Hey, psychic tv! i was just thinking about you-thanks for sharing this, it's pretty wild huh? the cover is fantastic. I'm gonna work on my review of "Love letters to secret disciple" later-but thanks for your blog i really enjoy all the discussions and information. (And yes i know some horrible tragedies are behind this case but i see it as akin to studying war: that is horrible too-you realize that it's real people yr studying y'know?). I admire the research skills of some of the writers. I've been amazed at how deeply some of the folks research this stuff and i confess some of the back stories go over my head (and i've been around awhile too). It's fascinating that the case is so old that there's stories about the WRITERS of the case. (I didn't know Nick Schreck was missing an ear and then i remembered the story, im not a fan of his but his book on Satanic cinema is pretty thorough) im not paying $90 for his book though. I did see that one of those reprint houses (they fine bind classics with pseudo leather, y'know what i mean) well someone reissued "witness to evil" by george bishop as one of these "classics" sorta like the Franklin Mint of books. I digress. Thanks for sharing this, and i'll be reading.
I'm thinking some writer, probably Paul Watkins or Ed Sansers, called shacks like the one on wheels on the seventh page down "outlaw shacks" . Can someone tell me whether this is correct?
I don't remember hearing that Sharon knew Watson or had visited the ranch before either.
ORWHUT: The wagon on wheels is the "Gypsy Wagon." It was parked down by the "Outlaw Shacks" and brought back up to the main part of the ranch when the Family returned to film MANSON. WE filmed all night that first weekend in the wagon. That's where "Gypsy" plays the violin along with the Family singing.
BTW: When we heard the Family's music that night, the "subliminals" were dancing off the walls.
I realize NOW, the Beatles White Album is one massive collection of "revolution" subliminal imagery. Wikedia even mentions that Helter Skelter relates to the "fall of the Roman Empire," which the Family equated to the FALL of the new and improved present day Roman Empire (America).
One only needs to read the song "titles" to understand exactly what those little buggers were up to.
YES Mr. Bellz, them Brits STILL seem to enjoy fucking with "the rebels." AND maybe IF the CIA hired a few teeny-boppers to decipher modern MUSIC, THEY would finally learn something.
Nick Schreck.....I'm not a fan of his.....I'm not paying $90 for his book though
I'm at that point where I would now ! I've spent the best part of a year looking for it and it's like trying to find hen's teeth. Anyone out there with a copy that you don't want and are willing to sell ? I'm going to be poor soon so strike while the iron is hot !
Nick had to pull it because a crack researcher who shall remain nameless found a big error in it. He is in the process of working on a new revision iprc.
That's bullshit. The book went out of print long before anyone made any attempts to debunk or utilize it for their own research. He didn't pull anything. I remember when there was only a few handful of copies left. Being self released, I do not believe it had a big print run and it's still widly available in French from the French publisher who put that edition.
The Manson File is NOT, I repeat NOT a true crime book and that is according to Schreck himself. The book is largely about Charles Manson the man. Schreck will also be the first to tell you that in regards to the crime, it is far from "the bible" and is not the final word, but rather the first and when things are proven to be false, he is open to correction. Unlike most writers who have a "fuck you, it's the truth" attitude. In fact, all it does is present possible alternative motives. For example, there are multiple possible alternative motives for LaBianca, not just one.
To date, his book is the only that rightfully questions a lot of things other books never have. Such as the absolutely shady operation with Atkin's confession. Long before it was recently discovered that Nadar's apartment was a stone's throw away from the Straight Satans HQ, it brought into question the trip to Venice and possible connection to Straight Satans. It openly questions the March visit to Cielo that Charlie allegedly made, years before Hatami revealed he had no recollection of seeing Manson there and that Bugliosi and Col. Paul Tate's PI were putting pressure on him to say it anyway.
So that book has a tremendous amount of value and relevance to this case. There is still a lot I believe, personally is not true. For instance, I don't believe Bruce Davis made a second trip to the United Kingdom.
The last copy I saw for sale was on eBay and sold for a modesty $50 If I remember correctly.
Robert, Thank you! I always pictured the gypsy wagon as looking like a gypsy caravan. Didn't you have to stand outside in the cold and film the singing through the window?
Yall really did a good job of analyzing schreck's book & debunking the zwillman/rostau connection (I think that's what it was? Been a while since I've read either). While a lot of the 'info' he provides about the motives and actual perpetration of the murders is undeniably spurious (I think it would have been a much better book if he'd cited more sources/interviews instead of leaving so many lil nuggets unsourced, thereby invalidating many of his claims), I found that the scope of the updated Manson File really is impressive. His chapter about Carl Jung & the psychologist's interest in the Abraxas concept, plus the attention to details, coincidences and other minutia related to the case makes the book well worth a read IMO, despite the many inaccuracies which abound throughout the text.
Plus, the book has the best closing lines of any of the media I've ever consumed regarding the murders, the circumstances from which they emerged, and the impact of them....
"Considering how rapidly this most mercurial and mysterious of cases changes, it would be wrong to tie things together in a neat bow and pretend that everything is resolved now. Let it end on a note of absolute uncertainty before these words fall into the silence of all the things that can never be written."
However, I do have a question for people who have read the book. In the appendix that consists of the transcript of Schreck's interview with Manson (the which makes up the bulk of CM Superstar), Schreck writes that at one point during the interview Manson aggressively grabs him (Nik) by his shirt lapel and the guards draw their guns. However, when I watched the raw footage of this interview (which was available on YouTube, I believe ATWA Brasil uploaded it), no such tom-foolery occurs. Was Schreck lying about this incident or was this lapel-grab simply not filmed? Has anyone else noticed this/looked into it?
i just got home. you northerners (Im a carpet bagger myself) you dont know how to party like we do in Georgia, allright. Schreck's a moron okay? he wraps himself in this pseudo occult flag that he thinks gives himself credibility but umm it's just a flag. i was glad to see the debunking of his book on this site. (I liked his satanic cinema book tho, it was a nice overview) shall i bring up Boyd Rice? i got no problems with Boyd Rice though i think Mr. Manson said he was a pimp-something like that. and just cos i got no problems with Mr. Rice doesn't necessarily mean i agree with him at all times either. I think he's a great artist. Something that Schreck AINT (heave you ever heard radio werewolf? it's like bauhaus played backwards with pseudo psychic tv intonations on top -it's really bad-it's like hmm it's like those graham bond witchcraft records but like worse) anyway. umm last time i saw his book it was 90 bucks and i collect manson books and i didnt want it. it's funny but y'know i do recall when he lost the ear (back in the 90's i was a columnist for Flipside) yeah i remember hearing about that (no pun intended!) fuck that guy who cares.
it's still widely available in French from the French publisher who put [out] that edition
Sacre bleu !!
To date, his book is the only that rightfully questions a lot of things other books never have
Michael White, Robert Hendrickson and George Stimson might disagree with you on that one.
Long before it was recently discovered that Nadar's apartment was a stone's throw away from the Straight Satans HQ
That red herring again. You old fishmonger, you !
It openly questions the March visit to Cielo that Charlie allegedly made
Which Rudi Altobelli was adamant happened and testified to it in court.
years before Hatami revealed he had no recollection of seeing Manson there
Years before ? In his 1970 interview with Bugliosi, he does not positively identify Manson. In his court appearance he does not positively identify Manson. He has never publicly said he saw Manson. His position is unflappingly consistent. In Ed's recent book, Ed made it seem like some great new revelation that Hatami was coming out with. But it was what he said all along. We talked about it here.
The last copy I saw for sale was on eBay and sold for a modesty $50 If I remember correctly
Well, I'd still love to snag a copy. Someone was due to send me a copy some months back but they then proceeded to disappear from the face of the earth. I don't really mind if it's got mistakes in it. Most books I have on this subject have mistakes or inaccuracies, even "Helter Skelter."
I don't know who Michael White is. George's book is more or less to question the actually motive. One of the best books on the case, but it does not go into deep detail in regards to the selling of Atkins' confession. Whereas Schreck dedicates nearly an entire chapter to it.
You're missing the point about Hatami. Bugliosi really pushed that and he states it as fact that happened. But aside from Altobelli, there is zero proof and it is such a cinematic account, it's most certainly prosecution fabrication. Bugliosi needed to place Manson at the scene of Cielo at least once, but couldn't do that and downplay the true extent of his friendship with Melcher. As Deana Martin revealed, Melcher cut a deal with Bugliosi and she told them she saw Manson at the house before.
Altobelli is a liar, plain and simple. He met Charlie in '68 at Dennis Wilson's house. He was asked on the stand when he first suspected Manson was involved and he said on the plane from Europe. But then why did he not tell this to LAPD when they interviewed him? Based on his testimony, he knew his face and name. "I wasn't asked" isn't an acceptable answer. If Manson actually popped into your head, you would tell detectives.
Now if Col. Paul Tate's PI and Bugliosi were putting pressure on Hatami to ID Manson, it's not a stretch of the imagination they did the same with Altobelli. That's Paul Tate's PI was involved in that episode is no small revelation.
and given what I know about this case, the Straight Satans' HQ being right near Nadar is no small red herring. Adding up everything known, it is silly and naive to brush that off as coincidence.
He wrote a curious book called "Crucified - The railroading of Charles Manson". It's from about 1999. White was very similar to you in that he takes the stance that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a friggin' idiot that is simply a dupe of Vincent Bugliosi and the American media and incapable of thinking for themselves and weighing up the information they have and coming to any kind of valid conclusion.
George's book is more or less to question the actually motive
As is Nuel Emmons' book. Come to think of it, "Witness to evil," "Five to die," "Child of Satan, child of God," "The Myth of Helter Skelter" and "Death to pigs" all do so in varying degrees.
You're missing the point about Hatami. Bugliosi really pushed that and he states it as fact that happened
I think I'm the one that pointed that out. Like I said at the start of the year, it was Bugliosi's thing. He conflates two incidents. They may have both involved Charlie, we just don't know that to be the case. But it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Regardless of the pressure Hatami felt to ID Manson, he never did.
Altobelli is a liar, plain and simple
Has Charlie ever contradicted Altobelli's story ? All Altobelli said is that Manson came to the house 5 months before the murders. Sure, Bugliosi made a big thing out of.......an event that happened and vests it with meaning.
But aside from Altobelli, there is zero proof and it is such a cinematic account, it's most certainly prosecution fabrication
Aside from Altobelli there is zero proof. So your equation is that it is fabrication. By the same methodology, there is no proof Charlie didn't order these murders..... Be careful of phrases like "most certainly."
Now if Col. Paul Tate's PI and Bugliosi were putting pressure on Hatami to ID Manson, it's not a stretch of the imagination they did the same with Altobelli
No, it's not a stretch. It's not a stretch to suggest they paid all kinds of witnesses to lie and took them for a Thai meal and strip show after either. Bugliosi asked Altobelli how he knew it was Manson and Altobelli replied that he'd met him before. Whereas Hatami did not know Manson and therefore couldn't positively ID him but did describe a man. That man could've been a number of different people.
given what I know about this case, the Straight Satans' HQ being right near Nadar is no small red herring
You're right. It's a big red herring. You are intent upon demonstrating what no one has managed to do in half a century which is to show that the conviction of Charles Manson was a hotchpotch of conspiratorial naughtiness courtesy of the corrupt powers that be. You amplify every little coincidence or happenstance and vest them with what you wish to be huge significance. Many that follow this case can see that on all sides there were dodgy people, be they LE, defence, Family, witnesses etc. None of that however, changes the basic foundation point about murder and conspiracy to commit it. Granted, some got off perhaps lightly, but those that ended up doing the time were the correct ones and some of those that got off lightly soon met their Waterloo.....
Panamint Patty said... Nick had to pull it because a crack researcher who shall remain nameless found a big error in it. He is in the process of working on a new revision iprc.
Manson Mythos said... That's bullshit. The book went out of print long before anyone made any attempts to debunk or utilize it for their own research. He didn't pull anything. I remember when there was only a few handful of copies left. Being self released, I do not believe it had a big print run and it's still widly available in French from the French publisher who put that edition.
No Dennis, that's bullshit! We ran our Debunking the Bunk on October 21, 2013. As of April 19 2014 Schreck was still selling the book. I did not look at all of the screen captures from the Wayback Machine to see when he quit selling it. But here's the link to the April 19 2014 entry.
And here's the link to the index page of all of the screen captures so you can figure out when he did quit selling the book and withdrew it for revisions.
I can say nearly every book with an exception of a few is "historical fiction". Schreck even though parts of the book is flawed, is still above and beyond the others.
"Historical Fiction" - now there is a LABEL that brings in to question the very matter of TRUTH.
Like how about "Fictional Truth" OR Truthful Fiction."
In reality: TRUTH is developed from "Fiction" over time. OR is it the other way around ?
BUT if you think about it - there is NO 100% TRUTH or 100% FICTION. So WHY even have those two words in our language ? Answer: in order to create an adversarial relationship between two sides, which in turn creates the need for a "judge" jury, lawyers, police, criminals, etc., etc. AND then bingo you got mucho much employment - which then makes for a "civilization" a religion a GOD and a DEVIL.
a crack researcher who shall remain nameless found a big error in it
Only one ? By page 649 you could write a book on the errors contained within !
He is in the process of working on a new revision iprc
One of his associates {Nicholas hates e~mail apparently} told me a year or so ago that the new revision should be ready soon.
Manson Mythos said...
Being self released....
......meant the author could pretty much write whatever he wanted.
The Manson File is NOT, I repeat NOT a true crime book and that is according to Schreck himself
Yet, it is written for a huge swathe of it as a true crime book with tons of affirmative statements stated as fact. That there are contradictions is almost moot; it is designed to do away with HS as a motive/conspiracy and such, has little choice but to present its contents as true crime, even though it's not supposed to be. Blimey !
The book is largely about Charles Manson the man
The parts that are about Charlie and particularly his spiritual awakening and the evolution of his spirituality and the contradiction of being a criminal {which he cleverly sidesteps by calling him the outlaw shaman and stating that respected spiritual guides often operated outside their community's laws} are superb, whether one agrees with the content of what makes up the package or not. Had the book taken just this angle, it would probably rank as one of the top books connected with the saga as it comes from a fresh direction and helps put to bed many of the inaccuracies and lazy writings of Charlie's supposed eclectic nicking of religious tenets from here and there. Charlie himself admits {in "Goodbye HS"} that the Family was an attempt to balance all the religions of the world so Shreck's details of Charlie's "travels" in this area are invaluable.
Schreck will also be the first to tell you that in regards to the crime, it is far from "the bible" and is not the final word, but rather the first and when things are proven to be false, he is open to correction
Which is a rather odd way to go about things. Publish a whole load of spurious supposition and suspicion as fact and only when someone calls you out do you then show you're open to correction. Why not just be accurate in the first place and don't wade in the rivers of supposition ?
In fact, all it does is present possible alternative motives
It doesn't present "possible" alternatives. The sole reason for the existence of the tome is to rubbish the accepted by law version and goes to rococo lengths to achieve this. So we embark on a 900+ page journey in which we trawl through red herrings a~plenty that take in the Mafia, Hollywood, suicides from the 1930s, the FBI and foibles of pop stars and actors, leading to heavy implications {where not stated} that the victims deaths were their own fault. We learn that Rosemary LaBianca was a heavyweight dealer in acid, Gary Hinman was an FBI informant and gay sex servicer, Joe Dorgan was a member of the Straight Satans and introduced Tex to Rosemary, that Bruce Davis had the ability to be in England and robbing Joel Rostau in the USA at the same time, that Dennis Wilson went to India with the Beatles, that Charlie used to buy drugs from the Cielo guesthouse and that Tex and Dean Moorehouse lived there and set up a drug selling centre there.........the list isn't endless but it's pretty extensive. When DebS says: The book at best is historical fiction in my opinion, she's being pretty generous. If you have spent as long as Shreck did talking with Charlie Manson, why would you need to "present possible alternatives ?" You'd do a George Stimson and say "this is why those killings happened."
For example, there are multiple possible alternative motives for LaBianca, not just one
Emphasizing the paucity of anything actually concrete.
To date, his book is the only that rightfully questions a lot of things other books never have
One of the more eye opening things about Shreck's book is that it makes both Manson Mythos and indeed, many that have been contributing to TLB blogs since around 2011 easier to understand. So much of the misinformation that has done the rounds over the last 6 or so years springs directly from stuff found in Nicholas' book. It is a book with many mouthpieces, far more than either George or Robert gets. There's something about that that doesn't surprise me.
It openly questions the March visit to Cielo that Charlie allegedly made
Given that it places him in Cielo when trying to show Terry Melcher to have been more involved than first thought, why does it even matter ?
So that book has a tremendous amount of value and relevance to this case
What it shows are the lengths someone will go to in order to get away from HS. It reminds me of the way, as a kid, once a lie was told, I'd have to lead to the next one, then the next one and the next and soon, I was a verbal author ! And because I had a good memory, a pretty inventive one.
For instance, I don't believe Bruce Davis made a second trip to the United Kingdom
We're agreed on that ! But he gets seriously hung in his attempt to place Bruce as one of the guys that robbed Joel Rostau. Because at that time, he was in the UK.
There were two Charles: Charles Manson and Charles Watson. So the man making the comment about my father Mike Armstrong as an idiot, I think you may want to consider yourself an idiot and get your facts straight. He spoke about both Charles. If you are confused then that is OUR issue not Michal Armstrong's. Another Punk who like to speak just to speak is what I think of you. Punk!
27 comments:
"Foreman claimed Miss Tate knew Watson, and, on occasion, had visited the ranch."
Yeah, but Mike Armstrong was an idiot who thought Sharon Matt was Sharon Tate
Thanks Bo
Hey, psychic tv! i was just thinking about you-thanks for sharing this, it's pretty wild huh? the cover is fantastic. I'm gonna work on my review of "Love letters to secret disciple" later-but thanks for your blog i really enjoy all the discussions and information. (And yes i know some horrible tragedies are behind this case but i see it as akin to studying war: that is horrible too-you realize that it's real people yr studying y'know?). I admire the research skills of some of the writers. I've been amazed at how deeply some of the folks research this stuff and i confess some of the back stories go over my head (and i've been around awhile too). It's fascinating that the case is so old that there's stories about the WRITERS of the case. (I didn't know Nick Schreck was missing an ear and then i remembered the story, im not a fan of his but his book on Satanic cinema is pretty thorough) im not paying $90 for his book though. I did see that one of those reprint houses (they fine bind classics with pseudo leather, y'know what i mean) well someone reissued "witness to evil" by george bishop as one of these "classics" sorta like the Franklin Mint of books. I digress. Thanks for sharing this, and i'll be reading.
I'm thinking some writer, probably Paul Watkins or Ed Sansers, called shacks like the one on wheels on the seventh page down "outlaw shacks" . Can someone tell me whether this is correct?
I don't remember hearing that Sharon knew Watson or had visited the ranch before either.
ORWHUT: The wagon on wheels is the "Gypsy Wagon." It was parked down by the "Outlaw Shacks" and brought back up to the main part of the ranch when the Family returned to film MANSON. WE filmed all night that first weekend in the wagon. That's where "Gypsy" plays the violin along with the Family singing.
BTW: When we heard the Family's music that night, the "subliminals" were dancing off the walls.
I realize NOW, the Beatles White Album is one massive collection of "revolution" subliminal imagery. Wikedia even mentions that Helter Skelter relates to the "fall of the Roman Empire," which the Family equated to the FALL of the new and improved present day Roman Empire (America).
One only needs to read the song "titles" to understand exactly what those little buggers were up to.
YES Mr. Bellz, them Brits STILL seem to enjoy fucking with "the rebels." AND maybe IF the CIA hired a few teeny-boppers to decipher modern MUSIC, THEY would finally learn something.
JIM HAYES said...
Nick Schreck.....I'm not a fan of his.....I'm not paying $90 for his book though
I'm at that point where I would now ! I've spent the best part of a year looking for it and it's like trying to find hen's teeth.
Anyone out there with a copy that you don't want and are willing to sell ? I'm going to be poor soon so strike while the iron is hot !
Nick had to pull it because a crack researcher who shall remain nameless found a big error in it. He is in the process of working on a new revision iprc.
That's bullshit. The book went out of print long before anyone made any attempts to debunk or utilize it for their own research. He didn't pull anything. I remember when there was only a few handful of copies left. Being self released, I do not believe it had a big print run and it's still widly available in French from the French publisher who put that edition.
The Manson File is NOT, I repeat NOT a true crime book and that is according to Schreck himself. The book is largely about Charles Manson the man. Schreck will also be the first to tell you that in regards to the crime, it is far from "the bible" and is not the final word, but rather the first and when things are proven to be false, he is open to correction. Unlike most writers who have a "fuck you, it's the truth" attitude. In fact, all it does is present possible alternative motives. For example, there are multiple possible alternative motives for LaBianca, not just one.
To date, his book is the only that rightfully questions a lot of things other books never have. Such as the absolutely shady operation with Atkin's confession. Long before it was recently discovered that Nadar's apartment was a stone's throw away from the Straight Satans HQ, it brought into question the trip to Venice and possible connection to Straight Satans. It openly questions the March visit to Cielo that Charlie allegedly made, years before Hatami revealed he had no recollection of seeing Manson there and that Bugliosi and Col. Paul Tate's PI were putting pressure on him to say it anyway.
So that book has a tremendous amount of value and relevance to this case. There is still a lot I believe, personally is not true. For instance, I don't believe Bruce Davis made a second trip to the United Kingdom.
The last copy I saw for sale was on eBay and sold for a modesty $50 If I remember correctly.
Robert,
Thank you! I always pictured the gypsy wagon as looking like a gypsy caravan. Didn't you have to stand outside in the cold and film the singing through the window?
Yall really did a good job of analyzing schreck's book & debunking the zwillman/rostau connection (I think that's what it was? Been a while since I've read either).
While a lot of the 'info' he provides about the motives and actual perpetration of the murders is undeniably spurious (I think it would have been a much better book if he'd cited more sources/interviews instead of leaving so many lil nuggets unsourced, thereby invalidating many of his claims), I found that the scope of the updated Manson File really is impressive. His chapter about Carl Jung & the psychologist's interest in the Abraxas concept, plus the attention to details, coincidences and other minutia related to the case makes the book well worth a read IMO, despite the many inaccuracies which abound throughout the text.
Plus, the book has the best closing lines of any of the media I've ever consumed regarding the murders, the circumstances from which they emerged, and the impact of them....
"Considering how rapidly this most mercurial and mysterious of cases changes, it would be wrong to tie things together in a neat bow and pretend that everything is resolved now. Let it end on a note of absolute uncertainty before these words fall into the silence of all the things that can never be written."
However, I do have a question for people who have read the book. In the appendix that consists of the transcript of Schreck's interview with Manson (the which makes up the bulk of CM Superstar), Schreck writes that at one point during the interview Manson aggressively grabs him (Nik) by his shirt lapel and the guards draw their guns.
However, when I watched the raw footage of this interview (which was available on YouTube, I believe ATWA Brasil uploaded it), no such tom-foolery occurs. Was Schreck lying about this incident or was this lapel-grab simply not filmed? Has anyone else noticed this/looked into it?
i just got home. you northerners (Im a carpet bagger myself) you dont know how to party like we do in Georgia, allright. Schreck's a moron okay? he wraps himself in this pseudo occult flag that he thinks gives himself credibility but umm it's just a flag. i was glad to see the debunking of his book on this site. (I liked his satanic cinema book tho, it was a nice overview) shall i bring up Boyd Rice? i got no problems with Boyd Rice though i think Mr. Manson said he was a pimp-something like that. and just cos i got no problems with Mr. Rice doesn't necessarily mean i agree with him at all times either. I think he's a great artist. Something that Schreck AINT (heave you ever heard radio werewolf? it's like bauhaus played backwards with pseudo psychic tv intonations on top -it's really bad-it's like hmm it's like those graham bond witchcraft records but like worse) anyway. umm last time i saw his book it was 90 bucks and i collect manson books and i didnt want it. it's funny but y'know i do recall when he lost the ear (back in the 90's i was a columnist for Flipside) yeah i remember hearing about that (no pun intended!) fuck that guy who cares.
Manson Mythos said...
it's still widely available in French from the French publisher who put [out] that edition
Sacre bleu !!
To date, his book is the only that rightfully questions a lot of things other books never have
Michael White, Robert Hendrickson and George Stimson might disagree with you on that one.
Long before it was recently discovered that Nadar's apartment was a stone's throw away from the Straight Satans HQ
That red herring again. You old fishmonger, you !
It openly questions the March visit to Cielo that Charlie allegedly made
Which Rudi Altobelli was adamant happened and testified to it in court.
years before Hatami revealed he had no recollection of seeing Manson there
Years before ? In his 1970 interview with Bugliosi, he does not positively identify Manson. In his court appearance he does not positively identify Manson. He has never publicly said he saw Manson. His position is unflappingly consistent. In Ed's recent book, Ed made it seem like some great new revelation that Hatami was coming out with. But it was what he said all along. We talked about it here.
The last copy I saw for sale was on eBay and sold for a modesty $50 If I remember correctly
Well, I'd still love to snag a copy. Someone was due to send me a copy some months back but they then proceeded to disappear from the face of the earth. I don't really mind if it's got mistakes in it. Most books I have on this subject have mistakes or inaccuracies, even "Helter Skelter."
I don't know who Michael White is. George's book is more or less to question the actually motive. One of the best books on the case, but it does not go into deep detail in regards to the selling of Atkins' confession. Whereas Schreck dedicates nearly an entire chapter to it.
You're missing the point about Hatami. Bugliosi really pushed that and he states it as fact that happened. But aside from Altobelli, there is zero proof and it is such a cinematic account, it's most certainly prosecution fabrication. Bugliosi needed to place Manson at the scene of Cielo at least once, but couldn't do that and downplay the true extent of his friendship with Melcher. As Deana Martin revealed, Melcher cut a deal with Bugliosi and she told them she saw Manson at the house before.
Altobelli is a liar, plain and simple. He met Charlie in '68 at Dennis Wilson's house. He was asked on the stand when he first suspected Manson was involved and he said on the plane from Europe. But then why did he not tell this to LAPD when they interviewed him? Based on his testimony, he knew his face and name. "I wasn't asked" isn't an acceptable answer. If Manson actually popped into your head, you would tell detectives.
Now if Col. Paul Tate's PI and Bugliosi were putting pressure on Hatami to ID Manson, it's not a stretch of the imagination they did the same with Altobelli. That's Paul Tate's PI was involved in that episode is no small revelation.
and given what I know about this case, the Straight Satans' HQ being right near Nadar is no small red herring. Adding up everything known, it is silly and naive to brush that off as coincidence.
Manson Mythos said...
I don't know who Michael White is
He wrote a curious book called "Crucified - The railroading of Charles Manson". It's from about 1999. White was very similar to you in that he takes the stance that anyone that doesn't agree with him is a friggin' idiot that is simply a dupe of Vincent Bugliosi and the American media and incapable of thinking for themselves and weighing up the information they have and coming to any kind of valid conclusion.
George's book is more or less to question the actually motive
As is Nuel Emmons' book. Come to think of it, "Witness to evil," "Five to die," "Child of Satan, child of God," "The Myth of Helter Skelter" and "Death to pigs" all do so in varying degrees.
You're missing the point about Hatami. Bugliosi really pushed that and he states it as fact that happened
I think I'm the one that pointed that out. Like I said at the start of the year, it was Bugliosi's thing. He conflates two incidents. They may have both involved Charlie, we just don't know that to be the case. But it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Regardless of the pressure Hatami felt to ID Manson, he never did.
Altobelli is a liar, plain and simple
Has Charlie ever contradicted Altobelli's story ? All Altobelli said is that Manson came to the house 5 months before the murders. Sure, Bugliosi made a big thing out of.......an event that happened and vests it with meaning.
But aside from Altobelli, there is zero proof and it is such a cinematic account, it's most certainly prosecution fabrication
Aside from Altobelli there is zero proof. So your equation is that it is fabrication. By the same methodology, there is no proof Charlie didn't order these murders.....
Be careful of phrases like "most certainly."
Now if Col. Paul Tate's PI and Bugliosi were putting pressure on Hatami to ID Manson, it's not a stretch of the imagination they did the same with Altobelli
No, it's not a stretch. It's not a stretch to suggest they paid all kinds of witnesses to lie and took them for a Thai meal and strip show after either.
Bugliosi asked Altobelli how he knew it was Manson and Altobelli replied that he'd met him before. Whereas Hatami did not know Manson and therefore couldn't positively ID him but did describe a man. That man could've been a number of different people.
given what I know about this case, the Straight Satans' HQ being right near Nadar is no small red herring
You're right. It's a big red herring.
You are intent upon demonstrating what no one has managed to do in half a century which is to show that the conviction of Charles Manson was a hotchpotch of conspiratorial naughtiness courtesy of the corrupt powers that be. You amplify every little coincidence or happenstance and vest them with what you wish to be huge significance. Many that follow this case can see that on all sides there were dodgy people, be they LE, defence, Family, witnesses etc. None of that however, changes the basic foundation point about murder and conspiracy to commit it. Granted, some got off perhaps lightly, but those that ended up doing the time were the correct ones and some of those that got off lightly soon met their Waterloo.....
Panamint Patty said...
Nick had to pull it because a crack researcher who shall remain nameless found a big error in it. He is in the process of working on a new revision iprc.
Manson Mythos said...
That's bullshit. The book went out of print long before anyone made any attempts to debunk or utilize it for their own research. He didn't pull anything. I remember when there was only a few handful of copies left. Being self released, I do not believe it had a big print run and it's still widly available in French from the French publisher who put that edition.
No Dennis, that's bullshit! We ran our Debunking the Bunk on October 21, 2013. As of April 19 2014 Schreck was still selling the book. I did not look at all of the screen captures from the Wayback Machine to see when he quit selling it. But here's the link to the April 19 2014 entry.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140419051914/http://nikolasschreck.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=92&Itemid=59
And here's the link to the index page of all of the screen captures so you can figure out when he did quit selling the book and withdrew it for revisions.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160501000000*/http://www.nikolasschreck.eu/
The book at best is historical fiction.
Thank you deb. Xo
OK, but the book went out of print. He didn't pull them.
DebS said...
The book at best is historical fiction
A historical fiction I'd still like to read, hint hint......
I can say nearly every book with an exception of a few is "historical fiction". Schreck even though parts of the book is flawed, is still above and beyond the others.
Like a little kid. Gotta get the last word.
"Historical Fiction" - now there is a LABEL that brings in to question the very matter of TRUTH.
Like how about "Fictional Truth" OR Truthful Fiction."
In reality: TRUTH is developed from "Fiction" over time. OR is it the other way around ?
BUT if you think about it - there is NO 100% TRUTH or 100% FICTION. So WHY even have those two words in our language ? Answer: in order to create an adversarial relationship between two sides, which in turn creates the need for a "judge" jury, lawyers, police, criminals, etc., etc. AND then bingo you got mucho much employment - which then makes for a "civilization" a religion a GOD and a DEVIL.
Matt said...
"Like a little kid. Gotta get the last word."
KIDS!!!! I don't know what's wrong with these kids today.
Panamint Patty said...
a crack researcher who shall remain nameless found a big error in it
Only one ? By page 649 you could write a book on the errors contained within !
He is in the process of working on a new revision iprc
One of his associates {Nicholas hates e~mail apparently} told me a year or so ago that the new revision should be ready soon.
Manson Mythos said...
Being self released....
......meant the author could pretty much write whatever he wanted.
The Manson File is NOT, I repeat NOT a true crime book and that is according to Schreck himself
Yet, it is written for a huge swathe of it as a true crime book with tons of affirmative statements stated as fact. That there are contradictions is almost moot; it is designed to do away with HS as a motive/conspiracy and such, has little choice but to present its contents as true crime, even though it's not supposed to be.
Blimey !
The book is largely about Charles Manson the man
The parts that are about Charlie and particularly his spiritual awakening and the evolution of his spirituality and the contradiction of being a criminal {which he cleverly sidesteps by calling him the outlaw shaman and stating that respected spiritual guides often operated outside their community's laws} are superb, whether one agrees with the content of what makes up the package or not. Had the book taken just this angle, it would probably rank as one of the top books connected with the saga as it comes from a fresh direction and helps put to bed many of the inaccuracies and lazy writings of Charlie's supposed eclectic nicking of religious tenets from here and there. Charlie himself admits {in "Goodbye HS"} that the Family was an attempt to balance all the religions of the world so Shreck's details of Charlie's "travels" in this area are invaluable.
Schreck will also be the first to tell you that in regards to the crime, it is far from "the bible" and is not the final word, but rather the first and when things are proven to be false, he is open to correction
Which is a rather odd way to go about things. Publish a whole load of spurious supposition and suspicion as fact and only when someone calls you out do you then show you're open to correction. Why not just be accurate in the first place and don't wade in the rivers of supposition ?
In fact, all it does is present possible alternative motives
It doesn't present "possible" alternatives. The sole reason for the existence of the tome is to rubbish the accepted by law version and goes to rococo lengths to achieve this. So we embark on a 900+ page journey in which we trawl through red herrings a~plenty that take in the Mafia, Hollywood, suicides from the 1930s, the FBI and foibles of pop stars and actors, leading to heavy implications {where not stated} that the victims deaths were their own fault. We learn that Rosemary LaBianca was a heavyweight dealer in acid, Gary Hinman was an FBI informant and gay sex servicer, Joe Dorgan was a member of the Straight Satans and introduced Tex to Rosemary, that Bruce Davis had the ability to be in England and robbing Joel Rostau in the USA at the same time, that Dennis Wilson went to India with the Beatles, that Charlie used to buy drugs from the Cielo guesthouse and that Tex and Dean Moorehouse lived there and set up a drug selling centre there.........the list isn't endless but it's pretty extensive. When DebS says:
The book at best is historical fiction
in my opinion, she's being pretty generous.
If you have spent as long as Shreck did talking with Charlie Manson, why would you need to "present possible alternatives ?" You'd do a George Stimson and say "this is why those killings happened."
Manson Mythos said...
For example, there are multiple possible alternative motives for LaBianca, not just one
Emphasizing the paucity of anything actually concrete.
To date, his book is the only that rightfully questions a lot of things other books never have
One of the more eye opening things about Shreck's book is that it makes both Manson Mythos and indeed, many that have been contributing to TLB blogs since around 2011 easier to understand. So much of the misinformation that has done the rounds over the last 6 or so years springs directly from stuff found in Nicholas' book. It is a book with many mouthpieces, far more than either George or Robert gets. There's something about that that doesn't surprise me.
It openly questions the March visit to Cielo that Charlie allegedly made
Given that it places him in Cielo when trying to show Terry Melcher to have been more involved than first thought, why does it even matter ?
So that book has a tremendous amount of value and relevance to this case
What it shows are the lengths someone will go to in order to get away from HS. It reminds me of the way, as a kid, once a lie was told, I'd have to lead to the next one, then the next one and the next and soon, I was a verbal author ! And because I had a good memory, a pretty inventive one.
For instance, I don't believe Bruce Davis made a second trip to the United Kingdom
We're agreed on that ! But he gets seriously hung in his attempt to place Bruce as one of the guys that robbed Joel Rostau. Because at that time, he was in the UK.
grimtraveller said...
I don't really mind if it's got mistakes in it
Famous last words !
There were two Charles: Charles Manson and Charles Watson. So the man making the comment about my father Mike Armstrong as an idiot, I think you may want to consider yourself an idiot and get your facts straight. He spoke about both Charles. If you are confused then that is OUR issue not Michal Armstrong's. Another Punk who like to speak just to speak is what I think of you. Punk!
Post a Comment