In a nutshell, Schreck tells his reader that, Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel and Kasabian arrive at Cielo around midnight for a $20K drug deal. In his version, the killers do not cut the phone wires and climb the fence; instead, they drive their car through the welcoming gate and right on to the driveway apron. Even though this is a Watson/Kasabian partnership drug burn, Watson enters only with Atkins and leaves Krenwinkel and Kasabian by the car to be lookouts.
Equally welcoming on their escapade is Sebring, who opens the front door to invite Watson and Atkins in. And, being the generous host that Sebring was known to be, he offers and then makes them drinks.
In the meantime, Abigail (in her bedroom) and Voytek (on the living room couch) are blitzed out of their minds on MDA and in a comatose-like state. Sharon is in her bedroom, already in bed.
When Sebring tells Watson that he doesn't have all the drugs, a heated argument begins, drawing both (the incapacitated) Abigail and (the underwear clad) Sharon into the living room. The fight escalates and Watson hits Sebring.
At about this time, Schreck places Steven Parent at the living room window of the main house to witness the violent attack. Frightened, he runs to the driveway. But, instead of getting in his car, he stops to look in the garage (at what, we don't know). It is here that Krenwinkel and Kasabian attack Steven, slashing at him with the knife and yelling for Watson's help.
Watson, hearing their calls for help, leaves Atkins alone in the house to guard four people and runs out to help kill Steve. By the time of Watson's arrival, Steve has jumped into his car, rammed the shift into reverse and downs 30 feet of guardrail before Watson catches him and shoots him four times.
Back inside, Sebring tries to calm Watson by telling him that he has more drugs at his Easton Drive home. Watson agrees to take Sebring and Sharon (as hostage) to Easton Drive. But, once outside, Sebring lunges at Watson and Watson shoots Sebring. As Sharon is trying to get away, they stab her.
With Tate and Sebring murdered, Watson decides they should go to Sebring's house to get the drugs that are there. They then leave Cielo (and the drugged, but very much alive Folger & Frykowski) to go to Sebring's house. But the Easton Drive drug caper is snafued by Rudy Weber when he busts them using his garden hose.
Watson then decides to forego Sebring's house and high-tails it back to Spahn to tell Manson what had transpired. Then, along with Manson, they decide to return to Cielo to wipe down fingerprints. When they return, they do indeed wipe down the house and then (oh yeah, forgot about them) kill Frykowski and Folger.
Wow. Where to begin?
Book Page 599: Schreck uses Watson's trial testimony, as proof that Watson didn't cut the phone wires, climb the gate fence or cut the screen, but entered the Cielo house as an invited guest through the front door—including, in his scenario that they entered the property by driving the car through the open and welcoming gate:
What happened as you approached the front of the house?
I walked in the front door.
You just opened the door--?
Just opened it up.
Just turned the knob and go right on in?
Right
Was any of the group—that is, any of the three girls with you at this time?
No, I didn't see any girls at that time.
Did you slit the screen in that house?
No. I did not.
Response: What Schreck doesn't tell his reader is that this is Watson on the witness stand during cross-examination by Bugliosi. The prosecutor's questioning is to counter the multitude of lies that Watson gave during direct examination by his attorney. Remember, Watson was gunning for a diminished capacity defense.
During direct examination Watson claimed that he had no malice aforethought before the crimes and that after he did not attempt to "hide" the evidence, therefore he had no sense of right and wrong. Watson denied driving to the house, he denied cutting the phone wires, he denied having rope with him, he denied entering through a window (really, he denied any thought at all) and said that he was taking orders from the girls. All he heard was Charlie in his mind over and over; he didn't see his victims as anything but blobs; he didn't think to wash the blood off; he didn't order anyone to throw away the clothes or the weapons. Finally, Watson testified (at various times) that during the commission of the crimes, he was high on Belladonna, Coke, and Meth.
If Schreck takes one portion of Watson's testimony (an invited guest through the front door) as truth, then he must also consider the rest of his testimony—that he was following the orders of the girls and in a state of complete diminished capacity under Manson's spell—as truth. And this then would defy Schreck's motive that this was a calculated drug burn by Watson and Kasabian—especially since he left co-burner-Kasabian outside.
Book Page 25, 600, 610: "From the empty glasses on the table, detectives later deduced that cocktails were offered to the visitors while the business at hand was discussed... After Tex and Sadie were welcomed in, Sebring offered them drinks ... they wiped the fingerprints from the glasses Sebring had offered them when they first arrived."
Response: There is no evidence of any empty drinking glasses found in the living room, dining room, or kitchen. Are we to assume that the killers washed their glasses and returned them to the cabinets?
Book Page 601: "An argument between the speed-tweaking Tex and the Coked-up Sebring."
Response: Sebring's toxicology reports from the autopsy show absolutely no drugs in his system. Now, even though the ethanol test came out negative as well, and we think Jay at least had some wine and or beer that night, let's remember that alcohol continues to break down in the blood stream after death. So, by the time of his autopsy, after 2PM the following day, it's likely that there was zero detection of ethanol left in his system.
Pages 598, 605, & 606 Schreck writes of Voytek and Abigail: "Both were wiped out from the amount of MDA in their system... Frykowski and Folger were not able to put up any resistance... So high on massive doses of MDA, that they could barely move... .Just how high Voytek and Gibby were is indicated by the fact that when Tex returned to finish them off several hours later, they still hadn't been able to free themselves... They lay there for at least three hours going through what must have been two of the worst MDA trips of all time."
Response: The M.E. report noted Voytek had 0.06mg of MDA in his system. Abigail had 2.4mg of MDA in her system, a little higher than a typical recreational dose, but hardly incapacitating. Abigail also had a small amount of alcohol in her system, 0.06.
The notion of Abigail and Voytek being so utterly incapacitated that they sat/lay comatose-like while Watson is beating and then killing Sebring and Sharon, is just plain unrealistic. And then, with their friends' dead bodies lying around them, just hang out and enjoyed their MDA stupor for a couple of hours while Watson et al go back to Spahn to get Manson?
Also of note, MDA and MDMA (Ecstasy) are similar, but not the same drug. Schreck points to these two drugs as being interchangeable in Abigail and Voytek's system, sometimes even referring to the MDA as Fairy Dust, which is also inaccurate.
Even if we went out on a limb to say that Abigail and Voytek's tox screens in the M.E. report are inaccurate and that they had a lot more MDA in their system than noted, there's a thing called the "sobering effect" that occurs during a traumatic situation. The traumatic situation causes mass amounts of adrenaline to be released into the system, "sobering" the individual, which then, if the situation calls for it, causes the fight or flight instinct to kick in. Since Voytek had 50 odd wounds with a blood trail from the living room to the front lawn, it would seem almost certain that the sobering effect from a mild MDA high would have kicked in.
The most ridiculous notion to the whole Abigail and Voytek MDA stupor is that Watson and the women would (as Schreck surmises) leave them unattended and alive, with Sharon & Sebring already murdered, and with the phone lines still functioning, to go to Sebring's house and get more drugs. But, we'll get to that soon.
Book Page 601: "Sharon was roused by the yelling and walked into her living room to see what was happening."
Response: So, Sharon, hearing strange voices, nonetheless volatile yelling voices, walks out of the bedroom in her underwear to see what's up? Didn't grab a robe, just walked into this volatile situation in her underwear? I think you'd be hard pressed, even in 1969, to find anyone who would leave themselves that vulnerable in that situation.
Book Page 602: Schreck places Parent outside looking in the window watching Watson beat Sebring while Sharon tries to intervene. Frightened, Steve Parent then "... ran for his car and roared off at full speed. In his panic to flee... Parent drove in reverse, screeching backward across the parking lot, knocking over nearly thirty feet of fence."
Response: Thirty feet? The police photographs clearly show one split rail of the fence knocked down, about six feet. Schreck turns this small accident into a scene from the French Connection. The poor kid, probably a little buzzed (as Garretson stated in his polygraph) or just because it's damn dark, accidentally backed into the fence, knocked down a rail and scraped the undercarriage of his car on the driveway parapet.
Book Page 602-603: Watson, after hearing the women scream about Steve on the driveway, runs outside and leaves Atkins, with a single buck knife, to guard four people.
Response: Ummm. One 5'6" woman with a 4" blade to cover four people? Even if they're tied up, I find it hard to believe that Frykowski and Sebring wouldn't have taken that opportunity to lunge at Atkins.
Book Page 604: Schreck places Watson and Sebring struggling on the front porch. "Tex hit Sebring hard on the head with the gun. So hard that the grip shattered."
Response: The M.E. noted in Sebring's autopsy report that he was hit in the face with a blunt instrument, but since there was no breaking of the skin, he surmised that it was something "soft like a fist". The M.E. then notes of Sebring's head: "Inspection and palpitation of the scalp reveals no evidence of injury."
Book pages 40-41, 604: While we can agree with Schreck's assessment that the media "planted the seeds of Charlie's legend with mystic cult and black magic headlines", we differ when it comes to Schreck's statement: "There was nothing particularly "hippie" about the crimes, which were actually fairly ordinary mob-related narcotics trade murders... At around 1:00, Tex led Sebring towards the door, taking Sharon with him as a hostage... Atkins and Krenwinkel scooped up all the mescaline, MDA, and cocaine they could find."
Response: The most glaring evidence against these murders being a drug burn/robbery is the lack of ransacking. As noted in the police report: The killers left the location without ransacking the house. Paper money was in plain view throughout the house and Sebring had a wristwatch on his wrist in plain view valued at $1,500.
It's hard to fathom that this supposed drug burn was all about money and yet at Cielo, there's not a single open drawer, nothing disturbed in the closets, nothing disturbed on the desk in the living room, nothing disturbed in the bedrooms, nothing disturbed in the loft above, nothing disturbed in the dining room or kitchen and nothing disturbed in the (Schreck version) supposed drug "safe house" of the nursery.
These drug burn/murderers were either very tidy searchers or very lazy ones when they scooped up all they could find.
A more "fairly ordinary mob-related narcotics trade murders", would be the Wonderland Murders in which, after being robbed by the four residents from Wonderland Drive, mafia dude, Eddy Nash, orders his peeps to go to the robbers' Wonderland address, retrieve the stolen items and kill everyone in the house.
Do a YouTube search for "Wonderland Murders" to see the crime scene video that shows that the house was completely ransacked. Drawers emptied, ripped from the dressers and strewn about, closets emptied, the floors literally covered in clothing and other items emptied out while searching for drugs, jewels, and cash; even the refrigerator was opened. Yet, the Cielo house, except for the living room area of attack, is completely untouched.
We could say, well, the killers believed that the victims had told them where everything was so they didn't need to ransack—except that Schreck states that Watson didn't believe they had it all, and in fact (as we'll see next), is the reason why the killers left Voytek and Abigail alive to drive to Sebring's house to retrieve more drugs.
Book Page 606: "... Tex pressed the button to open the gate. He left his bloody fingerprint behind for the police to find."
Response: A bloody smudge, not a fingerprint was found on the gate mechanism button. Watson's fingerprint was found on the front door to the house.
Book Page 606-607: "Atkins and Watson... later described a wild and senseless ride through Benedict Canyon that never happened. What is true is that Watson was looking for somewhere to wash his hands so that he wouldn't drip blood all over Sebring's house... They stopped at the next nearest house with a visible garden hose. It was Portola Drive. Their intention was to park there, then go stealthily by foot to rob Sebring's... "
Response: How very considerate of him. First, why not wash his hands in the sink at Cielo before leaving—under Schreck's version they weren't in a huge hurry to get away?
Second, in Schreck's unlikely scenario, we have the killers driving north on Benedict Canyon, traveling past Sebring's street, Easton Drive, to the next available street (on the right or east side of Benedict Canyon), Portola Drive, looking for a hose/parking place to wash off the blood, with the plan to then hike the almost mile back to Easton, and then make the half-mile hike up Easton Drive to Sebring's house.
Schreck portrays Watson as being a little daft at planning these drug burns, but this plan seems to fall under the category of down-right-ridiculously-mentally-challenged.
Book Page 609: After the bungled Easton Drive caper, the killers drive to Spahn (remember, Folger & Frykowski are still alive at Cielo) where they, along with Manson, decide to return to Cielo to clean up. "Linda drove to Cielo Drive this time. Tex curled up on the back seat. He needed to hide because Mr. Weber... could have easily recognized him and for all he knew could have already reported his description to the police."
Response: First, it's a ridiculous notion that the whole reason for returning to Cielo is not to kill the living witnesses, Folger & Frykowski, but to clean fingerprints?
Second: Tex is worried about being seen in a dark moving vehicle in the middle of the night on a winding road, but not worried that the vehicle itself, a yellow and white rusted out Ford (to which Weber wrote down the license number) could be spotted and identified by police?
Book Page 612-613: "The idea of the hanging at Cielo was to make it look like there was a connection to the Sebring hanging party (as noted earlier in Schreck's book). Billy Doyle and Tommy Harrigan... were known to have been present at that party. Watson knew that Doyle was Frykowski's MDA connection, and thus the original source of the burn that set all this in motion... This attempted frame-up based on intimate knowledge of Sebring and his dope dealing clientele, succeeded in setting the cops off of Watson's scent and onto the group of rival drug dealers. Mama Cass, Voytek Frykowski's "neighbor", and close friend and client of Billy Doyle, immediately believed that he and his friends were the killers and informed the cops about her suspicions."
Response: Elliot did not make the connection due to the "hanging". In fact, she didn't make any connection at all. On the other hand, John Phillips did make an inaccurate connection by translating the bloody word PIG left on the front door to PIC, i.e., Pic Dawson. Phillips then told Elliott that Dawson was responsible for the murders and therefore, she too was responsible because she had introduced Dawson to their circle. Phillips then told her that she was in danger because Dawson would next kill Elliot and her daughter. For this reason, and this reason only, Cass Elliot told the police that she believed Pic Dawson was the killer.
The other events and details that Schreck depicts on the night of the Cielo murders cannot be disputed because we weren't there.
We do not discount Schreck's claim that drugs were a motive for the Cielo drive murders. We do not discount that Rostau was a dealer with mafia ties. We certainly don't discount that, like many Angelenos in 1969, Abigail, Voytek, and Jay were using drugs on a regular basis. Nor do we discount the claim that Manson family members went back to the house later that night to do... whatever it is that they did.
What we do dispute is that Rostau made a drug delivery on August 8th. We do dispute the events that Schreck depicts of the murders that we can otherwise prove false. And, we dispute that the victims, in essence, were responsible for their own demise because they chose to do a drug burn against Watson and Kasabian.
69 comments:
Excellent work folks, as always. I want to read this in more detail before commenting. I am sure everyone is aware that there is a new edition of this book being published some time in the future. Now, Schreck is bound to be aware of your 'debunking' of the Rostau details, so I wonder if he has had to make amendments. Perhaps he is going to talk more freely about Mr X, who many believed to be film director Mike Nichols. I haven't bought the book (on the advice of Matt) but I would say Schreck's problem is that he spouts a revisionist history from Charlie.
Think he'll credit us?
The book seems to be very much geared towards minimising Charlie's culpability i.e. downplay the copycat murders.
Book pages 602-3. Susan Atkins had the gun wrestled from her grip by Gary Hinman, who did not look like the most robust of people, so the likelihood of her holding the Cielo people at bay singlehandedly is risible.
Secondly, I have always wondered if the noise of Steven Parent backing into the metal fence is what brought Tex out from the bushes.
A correct timeline would be key to establishing what really happened at the Tate property.
@Matt "Think he'll credit us?". Nope, he may even place one of his old Satanic curses on you!
NS stated on Brian Davis' radio podcast interview that he wanted to put a copy into the British Library in London, presumably to make it the definitive account of the story. The last time I looked, the BL had not accepted it.
When I first read that last comment I thought you said "British Museum". That nearly got me second degree burns from my coffee. LOL.
A minor clarification is that MDA is a metabolite of MDMA and so its kind of true that its hard to tell what they actually took.
"Kind of TRUE" That's a "bingo" for me Patty.
BUT what really makes OUR system: "Truth, Justice and the American Way" so great - we have the mailman, the store clerk, the author, the policeman, the prosecutor, the politician, the school teacher, the preacher and the celebrity telling us which KIND of truth to put OUR money on.
I don't have a copy of the book, therefore I should like to ask if Schreck gives any citations in the text whatsoever for his assertions regarding the events at Cielo? Is it just a case of "Charlie told me when I visited him at Corcoran"?
Matt I thought I mentioned this to you before in a private email that I actually emailed Shreck & told him about you & the blog that you debunked his whole theory of the motive being a Rostau drug deal gone bad The only response was that a new book was in the works & they would keep me updated by email the reply of course was not from Shrek himself but a representative ! Please everyone forgive my spelling errors it's never been my strong point but hopefully I still got my point across thanks all Peace
very interesting stuff matt....WOW!!
William Marshall
You should contact Schreck's 'representative' again, and let them know there has been further debunking by Matt and the ladies before he puts the new edition to print!!
Equinox, this post is based on deductive reasoning based on known facts of the case, so we presented it now. There is more that debunks using publicly available records that we are not going to publish until after his next edition. No point in doing someone else's research.
equinox that just seems pointless no ? Also I failed to mention I still offered to by 1st edition at full asking price & was told it was unavailable are we to believe all 1st editions sold out also whenever the book show's up anywhere 2nd hand it's very $$$ there's a antique book store where in Atlantic city about 20 minutes from me that can usually find anything they said it could be had at $200 no thanks they have an autographed copy of Child of Satan child of God cheaper not that I believe Susan Atkins autograph hold's much value most expensive Manson book I have is Death to Pig's & not sure what it cost it was a gift from the girlfriend but she said hope you like it it was expensive & I plan on making the tour next year if my health improves & hoping to get the book sighed by R.H.
William,
I was joking!! With regard to the 1st edition, if you have not done so already, do a search on Ebay and if nothing comes up, click on it as a 'saved search' and you will be notified when one is listed.
I hope your health improves in time for next year's tour.
Matt,
William has mentioned next year's tour. Have you considered doing the Manson-related San Francisco sites? There must be places/people in the Haight Ashbury deserving of your attention/interrogation. (I know that could be costly with the airfares etc)
Yes, NorCal is a future tour for sure, it's just that we LOVE LA. I personally can't get enough of it.
Yes Mattie but if you live LA you will really really love Nor Cal!!
“Watson then decides to forego Sebring's house and high-tails it back to Spahn to tell Manson what had transpired. Then, along with Manson, they decide to return to Cielo to wipe down fingerprints. When they return, they do indeed wipe down the house and then (oh yeah, forgot about them) kill Frykowski and Folger.”
Eh ? Have I misunderstood this or is the writer claiming that Manson took part in the actual, physical killing of Frykowski and Folger ?
Also, does he explain how their bodies ended up on the lawn ?
equinox there are a lot of footnotes in the book. Many say "conversation with" xxxx, so it's hard to know if a conversation did take place and if the conversation was documented in any way.
At the end of the book there is a disclaimer. "The opinions expressed herein, however, as well as any errors of fact or interpretation, are mine alone."
Read into that what you will.
equinox12314 said...
...Have you considered doing the Manson-related San Francisco sites? There must be places/people in the Haight Ashbury deserving of your attention/interrogation...
I'm in as I live in SF ;)
There are Manson related places here but I agree non hold a candle to the LA locations.
You've got the house Manson lived at on Cole, and few houses that Sandy & Squeaky lived at, the house that Charlie met Sadie at the Haight Ashbury Clinic, UC-Berkely where Charlie met Mary. However, it would be a good chance for some to visit SF which in itself is a cool place to visit.
Then there's Sacramento, Stockton and Mendocino nearby. Patty holds out hope that it will happen one day
You all are welcome here to the San Luis Obispo area as well; perhaps while traveling from LA to SF or vice-versa. Only a few sites here but interesting: CMC where Davis lives and Watson was for a time, Atascadero State Hospital where Watson stayed and was evaluated, and the site where BB was arrested then booked. I keep meaning to submit a photo story on those sites to the group. It will happen soon, I hope.
@DebS
Thanks for that Deb. Is one of you designated to buy the new edition because it is one damn expensive book? I hope whatever NS has added or deleted is worth your while.
Like others, I listened to NS' interview with Brian D on the Star City Radio podcast, and my impression of NS throughout is that he tries to put across that he is an 'insider', therefore whatever he says is to be accepted as true without any further enquiry. Certainly, when CM was caught with a mobile in his Corcoran cell, NS was one of those he called. I firmly believe that NS is being played by CM to publish CM's version of events.
You guys are doing a great job of disproving so many assertions NS makes, but I suspect the new edition will not reflect that. I don't think NS' ego would allow that. Bill Scanlon Murphy was allegedly threatened when he was given a deal to publish what he knew from his time with Dennis Wilson. Apparently, BSM's knowledge was used by NS in the book and he does not appear to have been threatened by anybody. To me, NS is Charlie's mouthpiece who is happy to document CM's revisionist history of the events.
Did Pat or Susan ever mention a drug deal before, during or after the trial? You would think so as they were both desperate to get out.
When I watched 'Charles Manson Superstar' (as far as I could because I can only listen to CM for so long), Schreck comes across as a sycophantic Manson groupie. If NS promotes the drug burn motive, it detracts from the copycat killing motive, and the latter involves CM much more than the former.
Hey equinox sorry I'm a little slow on the draw these days your well wishes are very appreciated
Just wondering where you seen new version of Manson file offered & you now the cost ? 1st edition was 39 euro's about $49 American dollars but I know the shipping added a lot to price if I remember almost as much as the book it's self guess the main reason I want a copy is the length of the book being to sick to work anymore have lot's of time on my hands can breeze through a 300 page book in a day or two Also miss Patty & Leary I'd appreciate any suggestions on some new reading material Patty got me interested in B.E.L. & read two very good book's
Hi William,
The price estimate I gave was based on Pounds Sterling. We don't have the Euro in the UK (Thank God!!) and at times, the Pound has almost been on parity with the Euro. As an aside, consumer goods in the UK are much dearer than the US, so our American cousins get a bit of a shock when they come here on holiday.
The alleged drugs deal was supposed to be $20,000. A current value would be roughly $120,000. That's a lot of drugs to conceal when you are making a get away and stopping to rinse yourself down with a hosepipe.
Would a couple of experienced drug dealers like Jay and Voy have believed that a crowd of losers like The Family would be doing one deal in that kind of money? By all accounts, they were finding hard to raise the cash for a bar of soap.
William: Your girlfriend gifted YOU with "Death to Pigs" - It doesn't get much better than that.
Drugs sere being sold out of the Tate house AND the dealers didn't "carry" GUNS. Is that unprofessional, or what ?
Hello Mr.Hendrickson if I'm stil to sick to do the tour again next year if I'm even still alive is there anyway of getting you to autograph my copy of the book ?
Matt published at my request last year a pic of my Manson collection & your book can be seen clearly the book definitely means a lot to me
I have to admit after reading this post from Matt & going back to the 1st one Shrecks book sounds about as factual as comics I read as a kid that said I still hold some hope on his rewrite
I'd have to be on about $20,000 worth of drugs to believe that story.
Exactly, Cielo. But he's speaking to a different audience entirely. Lol.
Matt/Deb/Patty/Ann
Would one of you give Robert Hendrickson a nudge to look at William's request at 1139am 05/12 in this thread. (Assuming you haven't already done so).
Thanks
I only know Schreck from Charles Manson superstar, the original Manson file and the TLB radio interview. So that is where i draw informatio from. I'm somewhat sympathetic to Schreck. Mainly due to two things. In the TLB radio interview he mentions seeing Fearless vampire killers as a kid and feeling some sorts of premenatory dread. When i was a kid, long before i knew what leather thongs were all about, i watched that movie several times. Every time leaving me with a mysterious and severe feeling of general wrongness with the world. I guess i felt watching it enough times would unlock the god damn mystery of the general wrongness. He also mentions, in relation to his getting an ear cut off, that there is some karmic predicament at work with getting caught up in the whole thing. This i also subscribe to. Let's face it. We either all hit our heads at a specific angle in a specific moment during our individual neurological development, or there is mojo at work here. Most people drop out after the mildly curious phase. We obviously drag this around in life like an extra set of gentials. Let's call it the mighty balls of Cielo. Wear them
proudly and truth will follow. Also. I'd say he's an insider without the apostrophes. I'm looking at you equionix12314. After all, he was inside jail talking to Manson while we were outside. Also. He apparently did know Emmons, met Altobeli and so on which i'd say is a good way to obtain information not observable from the outside. Now. The flipside. There seem to be some half bakedness to the guy. Having information and using information aren't exactly the same. Statements such as MDA being ecstasy and Manson being on the brink of a successful music career don't mesh with what i feel i know. I have only read a few pages of the new Manson file, but i have no reason to doubt the portions reprinted here on the blog. So, the book obviously has things i can't simply accept as truth. But out of curiosity, i'd trade the old Manson file for the new Manson file. Old one has nudie pictures. Takers?
Hi Senor Robot,
I take on board what you say about 'insider'. Yes, you are right, he is an insider in Charlie's camp. On that basis we have to view what he says with some scepticism because as I have said already, he could just be relating a version of events Charlie wants the world to hear. NS has spoken to many people in his endeavours, but the likes of Altobelli and others are giving an opinion or their version of the facts. The team here are MansonBlog have done a great job over three threads questioning Schreck's assertions by producing verifiable information. I am surprised at the number of easily avoidable errors NS makes, such as the length of fence that Steve Parent damaged. The crime scene photo depicting the fence is readily available at the fantastic CieloDrive.com site.
I will end by saying that it is a pity that Pat, Tex or Linda don't just come clean about what really happened that night. Pat and Tex may take the view that they are not going to get out anyway, so why should they? It would be the most decent thing for them to do for the sake of the victims' memories.
Senor Robot,
We rely only on verifiable publicly available records.
We cannot take into account what Manson said (or likely didn't say) to Schreck. What people say in interviews and private conversations is hearsay. It isn't verifiable. Thus, we don't consider it.
Based on verifiable publicly available records, much of what he says is patently false. If he got all of that wrong, the entire story and thus his motive doesn't hold any water.
Matt. Where do you draw the line? Do you consider a statement during a police interview to hold more weight than a, let's say, news interview? Do you see under oath as adding even more weight? Also. Do you see the truth arising from (court) records or the truth arising when an alternative account of the murders mesh with (court) records? Not asking for the heck of it. I'm curious here.
Do you consider a statement during a police interview to hold more weight than a, let's say, news interview?
Yes, if it's on the record.
Do you see under oath as adding even more weight?
Certainly more than a supposed behind closed doors prison visit.
Also. Do you see the truth arising from (court) records or the truth arising when an alternative account of the murders mesh with (court) records?
Truth can arise anywhere. However, when you can disprove important parts of an author's theory using those verifiable public records the rest of his story tends to hold less weight.
If the research we have done backed up his theory, then his less verifiable accounts would be much more believable.
I was just re-watching the Dianne Sawyer documentary for the 25th anniversary. At 20 minutes in, Pat gives her version of their arrival at Cielo, the murder of SP, and their means of entry into the Tate residence. It is completely at odds with what Schreck says in the book, and given that neither Pat, Linda or Tex have (as far as I am aware) granted Schreck an interview, then NS' version is based on the story of someone who was not present.
Equinox my new friend seen your comment to Matt & the crew thought that was awesome of you
A question for Matt, Patty and Deb who I believe have read both books:-
Is there any common ground between the Schreck and Stimson books? By which I mean motive, the course of events on both nights.
Was Sebring tested for cocaine? I could be wrong but I seem to remember reading somewhere that he was tested for alcohol ,amphetamine and a few other substances but not cocaine or MDA for that matter.
Well, if you want to be completely factual, you can't say that the report show absolutely no drugs since not all drugs were tested for. Probability kind of rules out that Sebring had ingested ibogaine, nutmeg or adrenochrome. When it comes to cocaine, or benzoylecgonine which seems to be the metabolite to test for, it wasn't tested for. So whether or not he had ingested cocaine can not be proven or disproven beyond valuation of probability.
Cocaine was found in Sebrings car so my guess would be that he was probably coked up.
Equinox Patty has yet to get all the way through Schreck.
Thanks Patty. Yes, I believe Schreck is nearly 1000 pages. I have just read your in depth review of George Stimson's book - you did a great job!
equinox- that is something I can answer and that is why we larf- St. George relies on the Copycat motive while NS tries to debunk that. For two strong believers who have access to Manson you would think they could get the story right
Hello Col. good to see you back as far as Shreck he''s definitely Pro Manson something that should probably be kept in mind
"But he's speaking to a different audience entirely"
Yeah, the soul on Youtube who teaches you how to make home drugs of the variety that aren't yet on the controlled substances schedule. Oh, and his now ex-girlfriend managed to flee the scene, the state in fact, with his drivers license, SS card, etc. That's his audience.
Hi Col Scott,
Thanks for that. I tend to go with the copycat motive as the predominant motive because Manson was trying get Bobby out of jail before he sang like a canary to the DA. At the end of the day, everything that went on at Spahn during Charlie's tenure was for Charlie's benefit. It took a number of years' incarceration, and being drug free, for that to dawn on Leslie, Pat and Susan.
I have to force myself to watch 'Charles Manson Superstar' in small chunks. Schreck comes across as a sycophantic, love-sick Charlie groupie. From watching the recent interview on this site with George Stimson, he does seem to be a bit more objective than NS, although I still believe both are too close to Charlie to be truly objective on the subject matter.
BTW, I am sad to see that you are no longer blogging. Would you please consider coming back for one more post when the transcript of Bobby B's July parole hearing becomes available. I believe you would be the best person to make an assessment of what will inevitably be another denial. Failing that, you could get together with Austin Ann on here to write something for this site because she is the resident 'Bobby expert'.
Equinox
In order to believe the copycat motive you have to believe that the killers were SOO inept that NOBODY in the known universe linked the TLB killings to Hinman. I mean Jesus Christ, instead of PIG on the front door as an afterthought write on the Tate walls "Hinman was the first". Bam, the cops wonder if it is the same people.
Meeting with George a few weeks ago made it clear to me that the copycat motives are nonsense. It just did not happen.
I stopped blogging because of personal tragedy in my life and while I enjoyed the meetup with future hubbie Matt and the gang last month I struggle to get back into it. I started for one reason- The BUG lied to me about the motives and I want to know why. But we never will know. Even people I thought were working (12 years) on new information like Ton O'Neill talk nonsense like about Charlie's Karate Camp for Boys. And soon we will get the shitty cartoon version of Charlie on NBC by the godawful hack from Californication (writer, not David).
I think the answer may lie with, as Pesci says in JFK "The shooters don't even know why." And that crushes my spirit.
ColScott, reloading and only seeing your damn Krenwinkel deluxe-post has been crushing MY spirit continuously. The world doesn't revolve around you, act your age. My interest was in a ten year slumber until Cielodrive.com awoke it with the audio archive. Right now, i'm feeling the slumber coming on. My being here, spouting deep and important thoughts, is my last stand. I'm bagging the whole thing. Selling my items. My family will thank me and my skintone will improve. Might take up jogging.
The copycat motive is obviously on a nonsensical par with Helter Skelter, since the actions were neither copy nor cat. I've personally dropped the idea of ever seeing a remotely reasonable motive. Motives are stupid anyway. Bedtime stories. Immaterial to the case. I've been more interested in trying to arrange the facts in a somewhat linear fashion in order to make sense of what actually took place. That hasn't worked out well. I can't even tell when or why a damn light was on or off. So, under those circumstances, even trying to obtain the story of why seems so remote it's not even worth pondering. The case is dead as a dodo and we're soon entering the phase of case nostalgia.
Just to clarify something. I was telling ColScott to act his age in relation to having his sprit crushed, not in relation to personal tradegy. I don't travel the internet on a go-kart minimizing peoples issues in life.
Senor Robot- the day you forget half the things I have learned you can tell me what to do thanks. You sound like JimNY and if you are you are a sad pathetic total asshole
Actually, ColScott, i was only trying to say that if would be nice if you blogged more. Cheekily as they say. I may still be a pathetic total asshole. Time will tell.
That being said. I am truly bagging the case. Family first. It was fun knowing you all. Keep up the good work. Especially cielodrive.com, who has made a difference in many ways. If someone for some odd reason want to discuss the case from a european legal perspective. You can track me down on Aim.
Senor Robot,
I can't see the purpose in discussing the case from a European Law perspective. Firstly, because most of the European jurisdictions are based on Roman/Civil law. Whereas, the US states, with the exception of, say, Louisiana, is based on common law and statute due to the historic English influence. Additionally, there would be no point in using EC law as a point of reference because that layer of legislation is not applicable in the US. Neither are the Articles of the European Convention On Human Rights relevant.
Senor Robot take care. Family first and good health is always a good idea. Maybe you can poke your head in once in while to say hi and see if there's anything good to read. Here's to civility on the internet.
I have taken MDA, as well as MDEA and MDMA. For the record, all three are sold on the street as 'Ecstasy' although MDMA is most commonly sold under that name and so is most strongly associated with it. They are all very similar drugs in terms of both pharmacology and their psychoactive effects. My personal reflections on them:
MDMA - Very 'speedy' (you can feel it's related to amphetamines), lots of feelings of love and empathy, mild visual psychedelic effects (enhanced colours, tracers, shimmering patterns on surfaces, etc.).
MDA- Less speedy than MDMA, but still speedy enough that you'll be grinding your teeth, chattering non-stop, wanting to move and dance. Same feelings of love and empathy as MDMA, but much stronger psychedelic effects (to the point you can have actual full-blown hallucinations).
MDEA (aka MDE) - Probably the least speedy, least lovey-dovey & least psychedelic of all of them. It has a tranquilising effect in some ways (inhibited motor control & you're a bit dopey & sedated, like on alcohol), but there's still that 'amphetamine' edge to it which gives you racing thoughts, an urge to talk nonstop, and lots more energy than normal.
Point of this isn't to show off my drug knowledge (I don't take those kinds of drugs anymore, & generally have very negative views of all drugs nowadays) but rather to focus on the only aspect of the author's excellent debunking with which I have any experience.
Basically, the author's explanations of Schreck's talk about the MDA aspect of this situation further confirm to me that Schreck is full of shit on pretty much everything. Voytek & Folger would NOT be so "wiped out from the amount of MDA in their system" that "they were not able to put up any resistance". It's true that VERY high doses of all those three drugs actually paradoxically do produce an extremely sedated, 'wiped-out' state instead of their usual effects, but as the author writes the M.E. report stated they were on typical recreational doses.
The only way they could have been 'wiped out' enough to be totally unable to resist is if they were 'coming down' from the drugs- when even pure MDMA/MDA/MDEA wears off you feel very very tired, seedy, shaky & unpleasant, and sometimes depressed. But even if they were in this state there is no way they would have been "barely able to move". They actually still would have had enough extra adrenaline pumping through them that they would have been more than capable of fighting back, even if not very ably. Finally, as the author says, the 'sobering effect' would definitely have kicked in. I have experienced this myself (I was tripping on a heavy dose of DXM; my friend had a serious accident & I suddenly needed to get him to the hospital- IMMEDIATELY I became completely sober, my brain ripped the drug right off its receptors because it realised this was an emergency- the human mind is amazing!).
Sorry for the huge rant. I realise a lot of that was covered by the author already but because I'm a blabbermouth I kind of felt the urge to add something regarding the only aspect relevant to the post that I have knowledge on. Basically, Schreck's assertions about MDA are totally false and as the author has suggested they were invented solely to provide some kind of foundational support to his OWN theory behind why the murders occurred- which involves laying (at LEAST) part of the blame on the victims themselves. Some clearly were on MDA at the time of the murders, but there's no way in hell it played such a significant role in the event as Schreck claims. His statements just do not mesh with either established pharmacological facts about the drugs or my own (admittedly anecdotal) personal experiences with them.
SOMETHING to consider: So you don't see how the Manson case relates to YOU !
Ever buy a house or rent one ? Did you consider the history of the the prior occupant ?
Cause YOU will be stepping right into HIS story.
Melcher "feared" enough to sublease the Tate house to Polanski and his wife in order to escape the curse HE brought upon the "isolated house on the hill."
Unfortunately, an important part of any escape is leaving behind the "baggage" created by the "escapee."
AND that's how many a My Lie Massacre begins to fly !
ColScott said...
St. George relies on the Copycat motive while NS tries to debunk that. For two strong believers who have access to Manson you would think they could get the story right
Funny, that. Just like Susan Atkins and Tex and Pat and Leslie. All have different reasons for what happened. Seems to be catching around those that get close to Charlie.
Dave1971, that's what I'd like to know as well. And who were heard allegedly arguing 4am on the property?
I understand tearing down a large book on the minutia, but the devil in that is in the details. Considering what we now know on a more widespread basis, considering news reports, the convicted being held to maintain their stories because of how the parole system is set up?
I think getting caught up in the details that will never be proved or disproved would have been a great hobby searching for the truth, and there are people that can be believed and those that cannot. To me it is more of a macro view of basic human psychology.
To me, Charlie was very adept at persuasion and manipulation, but I do have major doubts that he and his fellow band of flower children actually planned to start a race war. He may have talked about it, he may have used that or the White Album on a micro level to get people to do this or sleep in Death Valley. I think he told people what he felt he needed to to get them to move or act.
But I don't think he controlled people anymore than they wanted to be controlled, and for those in that lifestyle, it is not out of bounds to think some wanted to protect their lifestyle and ideals because what was the alternative? Going back into the "system" of which they ran from?
I think Shreck does do a good job Illustrating just how close some of the people involved in the murders were, or to be clear, how many weren't "full timers" and simply continued to do what they did prior to meeting Charlie. I don't think Charlie ordered much of anything, or if he did, it wasn't until various outside events by people he knew spiraled widely out of control....of which his true expertise, or lack thereof, came to light in his attempts to keep his group together (I refuse to use the term "family").
I have spent days reading and watching everything I could over the past weeks, and I do not mean to demean any of the recognized, much, much more researched positions and posters and even actual members that posted here.
I read Helter Skelter as a child in the 70s. It horrified me. In the 40+ years since then, I have learned just enough about our government that I can't discount just how bad Charlie's defense was. Just how badly the prosecutor was twisting and even providing stories to virtual children who had the choice to parrot his narrative or get the death penalty.
Our government is corrupt now. Now I know just how corrupt it also was back then.
As a result, I don't care whether Nikolas got the mob ties right or not. I don't see how anyone can refute the overall gist of his story by stating various "public records", which to me mean nothing.
So again, first post, and I will respond to any further with respect and love.
I believe the HS motive, in entirety, as BS. I see a charismatic man trying to protect his living situation and not being able to get his "commune" to be self supportive for even food, much less the astronomical drug costs for the people that lived there.
I can go on and on.
Thank you for allowing me to post.
Very well put.
Manson himselr debunked Schreck's version of events. Manson said several times in several interviews:
"Sharon Tate and the others died because Terry Melcher broke a contract and sent three orientals with hatchets to kill someone on the ranch."
He explains who Melcher's would-be assassin (the Blonde-haired, blue-eyed Oriental) was in other interviews. It was Mike Deasy who tried to impale Manson with a pitchfork and hatchet. He WAS sent by Melcher, but not to kill Manson. He was sent to Spahn Ranch record Manson with his mobile recording studio. Someone there gave Deasy an overdose of LSD, and he thought Manson's music was demonic, and that Manson was the Devil. So he charged at Manson yelling, "STAY OUT OF THE MUSIC BUSINESS OR I'LL CUT YOUR HEAD OFF. The incident was very traumatic for Manson. Thus the killings at Cielo Drive were meant to send a message to Melcher. The Family didn't want Melcher dead, just scared into repentence and compliance.
This'll be my first comment, as I've been reading the board on & off since the pandemic started (you folks helped me pass the time and learn stuff simultaneously!). I thought this may be of interest, both parts. BTW, my first exposure to Manson came in 1974, when the parents of a neighborhood friend had a hardbound copy of "Helter Skelter" in their house; the blanked-out photo of Sharon is what got me, even though I was only nine. That was also the same year I really noticed Elton John, what with "Good-bye, Yellow Brick Road" and all.
Part one: https://legsville.com/a-legsville-oral-history-nikolas-schreck-pt-1/
Part two: https://legsville.com/the-dark-side-of-the-sixties-pt-2-hollywood-satanists/
Part 3 is JFK-oriented. Here's Part 4.
https://legsville.com/the-dark-side-of-the-sixties-part-4-charles-manson-dennis-wilson/
@ mm7
Excellent post. Very well said!
Post a Comment