Monday, November 18, 2024

The CIA's Review of Chaos

Did you think that Tom O'Neill's Chaos would fly under the radar of the CIA notice? Of course not. All in all it's a generous review though one might get the feeling that there were a few eye rolls along the way when writing the review.


Intelligence in Public Media 

Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties 

Tom O’Neill with Dan Piepenbring (Little, Brown and Company, 2019), 521 pages, plates and illustrations, bibliography, index. 

Reviewed by Leslie C.

 Authors, or their agents and publishers, seem unable to resist using the word “secret” to modify that apparently pedestrian word “history.” Its use promises something the finished work invariably fails to deliver, implying as it does access to the eldritch or the gnostic, when the reality is often more mundane. Such a force is at work in Tom O’Neill’s Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties

The book has its origins in a magazine article O’Neill was commissioned to write marking the 30th anniversary of the Tate-LaBianca murders. Charles Manson, a semiliterate drifter and purported cult leader, and members of his “Family” were convicted of the killings. The episode transfixed the American public and suggested the forces unleashed by the social tides of the sixties, not least the anti-war and youth movements, had dark if not violent undertones. O’Neill never finished his article. The threads he uncovered while doing his research led him instead on a 20-year odyssey that crossed the line into obsession, as he switched editors and publishers, borrowed money from relatives, and did anything else required to unearth the truth about Manson. 

Chaos is a monument to O’Neill’s determination to get the story and a narrative of his efforts to track down reluctant witnesses, obtain forgotten or buried documentary evidence, and pull the pieces into a coherent picture. Chaos is not—at least not in the way its title suggests—a “secret history of the sixties.” With its fascinating allusions to a host of Southern California characters from Cass Elliott to the Beach Boys, it is more Once Upon A Time In Hollywood than Manchurian Candidate. This review will not summarize O’Neill’s theories, though it will touch on them insofar as they are germane to the primary question for this audience, which is, of course, what did Charles Manson have to do with the CIA? But first, some housekeeping. 

Over the course of August 8–10, 1969, Manson’s followers, at his urging, murdered eight people during two home invasions: six at the home of actress Sharon Tate and the director Roman Polanski, and two at the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Manson believed the killings would trigger a race war, and his followers—using the victims’ blood—left behind graffiti meant to suggest the Black Panther Party was responsible. A four-month investigation, spurred by the jailhouse confession of a member of the “Family,” resulted in the arrest of Manson and his accomplices. Vincent Bugliosi, the Los Angeles district attorney who tried the case and secured the convictions, wrote a book about the crimes. Titled Helter Skelter—after a Beatles song Manson used a code word for the race war—it went on to become the best-selling “true crime” book in the history of American publishing. 

All of this is straightforward. However, O’Neill’s research uncovered a litany of problems and unanswered questions about the conduct of the investigation that might, had they been brought to light sooner, have justified a re-trial, according to one of Bugliosi’s associates in the DA’s office. In O’Neill’s telling, Bugliosi emerges as a villain who seized his chance to profit in the wake of a terrible crime and who spent the subsequent decades consciously foiling any effort to question the methods or outcome of the investigation. O’Neill’s scrupulous catalogue of the myriad omissions in Bugliosi’s case certainly paints an unflattering picture of the entire process and of many of those involved. 

Manson’s responsibility for these crimes in not in question. O’Neill’s interest is in the motivations and actions of many secondary players, together with the grip Manson continues to hold on the American imagination. Most people were horrified—yet fascinated—by the brutality of the killings, though others saw them in a different light. The leftist radical Bernardine Dohrn of the Weather Underground infamously elevated Manson to a revolutionary hero. New Left chronicler Todd Gitlin was more reasonable, and closer to the mark, when he observed that “For the mass media, the acidhead Charles Manson was readymade as the monster lurking in the heart of every longhair, the rough beast slouching to Beverly Hills to be born for the new millennium.” O’Neill reaches a similar conclusion, which brings us to the main point, which is the CIA’s alleged role. 

If, as Gitlin suggests, Manson embodied for most Americans the darkness hard wired in the counterculture, then how did the US government benefit? O’Neill delves into the FBI’s COINTELPRO and CIA’s CHAOS, domestic surveillance programs designed to infiltrate, discredit, and neutralize civil rights, student, and anti-war organizations that first Lyndon Johnson and then Richard Nixon regarded as subversive. These programs, which in the case of CIA violated its charter, were ultimately exposed and triggered congressional hearings in the mid-1970s, in which the Intelligence Community was held to account. 

And this is where O’Neill ultimately falls short. Despite what his title implies, he cannot document any compelling link between these programs and Manson. This was not for lack of effort. Extensive research and a slew of FOIA requests did not produce a smoking gun or much beyond the shadowy, ill-explained presence around these events of Reeve Whitson, an alleged “intelligence operative.” O’Neill also examines the CIA program MKULTRA, which may have gotten him closer to his goal—but not much. Conceived by Richard Helms and authorized by Allen Dulles in 1953, MKULTRA studied mind control, one possible path to which was hallucinogenic drugs. 

The standard histories of the subject indicate that the CIA, through MKULTRA, spent considerable effort to understand the use and effects of LSD and other substances, and contracted with a number of researchers to that end. One was Dr. Louis Jolyon West, who is the closest O’Neill gets to tying Manson to the CIA. West, purportedly at the behest of the agency, opened an office in San Francisco, the purpose of which was “studying the hippies in their native habitat”, Haight Ashbury.  Manson had, at the same time, been a denizen of the Haight before moving the “Family” to Los Angeles, and he liberally dosed his followers with LSD, which was one of his tools for bending them to his will. Indeed, defense attorneys unsuccessfully attempted to use this as a mitigating factor during the trial. 

While O’Neill not unreasonably asks how a barely educated criminal like Manson could use sophisticated methods to control his “Family,” he cannot link Manson to Dr. West. There is no evidence the two ever met, or that Manson was—in what O’Neill admits is the most “far-out” theory—the product of “an MKULTRA effort to create assassins who would kill on command.” (430) His own conclusions about CHAOS—which are less relevant to his theory of the case than MKULTRA—are dubious. He describes a program that kept tabs on 300,000 people, sharing intelligence with FBI, the Department of Justice, and the White House, but he then claims it was so well-hidden within CIA that “even those at the top of its counterintelligence division were clueless.” (233). And yet, when the program was exposed and Director William Colby admitted its existence, James Angleton, the longtime head of counterintelligence and presumably no stranger to such efforts, was the official who resigned. 

O’Neill also makes the occasional odd statement. One example will illustrate the point. In untangling the web of connections surrounding the Manson case, O’Neill links one figure to former Air Force Chief of Staff General Curtis E. LeMay, who, he writes, “tried to organize a coup against Kennedy among the Joint Chiefs of Staff” during the Cuban Missile Crisis (83). This was news, as the standard Cold War history fails to mention it, as does LeMay’s biographer. LeMay did forcefully advocate for military action against the missile sites—and he was famously satirized in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove— but a coup? Presumably if his advocacy had reached even the level of significant insubordination Kennedy would have removed him. There was, after all, precedent for doing so. 

O’Neill’s narrative is never uninteresting. His research has raised legitimate questions about the investigation and prosecution of these notorious crimes, and the actions of a number of people, from the district attorney’s office to the sheriff’s department; from the associates and relatives of the victims to the perpetrators. However compelling his determination to follow every last thread, O’Neill has not written a “secret history” of the 1960s, unless the secrets are those certain individuals wished to keep for their own reasons. The author cannot definitively tie Manson to MKULTRA or CHAOS; he can only imply it on circumstantial evidence. At least, in the end, he has the grace to acknowledge it.

The reviewer: Leslie C. is a CIA operations officer. 

Studies in Intelligence Vol 65, No. 3 (Extracts, September 2021)

Original Article 

Monday, November 11, 2024

Scrapbooks

 


Someone has compiled a series of scrapbooks with images of newspaper articles, documents, and public and personal pictures. I say someone because there is no stated author. The books have a title page but nothing else, no copyright page, no dedication page, no acknowledgement, no table of contents, no chapters, no forward or introduction pages. There is a website address on the back cover of the books.

The website associated with the books is https://family-jams.company.site/  Because of the Family Jams name I contacted George Stimson and asked him if he knew anything about who put the books together. He did not but he did want to take a look at the books to see if he might be interested in getting them for himself. George came by for a visit and ended up ordering the books. 

These books are put together well. They are mostly chronological, the articles and documents are readable. There are pictures in the book that I have never seen. The books are large measuring 12"x 8 1/2"and 1 1/2" thick. They all have 500+/- pages. They are available as a paperback or hardcover. The hardcover books are $25 more than the paperbacks which are $60. If you go to the website they are offering a deal on all four books for $200 in the paperback format.

These are print on demand books that are published by Lulu. I have also seen them new on Ebay but they are $10 more each. Family Jams has a couple more books that are strictly documents with few pictures. One is the Grand Jury testimony for TLB and the other is The Process Church v Ed Sanders documents for the trial held in the UK.

The books would make a good Christmas present for yourself! What? Don't you treat yourself at Christmas after spending all of your hard earned cash on other people? They also would be a good suggestion for that person who asks you what you want for the holidays. 

There were a couple of documents in Volume 1 that surprised me. I have these documents and have had them for at least 15 years. I've never posted them because I was asked not to. Copies of the documents were given to me by Howard Davis, author of "The Zodiac Manson Connection", who said he had the originals. He was trying to sell them at one point and I'm not sure if he ever did sell them. Howard passed away July4th of this year so I guess it's alright to publish them now.

The first document was issued upon Manson's release from Terminal Island March 21, 1967 and his arrival at the Federal Parole Office in Los Angeles. It is signed and dated by Manson. The amount of money that he was given at the time of parole was left blank.

I had emailed with someone who said they had this document, too. It was a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" moment. We exchanged documents. There was a difference between the two, though they were both the same form. The other document had the money section filled out but no signatures in the Section Two portion of the form. Manson received $75.00 plus $1.09 for transportation upon his release on this other document.



The second document I have is a form that is mostly handwritten. It gives Manson permission to travel on the same day that he was released from Terminal Island. He can go to San Francisco, California, Spokane and Seattle, Washington to look for relatives and establish employment.

Addresses for the parole offices in each city are listed as well as the parole officers names. Handwritten, in Charles Manson's handwriting, next to the list parole offices is the name of Roger Smith and a phone number. The phone number is for the Federal Parole Office in San Francisco.







Monday, November 4, 2024

Making Manson


 

Making Manson is a new three-part documentary debuting on November 19th, the 7th anniversary of Charles Manson's death. It will be shown on NBC/Peacock. All three episodes will be released on that date. Each episode is about an hour long. It was produced by Renowned Films.



Making Manson has been a two-year effort. The program consists of phone conversations between Charles Manson and John Michael Jones over a 20-year period. Jones initially pitched the project to Netflix but after a year Peacock showed interest and it was ultimately picked up by them. Peacock wanted director Billie Mintz to spearhead the project.

Billie Mintz is an award-winning documentary filmmaker and journalist among many other activities. His documentaries include Selena and Yolanda, The Guardians, Portrayal, and Jesus Town USA. He spent two seasons as a correspondent for National Geographic's show Explorer.



This is what Mintz had to say about Making Manson-

"We spent a year delving into two decades' worth of never-before-heard recordings of Charles Manson and his closest confidant. Until now, Manson has only been heard through brief interviews where journalists and prosecutors shaped the narrative without being questioned or contested. In our series, we bring a fresh perspective to his story, allowing Manson to present his own version of events. Everything you knew about Charles Manson is now up for reexamination. Grateful to Renowned Films and Peacock for entrusting me with these tapes and this story.

In our series "Making Manson" we present Manson in a way he's never been heard or thought of before, with an unprecedented level of intimacy that allowed us to interview contributors like never before. Despite countless interviews for past films that have shaped the widely accepted narrative of Manson and the murders, this series breaks new ground, challenging those familiar perspectives."

There were nearly 20 people interviewed for the series. It was learned that the people being interviewed listened to recordings of Manson, presumably regarding something he said about them or an event they were familiar with, and then they were asked to comment and discuss.





The trailer shows Dianne Lake, Catherine "Gypsy" Share, Phil Kaufman, and Steven Kay. Another interviewee was reporter Linda Deutch. Mintz wrote a heartfelt tribute to Deutch upon learning of her death.



"Linda Deutch stands as a trailblazer in the world of journalism, particularly known for her groundbreaking work in covering some of the most notorious and high-profile trials in American history. She made her mark as one of the first women to break into the male-dominated field of courtroom reporting. Her career is distinguished by her coverage of landmark cases, beginning with the infamous Manson Family trials in the late 1960s, where she became a familiar face in the courtroom and established herself as a reliable and insightful journalist. Her career continued with comprehensive reporting on the O.J. Simpson trial, which captivated the nation and further solidified her reputation as a leading figure in legal journalism.

Over the decades, Linda Deutch covered countless other significant trials bringing her sharp analysis and dep empathy to each story, making her reports resonate with the public. Her work has left an indelible mark on journalism, and she had been a role model for many aspiring reporters, particularly women looking to enter the field.

I had the unique privilege of being the last journalist to interview Linda Deutch, an experience that was both humbling and inspiring. She was tough as nails and hilarious as well. She didn't put up with any shit- including mine. I got many eye rolls during the course of our almost 8-hour interview. She liked me and was impressed by my ability to cut through the shit- including her own. As we discussed her storied career and the impact of her work, it was clear that her contributions to journalism were immeasurable. I can only hope that she is still able to watch the film, a tribute to her legacy, and she how her pioneering spirit continues inspire and inform."

Others interviewed include Family members, victim's survivors, law enforcement, the LA DA's office and more. Billie Mintz conducts all of the interviews.

 

Mintz was aided in creating this film by James Dawson a longtime Manson researcher and friend to John Michael Jones. Dawson proposed questions for some of those Mintz interviewed and guided him through the connections of the different people being interviewed and activities of the Family.

The film will be an interesting departure from the current offerings by looking at events from a totally different perspective. 





Monday, October 28, 2024

Prison Art


 

Creating art while imprisoned has been found to be good for the mental health of the prisoner. It has been learned that the act of creating reduces stress, allows for an emotional outlet, improves self worth, encourages creative thinking, and provides a sense of self worth and accomplishment. Art helps the prisoner become more humane and authentic by allowing them to open up and express feelings that they can't vocalize.

Charles Manson was a prolific artist working in various mediums during his 50+ plus years in prison this time around.

Art is very subjective to both the artist and the viewer. What one person thinks is absolutely fabulous another will think it is garbage. There are artists who never saw fame in their lifetime, only to be revered after death.

Piet Mondrian was a Dutch painter who is regarded as one of the greatest artists of the 20th century for his paintings of precise blocks of color on canvas back in the 20s, 30s and 40s and it wasn't until the 60s that his work was celebrated. I totally do not understand Mondrian's popularity. It's just not for me.

Andy Warhol, who was very popular during his lifetime, made a name for himself by taking everyday objects and making them larger than life. Today one can go to a good photo editing site and replicate what Warhol did with his 1967 Marilyn Monroe screen prints, for instance, in just a few minutes with their own photos.

Abstract art is even more subjective.

I am not going to say that one day Manson will be celebrated as one of this century's great artists but his art does have an appeal.

I suppose that if one were to look at Charles Manson's art chronologically that they might see a progression of self-awareness and growth. Chaotic periods of angst and frustration might be identified as well as good times and satisfaction. Manson's art might be the only measure of his true self.

This past summer George Stimson created a one-day pop-up exhibit of Charles Manson's artwork. Pieces by Sandy and Lynette were also featured. George decided to film the exhibit and present it as a 3D offering. The video is like one of those 3D house tours that you see on real estate websites. It takes a moment to get the hang of it. I found the best way to view each piece was to follow the circles on the floor and then use your cursor to make your way up to the art piece. You can get pretty close to each piece.

The show is comprised of artworks from three different collections.

The string art was made in the 70s, 80's and 90s. The paintings were done in 1994 and 1995.

George told me a little bit about obtaining materials and what materials were used in his pieces. " The string art was made with anything he could use. That would include underwear, socks, and other clothing threads but also anything else he could work with. Blue remembers sending him socks that were specifically for making dolls. Some of the scorpions and parts of A Mac Eggus were made with toilet paper."

George heard that Charlie learned how to make the dolls from a woman he knew while he was in Mexico.

When Charlie was not in the Security Housing Unit (SHU) he could receive art supplies from an approved vendor. "The mediums he used were acrylic, pen and ink, colored pencils, clay, papier mâché, fabric, food coloring, and little scraps of this and that that he worked into his pieces."

Manson did not participate in any prison art classes, he generally worked on his art in the common areas or outside.

I asked George what the inspiration was for his art work. This is what he replied.

He said that he was trying to do art that was different. And he certainly did!

Here’s how he described the thoughts behind the large hanging doll, A. Mac Eggus :


“It’s a blamer. You know what a blamer is? When everything goes wrong, the doll’s name is “Egg Us.” Eggus. And when things go wrong, you blame Eggus. If anything happens that’s wrong, if it’s an earthquake, it’s Eggus’ fault. Anything that happens that you don’t like, you blame Eggus. Don’t ever blame yourself. Don’t blame me.... We blame Eggus. And then, after a while, we look at Eggus and we go hang it somewhere where our enemy is. Someone you don’t like? Go hang it in [name deleted]’s yard. You know what I’m saying? In other words, after you’ve blamed it and you got all that negative bad on it, then you can take it over to your friend’s, or someone’s house that’s done you wrong, and give it to them. I put a button on his knee, and I put a rock in his head. You got a rock for a head. It glows in the dark. So if I ever see the rock out behind my window, I know you’re out there.”

And below he talks about the painting The Purple Turkey, which is based on an experience he had in school when a teacher derided him for doing a drawing of a purple turkey. As Lyn Fromme recalled in Reflexion:

We were talking about artwork when Charlie said that his first grade teacher had criticized his painting. He looked dejected. Mary and I laughed.

“No, really,” he said, half-really. “She put her nose in the air and said in front of the class, ‘Now, Charlie, everyone knows that TURKEYS are NOT PURPLE.’”

He said that was the last time he tried to draw or paint.

Manson on The Purple Turkey:



“When you see this next picture you’re really gonna like it, I think. Everybody else likes it. That’s what I call it, The Purple Turkey. It’s really, it should go down in history. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. And I’ve looked at a lot of art. It’s close to a Braque. But Braque would probably laugh at this one. I don’t have any talent. This is pure, pure doodle.... It’s a lot of time, and a lot of little delicate things in it, just for something to do. I don’t have any talent, man. Did you ever see some of the stuff that Beausoleil does? That’s talent. Beausoleil has talent.

“What I do is, I paint the background in the glow-in-the-dark stuff. And then I come in with the lithographic pens, and I paint over that. Then when I put it in like a shadowy light? It jumps out at you. It don’t look cheap, like a lot of that glow-in-the-dark stuff looks kind of cheap, you know. I’m trying to look into something like a different kind of perspective.... What I’m trying to do there, I’m trying to make things that are not identifiable with anything else. I don’t want to make it look like something. I’m trying to make it look like nothing.”

Here's the link to George’s website and the 3D art tour.

 

 


Monday, October 21, 2024

Watchers at Waverly?

 

Were there unknown witnesses to the comings and goings at the LaBianca residence the night of the murders?


 Box 22 vol9015 pg16of130  (Tex Watson trial)


Q: Incidentally, Sergeant(Danny Galindo LAPD), did you make an investigation, either your or other officers under your supervision, make an investigation of the houses on either side of the LaBianca residence?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was anybody home at the Earle C. Anthony estate? (This is the house that was later turned into a convent and that Katy Perry recently tried to buy.)
A: Not when I went.
Q: Was anybody living there at all at the time?
A: Not officially.
Q: What do you mean by "Not officially," if you can explain?
A: Well, subsequent investigation disclosed that some, oh, trespassers had been within the premises at the Earl C. Anthony estate and had actually slept within the premises. I determined the morning of the 11th that a guard had been assigned but had not been around the premises for a day or two.
Q: I see. Nobody was officially then living at the Earle C. Anthony estate?
A: That's a correct statement.
Q: You did discover at some time later some trespassers had invaded the premises?
A: Yes.
Q: And spent the night there?
A: Several nights.
Q: And when did you discover that fact in connection with the date August 10th?
A: Oh, it would been after I had been relieved from the investigation. ....

                                           Earle C. Anthony estate (renovated LaBianca house on upper right)




Q: Did you also go to the True residence on the other side of the LaBianca residence?
A: Yes, sir, I did. ....
Q: Now, was anybody at that residence?
A: No, sir; not at the time I went.
Q: Did you determine whether anybody had been living at the True residence within the very recent past?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what had you determined in that regard?
A: That the residence was populated. ...
Q: Did you determine whether anybody was at the True residence on the evening of August 9nth or the early morning hours of August 10th?

A: Yes, sir. I don't remember the times, but I can recall they had been there--somebody had been at the residence up past through the 9nth and into the 10th.  I don't remember the times.


Anthony, LaBianca, and True estates


 
 
 

 
 

This little tidbit raises some interesting questions:

--Who were these unknown witnesses?  Some squatters looking for some free lodging? 

--Or was the Waverly Dr. house put under surveillance via the two neighboring houses, in the same way the house on Cielo Dr. was supposed to have been watched? 

--Who were the surveillers?  The Mansonoids?  Or the covert operators? 

--Was the Waverly house deliberately selected because the neighboring residences were empty(at least officially), and thus there was little risk of a neighbor seeing/hearing something and calling the police?

--Did somebody deliberately pull the security guard away on that night?  Was he ever interviewed?

--If LAPD Sgt Galindo couldn't remember the 'times,' doesn't that imply that at one point the investigators pinned down the approximate 'times' that these unknown witnesses were there(and maybe even had them identified)?  In other words that a real investigation had been done, but for some reason they kept this part off the record.


Did the cops ever interview this guy?


Part 1 of the taped interview of Harold True by Aaron Stovitz on Jan 27, 1970. 

 
8:50 mark
--True says "an officer was one of our neighbors" (police officer?) lived "right across the street" at Waverly 

[LaBianca had a neighbor in the police department?  That's.... interesting.]
 

Or how about this guy?

No More Tomorrows by Alice LaBianca, c.1990 pg409  Letter from Leno to his daughter Cory, dated April 9, 1969: 
"Not much happening here. No new burglaries, thank goodness! No new clues, either, There has been a plain clothes detective hanging around here occasionally, but I'm beginning to doubt as to whether the 'culprits' will ever be caught."


Monday, October 14, 2024

Bruce Davis August 2024 Parole Hearing

 


The last time we discussed Bruce it was because his January 2024 hearing was continued to August due to a podcast he participated in that the board wanted investigate further.

Our discussion pretty much determined that the "Lighter Side of Serial Killers" podcasts were not a wise move on Bruce's part. The August hearing was mainly a discussion of the podcasts as other required topics for the hearings had already been covered in the January hearing.

There were a larger number of victim survivors and representatives at this hearing than other hearings. Kay Hinman Martley, Gary's cousin, was there as well a niece of Gary, Sheryl Pickford. Debra Tate and Anthony De Maria were there as Family Representatives. A surprise observer was also at the hearing, Sophia Arguelles, who is the daughter of Daniel Arguelles. Sophia was there as a media representative for Smuggler Entertainment.

If you recall Daniel Arguelles jumped into the Manson Estate controversary late in the game. He did a DNA test and it showed that he was a half-brother to Michael Brunner and that he is most likely another son of Charles Manson. We wrote about that here.

Sophia Arguelles

There have been rumors floating around about Sophia Arguelles and what she is doing with Smugglers Entertainment. Apparently, she is putting together a documentary about the TLB murders but her twist is that she is basically victimizing the victims by presenting them all as drug dealers. I was also told that she initially teamed up with Michael Brunner for this documentary but he bowed out of the project because he did not like the direction that the film was taking. Sophia's father Daniel is said to be opposed to what she is trying to do with the documentary. Such is the Helter Skelter telegraph where there is generally a kernel of truth among the exaggerations.

There was a little blurb about Sophia Arguelles in last week's Hollywood Reporter. It's the second story in the link.

Manson’s Granddaughter Gets Her Day in Court

Charles Manson died in prison in 2017, but his offspring continue to stir up helter-skelter in California’s courts. Rambling Reporter has learned that a virtual parole hearing in August for Manson’s onetime right-hand man, 82-year-old Bruce Davis, was interrupted when a woman named Sophia Arguelles turned up onscreen (post-pandemic, many California parole hearings are held via video conferencing), claiming to be a journalist researching a documentary on the 1969 slayings. “There haven’t been reporters at the hearings for years, and they used to be vetted months in advance, but this woman was let in,” recalls Debra Tate, sister of Manson victim Sharon Tate, who has been attending Manson Family proceedings as a victims’ advocate for decades. Shortly after the hearing, Tate discovered that Arguelles was actually the daughter of L.A. Realtor Daniel Arguelles, who has for years been claiming to be Manson’s biological son. “A grandchild is not responsible for a grandfather’s actions, but it’s a blood relative in the victims’ faces,” Tate says. “It’s disturbing.” Arguelles couldn’t be reached for comment, and there isn’t much info available about the doc she’s supposedly working on. But Davis — incarcerated for his part in the Manson murders of Gary Hinman and Donald Shea — was denied parole.

If all of this is true about Sophia's documentary intentions it is surprising that she was allowed as an observer at Bruce's hearing. The parole hearing board's vetting needs to be improved and I agree with Debra Tate on this issue.

Donald "Shorty" Shea was not represented by anyone during this hearing. 

Bruce Davis had a different attorney for the two 2024 hearings. For years he has had Michael Beckman as his attorney and Beckman won Bruce seven grants of parole between 2010 and 2021. All were rescinded by the whichever California Governor in office during those years. The 2022 parole hearing resulted in a three-year denial.

Ananda Joy Hart


Bruce's new attorney is Ananda Joy Hart. She has been an attorney since 2003 and works in San Francisco. She has her own office and is not affiliated with any other attorneys. She doesn't even have a website! Hart's LinkedIn page has this to say about her qualifications.

Having worked for 15 years as a criminal defense attorney, representing mainly indigent defendants, I have turned my attention to Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice Reform. Serving now as an adjudicator on the San Francisco Neighborhood Courts and working as a mediator with Community Boards, I am inspired and motivated to effect reform in the Criminal Justice system. I am also joining the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center as an instructor in a conflict transformation series for inmates within the San Mateo County Jail.

Kay Martley's statement is very compelling. Besides the podcast issues, she mentions an Alta magazine article that she found offensive. We ran a post on the article back in December 2023. Kay may have found the article by looking at our blog. Alta magazine has a niche audience as it's geared towards California and has few, if any, articles about things outside of the state.

As for the hearing itself and Bruce's explanation of his participation in the podcasts, his arguments are weak and I found it very hard to believe that out of 31 phone calls with Rovere, host of The Lighter Side of Serial Killers, he thought only two of the calls were recorded. Bruce also said that he did not know the name of the podcast. Huh? Why would he not ask the name? Read the transcript, if the subsequent hearings go the way of this one, Bruce is never getting out of prison.

Bruce Davis August 2024 Parole Hearing

A huge thank you to CieloDrive for obtaining the parole hearing transcripts and making them available!

 ©Deb Silva 2024

Monday, October 7, 2024

Were the cops intentionally trying to push Charlie over the edge?

It sure sounds like it!


Manson testimony on 2/27/1973, during the Hawthorne surplus store robbery trial.

"During his hour-long testimony, Manson stressed that the antisocial, violent attitude of the group around him was the outgrowth of many contacts with law enforcement.  Questioned by Miss Share’s attorney, Richard Hirsch, about problems with society in general and police in particular, Manson said, “We were pushed into a corner … we didn’t have any choice.”
Speaking about what he called an escalation of police interference with their existence, he testified:
“It started with a polite knock on the door and ‘May we come in?’ I’d opened the door because my door was always open to everyone. They would, at first, politely check IDs. That’s how it started. But two years later it became a 250 storm trooper raid. They were steadily pushing, pushing and pushing until there was nothing left…it was like a yo-yo game and we were their favorite game.” "


Box 57 pg150of491  Grand Jury testimony of Mary Brunner:

Q: And when you speak about raiding, had the police been there when--when I speak of the police I am also including the Sheriff's Department as well -- had the police or Sheriff's Department been to the ranch before this particular day? (July 28th)
A: They were there almost every day.

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

Squeaky:

Box 6 Vol176 Testimony in the Penalty Phase of the TLB trial  pg38of164   Lynette Fromme
Q: During the time that you were at the Spahn Ranch, did you have any contact with the police, either the Los Angeles Police Department or the Sheriff's office? ...  Did you have almost daily contact with them?
A(Fromme): Almost, yes. ..
Q: Were you also, the group of people that were at the Spahn Ranch, frequently arrested?
A: We were. I have been frequently arrested with everybody. They would keep us for three days and let us go, never take us to court.

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

Sandy:

Box 6  vol3076 pg17of302   Testimony in the Penalty Phase of the TLB trial     
   Sandra Goode: The police. They came--we almost--They became a part of our daily life actually after a while. We were friendly to them, and then they became--they began coming in greater numbers, the more of us there were the more of them, the more of us--and it grew.
Q: How often would they come to the ranch to harass you?
A: It became nightly. Always with, "We'll get you yet, Charlie," this type of thing.

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

Gypsy:

Box14  vol3076  pg265of302
Q: Would you tell us, please, Miss Share, the ...frequency that law enforcement came to the Spahn Ranch while you lived there with some other people?
A: At least every day. ..Sometimes more than once a day. ...I know that for months and months and months the police were always there, always there, always trying to arrest somebody for something, and taking some people to jail, and then letting them go two days later. ...I saw police often, often, for a long, long time.

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

Nancy Pitman:

LADA files Box 6 Vol176 Testimony in the Penalty Phase of the TLB trial  pg150of164
Q: Did the police come to the Spahn Ranch all the time?
A: Yeah, all the time, every night.


 
Had you let him put on a defense, he could have explained to you why 
his face was planted in the dirt.


=============================================
 
 
 In a related vein: 

Even before TLB, Manson and Family were the subjects of an active investigation by, or had previous contact with, an astounding array of local, state, and federal entities.

--The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)

--City of Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD)

--The Los Angeles Sheriffs Office (LASO)

--L.A. County Fire Department (LACoFD)

--The Inyo County Sheriffs Office

--The California Highway Patrol (CHP)

--The Las Vegas Police Department (LVPD) and/or the Clark County Sheriff's Department

--The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (Justice Dept)

--The Federal Parole Officers of the Justice Dept

--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) (Treasury Dept)

--The US Secret Service (Treasury Dept)

--National Park Service (Interior Dept)

--Ventura County Sheriff's Office

--Kern County Sheriff's Office

--Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office

--Mendocino County Social Services Dept.
(... the Welfare Department files contain extensive information about Manson and the “family.” --Louise H. Renne, Deputy Attorney General, State of California)

--The Office of the State of California Attorney General (in Sept of '68)
(Renne memo)

--The Mendocino Probation Department and the Los Angeles Probation Department.
 

--And that doesn't count the inclusion of any covert operators of the police/intelligence agencies.  People like Reeve Whitson. 

--A mention should be made of Melba Kronkright, that "executive for a government social service," as Fromme said in her book,  Melba, who showed up one day in Topanga Canyon to hand out freebies for the Mansonoids, the beginning of a two-year relationship.





Monday, September 30, 2024

Charlie and the Family and a Cabin in the Redwoods

 Quite a few years ago I came into possession of a guest book the belonged to people who owned a vacation cabin in San Mateo County, northern California. The cabin was located in the redwoods, seven miles from the ocean, between  the towns of Pescadero and Half Moon Bay which are on the coast. The owners would rent or loan the cabin to friends and family. They had a guest book that people would sign when they stayed at the cabin.

I did not get an exact location for the cabin but I am somewhat familiar with the area. There is a road that goes inland between Half Moon Bay and Pescadero. It's Hwy 84 or locally known as La Honda Rd.  That road runs between Hwy 101 at Redwood City, through Woodside where the Folger's lived, and out to the coast ending at San Gregorio State Beach. 

Back in the day San Gregorio Beach was a nude beach. You could go there and get naked and not get hassled by anyone, including the sheriff's. I have a feeling that it may have been a destination for Manson and the Family and that the cabin was on or just off of La Honda Rd. It would have been a great place to troll for additions to the Family.

Apparently, Manson and some of Family members, I don't know which ones, made themselves at home at the cabin. Chas Manson even went as far as signing the guest book!



I also got a letter of authentication when I got the guest book.




Monday, September 23, 2024

Matthew Roberts RIP

 On August 28, 2024 Daze with Jordan the Lion posted a YouTube with Matthew Roberts announcing definitively that Charles Manson is NOT his birth father. Matthew hooked up with a woman named Kim who had her own experiences with using Ancestry DNA to find her birth father and offered to help Matthew. Once Matthew's DNA was processed Kim was quickly able to rule out Manson as Matthew's father. She was also able to narrow down who Matthew's father was and learned he was one of two brothers. 


But then...

On September 5, 2024, a week later, Jordan the Lion announced that Matthew Roberts had unexpectedly died. Jordan posted a heartfelt tribute to Matthew who he considered a friend although the two had never met in person.



I'm glad that Matthew was able to find the answers he was seeking before he passed. 

Monday, September 16, 2024

Guess Who Got Married

 

*

*

*

*

*

Brooks Poston and his bride Sylvee Crockett.



Thanks to Mike 1970 for the tip and the pic.