Tom is super BUTTHURT you guys because the DA promised him the tapes and they never gave it to him and that is SUPER UNFAIR.
Really, that is the entirety of what he writes. He wants us to believe that what Debra thinks matters, that Sebring's nephew has some sort of standing in the case and that the LAPD really owes him man.
There are no unsolved Manson Murders. These people couldn't shut their traps for 5 weeks much less 50 years. No one is letting Tex out or Leslie or even Bobby. It is all desperate attention seeking.
Tom is of course a talking head on all the bad TV shows who likes to discuss Charlie's secret Karate School. He is also writing a book (his website says since 1999) but I was told by sources that his publisher has since pulled out. When Tom was writing his book he was known for his heavy handedness, even going so far as demanding that Col Tate talk with him because....well who knows. Back when Alisa and I were friendly she shared Tom stories that chilled me/ His entitlement knows no bounds.
I know he did interesting interviews with people like Melcher and Jakobsen. But as long as he has this skewed perspective on the case I'm not sure what he has to say is interesting in any way.
Tex Watson led the most notorious murder spree of the 20th Century. We will get a tweet from Cielo Drive dot com this week telling us he got his 17th parole denial. And we may never get to hear what Tex said in 1969.
Doesn't change a goddamn thing.
CHARLES MANSON'S RIGHT HAND MAN IS UP FOR PAROLE - HERE'S WHAT TO WATCH FOR (love the title, is this Tom's note to self?)
Five dead bodies, including the beautiful eight-and-half month pregnant actress and wife of a famous movie director. One-hundred-and-two stab wounds in total. “Pig” written in blood on the front door of the secluded estate high above Sunset Boulevard in the Hollywood Hills. The only sound heard by the arriving cops: insects buzzing over two victims’ bodies strewn across the front lawn. The next night, two more bodies across town: a grocery store magnate and his wife, similarly slaughtered. Sixty-seven stab wounds, more blood writing, the word “war” carved into the male victim’s abdomen, a fork and knife protruding from his bound and hooded corpse. Unsolved for four months, then the announcement of arrested suspects: a killer “hippie” cult, led by a barely literate ex-con who convinced his young followers he was Jesus Christ and the Devil. You’ve heard the story. You know the story.
Or do you?
Yeah Tom we do.
The Col at his very finest :)
ReplyDeleteEarly in the article O'Neill writes-
ReplyDeleteI contacted the bankruptcy trustee assigned to the case, Linda Payne, and she confirmed that the safe — along with the tapes — were in her possession in Dallas (she also said she hadn’t listened to them). Payne refused to release them to me, stating that they were still protected by confidentiality laws, but when I informed her that Watson had waived his privilege in 1976 to allow the co-author of his prison memoir access to a portion of the tapes, she was eventually persuaded. However, instead of releasing them to me, she contacted the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office and offered the tapes to them.
A little later in the article O'Neill states-
I was originally told by Patrick Sequeira, the deputy DA who’d been behind the effort to get the tapes since learning about their existence from me, that, as Watson originally maintained, there were no murders mentioned on the tapes beside the seven Tate-LaBianca murders that Watson, Manson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten had been prosecuted for.
So which is it Tom, did the Texas bankruptcy attorney contact the LA DA's office about giving them the tapes or did you tell and assistant DA, Sequeira, about the tapes? Because you have to know that if the Texas attorney contacted the LA DA, Sequeira sure wouldn't be obligated to you for any reason.
Deb, no one was ever beholden to O'Neill. He had no contractual arrangement, legal right or even legal standing to pursue anything. He f'd up.
ReplyDeleteAs I read this it sort of goes like this: "Dammit! I was an insider on this! I told everyone! I had a deal!" and sure enough those that are 'insiders' said 'thank you for the heads up' and moved on. One might be tempted to say: bad journalism- sort of like Woodward or Bernstein telling the Nixon admin who 'Deep Throat' was- ouch.
It is somewhat interesting they don't want Van Houten's attorneys to get the tapes and then blasted her for asking for them- that sort of sounds like 'me thinks she [the DA] doth protest too much." It might have been more effective to let the judge do the 'in camera' review and then get the ruling- 'not relevant'. That would have shut the 'conspiracy' down.
I can corroborate what Tom is stating. I have Sequeira's emails and they confirm the DA learned about the tapes from Tom. Tom had been in contact with Payne and he was trying to convince her the privilege had been waived. There were two boxes of case files along with the tapes. When Payne discovered that she had Watson's contract and the signed waiver she agreed to turn the tapes over to the DA. The DA's office like to pretend this was LAPD, but really, it was the DA's office secretly helping Tom in his effort to get the tapes.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is this, what Payne was doing was destroying Boyd's records. Had Tom not got involved when he did, those tapes would've been destroyed too
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that those tapes are going to have any major secrets on them.... But this does raise some questions/issues and Dreath points out a good one.
ReplyDeleteI am left wondering why if nothing new is on them, they wont let someone hear them even if just to satisfy the family. They couldn't take Deb aside and let her reassure anyone else interested there is nothing to hear? There is law that would force them to show everyone if anyone? Hmmm.....
I have read Tex speak on this subject. And as I have said before, he is a scary bastard. But he has become more reasonable and believable to me, when he talks about the Manson related stuff, as he has aged. He says there are no more bodies he is aware of and I believe him. I think there are probably some embarrassing personal things on there he doesn't want people to hear or something like that...
But why the DA cares so much about the tapes being played? another story...
At the core of this I guess is a suggestion or planting of a seed implying that Tex was the real instigator of the TLB crimes....
ReplyDeleteI could not disagree with that idea more strongly. If there is not enough evidence for you as to why Charlie orchestrated these crimes, I don't know what else you need to see to understand his involvement in them.
I don't know anything about Tom except from what I read on here. But maybe he hasn't wrote a book about the "Real Story" because like everyone else who loves the theories and rumors- he cant find any actual proof? He seems to NEED these tapes to have something new. I think these tapes would be for him like Capones vault was to Geraldo. Much hype and no substance.
P.S.- between Nelson and Tom- why is it these guys become such bullies over this stuff???
St., once an exempt file is disclosed to the public, it is no longer exempt. So either no one gets to hear it or everybody does. They can't cherry pick
ReplyDeleteCielo is correct, Saint but an in camera review would not effect the status of the tapes. The court would then do one of two things either issue an opinion there is no relevant (as to Van Houten) evidence on the tapes or release only those portions of the tapes (likely via transcript) that are relevant to Van Houten and then likely with a protective order.
ReplyDeleteTo me the in camera review is the most interesting aspect of this story. I am now just curious enough to try to get the court's ruling on that issue. It is, to me, rather unlikely the basis was because you will have to hear about underground cities in the desert or strange racial theories. I hope the DA made a better argument then that or at least that the judge made a better ruling then that. But given the potential information I am surprised the court didn't do the in camera review.
The rest just takes me back to a line from Animal House: "Face it [Flounder] you f'd up. You trusted us."
I see... terrible rule in my opinion. They should make a " Family Exemption" or something. It makes no sense and gives the impression of hiding something- even though I don't think they are.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason I can understand to not release is to protect. That leaves people to speculate about protecting what?
Doesn't that cause more headaches than it does serve any positive purpose?
The court denied Pfeiffer's writ of mandate stating that Pfeiffer failed to allege that the evidence sought would have cause a different result in her proceeding, or cast doubt upon the correctness of her conviction, as required under Brady.
ReplyDeleteSt., it's unfortunate that we cannot listen to the tapes, but that exemption has a worthy purpose. It protects critical information relative to an investigation, the investigative process itself, and confidential informants. That said, I don't believe there was ever any legitimate investigation here.
ReplyDeletevery unfortunate lol :)
ReplyDeleteWatson pleads the fifth now before his hearings, so nothing is going to come out.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have any idea what open investigation the tapes might be a part of? That is intriguing to Patty.
ReplyDeleteSt Circumstance said...
ReplyDeleteterrible rule in my opinion. They should make a " Family Exemption" or something. It makes no sense and gives the impression of hiding something- even though I don't think they are.
The only reason I can understand to not release is to protect. That leaves people to speculate about protecting what?
I'm not so sure that the families would actually benefit from hearing those tapes. There's been such saturation coverage of this case from almost every conceivable angle for nearly half a century. It sometimes feels like various family members have been almost emotionally coerced into maintaining a stance come parole time.
I wonder if some of them have ever felt that they just want to get away from the whole thing. But perhaps can't for fear of how they would then be portrayed.
Cielodrive.com said...
it's unfortunate that we cannot listen to the tapes
It's unfortunate because I'm nosy ! I'd like to hear the tape {well, actually, I'd like to read the transcript. People speaking on tape tend to send me to sleep}. Some of the ones that have turned up recently {Leslie with Marvin Part & Mike McGann, Susan with Richard Caballero, Ronnie Howard, Virginia Graham, Brooks Poston etc, not to mention the dialogue from Robert's book} have been endlessly fascinating and useful to those of us who are looking for a deeper insight into things as they stood at the time pertaining to the case.
I'd be particularly interested in what Tex had to say if it is true that these interviews were done before he was a publicly named suspect in the case. It would give an interesting window into his mind at the time because pretty much everything we've had from him since the end of '69 has been "retrospective aforethought," if you know what I mean.
Panamint Patty said...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone have any idea what open investigation the tapes might be a part of? That is intriguing to Patty
That's just it, Patty. There is no investigation so they shouldn't be protected.
Here's the thing. The po po has them and they have no obligation to any of us to release them. Tom being all butthurt is a boo fucking hoo really. Would I love to hear them? Sure. But the thing is you cannot believe anybody left regarding this shit mess. O'Neill, Debra, Tex- these are all people fighting for maintenance of the narrative.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask this to all of you- IF there was one person who might still have the answers we seek who is it and how would we know they weren't lying?
I dont know about the answers, but I always wished we could here more from or about Mark Ross. I dont know enough about him to guess if we could trust him or not? He was always a real Wild Card to me.
ReplyDeleteCharlie could as well, but Nope- we cant know if he is lying. I only tend to believe the rest of them a little more than usual when they all say the same about a specific event or subject ( especially when it is consistent over a period of time)- but even then with no real confidence.
ColScott said...
ReplyDeleteLet me ask this to all of you- IF there was one person who might still have the answers we seek who is it...
Tex
and how would we know they weren't lying?
Matt said: "That's just it, Patty. There is no investigation so they shouldn't be protected."
ReplyDeleteAs long as you mean 'shouldn't' I agree. But.......
Williams v. Superior Court (Freedom Newspapers, Inc.)19 Cal Rptr 2d 882 (1993)
"We conclude that the exemption for law enforcement investigatory files does not end when the investigation ends. While there may be reasons of policy that would support a time limitation on the exemption for investigatory files, such a limitation is virtually impossible to reconcile with the language and history of subdivision (f)."
That is why I want to see what the DA actually argued and the court actually said especially given this:
Williams v. Superior Court (Freedom Newspapers, Inc.)19 Cal Rptr 2d 882 (1993)
"However, when a petitioner has made a prima facie showing that documents are being improperly withheld, the court logically must [in camera] review the documents and hear the agency's claim for withholding them in order to determine whether they actually relate to the investigation and, thus, properly belong in the file. Only through such an examination [in camera review] can the court ensure that an agency has not commingled investigatory materials with other documents that have no legitimate claim to confidentiality.”
ColScott said: "Let me ask this to all of you- IF there was one person who might still have the answers we seek who is it and how would we know they weren't lying?"
ReplyDeleteWho: Thinking out loud I gonna vote for Kasabian- She got immunity and she's not in jail trying to get out. She was there both nights and close to Watson. She also comes up frequently in the many conspiracy theories.
Not lying: Now that's the tough part. She would want money which would make anything she said suspect. She doesn't have to worry about Bugliosi hovering around anymore so that helps. You would need a way to independently verify the information- and something that also didn't lie like physical evidence.
If the tapes really are full of cities in the desert and racial theories doesn't that put a pretty big dent in the 'other motives'?
RE Tex- he would say ANYTHING To get out of Prison. Tell him to blame Fidel and bam Castro goes down
ReplyDeleteLinda- not a bad idea but here is the thing- she's kinda like Verbal Kint (for real not undercover)- she was picked because she was a dumbass druggie hippie airhead bitch. Not because she had a license (she wasn't always even driving) but because she wanted to belong to the group. Do we think she knows a goddamn thing?
I don't see away around the Haynie class, which in my opinion gives law enforcement carte blanche to ignore the records act. The DA's position is that the inquiry into the tapes constitutes an investigation. Personally, I think it's far too circular of an argument. They were never investigating any specific cases. It was a total fishing expedition and they didn't catch anything
ReplyDeletePfeiffer hasn't been successful getting the tapes through Brady because the courts don't feel it would change the outcome of the conviction. Pfeiffer's argument is the same as the People's. But Manson, could make an argument for Brady material. Assuming Manson has been truthful and he didn't tell Tex to go to Cielo and murder - not my assumption, by the way - then the tapes would confirm that. The tapes were recorded before any account had been publicized therefore whatever Watson had to say, he said without the benefit of knowing what his coconspirators had said. So to all the people out there that constantly talk about how Manson was not given his rights to defend himself; that the trial was rigged; that he had nothing to do with Cielo Drive, etc. Now is the time for you to put down your seedguns and go get a lawyer, file a writ and push the same argument Pfeiffer made for Van Houten, this time for Charlie. Because that would change the conviction and would be a worthy argument for an in camera review.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
* Haynie case
ReplyDeleteThe more I learn about the case as the years go by & I grow older, the more I think that Helter Skelter or some equally inane/insane directive of Charlie's is probably the reason TLB occurred. Hinman is muddier & yalls incredibly detailed posts on gary's murder & its aftermath give ample ammunition for arguments on both sides. That being said, I think Tex and Charlie both have the definitive answers regarding the chronology & motives behind the events of those mythic, tragic nights.
ReplyDeleteI am curious if Watson mentions his putative drug dealing career (a là Schreck) on the tapes.
Cielo, I couldn't agree more.
ReplyDeleteIt was a great comment Cielo!
ReplyDeleteInteresting nobody mentions Bruce.
ReplyDeleteClem got himself out more or less for trading info. If Bruce or anyone else knew anything wouldn't they have tried to "Deal" ??
I may have missed something here but are there any petitions now or pending for access to those tapes ?
ReplyDeleteSeems a shame we can't have all the 'poisons in the mud' hatch out about the case for the record.
Dreath said: "Thinking out loud I gonna vote for Kasabian- She got immunity and she's not in jail trying to get out. She was there both nights and close to Watson. She also comes up frequently in the many conspiracy theories."
I suspect she, like all the other family 'accessory to murder(s)' members but running around free now, would be justifiably scared to get back into the fray and have something come down on them, even with 'immunity' back then. If there were no threats they'd all likely be writing up their memoirs for the big bucks (and we'd be buying them lol).
I thought of Bruce but thinking it through he would probably not be willing to speak out for the "accessory to murder(s)" reason that Robert C stated. I think Bruce just wants to get out of prison and wouldn't take the risk. I think he would be less likely to lie than some of the others.
ReplyDeleteKasabian will never write a book because she is named on the restitution lawsuit that Frokowski's family have continued to keep intact. I would like to see her immunity agreement though and find out what exactly the terms are of the agreement.
Deb
ReplyDeleteHer agreement required her to testify truthfully in all legal proceedings against all defendants.
I think it is referenced on line in the motion to vacate Mary Brunner's immunity which failed
Okay, thanks, I will look for it.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteTex running interference on the release of the tapes was all the proof that I needed to conclude that he wasn't taking his Jesus conversion seriously.
Also - the blowjobs that he got from other prisoners - that was proof too.
I wonder if Linda Payne had a sneaky listen to the tapes......
ReplyDeleteAm I to gather from that one quick line that the Col and Alisa Statman are no longer buds? Do tell, Col, please!
ReplyDeleteWhat makes this guy think he's special enough to listen to those damn fart-face tapes? I'm sick of all these "experts" opening up their yaps about TLB. Nobody is an expert, except the perpetrators, and they've been known to lie out the ass.
ReplyDeleteFart face tapes LMAO
ReplyDelete