny moments. At one point Conrad plays a few tunes from the LIE CD, and lets Nick compliment them, before telling him who is singing. This is a trick I have done myself a few times lol 

 This brings me back to the point about someone doing their homework. The leaders of the group they are trying to find, and ultimately do, are two characters named "Blackbird and Sunshine" who seem to run the environmental group. This, again, is an obvious reference to Greywolf, and Star. The group itself is an obvious reference to ATWA. At one point in Death Valley Blackbird takes Conrad to see the "Black Bus". There are a few mentions in this movie the casual viewer probably would not get like some of the rest of us would.  One wonders who may have helped with this movie, or where they got their information?

Anyway- the final act of this movie takes it in almost a completely different direction. The laughs are over.  It seems that Charlie has been waiting patiently for Conrad to show up, and is asking about him every day. The Sunshine character takes an immediate sexual interest in Conrad and everyone in the environmental group treats him with deference. That nite in Death Valley culminates with a party for Conrad with the whole environmentalist group. As more and more people heap praise and adulation at Conrad, Nick wonders around taking it all in, and trying to figure out a way to get his brother out of there. Then the "Blackbird" character takes Nick aside and delivers the zinger. He shows a picture of the babies from "The Family" similar to the one Nick had seen earlier in H/S and goes into a little more detail about what happened to them. Then he shows Nick another picture of a woman and a baby and tells him that this baby is Conrad. 

Conrad is Charlie's son. 

Now this may sound like it could go off the rails at this point, but somehow it works. Tobin Bell does an amazing job in his role as 'Blackbird", and by now Linas Phillips has reeled you in. You care about Conrad. And now it all makes sense. The adoption, the dark art, the scary eyes blended with the easy manner. Nick, who by now isn't looking nearly as smart or cocky as in the first part of the film, is shocked and appalled. The roles have reversed now. Conrad is confident and in charge of his destiny and Nick seems out of place and lost. All I can say is that this transition happens so slowly in front of you that, to me, it just worked ( At least once I watched it semi-straight lol). Nick tries to convince Conrad that he has a "real" family, and he needs to come back with him. He lays it all on the line and takes full responsibility for the years of pain he has caused Conrad. But, Conrad gets a call from Charlie at that exact moment and has to make a choice. He takes the call. A furious and disappointed Nick is left to go home alone. Nick thinks things through during the long ride home, and then after having one more talk with the wife, Nick knows that there is only one thing that he can do. So, he heads back to Death Valley to rescue Conrad for once and all. This sets up the final confrontation of good versus evil. Right versus wrong. Real Family versus "The Family"...

 He gets to the prison where Conrad is about to meet Charlie for the first time just as Conrad is about to enter. They have one final brilliantly acted conversation, which almost brought a tear to my eye, outside the entrance to the prison. And then.....

Well, lol- if you are still interested- you will have to go watch for yourself!

Final Thoughts:

The Manson Family Vacation starts and ends with audio of Charlie. This movie takes place in a world that some people reading this belong to, and others of us reading this flirt with. It floats from location to location with Charlie looming over the entire story-line, but I believe not at its core. I believe, at its core, this a movie about family. Family and interpersonal relationships. What is a real family? Who are your real brothers and sisters? Is it as simple as blood and biological parents? What happens when you have two groups of people you belong to, or have ties to? What counts more when it comes to loyalty to people- where you come from or where your going? In the case of this movie- what if you dont even feel attached to one group at all, but have been tied to them through no choice of your own? How do you make these choices?  Well, this movie ends with the idea that there might be hope  there is a way one wouldn't have to choose. If we can open our hearts just a little bit to compassion and understanding it may be possible to have it both ways. Conrad ends up teaching Nick a few lessons in this movie, and after the first 30 minutes of it- if you saw that coming- your a lot more perceptive than I. This movie made me laugh, think and even a little sentimental. What else can you ask for from a flic?

Saint Circumstance says: On a scale of 1 to 10 Coors Lites -  8 pack :)

Thanks again Patty :)

 
                    -Your Favorite Saint

Col. Paul Tate was at Manson's Inyo arraignment!

Ever had one of those "holy crap" moments when looking at something you've seen many times before because something jumps out at you that you never noticed previously? Well, I recently did! Which brings me to these two photos.

The first was discovered while searching through raw news footage on YouTube (courtesy Backporch Tapes). It's taken from Manson's arraignment in Inyo Co. on December 3, 1969. After checking with people who knew him, we believe that it is Paul Tate against the wall wearing sunglasses (he appears at 0:12):

The second photo for comparison is of Tate at Sharon's funeral:

In Restless Souls, Alisa Statman wrote that Tate was there to see Manson at his LA arraignment on December 9 and locked eyes with the man that may have masterminded his daughter's murder. Some have disputed this as fabrication on Statman's part.

Was Statman mistaken about the location? Was Tate at both? We'll probably never know for sure, but with this photo, (for me, at least) , the top photo proves that Paul Tate was at Manson's Barker Ranch Raid arraignment - before the public was even aware that a Charles Manson existed!

Claire Vaye Watkins Publishes a Novel

Paul Watkins daughter Claire Vaye Watkins has been a favorite of ours here at the blog.  We have watched her grow as a writer.  Her book of short stories Battleborn was a huge success, earning her quite a few awards and much acclaim.

Gold Flame Citrus by Claire Vaye Watkins

The West may be running low on water, but there's no shortage of smart literary authors considering the end of the world. In recent years, a host of writers have released books imagining what the planet will look like in the aftermath of widespread disease or governmental collapse. Dystopian novels are the product of real global fears, and now water scarcity has moved to the fore.

In Claire Vaye Watkins' beautiful debut novel, "Gold Fame Citrus," the California-born author depicts an American West brought to its knees by a crippling drought. The book couldn't be more timely — with water rationing and wildfires dominating the headlines recently, some readers might find the subject matter a little too close to home.

The entire LA Times review of Claire's debut novel can be read here.

The book is available at her publisher's website or at Amazon.

GIVING THANKS!

The Mansonblog would like to give our thanks to our many readers, commenters and contributors!  It's not often that such a diverse group of people can mostly get along and exchange thoughts on such a controversial subject.  I believe we have made some headway towards a better understanding  about the case and the people involved.  We couldn't have done it without you, you are what helps makes this blog a success!

Now everyone go stuff yourselves silly and watch football.

 

Not pictured are Austin Ann and George Stimsom

Fireworks at Susan Atkins '85 New Year's Eve Hearing!

Susan Atkins must have flipped her "wig" when she appeared at her 1985 parole hearing, sporting her shoulder-padded power suit & permed wedge hairstyle, after her attorney introduced some odds/ends to the parole board members while stating his numerous objections:

Eugene Epstein, attorney for Susan Atkins at that time was sent a copy of a letter originally mailed to Ron Koenig, who happened to be the good, ol chairman of the California Board of Prison Terms. The copy was sent by the "Acting Executive Officer" of the board of prison terms named Gilbert Sawseeto. Guess who sent the letter? Guess what the letter was about? The letter itself was dated December 3, 1985, which was a few weeks before Susan's parole hearing, which happened on New Year's eve (December 31st) of 1985. The letter was from the governor of California, at the time Mr. George Deukmejian, in which he "asked" the board to deny parole for Bobby Beausoleil, Susan Atkins and Charles Manson. In summary, the letter stated, "As Governor, and as a private citizen, I ask the board to deny parole in these three cases. These inmates represent a continued threat, to the safety of our community" He went on to say, "It is our duty to insure that these people remain behind bars for the rest of their natural lives." 

Susan's attorney highly objected to this letter and went further by stating, "This is a violation of his powers as Governor of the State of California! It's in excess of jurisdictional powers under the laws of the State of California. And what is happening here is the Chief Executive of the State of California is telling you gentlemen, without having reviewed any of the materials that I gathered before you, that this parole should be denied. The Governor’s power under California Penal Code states this: the Governor had no discretion to grant or withhold a parole release date. Nowhere in the statutes is there a provision for the Governor to share the Board’s power to grant or withhold parole in the same manner he shares the power to revoke. It would therefore seem to follow that there is no statutory authority for the Governor to grant or withhold a parole release date. Neither is there any such inherent authority for him to rescind such date. Penal Code Section 304(1) and Penal Code Section 5077, says “The Governor, not the Board, has discretion as to granting a pardon. On the other hand, the Board, not the Governor has discretion in fixing petitioner’s term and granting or withholding parole. And I suggest to you gentlemen that the effect of Governor Deukmejian’s letter is to affect this process of whether or not to grant or withhold the parole of Susan Atkins. But here the Governor has done something significantly different when he tells you that your duty – YOUR DUTY is to ensure that these people remain behind bars for the rest of their natural life. That’s the Chief Executive of the State of California saying those things to you, gentlemen. And I suggest to you that it infects these proceedings in a way that can’t be remedied."

In answering this embarrassing situation, board member Jauregui completely denied that Governor Deukmejian was writing in his official position as governor, but simply as a concerned citizen. He thought that he had every right, just like any other citizen to do so. Of course, this was total & utter bullshit. Says Board Member Jauregui: "Well, he's not urging us. He's just giving us his opinion. Nobody's going to urge us, you know, whether he's Governor or not, whether we're his appointees or not, that doesn't matter to us." This dragged on for quite a while, with board member Jauregui trying to cover their asses by saying that the governor was just a concerned citizen, etc. Attorney Epstein had a hell of a comeback, though. He told them "I suggest to you that he's writing you that letter on the stationary of The Governor of the State of California and he says to you-he's writing it to you as Governor! After much bickering back & forth, the board member sheepishly said, "Well, we weren't going to use it anyway." He comically tried to state that they weren't going to consider a letter from their boss anyway! This was the funniest thing of all. They weren't going to use it? WTF? How could he have said that with a straight face? I'm not suggesting in any way that Susan Atkins deserved to be released, because I don't think she did, but damn they were really full of shit!

The next little tidbit was concerning the depressing facts surrounding the circumstances of Susan's little boy and how she came to lose him. From what I gathered from the parole hearing transcript, Susan met the father of her child in New Mexico when "The Family" was traveling on their fart infested bus. His name was Bruce White and he was a college student from the University of New Mexico studying physiology. He left college and traveled with the Family on the bus, and eventually ended up living with them in Topanga Canyon. Susan claimed to have known him about a month before they moved to Spahn ranch. He impregnated her, then left shortly after finding out Susan was pregnant. He knew she was preggers, but didn't know he was the father (how did she even know?) The parole board asked her if he left because he knew she was pregnant and she stated, "no, he left because he just wanted to go back home." She then told the board that he left when she was three months pregnant (no sense makes sense). She eventually gave birth on October 7th, 1968, describing the birth to the parole board, "We were at the back house at Spahn's ranch when I went into labor and there were a lot of people there involved in playing music and smoking dope, marijuana, taking drugs, and I went into labor, and that was the night my son was born, those people were there. Mary Brunner, Catherine Share and Ella Bailey actually assisted with the birth. Manson was there and assisted in some manner, but mostly the women helped." The child weighed only 2 1/2 pounds at birth and a doctor came the next morning, supposedly to exam the child. Susan had the baby for a year and he was taken away from her when she was arrested. She went on to state, "I found out the courts had granted temporary custody to a foster home and the foster parents went to the courts and asked that his name be changed, and I was very grateful to learn that his name was changed to a decent name." At the time of this parole hearing, the child was 17 (in 1985). He was adopted when he was four or five. It took the courts approximately two & a half to three years to find a home that would take him. Susan closed out that part of the questioning by stating, "If he looks for me and wants to know who his mother is, I hope that he will find me." Sad, very, very sad!

The new year's eve hearing went on in the normal fashion, with them going over her childhood, what she did for work in San Francisco (waitress, topless go-go dancer at the Galaxy Club in North Beach, drink slinger in an after-hours club and a "professional" of the various, uh, nightly "arts." They didn't come right out and ask her if she was hooking, but it's pretty obvious she was. Next up, they started discussing her mental health evaluations. She was furious that a non-board certified, prison psychologist named Dr. J Hamner administered a test on her called a MMPI test, which stands for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Afterwards, the doc wouldn't release her results to her, which, supposedly was a violation of her rights. The doctor claimed it was "confidential" and actually put the results in his own, personal file, which is illegal. Susan's attorney tried to force the prison officials to hand over her records and they wouldn't budge. He also tried to get a continuance of the hearing, but they wouldn't allow that either. In other words, she was f*cked. The non-board certified psychologist did not write a favorable report about her. He stated, "There are no indications of psychosis of severe psychological disturbances. Susan was logical, oriented in all spheres, and relatively cooperative during the interview. She remains a somewhat emotional individual whose internal dynamics are controlled through intellectualization. MMPI suggests anti-social traits remain strong." After reading this in the room, the board members told Susan & her attorney that they weren't going to use that information anyway, even though they DID end up using it against her. To counterbalance what Dr. Hamner had to say, Susan was evaluated by another doctor of her choosing, which didn't sit well with Stephen Kay. This doctor was none other than Dr. David E. Smith of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic. As you all know, Dr. Smith also did a study (Case Study of the Charles Manson Group Marriage Commune) on the Family way back when they were active at Spahn ranch. Stephen Kay objected to Dr. Smith's evaluation of Susan by stating, "The first thing I would like to point out, is that I commend the attorneys for including Dr. Smith's biography, because it shows that he is not qualified to testify to the things in his report. He is not a psychiatrist. He is not a psychologist." Mr. Kay's objections to Dr. Smith went on & on. Was he qualified? I don't know.

Lastly, during this weird hearing, the board, for some insane reason, questioned Susan about her sexuality. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't know a prisoner's sexual history was a factor in parole. Board member Jauregui started this line of questioning by stating, "We've avoided this question and I've looked at this packet and realized that your mother died when you were 13. the confrontation you had with your brother, drugs and then, I, I gather this thirty years experience working the field as a peace officer and there's no doubt that your sexual freedom, it was there, and that you were not only probably using, but you were also being abused continually somewhere; men were using you. And that was probably part of your down-fall also. It's obvious, if you have any experience dealing with people out on the street, just by reading your packet, that it's there and it's been there and it's been a big part of your problem and I'm wondering, can you make a statement regarding that problem that you had?"  Susan answered pretty honestly, "It's taken me a very, very long time to come to grips with the way I feel about sex, the way I feel about men. Probably for the first time in my life, these last three years-almost four years since my marriage-I don't need outside approval from a man to feel good about myself anymore. In my education, the ability to carry a job and work and be productive has given me a tremendous amount of self-satisfaction. And my concept of myself today is totally different than what it was four years ago. Dr. Jimakis had said I had a needy type personality. Well, I worked very hard on that in group therapy and came to realize, no, I don't need a man's approval. I don't need to be told, in essence, I love you and I'm just going to follow right along with Sue. If, perchance, I, in the future, have a relationship with a gentleman, there's going to be a long period of friendship and there'd be-from my point of view, better let me know that he sees me, the person, and not just what I can offer in a sexual manner, because I'm not into that anymore; I don't need that. It just-It feels good to be free from that. It feels very good. I see sexual relationships and interpersonal relationships in a much more healthy manner; I know what they entail. And if one comes along, fine, but I-I am not looking for one. I am not looking for one."  Note: I guess she changed her mind and jumped back up on that pogo stick when she married James Whitehouse (and his mullet), huh?

The hearing was closed by a statement made by the courageous Doris Tate. I say courageous, because she was able to go to the prison and sit in the same room with that abominable, wretched woman and not completely break down & attack her. She stated, "I'm here today to-I am representing my daughter and her unborn son. Words cannot express the pain and suffering that this woman has put my family through. Susan Atkins and her so-called "family" sentenced my daughter and her baby son to death with-without cause. She begged for her life and the life of her child. Susan Atkins' reply to this was, "SHUT UP, YOU BITCH, YOU'RE GOING TO DIE." And I'm sure it was just in those tones. What compassion did this woman have for my daughter's begging? None. Today, I see no remorse for what she has done. And after their dastardly deed was done, Susan Atkins then proceeds to partake of Sharon's blood. I live with these screams and these beggings for her life daily. Sharon was sentenced to death without a fair trial or without a jury. I was sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of parole, and I say to you: Should Susan Atkins' sentence be any less? I have approximately 350,000 signatures against Susan Atkins' release. And may I present to the board, 2,883 more? I would like for my daughter to be home today and I would like to know what her career-how it would have gone along today. What might it be today had this woman not interfered with her? But most of all, I see no remorse in anything that these four hours have brought to this panel. I thank you for listening to me. And may God be with you to make the decision that has to be made." Gulp. That was heart-wrenching. I don't know how Mrs. Tate read that, but she got through it and till the day she died, made damn sure the trash that was responsible for her daughter's (and grandson's) death never saw the outside of a stinky, cold, ugly, loud prison. She did her job and did it well.

As a final Austin Ann thought on the subject matter, I have to say that I am not surprised in the least bit about what that governor did, however, I don't think his letter writing was necessary. It was wrong, I know, and violated the hell out of her rights to a unbiased panel, but made no difference either way. What parole board would of released her or any one of her crime partners? None! I really don't think people, nowadays, grasp the enormity of what these people actually did. The human suffering and physical (and mental) pain they caused is beyond description. It cannot be put into words. So many people were murdered and in such a brutal, bloody way, then afterwards, the families of the dead were left to wander the earth, with their loved ones' murder playing in their minds day in & day out. Susan watched all six human beings die. She saw Gary Hinman gasping for breath & choke, because of the stab would to his heart. His lungs probably filled with blood, so he not only was stabbed, and sliced in the face, but he suffocated on his own blood. Do you realize how scared he must of been while laying there? Then, she saw from a short distance, Steven Parent be shot. Did that horrify her? Nope, apparently not. Next, she saw Jay Sebring shot down, then stabbed over & over again, while she did her own amount of stabbing on Wojciech Frykowski's legs while he screamed for help. Ever present, she again, gazed, slack jawed, while Tex Watson plunged a huge bayonet into Abigail Folger's abdomen, causing her intestine to partly be exposed and, of course, she gleefully assisted Sharon Tate, by leading her to the couch to sit down, while putting her in a choke hold, so her beast companion could begin his stabbing frenzy into a PREGNANT WOMAN! If Susan stabbed or didn't stab Sharon, it doesn't matter. She was there and she very much participated. She wasn't revolted in the least bit by blood spilling, people screaming horridly & begging for their lives. Afterwards, when they got caught, she bragged, laughed, sang and acted like a complete lunatic at the trial. And people wonder why she didn't leave prison alive. FIN

Recent photo of Lynnette Fromme

Photo courtesy Ben Gurecki

Costume Portraits From The Wrecking Crew

The Wrecking Crew was the last in the series of Matt Helm films starring Dean Martin.  It was released in 1969, a few months before Sharon Tate was murdered. The costume designer for Sharon's wardrobe in this film was Moss Mabry.