Henry Rollins on those Charles Manson tapes

Below is an abridged version of an abridged version of an interview with Henry Rollins, on playing a vampire, the indignities of auditions, his relationship to radio and what happened with all that Charles Manson music business. Aside from the promo clip below from "He Never Died", I only re-posted the section dealing with Manson music:

---

 

There's a film called "Manson Family Vacation" [which played at SXSW] and it touches on Charles Manson's music career and about the draw to the myth and the man. You had been involved with some of his musical output in the 1980s…

Well let's frame it correctly. His attorney sent SST Records – I'm not an owner, I just work there, SST and Touch & Go and every other indie label -- a copy of a C90 and a C60 of Manson playing at Vacaville [Prison].

All the labels passed. SST didn't. Greg Ginn and Chuck Dukowski said yes to the project. There was no one there to edit it, everyone's busy. And I said "I'll do it." I put on the tapes and listened. It's good! Like there's an album here of acoustic folky bluesy scat improv vocal music.

I write Charles Manson a very Boy Scoutish letter. "I read Helter Skelter in ninth grade so I'm aware of your career." I said "I'm your editor and I've been working on edits. I'm going to fade in and fade out. I have a 35 minute record. I think it's good." Like, I'm your editor. Not a producer because the tracks were produced in a prison cell.

And he wrote me back immediately. "I've seen you on MTV, man. You and I look alike. We're brothers of a different time." I'm like okay, he's trying to get in my head.

And I had this correspondence with him that lasted from ‘84 to 1987. And like I have letters, photographs, maps, drawings, things he'd make me out of yarn. Crazy stuff. But the record got as far as the six test pressings. Word of the record came out, the L.A. Times got a hold of it. We started getting the most incredible death threats. Like, "Here's your address and I will cut your head off if you put this record out." And "I know you practice here. You live here and you walk this way to practice." I'm like wow, this is real.

I wanted to put the record out. I said screw these guys – let's do it. Greg and Chuck cancelled it.

Manson took it all out on me, like "I knew you'd rip me off!" He called me a bunch of names. I tried to explain the cult politicism of SST Records and our stated station in L.A. I tried and he's like "No, you ripped me off. The Beach Boys ripped me off. All you guys…" – All kinds of language.

Yeah, he just flipped out on me. I'm like, "Charlie, it's not me. I'm on the label but I'm not the label." You can't explain something like that to a guy like that. I did the best I could and finally, on the last letter he cooled out a little so I think he did have a moment to… I said it's not me. It's Frank and Chuck and they're afraid they're going to get cut up. I said fuck it, let's just put it out.

The last letter I ever got from him he said okay, we're cool. And then I never heard from him again. And so it's not my property. It's not even SST's. They dropped it.

So it belongs to Charlie I guess. A good record. It's been bootlegged. It's out. I called it "Completion" from his poem he sent me. And if you type in "Manson Completion" [in a search], that's because that's the edited tape. It made the rounds and I've seen it online. In fact, I've seen a CD of it. And so you can find it. Of the six test presses, I have two. So that's probably the rarest thing from it. But it'll never be released by SST, I doubt it. But it's out there, it's around.

Other labels have put out his music.

Yes, quite a bit. He sent me about 40 hours of stuff that I'm sitting on. The album, though, is from only the two tapes. But his lawyer is like "Well Charlie wanted you to have this" and it's these books of cassettes. I'm like "Thanks." I've played some of them. Some of the sound quality just sounds like a bunch of people in a prison just slamming doors. But I have many hours of Manson that he gave me.

Would you like to put that into the world?

Well it's not mine. And I'm very – I'm proprietary of other people's stuff, in that it does not belong to me. It is not mine to put out. How dare I. And people give me stuff all the time. I've got rare music like you've got hair on your head. The kind of stuff like, that I shouldn't have, like this never happened. All kinds of music that's never gone anywhere because I promised I wouldn't play it.

I know what's mine and what's not mine and I don't betray. Like, you could give me a million dollars and leave. Come back in 20 years, I go "You left this." I'm not going to rip you off. I'm just not that guy. It's been done to me. I don't want to do it to someone else.

I have a big music archive, a lot of things that I have one of a kind, cover artwork, correspondence. I buy estates, you know, like if a guy dies, I'm like, "Are you going to sell that?"

You need a house for that, right?

Well it takes the capacity of a three story building, all the stuff.

So anyway I'm very honest with all that stuff and so the Manson stuff, that's up to him and his people. I haven't been in touch with the guy for 30 years or so, so I don't know what his life is like.

Original article found HERE

Thanks, Chatsworth Charlie!

Playing with Puppets

"Reform suggests that you have already been solidified into a self. You were not. You were barely fifteen. You learn that the brain is not fully formed until you're twenty-five years old, and you wonder, then, what becomes of the mind commandeered before it has learned to follow paths of logic. You were soft as clay straight from the earth. You were reformed before you were formed.”

- Addie Zierman


“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”

-Fredrich Nietzsche

Imagine yourself in the following situation: You sign up for a psychology experiment, and on a specified date you and seven others whom you think are also subjects arrive and are seated at a table in a small room. You don't know it at the time, but the others are actually associates of the experimenter, and their behavior has been carefully scripted. You're the only real subject.

The experimenter arrives and tells you that the study in which you are about to participate concerns people's visual judgments. She places two cards before you. The card on the left contains one vertical line. The card on the right displays three lines of varying length.

The experimenter asks all of you, one at a time, to choose which of the three lines on the right card matches the length of the line on the left card. The task is repeated several times with different cards. On some occasions the other "subjects" unanimously choose the wrong line. It is clear to you that they are wrong, but they have all given the same answer.

What would you do? Would you go along with the majority opinion, or would you "stick to your guns" and trust your own eyes?

In 1951 social psychologist Solomon Asch devised this experiment to examine the extent to which pressure from other people could affect one's perceptions. In total, about one third of the subjects who were placed in this situation went along with the clearly erroneous majority.

Asch showed bars like those in the Figure to college students in groups of 8 to 10. He told them he was studying visual perception and that their task was to decide which of the bars on the right was the same length as the one on the left. As you can see, the task is simple, and the correct answer is obvious. Asch asked the students to give their answers aloud. He repeated the procedure with 18 sets of bars. Only one student in each group was a real subject. All the others were confederates who had been instructed to give two correct answers and then to some incorrect answers on the remaining 'staged' trials. Asch arranged for the real subject to be the next-to-the-last person in each group to announce his answer so that he would hear most of the confederates incorrect responses before giving his own. Would he go along with the crowd? 

To Asch's surprise, 37 of the 50 subjects conformed themselves to the 'obviously erroneous' answers given by the other group members at least once, and 14 of them conformed on more than 6 of the 'staged' trials. When faced with a unanimous wrong answer by the other group members, the mean subject conformed on 4 of the 'staged' trials.

Asch was disturbed by these results: "The tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well-meaning young people are willing to call white black. This is a matter of concern. It raises questions about our ways of education and about the values that guide our conduct....

  
Groupthink is a term first used in 1972 by Socialogist Irving L. Janis that refers to a psychological phenomenon in which people strive for consensus within a group. In many cases, people will set aside their own personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. People who are opposed to the decisions or overriding opinion of the group as a whole frequently remain quiet, preferring to keep the peace rather than disrupt the uniformity of the crowd. Why does groupthink occur? Think about the last time you were part of a group, perhaps during a school project. Imagine that someone proposes an idea that you think is quite poor. However, everyone else in the group agrees with the person who suggested the idea and the group seems set on pursuing that course of action. Do you voice your dissent or do you just go along with the majority opinion? In many cases, people end up engaging in groupthink when they fear that their objections might disrupt the harmony of the group or suspect that their ideas might cause other members to reject them. Groupthink can have some benefits. When working with a large number of people, it often allows the group to make decisions, complete tasks, and finish projects quickly and efficiently. However, this phenomenon also has costs as well. The suppression of individual opinions and creative thought can lead to poor decision-making and inefficient problem solving. A number of factors can influence this psychological phenomenon. It tends to occur more in situations where group members are very similar to one another and is more likely to take place when a powerful and Charismatic leader commands the group. Situations where the group is placed under extreme stress or where moral dilemmas exist also increase the occurrence of groupthink.

       

So.... what are you?

A go along- or A go alone?

What would you do?

I am still trying to figure out how people, back in 69, could be so stupid as to "follow" a guy like Charlie who was; so much older, with an obvious prison background, and who kept asking them to do increasingly hurtful or dangerous things? You think Tex, Lulu, and Katie haven't been asking themselves this question for years? I have read all of them give explanations in parole hearings and interviews over the years. I guess there is some Psychiatry or Social Science behind it, but still. You have to agree that a few of them took it ridiculously far in so much as accomodating what they were being asked to do in the name of fitting in and "looking our for your Brother and Sister".

Even back then, under those circumstances, only a few would cross the ultimate line, while the majority would not. The lengths those few were willing to go to really troubles me.

But lately I have something on my mind which troubles me even more.

After reading articles and terminology, like the ones I pasted above, for the last 7 years about this subject- I can ( almost) start to understand why some of the younger ones back then fell under the spell of no rules and free sex/drugs/rock and roll. Hell, if it wasn't for the filth and the VD- I would have loved to spend a weekend camping at Spahn back in the day. I mean isn't that sort of hedonistic 60's "free-love" lifestyle a little part of what attracts many of us to this case?

But what I can not understand- no matter how hard I try- is why adults, all these years later and with the benefit of hindsight, are still trying to find a way to force themselves into being caught in that spell? I fear not what I can understand. It is the irrational that makes me nervous. The idea of a bunch of troubled, hungry kids following the lead of an older experienced con man is a concept I can wrap my mind around after some understanding of social phenomena . A grown adult choosing to worship and idolize a career criminal who is locked away for life, and used an example to all as a symbol of the worst kind of evil- well that scares me to death...

Charlie Manson is not a martyr. He is not Christ on the cross. He was not framed, or misjudged. He was not denied a defense, or the right to represent himself. He is not a environmentalist. He is not a loving guy, or a person who cared much at all about anyone outside of what they could do for him. Not then, and not now either. You can keep on telling yourselves that if it helps you get to sleep at night, but like Tippy Phileau once told me: "All the tellin' in the world just ain't going to make it so"

Charles Manson is a very, very bad guy. Not the most Evil man alive. Not the most dangerous man alive. He never was. As far as "Serial Killers" go- he is way over-rated. But still overall in the big picture of things, he is still a really bad person. What makes him a little more dangerous to me, than your average scumbag, is that he is an inspiration to many other jack-asses out there who are very troubled anyway, and need to find something dark enough to fill the void in life they are lacking in some manner or another. Charlie's legacy through the years, and to this day in my opinion, is that other unstable people become worse potential problems as a result of associations, and fascinations with him. Tex Watson in 69, and the modern day fanatics who still cling to the Manson gospel are far more likely to cause arbitrary trouble and damage then Charlie was then or would now in my humble estimation.

Charlie had a poor childhood. Charlie had a missing father and a drunk absentee mom.

And, so do thousands of other people in our society year after year unfortunately. Is that an excuse for anyone else to do the things Charlie did? ( Don't worry an itemized list coming shortly)

Come on people. You gotta do better than that. Don't you want to be better than that? Stealing as a kid to eat is very sad. Having parents who are not around, or who dont really want you is very hard too. Really difficult stuff. But we all personally know many people who had it that way, and even some who had it worse. Some of them get over it and go on to be o.k.- and others end up in trouble. We all know that no matter what breaks people get- some take advantage and others make excuses. Coming from bad circumstances is not a life-long free pass to do whatever you want. It wouldn't be an excuse if someone who hurt a person you care about used it I bet...

But- Excuses can be a godsend when others keep making them for you, and really isn't that what all this is about?

Then and now? Those who want you to believe how tough Charlie has always had it. So unfair life has been to him... He had it really, really bad right?

Hmmm

Let us please remember it wasn't during his childhood, when Charlie got really extra ugly. That happened after he had just spent 15 months of as about as much fun as a guy could ever want to have. He had spent his time traveling around to all kinds of cool places with a bunch of girls who gave him whatever he wanted. Directing nightly orgies, others cooking his meals, being washed and bathed, getting high and having multiple chic's do your bidding as you want. Not really the type of things which would make me pissed at the world. He was playing music with some really important people. He was calling all the shots. He never had to get a job in all of that time to pay of any of this. He never had to take an instruction, or have a responsibility he didn't want in all that time. He got to play boss and top dog to a group of people who wanted to do nothing but work for him and please him. I know there are quite a few people out there reading this who wish they had life so bad.I mean what was it about his life that sucked so bad at that point he needed to start stealing and hurting other people?

The real and honest truth is that it was because when it came time to start paying for things he could no longer get for free- he didn't want to do so. He didn't want to work. He wanted others to do it for him. When people would no longer give to him- his only choice was to start taking. And that should show you how much he cared or loved everyone back then... He starting playing people he had spent time with against each other. He had them start taking from each other. Is that your idea of a caring guy?Anything is yours is mine and what is mine is yours is very convenient when you bring nothing to the table...

So here is where you tell me all the things I am saying that Charlie never did. Charlie didn't do this and Charlie didn't do that. Wah,Wah,Wah,Wah it starts to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher lol.

OK- so lets just do a quick review of what we know Charlie did do- just for the record:

Shot Crowe, gave drugs to minors/had sex with minors, rape, assault, sodomy, stealing, pimping, beating women, beating children, kidnapping, check forgery, car-jacking, participated in Gary's murder, and-if nothing else in TLB- he tied up the Labiancas and contributed to murder. 3 times he walked away and left other human beings for dead. Do you not get that? Where is your line if this did not cross it? All the things he did that people pooh-pooh, or brush off. He had no regard for human life. This doesn't even include his involvement in Shorty's death.

What is it about this resume that makes a person decide this is a guy I just have to get to know?

 I guess that if the first two pieces at the top of this post can explain how a smart young person might get caught up in something like this, I should try understand how people who are not as bright could do so as well. But, again, I would think people should have the benefit today of knowing what those back in 69 did not about the person in general, and the benefit of not being caught up in that particular moment, or the benefits that went with the trouble.

 What do they see in Charles Manson?

 There is no redeeming value to Charles Manson. They speak of him and Truth. There is no "truth" coming from a person like this. He says whatever to whoever he needs- to get what he wants. He hurt people and used people and he did it selfishly, and with impunity until it finally went too far. People got hurt. Lives were lost and serious damage was done forever to many innocent people. Then when he was finally called to answer for his actions, Charlie chose, instead, to make a circus and mockery of the entire process. His antics and need to have all attention on himself caused the grieving families of the victims to suffer further pain while having to watch him, and his other co-defendants; laughing, smiling, and showing off for the spectators and cameras. He and his "family"  blaming and taunting people who were no longer around to defend themselves. Shameful I say!

Then he says he never got a fair chance in the first place...

This is your "Truth" ?

 After all the excuses some will make for him, and for the excuses to associate with him, wouldn't it just be honest to look at what it is inside, and be honest about what it is in them that needs these type of relationships? If it is a Darkness they seek, and Charles Manson gives them that, why not just say it is so? Be honest about what they get from Charlie.

 Because it is obvious to me what Charlie gets from them. They are out there spouting his nonsense.

He still gets to pull strings.

After all this time, he is still doing his favorite thing- Playing with Puppets.

Finally, let me simply ask this: Do you ever think about the people he hurt, or the lives he helped destroy? Does it matter to some at all that so many people were hurt?  I have a hard time understanding, but I want to. Tell me if there is a good answer, and I will listen. I do not understand why people chose to follow the devils and demons???


                                      When the world is filled with so many Saints

Goodbye Helter Skelter: Chapters Seventeen through Nineteen (The End)

Patty's book report on Goodbye Helter Skelter is coming to a close. She hopes that you have enjoyed it. Though Patty certainly does not agree with everything that George has written, she appreciates the opportunity to have read it, thought about it, and discussed it with the author.  Thank you, George, for your openness to enriching this experience.

Chapter Seventeen: "Aftermath."

The point of this chapter is to discuss what has happened to each convicted "Family member" since the trial: how their attitudes toward Charlie have changed and how Charlie is said to harbor no ill will towards any of them. Of Charlie, Stimson demonstrates that he has no desire nor illusions of being paroled. Charlie feels that we on the outside are the crooks who lie and cheat all the time. Also, he wants to be with "all the people that I came in with." Of a new trial, he does not want one for himself, but rather in order to uphold the sixth amendment for the good of the people.

Tex fought extradition to California long enough to have a trial separate from the others. Charlie says that he's a momma's boy, but kept his word, and did what he was supposed to do. Susan became a born again Christian in 1974 and lambasted Guns N Roses for recording Look at your Game Girl. Charlie says "I'm glad that she's got whatever she can get." Pat (Yellow) says that she was manipulated by Charlie while under the influence of drugs and that nothing was ever done at the ranch without Charlie's express permission. Charlie says that she has lied multiple times on TV but that he will not judge her. Leslie ("mean" Green) was granted bail for six months between 1977 and 1978. She said that Charlie became progressively more physically and verbally abusive of her during her time at Spahn, and even told her that she would die if she left him. She resents his dishonesty for not assuming his part of the blame for what happened. Charlie says that "I love her no matter what...She's not wrong in what she's saying...we can't look down at her like she's wrong because we can't see what she's looking at."

Bruce recounts a time in 1973 when he sat next to Charlie on a bus ride to Los Angeles. He remembers that "he was just carrying on as if nothing had happened." Bruce remembers thinking that "something's terribly wrong here." Bruce was denied parole twice at the time of this book's printing because, as Governor Jerry Brown wrote, "It is clear that he continues to withhold information about these events." Bobby Beausoleil has never overtly denounced Charlie, but says that "there is no love lost" between  them. He claims that he was never a "member" of the "Family" and has always supported the idea that the later murders were a reaction to the Hinman murder. Charlie says of Bobby and Bruce that he always tried to help them, that he took care of them by paying their bills and their rent. He says that Bobby always wanted to be Charlie, that Charlie was always trying to save his ass. Bobby has never responded to any of Charlie's letters. Steve Grogan is the only killer to have been released, presumably because he gave up the location of Shea's body, because he was only 16 at the time of the crimes, and because he developed increased empathy for his victim after having been stabbed in prison by Nuestra Familia. He says that at 16, he was easily manipulated. Charlie says that he pulled Steve out of the trash can, and never told him what he could or could not do.

The chapter wraps up with Charlie's observations about why everyone turned against him: because they were made to believe that if they did not, then they would never get released from prison. They have had to justify in their own minds why they believe that Charlie was to blame. They do not want to speak with Charlie because they are afraid of what they are thinking about themselves. Charlie says his only crime is that he did "mean" things to people who misused his friends: if you misuse his friends, then you misuse Charlie. He does not feel that he ever made a mistake because in his world, if you make a mistake, then you're gone. He says he fell down only when he was standing upon the words of others.

Chapter Eighteen: "Charles Manson."

Stimson offers up some analysis about who Charlie truly is. He begins with who he is not: he is not impressed by Scientology, the Process Church, or other organized religions. He is not a satanist. He does believe in the concept of God, however: "God is everywhere. God is nobody...he's all of us." Christ, he says, was a prophet: but does Charlie see himself as a prophet as well? "I was a servant to God...whatever God is. It's just a word." Does he believe that God and the devil are the same thing? "An intelligent man knows that God and the devil are his own interpretation...I am God, I am the devil within my own existence and my understanding of both."

Then Stimson broaches the topic of whether or not Charlie views Adolf Hitler as a hero? "He was a good man." Apparently Charlie admires the order that Hitler tried to bring to Germany. And it seems that he approves of the Nazi party though not the American white power movement: "The American Nazi party is the worst thing that ever happened to the Nazi party...a bunch of fat, sloppy, fucking assholes." On racism, Stimson concedes that Charlie IS a racist but that he has no hate for any race in particular rather, "I hate all white people. White people are rotten. And black people are just like 'em.  Because you've made em just exactly like you...they want to be you...why couldn't they be left to God? In the jungle they were God."

What had the most influence over Charlie, as with most of us, were his early years. Charlie says that he ruined his mothers life, and in exchange she was horribly cruel to him both emotionally and physically. He confirms the familiar story of how Kathleen sold him for a pitcher of beer, how she drank a lot, and how she hustled men for money (though, Stimson insists, she was NOT a prostitute). Nevertheless Charlie says that he respected and liked her, that what she did to him made him strong. His wife Rosalie also influenced his personality in that after Charlie was put into prison for stealing a car, Rosalie went off, slept with his friends, and eventually divorced him. "I believed if you got married to somebody...that we would, uh, till death do us part, and all that...And I held my way. I held my loyalness. And she went off down the road...and I just went crazy... I guess that's what we call 'jealousy'." Stimson claims that these events did not make him hate women but that he retains an old fashioned view on the relationship between men and women: "Male is the creator. Woman receives the creation from man. She's a receptacle, a receiver."At the end of this section, Charlie's grandparents and Uncle Luther are also mentioned.

Next, Stimson talks about prison and people that Charlie met there along the way. Charlie recounts a very long list of the institutions he has been in: Father Gibault's, White's Institute, juvenile hall, Boys' Town (Father Flannigan's); Danville, IL; Plainfield, IN; Salt Lake City, "federal joints," Natural Bridge in Washington DC; Petersburg VA and Lewisburg, PA among others. Because of this, he says he never got to do the normal things people do in life. He was often beaten: "When I would get up from there I would feel like - I would be relieved. I'd feel stronger and better."  In prison, he learned from "the old Italians" to not snitch, to fight and to mind your own business. At Terminal Island he saw a man killed in the kitchen, then butchered so that he would fit in the trash cans. "People getting killed around me is no new thing...when you live a life like that, it becomes a natural thing."

Everything, Charlie has learned, runs on favors. It does not matter if you think the favor is right or wrong, you just do it.  Prison runs on the enforcement of rules: the inmates follow them as do the guards, many of whom were previously servicemen. "War," Charlie says, "is a word you use when someone is coming to kill you....it has nothing to do with...what you think is right or wrong." Similarly, the idea of brotherhood is very important to Charlie because he has been in institutions all his life, where he was raised in a "collective mind," where your opinions and decisions are not your own. Many of these institutions were run by clergy, who are a brotherhood. Charlie thinks very highly of veterans, a brotherhood who sacrificed their lives for him. He says that decisions that were made at the ranch were not his, they belonged to the group, to the men there. That is what he learned in prison, to make decisions for the good of the brotherhood, not just for himself.

Why he is seen as a leader is puzzling to him. Stimson says that Charlie is a natural leader: he is charismatic, enthusiastic, and confident. He was 10-15 years older than the others at the Ranch, and he took an interest in people and their problems: for instance, many of his friends needed a place to live, so he provided that for them. Charlie continues to claim that he did not tell people WHAT to do, but rather told them what they COULD do. He does not want people to know him, he wants them to know themselves: "what you see in me is you." He is aware that media interviews are not impartial, so he has adapted to that situation.  The media will pounce on anything negative or crazy, so that is what he gives them: in fact, he likes to play them. He does not care if he is misinterpreted: "it's got nothing to do with me personally." Stimson feels that the public reaction to his persona, while superficially entertaining, it is unfortunate and a misdirection of Charlies energy and potential: he has so much more to offer the world than a series of performances. When he has said this to Charlie, he has simply responded by saying, "how would you play it?"

Chapter Nineteen: "Afterword."

In the final analysis, Stimson writes that had he severed himself from the trial of his co-defendants, he would have been given a much lighter sentence. However, he stood by his friends. Stimson finds him to be nothing if not consistent in the way he describes the events of the Summer of 69, and therefore credible. He is brilliant in many regards, though deficient in others. He is both ill tempered and negative, but also good humored and full of enthusiasm. "That he has survived this long is a testament to his integrity." Condemnation of him is easy, but it is more interesting and fulfilling to try and understand him as a person. It has made Stimson a better person, he writes. He can be a bad guy, but he can also be a good guy: "As such, I can't consider him to be anything like an icon of evil. Instead, I consider him to be an icon of humanity."

Tex Watson Family Home On The Market

Blog reader John tells us that that the house and business property (old gas station and general store) which Tex Watson grew up in is for sale. Asking price is $375,000.

It is listed as "Vacant Land" but the familiar structures are there. See the Remax listing HERE.

Dennis Wilson and Christine McVie

Dennis Carl Wilson was born on December 4, 1944 in Hawthorne, California, the second son of Murry and Audree Wilson. He was only sixteen when the Beach Boys were formed; the group consisted of Wilson brothers Brian, Dennis, and Carl, cousin Mike Love, and friend Al Jardine. Handsome, rebellious Dennis, who was often the object of Murry's harsh temper, spent much of his life chasing girls and getting into trouble of one kind or another. His relationships with women tended to be passionate and tumultuous; he had just divorced his second wife before he and Christine McVie fell wildly for each other in 1979 while Fleetwood Mac was making the Tusk album.

Christine referred to the drummer as "a multifaceted jewel...Dennis has thrown me into the deep end, literally and figuratively." For two years, the couple more or less commuted between Wilson's ketch at Marina del Rey and Christine's house in Coldwater Canyon-- they had even made 'definite' plans to marry. Although he was adored by Christine as well as other members of Fleetwood Mac (Dennis and John McVie even used to have drinking contests after Mac gigs), the Beach Boy eventually proved to be too eccentric for Chris to handle. Lindsey Buckingham recalls, "I knew him pretty well. . . . he was a good guy. He was kind of lost, but I thought he had a big heart. I always liked him. He was crazy just like a lot of other people, but he had a really big heart, and he was the closest thing to Brian (Wilson) there was, too. He was halfway there."

Mick Fleetwood, who had introduced the pair, wrote that Chris "almost went mad trying to keep up with Dennis, who was already like a man with twenty thyroid glands, not counting the gargantuan amounts of coke and booze and pills he was always shoving into himself." He surprised McVie once by having a beautiful heart-shaped garden planted in her backyard (shown at right); she later learned that he'd charged it to her. Wilson crashed Christine's Rolls Royce so many times that finally the vehicle had to be written off. He would storm through her house in a drunken rage, breaking things, before leaving for a few weeks to get himself together, at which point the two would reconcile yet again. Needless to say, Christine soon tired of this and called an end to the relationship. The couple did not part on very amiable terms and had not seen each other for about two years when she received news of his death; "My secretary called me up at eight in the morning. I knew something was wrong. She said, 'Dennis drowned today.' And my first reaction was to say, 'My God, is he all right?' I still really can't believe it. He just seemed indestructable." The thirty-nine year old drummer drowned on December 28, 1983 while diving off the boat slip on Marina del Rey (an autopsy showed he was legally drunk) and, with a special dispensation from the White House, was buried at sea.

Original Story Found HERE

Dennis Wilson's Neighbor Remembers Tire Slashings

Here's a fun little tidbit sent to Patty by reader toocrowdedinthishouse:

Hi Patty! I am not sure whether this is interesting enough to share with the blog, but here goes. I was in Los Angeles last summer, which is my hometown. I had plans to meet friends at an evening event up at Will Rogers State Park, and I took my mother and my friend's mother, both ladies in their 80s, in my car. The event was an outdoor movie screening on the grass in front of Will Roger's old home. It was great fun, the Will Rogers house was open for us to meander through, and it was free (almost---there was a parking fee).

My friend's mom, whom I will call "Mabel" has lived in Rustic Canyon most of her life. We also drove her home, and at the traffic signal on Sunset I pointed at Brian Wilson's house (actually at his gate, since the house is not visible from Sunset) and here was the conversation we had while we waited for the light to turn green:

Me: "Mabel, do you know who used to live there?"
Mabel: "Brian Wilson!"
Me: "Did you actually know Brian Wilson?"
Mabel: "Of course, we were neighbors! Everybody knew everybody!"
Me: "Did you go to his house?"
Mabel: "No, it was full of hippies and musicians!" 

The red light turned green, I took my turn, and I heard Mabel blurt out from the back seat:"Charles Manson used to frequent that house with his 'family' of hippies!" At that point I nearly swerved into oncoming traffic. (My interest in Manson Lore is a well-kept secret.) I composed myself, and prepared to hear a good story...

Me: "Mabel, did you ever MEET Charles Manson?"
Mabel: "Nope! I heard all about him being here, though!" (---DARN---)
Me: "What exactly did you hear about Charles Manson in that house?"
Mabel: "What I heard was that the neighborhood teenagers did not like all those hippies coming here, so they used to slash their tires. That's all I heard!" 

Mabel wouldn't or couldn't tell me which Rustic Canyon teenagers were the tire slashers (I think she knows who they supposedly were---she knows everything and everyone), or any other details such as why they didn't "like" Charlie and his musical girls visiting Brian Wilson's house. I was not yet a teenager at that time. I have always believed that the Wilson driveway opened up only out on Sunset, so how would the Rustic Canyon local teenagers access the visitors' vehicles or even notice who was visiting? As kids we hiked up and down Rustic Creek (it actually passes under Sunset Blvd through a big pipe at the hairpin bend) and used to pass behind the Wilson house, so I suppose Wilson and his visitors could have been "observed" by the locals prior to the alleged tire vandalism. That's the only little nugget that I got to add to my repertoire of Manson Lore last summer. Not much.

And I'd like to add here that this story could certainly be untrue! This tire slasher story sounds like a Rustic Canyon rumor to me, repeated from neighbor to neighbor after the arrests. I am skeptical. Have you ever read anything about any Manson vehicles having slashed tires while parked at Brian Wilson's house? If you can think of any particular things I should ask her, let me know!

Manson's Race War Now an End of Times Prophecy?

Blog reader Matt pointed me to this:

The below image and quote were gleaned from a freerepublic.com forum post titled "Two Ferguson offers shot as very dangerous environment persists"

For those not familiar with it, Free Republic is (in my estimation) a radical right wing conspiracy-based forum where radical coo-coo birds pop off about anything slightly left of center.

For instance, Free Republic has been involved in several organized conservative campaigns including against CBS anchor Dan Rather and against the Dixie Chicks for their antiwar statements. The co-founder of the site's name is Jim Robinson. Anybody remember that name? I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but I digress.

Anyway, I find it very interesting that Charles Manson is elevated to prophet status by a commenter on a right wing forum to support (what seems to be is) an end times argument based on the happenings centered around Ferguson, MO.

"I found this image on the web, knowing that Manson had predicted a race war. The energy has been bought off with increasing racial set asides and other benefits for years. That time is ending. Now we have people who are exciting the situation without any good reason.

Racial leaders must step up NOW to calm this situation. If they delay this effort, they are aiding it"

Goodbye Helter Skelter Chapters Fifteen and Sixteen

While it is no secret that Patty is pro drug theory, Stimson does not entirely agree with her when discussing the Tate LaBianca Murders. We have seen before that he believes that bad synthetic drugs manufactured by Gary were the reason for the Hinman Murder, Tate and LaBianca were a result of favors owed to Charlie and Bobby Beausoleil. The murders were, Stimson says, the killers' own idea about how to show their devotion to Charlie and to get Bobby out of jail.  Let's look a little closer, shall we?

Chapter Fifteen: "The Real Motive."

Stimson begins by listing the possible motives for Tate LaBianca and discounting them all in turn. Cielo was not chosen in order to send a message to Terry Melcher, but rather because Tex was familiar with those surroundings. Charlie Manson does not have an uncontrollable blood lust: his songs were not full of death, and he did not choose Death Valley because of its name as Bugliosi has contended. Frykoswki burning the residents of Spahn over drugs was an early line of investigation by the LAPD that went nowhere.

The real motive, Stimson writes, was to get Bobby out of jail. He quotes many of the family members as having said this time and time again: if not at first, then later at parole hearings, in interviews and in their books. Stimson pulls quotes from Tex, Susan, Pat, Leslie, Gypsy and Sandy to illustrate his point. He quotes Charlie as having said that after he cut Hinman's ear he was not willing to commit any more violence, telling the others that "you're all putting me back in the penitentiary." When they asked him how to get Bobby out of jail, he said that he didn't know, but reminded them that they "owed him." He told Tex to "pay (Beausoleil) what you owe me" but says he did not specifically direct him to commit the additional murders.

Stimson says that the copycat motive was obviously not a good idea. The police already had Bobby's fingerprints at the scene and he was arrested in the dead man's car with the murder weapon. Nevertheless, Stimson claims it is the true motive with two other "contributing factors:" the historical context of the time, and the use of speed by Tex and Susan for several days before the murders.The fact that Charlie is very anti speed, Stimson contends, shows that the Family members absolutely did not do everything that Charlie told them to do or not do. Furthermore, since speed causes aggression, homicidal tendencies, paranoia, hallucinations, psychosis and irrationality it makes bad ideas seem like good ones. Stimson quotes Tex as saying of the murders that "it was as though Charlie's instructions were tape recorded in my mind and being played back, step by step, as I needed them," and chalks this up to auditory hallucinations because Charlie supposedly never told Tex what to do that night. Bugliosi discounts the importance of speed in the murders. He ignores most of the drug use at Spahn except for the use of LSD which he says Charlie used to brainwash his followers; this is because the DA did not want drug use mitigating his version of the murders.

Chapter Sixteen: "Charles Manson and the Law."

This is an extremely long chapter and in places gets very technical concerning California law. Patty had a rough time of it so if she misses anything significant she sincerely hopes that George will chime in. The two stated purposes of this chapter are to find interpretations whereby Charlie could be found not guilty of first degree murder and to explore his claim that he was denied his sixth amendment right to defend himself pro per. In order to do this, Stimson asks that we assume that the previous analysis in his book is correct. He begins by listing four essential elements that must be proven to obtain a first degree murder conviction: premeditation, deliberation, intent and malice. In addition, a first degree murder conviction can be obtained if the murder was part of an attempt to commit arson, rape, robbery, mayhem or as a lewd act against a child. Stimson says that in his prior analysis, none of this applies. Even if cutting Gary's ear can be considered mayhem, there is an exception if it was committed in self defense, and Charlie has stated that he did it in order to disarm Gary, who had a gun. Further, Rosemary's stolen wallet is irrelevant to the prosecution's case because "no charges were ever filed." Regarding intent: if we assume as Stimson asks us to that Helter Skelter was not the true motive, then there can be no intent. Tex remembers Pat and Leslie asking, "did he say to kill them?" because they did not receive any instructions from Charlie.

Can Charlie be considered guilty of a conspiracy with respect to Tate La Bianca? Stimson again lays out the essential legal elements: agreement, two or more persons involved, specific intent, unlawful object or means and an overt act. Stimson notes that Charlie specifically said that he wasn't entering into any agreements with the others because  he had already committed two illegal acts (Lotsapoppa and Hinman) and did not want to go back to prison. Tex did say that Charlie specifically told him to kill, but this evidence was presented after the Tate LaBianca trial,  it is inadmissible without corroboration and was likely fabricated or hallucinated because he had been using speed for days beforehand. In the Hinman Shea trial, Bruce testified that Charlie said that they were going to kill Shorty beforehand, but again it is an uncorrobrated assertion and therefore inadmissible. In that trial, Stimson says that the case against Charlie was as weak at the case against some of the others involved who were never charged.

Manson, Stimson says, had no defense in the Tate La Bianca trial: his defense rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence, while the prosecution took nine months to present their case. Charlie says that he was used by the Bug, who by 1970 had tried 105 felony jury trials and lost only one. When Bugliosi says that "the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict, but to see that justice is done," the author and Charlie say that he was full of shit. Charlie was legally entitled to a trial within 60 days of arraignment. Even though he stated that he was ready to begin, it took five months until jury selection began.

It was Judge Keene (who was later replaced by Older) who revoked Charlie's right to pro per because of unorthodox requests he made of the court. Later, Bugliosi stated that the DA was willing to let Charlie defend himself but Judge Older again denied it. Furthermore, Older denied Charlie's request to replace his lawyer, Ronald Hughes, with Irving Kanarek because he disliked Kanarek's courtroom style. To let Kanarek represent Charlie, Older said, would be a "miscarriage of justice." However, Older never expressed any concern at all that Hughes had never tried a case before. Moreover, Stephen Kay brushed off this constitutional question as a mere "sticking point" with no elaboration. Countless habeas corpus appeals have been filed since the trial protesting Charlie's imprisonment but all have been given a rubber stamp denial. If Charlie is so obviously guilty, Stimson wonders, then why are they so afraid to let him back into court?

Linda Kasabian, the DA's star witness, was unshakeable and very believable to the jury. Stimson brings Linda's credibility into question because she stole money from Charles Melton on Topanga and from her father in Florida. Additionally, Stimson says that Linda lied to a social worker about leaving California before the murders happened. Sandra Good calls her "experienced:" she was loose, she got high a lot, she liked to creepy crawl. Furthermore, she abandoned her daughter Tanya. Another witness, Danny DeCarlo, is not credible to Stimson because he testified that he was smashed most of the time and because he testified in exchange for not being prosecuted over having Shorty Shea's weapons. Greg Jakobson was an important witness, but Stimson points out that he said "I don't know if he wanted (Helter Skelter)...whether he intended it to happen or wanted it to happen, I don't know." Of Little Paul, Stimson reminds us that Paul said "someone was going to show (black people) how to start Helter Skelter" but could not clarify who that someone was supposed to be.

Of the Jury, Stimson writes that some of their conclusions "were not necessarily logical" because they accepted Linda's uncorroborated evidence, evidence that Charlie was once at Cielo as proof of his involvement, and assumption that Charlie's leadership meant that he ordered the murders. Furthermore he states that they did not follow instructions #2, #36 and #52 which require that the circumstances of the crime must be reconciled two ways and that a more reasonable explanation must not exist than Helter Skelter. Here, Stimson says, the copycat motive is far more reasonable.

The copycat motive was brought up during the penalty phase, but not during the trial itself because Charlie was not allowed to defend himself. Stimson finds it ironic that defendants Colin Ferguson and Ted Kaczinski were given this right whereas Charlie was not. Had he been able to defend himself, Stimson feels that he could have effectively countered and discredited Linda, Paul, Danny and many others who testified against him. Charlie's defense would have been based on his inability to lie and the position that he could not have had maliced aforethought because he lives in the NOW. He would never have gotten others to do what he would not do for himself. And, Stimson says, he was not the leader of the group. He was never in charge at Spahn's Ranch: George was.

Stimson wraps up the chapter with a long quote by Charlie demonstrating how he feels he was bought and sold by the media and by people who were trying to get book deals. He feels that even the gag orders were a set up so that they could be broken to gain more publicity and to put things into the public record. "I believed that I had rights...I didn't know that all that was bought and sold...that's the reason I didn't plead guilty and get diminished capacity. Had I pled guilty, I'd have been out in 18 months."

Gary Hinman was murdered for money!

As we all know, Mr. Bobby Beausoleil is coming up for another parole hearing this month. He was on the schedule for February 19th, but it was postponed due to a rules infraction that is currently being investigated. His last one, which was in 2010 didn't go so smoothly from what I read in the hearing transcript. With that being said, I would like to go over a few things that I think are important in this case. Things that I am almost 100% are going to be addressed in his upcoming parole consideration hearing. As you all know, Mr. Beausoleil has, over the years concocted so many different versions of what happened when he murdered Gary Hinman, that it is almost impossible to pinpoint when he is telling the truth. Here are a few examples of his ever changing versions over the years:

• Manson killed Hinman
• Manson didn't kill Hinman
• Bruce Davis AND Danny DeCarlo drove him and the girls over to Gary's 
• Mary Brunner was a lover of Gary Hinman
• Danny DeCarlo's girlfriend was Susan Atkins
• Manson did NOT order him to kill Hinman
• Bobby himself inflicted the wound on Hinman
• Manson did not appear at Gary's house at all
• Manson took Bobby for a ride in a truck and threatened his life if he told
• Danny DeCarlo was a participant in the events that led to Gary Hinman's death
• Gary Hinman was involved with radicals from UCLA
•  He wanted to be invited to the 10 year anniversary party for the Straight Satans and he went as a go-between for them and Gary

The list goes on & on. It's mind-boggling how much the story changes from year to year. What I haven't been able to figure out is this: Why is Bobby Beausoleil and Bobby Beausoleil alone the only one claiming this crime happened because of a drug deal? Why wouldn't his co-defendants say it was over a drug deal? Why would they not know? Why on earth would they be hiding the fact that it was a drug deal thing? We can sit here all day long going back & forth debating whether Danny DeCarlo & other witnesses were lying, because they had something to lose, if caught, but it still wouldn't make sense for Ella, Mary, Susan, and even Bruce Davis to be lying about the reasons behind the murder. Hell, they all admitted Gary was murdered, because they wanted his money, property, stocks & bonds, or anything else of value. This was a definite pattern of Manson & Family. Whatever is yours is mine, whatever is mine is mine!

For instance, when Ella Jo Bailey was interviewed by police,
she had this to say:

"Everyone talked about Hinman. It was all planned. Me and Bill were the only ones there that saw Mary and Sadie when they got back from Gary's house. Then me, Bill & Bob went on an errand after the murder and talked about it. I remember it clear, because Bob was really upset. He was quiet and to himself. I also talked to Bruce about it. I wanted to hear what happened from everyone, because I was closer to Gary than anyone else, but I don't feel responsible for what happened. I left the ranch, because I was scared. There was no benefit from Gary's death. That was hard to understand! There were so many guns around. It wasn't the same scene that had happened for a year, year & a half that I lived with them. I'm sure each of us saw changes coming down. I saw Charlie hit some of the girls at various times for some little thing that wouldn't be important to anybody else, but to him was important. I didn't want to be hit. I don't want to be hit, and I certainly don't want to be killed. I didn't want any more to do with it. Bill certainly didn't want to get involved. I was afraid that eventually Charlie would say, "okay, you didn't go to the Hinman murder, but it's time that you accomplish what everyone else has done." Bill told me that Charlie had directly spoken to him, and told him that other scams were planned. They were gonna try to get money from some casino just over the hill in Simi. There was talk that there was gonna be more & more of these things. The girls had gone on capers. I didn't want to." Bobby had also told Ella that they were supposed to drive the car out of LA county, into Santa Barbara so they could get some money for it. If that was the case, I thought the Straight Satans wanted their money back and sold the car to recoup their loses.

Then we have Bruce Davis's testimony from this 2012 parole hearings: 

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

"The gun was mine. That's the one that I received the federal firearms
charge for buying it with a false identification."

"I was present when the planning to rob Mr. Hinman went on and I drove."

"And when I was asked to drive, I did. So I drove my co-defendants to
Gary's home. I later pointed my pistol at Gary in an attempt to rob
him."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER FERGUSON: "So the motive for Gary Hinman being
basically tortured and murdered, that was for robbery?"

INMATE DAVIS: "Yes, it was."

From Danny DeCarlo's police interview:

"Now, he said he was hung up on this little girl up there. He said that's one of the reasons why, he was trying to get her, to leave the ranch with him. But, Charlie was his god. Whatever Charlie did, he did. Whatever Charlie thinked, he thinked. It was this tight, ya know?" 

The first thing I ever heard about Gary Hinman was that he had 20 grand.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Who told you this?

Danny DeCarlo: Charlie, he told me this. He had $20,000 and they were going to go out there and get the money off of him. Now, they, this is, they were talking about this for probably weeks-the Gary Hinman's money. According-they both knew Gary, from prior contact with Gary. Alright, he had 20 grand. Where he got this money, I don't know? If he had 20 grand, I don't know? They just said it was $20,000 that they were gonna get. So, they have to talk somebody out of it. So they're gonna talk it out of Gary Hinman. So, they sent Bobby, they sent Sadie and they sent Mary.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Do you know where Gary's house is?

Danny DeCarlo: Not the slightest idea.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Okay

Danny DeCarlo: Okay, now I am telling you, what he told me, when he came back, I'll run it down to you.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: He?

Danny DeCarlo: He is Bobby Beausoleil.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Okay

Danny DeCarlo: Right from the horse's mouth. Now, this is when he came back. And a little bit, what Charlie told me, from when they got there. Now, when they left, I don't know. When they came back, I don't know. What they left in, I don't know. I'm only telling you what he told me when he came back. And that's where I'm gonna start, when he came back. Okay, I was in the end bunkhouse, on the ranch, Right, he came back and uh, I says-he was telling me about, uh, he had stabbed Gary Hinman. He says, "and I got the mutherfucker" "I killed him." He says, "it's pretty weird, I never killed anyone before in my life." And he had a little knife that he carried with him. A little Bowie knife-a Mexican, Bowie knife. A Mexican, a Bowie with a blade that comes up like this and down like this and under, fancy handle, fancy engraving on the handle. You people have it.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: How do you know that?

Danny DeCarlo: Cus he carried it constantly on his hip.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Mmm hmmm.

Danny DeCarlo: On a sheath. When he got busted up there in San Luis Obispo in that little Toyota, he had that knife on him. He was supposed to take that Toyota out of town.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Let me ask you something.

Danny DeCarlo: Okay

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: How do you know he had the knife on him?

Danny DeCarlo: Cause he never parted with it.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Okay

Danny DeCarlo: When he did it-Bobbie, Charlie told him to get rid of the knife, he never did. He didn't want to get rid of the knife, because he loved it. That's why he kept it with him. So, when he got arrested up in San Luis Obispo, he had the knife on him, right? He had the knife? Didn't your crime lab check that knife and it came back clean? Well, that was the knife that did it. I almost chocked when I heard that.

Sgt. Paul Whiteley: Well now, not that our crime lab came back clean, but we have, we did test the knife.

Danny DeCarlo: Yeah, well he, he called the ranch while he was in jail and said, yeah the crime lab came back, and he said the knife, wasn't the knife that did it. 

Unidentified voice: That isn't true.

Danny DeCarlo: Well, that's what he said.

From Susan Atkins last known manuscript "The Myth of Helter Skelter":It should also be mentioned that the reason why Charles Manson couldn't find anyone in all of Los Angeles who was willing to loan or give him enough money to flee, or to put him up for awhile until the heat died down, was because by the summer of 1969, Charles Manson had abused the friendship of everyone who’d ever tried to help him. He’d robbed some of these people, stolen from others, threatened others when they didn't give him what he wanted, and shamelessly lived off others until he’d abused his welcome everywhere. No one who had anything worth taking wanted him anywhere near them.Finally the men at the meeting were reduced to grabbing at the faintest of straws. Bobby Beausoleil thought he remembered someone saying a friend of the Family’s, a music teacher named Gary Hinman, had inherited $20,000. This didn't seem very likely to me. Gary lived in a little place down Topanga Canyon – nothing fancy. But that’s all they could come up with.Charles Manson said that Hinman was practically part of the Family – or at least he could be convinced to join the Family. If he joined the Family he could be expected to turn his inheritance over. Since this was all they could come up with they decided to try it. 

(Note: Susan Atkins conveniently forgot to mention in her manuscript that they were ALL THERE during the planning stage of taking money from Gary. Remember what Ella Jo Bailey said?)

From Kitty Lutesinger's arrest report (10/13/69):

Subject Lutesinger was transported to the San Dimas Sheriff's Station and during questioning she stated that she had not been at the Hinman home and had never been there. Subject Lutesinger then stated that she had heard a story that above suspects Beausoleil and Atkins had been told by Charles Manson they were to go the Hinman residence and take money from him. Subject Lutesinger added that she heard that a fight had ensued and that Mr. Hinman had been killed. Subject Lutesinger also added that she left the Spahn Ranch approximately 8-1-69 and, that about one week prior to that she had observed both of Hinman's cars at the ranch. Subject Lutesinger stated that the above S/Atkins had also told her and other girls at the ranch that she had been in a fight with a man who pulled her hair; that she had stabbed him 3 or 4 times. As part of this information was consistent with some of the facts given to the undersigned by D/Beausoleil, the undersigned returned to Inyo County Sheriff's Department where we spoke with S/Atkins.

From Mary Brunner's statement (12/4/69):

The police asked her, "who did you go up there with?" Her answer, "With Bobby and Sadie." How did you get there? "I think it was Bruce who drove us up there."

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

From police report concerning Gary Hinman vehicle:

Louis Puttek was interviewed by District Attorney of Los Angeles (01/20/70):Mr. Puttek states that he purchased the 1958 Volkwagon van, that formerly belonged to Gary Hinman from Mark Aaronson. Mr. Puttek stated that he was told after his arrest on October 8, 1969, that Mark Aaronson had been given the bus on the ranch by CHARLES MANSON. He stated that he never worried about title to the bus, because he was given the pink slip, and it was signed and dated by Gary Hinman. He stated that he altered the date to avoid paying penalties to the Department of Motor Vehicles. (Note: Again, if this was a Straight Satans thing, why the hell was the bus GIVEN to someone by Manson? Beausoleil claims nobody knew about the deal with the Straight Satans.)

As much as I think the Los Angeles deputy DA is a complete ass, he summed it up nicely when he said this:

With regards to the commitment offense, and actually, with regards to much of this inmate's attitude towards not only his prison disciplinaries, but almost anything regarding his life, I would conclude that he is a pathological liar. He has told so many different versions of his involvement in this crime that it's almost beyond belief. Today we hear now a new and different version of his crime, which has differed from his previous statements. His statements have gone from he didn't kill Mr. Hinman, that he was in the other room when it happened, to Manson did it, Manson didn't do it, Manson was involved, Manson wasn't involved. I mean, you could go on and on regarding all of his different versions of the offense. Today's version is somewhat of a new deviation from his previous assertion that the motivation for Mr. Beausoleil going to Mr. Hinman's house was to collect money on a drug debt. I think previous statements from this inmate were that he had bought some mescaline from Mr. Hinman, and it turned out -- and he then, in turn, sold it to the Straight Satan's, it turned out to be laced with strychnine. The Straight Satan's were mad at Mr. Beausoleil, so Mr. Beausoleil went to confront Mr. Hinman regarding the bad drugs that Mr. Hinman sold to Mr. Beausoleil. The problem with this theory is, and this previous story, which is different from today's version, is that there is no indication in any of the records, in any of the physical evidence, or any of the statements of the witnesses, that Mr. Hinman was in any way even a drug dealer. According to Mr. Beausoleil, Hinman manufactured the drugs at his house, at his residence. There's nothing in any of the police reports, there's nothing in any of the evidence from the crime scene that indicates that Mr. Hinman manufactured drugs at all. Furthermore, there is no evidence from any of this inmate's crime partners that Hinman was involved in any kind of a bad drug deal between himself, the Straight Satan's, or Mr. Beausoleil. This is all a flat-out lie. In fact, Mr. Hinman's deceased crime partner, Susan Atkins, testified at her own parole hearing on Tuesday, December 31st of 1985, and this was at CIW, and I have the transcript in front of me, and I'm looking at pages 59 and 60 of that December 31st, 1985 transcript where she was asked a few questions by Board member -- actually, two different Board members"Did you at any time, did you think that Robert Beausoleil was there to collect money on a drug deal?" Inmate Atkins: "No, Sir." This fantasy that inmate Beausoleil concocts is a way of minimizing not only his involvement in the crime, but also of shifting some of the blame to Mr. Hinman. In other words, it was Mr. Hinman's fault that he sold some bad drugs, and that's what caused this whole confrontation to occur. It was Mr. Hinman's fault that he threatened to go to the police after his face had been slashed, that caused him to be killed by Robert Beausoleil. That is absolutely incorrect, it is not true, and Mr. Beausoleil to this day continues to lie and deny, and to make up new stories about his involvement with the crime. This was a planned attack and extortion. Bruce Davis drove Bobby Beausoleil and the girls to the house. The girls knew Hinman. They were to enter the house first to see if Mr. Hinman was with anyone. If Mr. Hinman wasn't with anyone, they were to make a signal, and after they made that signal, Bobby Beausoleil then entered the house with the gun. They kept him hostage. Despite what Mr. Beausoleil says about not preventing him from leaving, it's absolutely clear that they did. He struck Mr. Hinman over the head with the gun. In fact, by his own admission, he says that the gun was damaged. At least, that's what Bruce Davis says, that the gun was damaged. Mr. Beausoleil makes out that he's somehow a pawn in all this, that he was given instructions on how to go collect the money, that it was Bruce Davis and Danny DeCarlo that told him how to use the gun and how to threaten the victim, and this was absolutely incredible, and it's absolutely unbelievable. He continues to minimize his behavior by saying, this was all Charlie's fault, and none of it makes absolutely any sense whatsoever. According to Mr. Beausoleil's latest version, he was just there to collect some money, that he really didn't tell the girls, despite all the evidence to the contrary, because all the girls and everyone else indicates that the reason that all of them went to Gary Hinman's house was because they believed he came into an inheritance, and they wanted to acquire that inheritance as part of the Family funds. So, Mr. Beausoleil is flat-out lying. His version is completely different from all of his crime partners', and all the evidence in this case projects. His version makes absolutely no sense too, because if he were there to collect on the drug debt, why is Manson involved? Why does Manson come over? His explanation is, Manson was worried that his girls might have been in danger. They were never in any danger. There was a struggle with the gun, a gunshot went off, Beausoleil retained possession of the gun. If he hadn't retained possession of the gun, Hinman may still be alive today. He may have fled, he may have shot his assailants. But the point is, is that Beausoleil was always in control. The reason Manson was called over to the house was because Hinman didn't have the money, or wasn't giving up the money, so the purpose for Manson and Davis to return was to further threaten Hinman to pay up or turn over the pink slips to the car. This is logical, this is what all the evidence shows, and this is in direct contradiction to what Mr. Beausoleil is trying to tell this Panel today. And Mr. Beausoleil, he can't -- well, he can't keep his story straight.

We can probably gather that a lot of the witnesses, and co-defendants minimized their involvement in this tragic case, simply because they didn't want to get charged as some sort of accessory, or get involved any more than they already were. Could we say that Ella Jo was involved? Sure. She is the one who suggested Gary in the first place. We could also say that Danny was involved somewhat too. Danny was there, getting drunk & feeling up Ouisch & Simi Valley Sherry probably while they were in Devil's canyon, sitting around a campfire & brainstorming on how to procure desperately needed funds for dune buggies, food, equipment, drugs, tools, etc. He heard the planning! Danny didn't claim to be an angel. He was a piece of shit, but that doesn't mean he put Bobby up to going over to Gary's and getting the money back on some sort of bum drug deal. Remember, everyone was desperately trying to think of a way to get the money necessary to move to the desert. They even talked about kidnapping Terry Melcher and holding him for ransom. Do I think Gary Hinman was murdered because of a drug deal, or bad mescaline? Absolutely not. I never have. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Gary ripped Bobby Beausoleil off, or gave him mescaline with strychnine. I have known many outlaw bikers for many years now and I can guarantee you this: They would NEVER, EVER have to send some punk over to a drug dealers house to get a refund of their money. Outlaw motorcycle groups have people on their "team" that have no problem collecting on a debt or getting a refund. It's preposterous to even think that they would rely on a 21-year old punk to go collect, even back in 1969. As for the drugs, Gary might have done a little experimenting with drugs for a spell, and his family admitted that he had been in a recovery group for drug addiction, but that doesn't mean he sold Bobby Beausoleil a bad batch. It was the late 60's in Topanga Canyon. Who didn't do drugs in that area back then? Bobby Beausoleil, in my opinion is desperately trying to minimize his involvement in this cowardly murder by putting some of the blame on his victim and the rest on Charles Manson and even Danny DeCarlo. Do I think this man would be a danger to society if released. No, I do not, but I am not the one he has to convince. Inconceivable!!

DOCUMENTARY Charles Manson: The Man Who Killed the 60s

Of course, the very first interview had to be with The Bug, all decked out in a fancy suit and tie sitting poolside in a very strange juxtaposition of formal and casual. "The murders were bizarre," he says, blah blah blah, "guru" blah blah "Christ and Satan" blah blah blah. Patty is worried this is going to be just another fluff piece.

However, here we have what turned out to be a very balanced documentary on the Tate La Bianca Murders and their context within the times. Many, many more insightful interviews followed the Bug including Steven Kay, Bruce Davis, Sandra Good, Paul Krassner, Todd Gitlin, Dr. David Smith, Phil Kaufman, Kim Fowley, Wavy Gravy, and Jim Pursell among others. And, save a few small inaccuracies like Sharon Tate having been hung from the rafters and the Family being arrested near Independence, there were no real cringe inducing moments to speak of.

Some highlights:

Charlie pronounces his middle name. This is the first time Patty has ever heard him do so. She always assumed that "Milles" was one syllable, like "Mills." It's not: it's two like "Mill-is." He also reiterates what George Stimson wrote in his book about his generation being more Bing Crosby than Beatles.

Paul Krassner says he is the first one to draw parallels between the Manson Murders and Lt. Calley and the massacre at My Lai during his bay area radio show.

Dr. David Smith says that his medical administrator, Al Rose, went and lived with the Family for a while, and this is how they got enough access to write their scholarly paper on the family's group marriage dynamics.

Wavy Gravy tells the story of how Charlie broke up their Om Circle at the Hog Farm. He says that Charlie was making choking noises out of the window of the black bus, then came out and "delivered a scathing put down of our whole scene." That's when Wavy asked him to leave. "I'm so glad he didn't take offense," Wavy says.

Anita Hoffman says that she and husband Abbie actually visited Spahn Ranch and were "spooked the whole time."

At the end, Charlie is asked if he is sorry for what happened. He sits pensively for a moment, then says "I don't really know what sorry means. I've been sorry all my life." He says that his mother always said that she was sorry he was born. "I understand rules and regulations. I don't understand sorry."

The Devil's kin: Tex's cousin, Sheriff Montgomery

Just'a good ol' boy

What we have here, ladies & gentlemen is a photo of Tex Watson's 2nd cousin, Sheriff Tom Montgomery, who happened to have been in the unfortunate position of being related to Watson, and was the one who placed the piece of shit under arrest in Texas. Of course, he probably used fur-lined cuffs, so the "boy" wouldn't bruise his wrists & all. Sheriff Montgomery just thought the world of his "relation"and allowed the mother of Satan to take her son daily meals and other luxuries. Here is what he had to say about Tex Lucifer during his jail time in Texas:

"You know, I'm the boy's second cousin. His mother's daddy was my daddy's brother. But I don't think they ever established that Charles was in the Tate house-or that other place either. And this boy was raised in the church house. Why, his mother & daddy are the finest people you'll ever meet. It's awfully hard for people around here to think he could ever have done the stuff he's been accused of doing." 

Okay, let me go barf now. Why were they always calling him a "boy?" He was a freakin hairy-legged 24 year old already? Tex would call himself that too. He says in interviews "I was just an innocent Texas boy being corrupted by Charlie & the girls!" What a bunch of horseshit! Tex was a bunch of different things even before he met up with Manson, including a drug peddler, a wimp, a mama's boy, a thief, a liar, a pervert, and an extreme scum bag. A freakin boy? Are you kidding me? I'm surprised his mother didn't wipe his ass when she made her daily visits to the Collin County jail. I mean, come on. Does this look like the face of an innocent Texas boy? 

A boy's best friend is his mother!

Movie: The Last of the Manson Girls

January, 1972. Convinced there’s more to the Manson murders than meets the public eye, counterculture journalist Paul Krassner embarks on an LSD tinged investigation of the last of Manson’s disciples: Brenda McCann, Sandra Good, and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme. What he finds could change how the world sees the 60s… if he lives long enough to tell the story.

Directed By: Lonnie Martin
Written By: Based on “My Acid Trip with Squeaky Fromme” by Paul Krassner
Screenplay By: Lonnie Martin
Produced By: Cindy Marie Martin

Ningen Manga Productions, LLC

Facebook Page HERE

Website HERE