"There’s a battle brewing over the remains and estate of mass murderer Charles Manson.
Reports of two unverified wills surfaced Friday, with each leaving the killer’s estate to a different person. Manson pal Ben Gurecki told the Daily News he obtained a January 2017 will from Manson and passed it along to Manson’s self-proclaimed “son” Matthew Roberts in March. He said Roberts was named as the main beneficiary.
“I can assure you Matthew will be handling this,” Gurecki told The News Friday. “Matthew and I will be there next week in person,” he claimed. “Charlie will be given a headstone, a proper burial where people will be able to grieve, or deface it as they see fit.”
Meanwhile, TMZ.com said Friday it obtained a February 2002 will from an unidentified Manson pen pal that disinherited all Manson relatives. The mysterious pen pal said he is the sole beneficiary and plans to claim Manson’s body before a 10-day deadline expires next week, TMZ reported.
Gurecki said he doesn’t know who the pen pal is but that the more recent will allegedly signed this year supersedes any that came before it.
The Chicago resident, who has posted recent prison calls with Manson on his YouTube channel, said he plans to meet Roberts in Kern County, Calif., next week.
“There are plans for Charlie’s remains to be handled with dignity and not by the Kern County Coroner,” Gurecki told The News. “(I) will absolutely not let this continue to be a circus.”
He said calls to coroner fell “on deaf ears” this week, so they hope an in-person visit will “resolve this situation.” He said they plan to inter Manson’s ashes somewhere the public can visit. “This is my personal last attempt to help a friend have the proper resting place that he deserves.”
Beyond the two alleged wills, Manson’s grandson Jason Freeman told The News earlier this week he also is interested in claiming Manson’s remains. A GoFundMe account set up this week to underwrite his efforts was shut down Thursday. Prior attempts to establish a genetic link between Freeman and Roberts were unsuccessful, CNN reported in 2012. State officials have so far declined to comment on any final wishes left by Manson."
63 comments:
Where there's a will........
there's a family argument.
I guess im a lurker cos i dont usually say anything (and so many folks ask my own questions etc so I dont have to say anything) but are we surprised that the acolytes are squabbling over the body? it's funny but the manson thing has caused books to be written and now there are books ABOUT the books (like it was the russian revolution or sumthin?) yeah so the next chapter is fighting over who knew him best-have you noticed that michael's back porch has been scrubbed? does this mean that Bobby will now become "king"? what does boyd rice have to say? manson was always the archetype because he was the outsider-he lived the way he wanted to-everyone's made a buck off him too-this is the last chance, step right up! remember when an artist dies the market gets flooded so the prices drop-but that would be crass wouldn't it? i want to say hi to my friends and i want to thank Matt for keeping this forum around-i enjoy it-and I enjoy the scholarship too, too many names to remember to thank. they should put manson in a tomb like general grant and have the heads of the whole family sculpted around him (like grant's generals up in riverside park). ive been listening gram parsons, didn't a friend of manson's steal his body? oo-wee-oo.
Poor Mr.I'm friends with Manson will be very sad indeed...
Wait a minute, I thought that Matthew Roberts guy had his DNA tested, and he is NOT Manson's son. Why does he keep insisting on telling everyone he is Manson's son? Just because he has long, brown curly hair & a beard/goatee thing on his face doesn't make him the son of Manson. The weirdos are already coming out of the woodwork, I see. . . . .
AustinAnn Matthew Roberts DNA was tested against Manson's grandson and it was not a match. Roberts is going around saying that the grandson is not related by blood to Manson and that is why there is no match. The kooks are out and about.
JIM HAYES said...
so the next chapter is fighting over who knew him best
A bit like all religion in that regard :-)
I would feel sorry for Roberts due to his pathetic antics, but I don't because he is just so damned annoying.
Charlie should be cremated, and then his ashes should be spread out up and down the length of Cielo Drive. Just to piss Piggy off.
never ask why love never dies...
To be fair to Charlie he has served all of his sentence and is no longer classified as an inmate.
What about Manson's real son?Doesn't he have a son with Mary Brunner?
Has it been confirmed that "PenPal" is Michael Channels....if so better get your PayPal sorted.
Pretty much developing into the sh*tshow that (I think) everyone expected his death and the aftermath to be... Time to pop the popcorn.
They should cremate Charles and spread his ashes out at sea to minimize any shrines somewhat similar to what they did for Bin Laden. He is now left to the ages. Turning the body over to one of these trashy familial connects can only mean future trouble.
Michael Channels from Backporch Tapes "revealed" on his Facebook page that he's the beneficary from the 2002 will. Pretty sure he wins the body. Seems like a nice guy. Maybe he can work out an arrangement with the others for a nice burial if that's what they want.
The dude should be taken about 500 miles out in the Pacific ocean and dumped.
I'm guessing the argument over the wills is going to end up in court while Charlie sits on ice until a decision is made. I don't think any of us ever thought that Charlie's death would go off without a hitch. Given the notoriety of the case there had to be the ultimate drama at the end.
yeah but why was all the backporch tapes stuff scrubbed?
Jim, I don't know. Probably a tacticle move.
I don’t know what people are talking about regarding Michael Channels’ web site. I can still see it. I went though all the sections. It’s still there. Michael is a really nice person and has genuine interest in history. I’ve never talked to Matthew Roberts and have never had any interest in doing so. The problem with having an interest in this whole weird story is that sometimes some creeps try to attach themselves to it and tell big lies. That’s all I’ll say about my opinion on Matthew. I hope Michael Channels keeps his website up for historians and gets whatever is in the CM estate, and I wish him all the best.
If it is Michael Channels who eventually inherits Charlie's estate...now I don't personally know him....but he has had a long relationship with CM and I kinda give him some credit for being able to listen to his ramblings thru the years, I hope he does the right thing by him..CM obviously trusted him..
And if he makes a few bucks...so what.
Michael A. Channels is certainly a Manson Super Fan, but his website and facebook were not updated claiming that he is the mysterious pen pal whom everything was left to. Nothing had been updated recently, nor did I see any announce on his facebook page, if I was at the correct page. I could see that Manson would like this guy if he was able to view the website content, but I wonder if Manson was even allowed access to the internet?
There are so many reports, I am getting them all confused. I thought Manson had a son who never met Manson, but was so upset, that he committed suicide, but not before having a son who was a professional wrestler at one point. He had a short career before his injury. If DNA could prove that him to be Manson's only grandson, then he should have control. If Manson did leave a will, we need to be able read that. But, again with so many reports of things like "Manson had last wishes before he died", and I don't know if any of those tabloid reports are real or not. I don't know what to believe.
I can speculate that Manson may have more pleased with a super fan, then his own flesh and blood, especially if his son did not embrace and support him. So, it does not seem unreasonable that Manson could have left him everything.
To Jim Hayes: By scrubbed do you mean that all the You Tube Videos are missing? I found a lot of content on the website. But, all the you tube interview videos had been removed.
He only has one video up, everything else is deleted.
To: awaiting
I did not even see that one video, until you pointed it out. I went to his channel, and it said the channel has no content, but if you click on videos, there is one video up. I could not even find it, due to the discouraging message "This channel has no content" but they probably mean is no description. Maybe he deleted his videos because he can sell them now, once he inherits the rights?
Sadly upstaged by Manson, Shahrokh Hatami passed away the day before yesterday, I heard. He was Sharon Tate's photographer and the person who shoo'd CM away during his March 69 visit at Cielo when CM was looking for Melcher. Bloggers please delete this comment if I usurped a coming post. I just felt it's a sad, bittersweet foil to CM. RIP Hatami.
Monica said...
"Sadly upstaged by Manson, Shahrokh Hatami passed away the day before yesterday, I heard. He was Sharon Tate's photographer and the person who shoo'd CM away during his March 69 visit at Cielo when CM was looking for Melcher."
According to Ed Sanders in his most recent book, Hatami claimed that that story was false--that he never saw Manson there that day.
"Legendary Iranian photojournalist Shahrokh Hatami dies at 89"
https://www.geo.tv/latest/169382-iranian-photographer-shahrokh-hatami-dead-at-89
Hatami testified to it. Cielo may have the dets, but yes, recollections and stories will can change. Things becoming history, to me, is sad either way. My heart breaks for all involved in thie terrible mess.
I have seen that scene recreated several times in docudramas. He is a very important player in the story, which is more of a legend. People speculate that if things had gone differently that day, the murders would not have happened. It's very tempting to rewrite the history inside my mind. I am sure that he had been myself, I would have said, if have an issue with Terry Melcher, here is where to find him. I always try to be polite.
Monica said...
Hatami testified to it
He never identified Manson. He said, when shown a photo of him, that he resembled a man that came to the house that day. But in 1969 a man with long hair and a beard in LA was a description that fitted so many blokes. Even when Bugliosi interviewed Hatami both pre and during the trial, at no point does Hatami ever positively identify Manson. It's Bugliosi that concludes Manson was the man and that's mainly because Rudi Altobelli has him definitely identified on the same day. But at a totally different time to when Hatami saw and directed "a man" to the guest house.
In Ed Sanders' book, Hatami says nothing he didn't say in 1970. Tis all much ado about nothing that has its roots in the desperate attempt to demonstrate Bugliosi leaned on witnesses to say stuff that supported his case ~ a case that 47 years later still hasn't been substantiated.
i was having a liquid brunch with local homicide detectives,one wanted to see my manson collection-being on good terms with the local police department fits into my scheme-awright-i forgot about michaels web site-your right that's up-i just usually went to you tube and that's gone-hey Deb S you're a great writer you do good work. I appreciate reading you. when things calm down i got another book review for you-wait til you see this one! trust me folks, I found something.
Hi everyone, I am a lurker for a while now. I’m 32 and started reading my mom’s copy of Helter Skelter at 14 and I’ve been compelled by this case since the first time I read HS.
I am in awe of several of the commenters, some I disagree with and others I agree with. It’s so amazing to see all the time that is spent thoroughly researching your comments and post. Keep up the amazing work. I have a feeling a lot more crazies and untruths will surface in the next few months.
I think back of the 60’s, even though I wasn’t even thought of yet, and I could completely see myself embracing all their was to offer especially in Cali and knowing me would have went. I for not one minute do not think I would join a commune or a cult, but what fascinates me is I think most of these girls when they first started to run away and leave home didn’t either.
With all that being said, I recently read Manson in his on words by Nuel and Charlie. Can any of you give me feedback on this? I really enjoyed the book, it kind of made me realize how psychotic Charlie was and that he was playing a power game. When he goes into depth about his childhood my heart broke for him, even though it doesn’t excuse him for what was to come. Also, he does exgariate in the book and I saw past that.
Just really wanted you guy’s opinion of the book and havent heard this one mentioned. Also, didn’t know where to post.
Please be nice, I’m just a small town Louisiana wife and a mommy and I rather delve into this than watch tv. It’s kind of my dirty little secret. If you get my drift.
Thanks everyone in advance!
But, would not the guilt or the shock of the killing cause him to either lie, or maybe even forget what happened due to the trauma? It seems like many of the players end up changing their stories in an effort to minimize responsibility? I believe I can say this since he has died, but I have not looked him up online yet. I just know that if someone came to the house, I would try to be respectful and helpful, especially if he had Manson's distinctive look. You never want to upset a crazy person. I lived in San Francisco for years, and it's filled with crazies. One never wants to "put down" a crazy.
Hi June, here is a link to Squeaky talking about her view of the Nuel Emmons book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-fJGxTfeqI
Also there are some You Tube videos with Emmons and Manson.
Also you can scroll down the page on Mansonblog and look for Emmons's name on the right column, you have to keep scrolling a ways before you get to the list of individuals referenced or written about on this blog site. Two years ago there was an in depth piece on Emmons. And in the comments of that piece you'll see all sorts of opinions about the book.
A will is a very specific type of legal document that has to satisfy a number of technical requirements to be accepted. At the very least, it has to be written (and if handwritten it has to be entirely written in the persons own hand), it has to be signed and witnessed, and it has to contain an clear showing of testamentary intent. I'm also pretty sure that in most if not all states, one can't just cross out parts of an old will or make changes or handwritten notations to an existing will without starting all over satisfying all of the above requirements.
June. It's an enjoyable read. Has Manson admitting to returning to Cielo after the murders if I remember correctly. He also admitted assaulting Hinman for the first time which allowed Bobby to begin open up about it in his subsequent parole hearings. Essentially Manson had snitched himself rather than Bobby getting grief for doing it.
The book was I believe based on conversations rather than transcribed tapes. Manson was unhappy with it from it's first release and it is generally poorly regarded as not being authentic.
Oh, I came on here to mention Jason Freeman after having his go fund me taken down then went for a paypal contributions on his wife's account via facebook but I couldn't see the post today. It may have been removed. So I guess he is out of the running.
June Cleaver said...
I recently read Manson in his own words by Nuel and Charlie. Can any of you give me feedback on this?.....Just really wanted you guy’s opinion of the book and havent heard this one mentioned
This was the second book of the Manson library that I read, back in the summer of '88. I'd been looking for Susan Atkins' "Child of Satan, Child of God" for a while so initially I thought it would be in Christian bookshops but it wasn't so I used to pop into any obscure bookshop I came across but couldn't find it in any of those either but while looking, I saw Emmons' book in this tiny cruddy little bookshop at Victoria station. It was actually called "Without Conscience" and as it seemed to be in his own words, thought I'd give it a spin. A couple of months after I read it I lent it to a friend who lent it to their friend and I never saw it again.
My friend was very apologetic and I've been wary of lending books ever since ! I had a few similar experiences around the same time to compound the lesson. I'd rather copy the book for someone or even buy it if need be.
However, I enjoyed it. By the time I came across it again in 2001, it was called "Charles Manson in his own words" which, in my opinion, is a lame title.
Charlie himself was very critical of it, saying that it was more Emmons' words than his, but Emmons doesn't hide this. Right at the start he says that he had to paraphrase Charlie's words so that ordinary people could understand what he's saying. Most people do that when they quote historical figures ~ word for word translations or speeches are rare when told from memory. Gist is king...
Because of Charlie's criticisms, I have tended to approach it with a slight pinch of salt but I have come across some corroborations of stuff in there from people that are or were supporters of Charlie.
One of our regular contributors, Manson Mythos, once said something really fascinating. He said that Charlie hadn't expected Emmons to go into print with some of the things that he told him and that partly accounted for his irritation with the book. In interviews, Charlie once again played the very word games that caused Emmons to sanitize his words in the first place; instead of saying that Emmons plain lied he said that it was the truth from Emmons' perspective and that there were "discrepancies" ~ but he declined to name any and then it came out later that he hadn't read it. How true that was I don't know. Our own George Stimson is also highly critical and dismissive of the book {he has reasons for that} while Squeaky was livid about it although she was eventually quoted as saying that it had a thread of Manson running through it. Shreck is in general fairly supportive although he points to some of its flaws and gives some interesting background info on certain aspects of it.
What I find interesting about Charlie's hostility towards the book is that broadly speaking, it's pretty supportive of him. It's perhaps the first book that I can think of in the Manson oeuvre that is supportive of him. It's certainly one of the few tomes out there that demonstrates his sensitivity and vulnerability.
Because very little of the writing of it was actually taped and took place over around 5 years, it reads as a "what one person said to another who then, at the first opportunity scribbled it all down" rather than a detailed autobiography. But when one looks at Susan's 2, Tex's and in particular Dianne Lake's recent one, as well as parole hearing transcripts from the last 39 years, it would seem that one method is as good as another.
Or maybe he can offer a viewing for a reasonable rate. Put a few hubcaps and some old beer bottles from Spahn around Charlie and I think the crowds will flock.
This Daily Mail article suggests that Michael Channels had the only will made out by Manson.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5125029/Charles-Mansons-goes-penpal-shrine-killer.html
June Cleaver,
Congratulations on "coming out" and posting. Sometimes when my interest in true crime comes up in conversation, I make a statement with the words, "my favorite serial killer" in it, and watch their faces. If you ever go public with your secret, you might like to try that.
Whut
Orwhut,
I know what you mean; I like Charles Manson, but Jim Jones is my favorite.
Manson is not actually a serial killer. He may have killed two people, but it was not a compulsion to kill people, in a serial type of arrangement. Jim Jones was also cult leader. I see Manson as more of a cult leader type then a serial killer type of guy.
MacyGrant,
You are correct; I know so much about Peoples Temple and Jim Jones I could start my own blog.
One life sentence completed, six more to go before he's 'square with the house again'.
Maisie Girl start a Peoples Temple/Jim Jones blog and I'll join. I was fourteen when the massacre happened and lived in Half Moon Bay, a suburb of San Francisco. It really was a defining event for me. My father was an antiques salesman at the time and took my sister and I to the auction at the Peoples Temple. I mesmerized just sitting in that building. My father bought a lot of framed pictures, thinking the frames may have had some value. They didn't but what was in the frames was very interesting. Each had six to eight pictures laminated to poster board. The photo's were from those boxed sets of historical events middle school's had to show students. One frame was filled of pictures of lynching, one was dedicated to Hiroshima, and to slavery, and another to the holocaust. I asked my father if I could have the holocaust and he gave it to me. Of course I brought it home to my mother who so appalled that when I wasn't aware of it she threw it away. I might have bought a house with the value of that poster. My father threw away the other's as well. Of course that holocaust poster let to my interest in the holocaust and in an indirect way the massacre in Jonestown let to my interest in Manson and the Family.
Rev Jim Jones successful efforts at alienating followers from their families, breaking up marriages, having followers compete to give him their property, possessions and time in free labour, not to mention his political influence make the so - called Manson cult appear as rank amateurs. Popular culture is so odd in that all those murders of babies and children and overall body count of nearly 1,000 people had been reduced to a euphemism for blind belief in someone (as in 'drinking the kool-aid') but Manson is the most evil apparently. The research site is fascinating mind you with all the audio recordings of the sermons and White Night drills. Funny how Jim got his name on the memorial too.
beauders,
You were in 185 Geary Blvd!? I am so jealous! I read that the sign outside the building stating when services were held ( not that anybody could just walk on in) and advertised that Jim Jones was the pastor sold on EBay. The framed pictures your father bought were in no doubt used by Jones emphasize the inhumanity and cruelness of this world. Jim Jones preached that only Socialism could save this world and that he was a socialist God.
1859 was destroyed by an earthquake I believe In 1989....I would have loved to have seen that building.
I know It’s not popular, and the murders and suicides wouldn’t have happened without Jim Jones, but I think his name belongs on there too.
He did not accomplish the death of 909 people at Jonestown without the help of many of his followers. Some parents willingly squirted the Flavor Aid into their children’s mouths; do their names go on the memorial? It’s hard to draw a line and decide who was and wasn’t responsible. Have you seen the NBC footage of the night before and the day of 11/18/78? Disturbing and fascinating.
I do remember that building. I would pass it when I rode the bus, I thought it was a school or something like that. I never knew what it was. I had a job downtown then. There was no internet back then, or I would have checked it out. I think it was like closed and locked most of the time when I saw it. It looked abandoned.
Macy, is that footage where he has a red shirt and keeps licking his lips? He answers accusations with "they lie, they lie"
My copy of John Waters book Shock Value arrived today and includes a photo of him outside the Peoples Temple with the Pastor Rev Jim Jones sign. Unlike Beauders he missed the sale.
The audio recordings from the Jonestwon massacre are available on the internet archive somewhere. There are tons of recordings of Jones on the PA speakers and they have the tapes from that day. Pretty creepy stuff.
The building on Geary was interesting. After the auction we were allowed to walk around the inside. There was one room that had a cot in it and the light switch was outside of the room and under the light switch was a lock. Someone was locking people in that room and could chose when the light was on and when it was not. I also saw boxes of papers not newspapers but like office papers. My sister who is fourteen months younger than me was not at all affected by our visit to the Peoples Temple but I think my father took us because he was just as curious as I was.
I don't know anything about footage, but I did see the building as I was passing it everyday on the bus, but I never stopped there to walk around it. I have never done any research into Jim Jones. I know there is a rapper named Jim Jones.
Christopher Butche
Yes, Jim Jones had a red shirt on 11/18/78 and was licking his dry lips like crazy; I think he was high out of his mind. The entire video including the performance that was up on the night before for Congressman Leo Ryan is so very sad. While watching you realize all these souls, except a very few, have less that 24 hours to live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22Op06ysHPk&feature=share
Christopher Butche
Yes, Jim Jones had a red shirt on 11/18/78 and was licking his dry lips like crazy; I think he was high out of his mind. The entire video including the performance that was up on the night before for Congressman Leo Ryan is so very sad. While watching you realize all these souls, except a very few, have less that 24 hours to live.
If you are interested in Jonestown/Peoples Temple, check out: http://jonestown.sdsu.edu
Yes, there is a rapper! No connection, I don’t . Check out the link I posted. It is a Jonestown research site started by this sister of Jones’
#1 mistress who is a professor at San Diego State University along with her husband. Start with the personal reflections.
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu
Apparently the link I posted of the last 24 hours shot by NBC has no audio. There are versions with audio on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/Qm7k2Eq-vD0
This has sound.
Post a Comment